From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 19:10:23 GMT


Follow-ups set to talk.abortion

ef>In article <forb0004.87.722274875@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
dk>In article <1992Nov17.001707.10599@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
 
dk>When I posted this, I kind of figured that there would be some fool that 
dk>would have trouble understanding the difference between doing something 
dk>because you believe it is the right thing, and doing something because 
dk>the government is forcing you to do it.  Was I ever surprised when the
dk>fool that didn't understand the difference was also someone with no clue
dk>on how to use an editor.  I guess being clueless in one area can at times
dk>result in cluelessness in other areas. 
 
ef>Do you have so little to say that editor flames are necessary? 
 
It was easy and I went for it.  Perhaps if you ever get around to
making posts with content you will get flamed for those.  As long as 
you continue to post your meaningless drivel, I will continue to 
figure you are clueless in a large number of areas and flame you
for that.  
 
ef>Recently a 
ef>friendly net user (ask someone what this might be) who knew his editors gave 
ef>some good advice; problem solved. Imagine that.
 
Perhaps you could ask this friend how to include content in your 
posts?
 
ef>As for your government-notification-libertarian-paranoia trip, I'll steal a 
ef>line from Drieux: Get a CLUE, get a BIG CLUE! Stating that a father has the 
ef>right to know what happens to his children begins and ends there; this 
ef>government agency tracking crap is your own personal nightmare.
 
Now this is funny.  To have such a silly little newbie quote Drieux
is hilarious.  Kind of reminds me of an over used quote from Lloyd
Benson.  

ef>None of this is needed, nor has been suggested; seems to just be another 
ef>slimy way to cheat fathers out of their fatherhood. You seem to have missed 
ef>the point of the post: this is an example of spousal notifical with the shoe 
ef>on the other foot. Did you see the recent Northern Exposure episode where 
ef>Hollis, near- sterile, had deceived Shelly, who wishes to become a mother, 
ef>for several years? It's simple fraud; the stuff of divorce and court 
ef>action-- not invasive government agencies. 
 
Ah content, what a relief Eric.  I guess if you are not supporting
government intervention it was kind of foolish of you to jump in to
defend the original poster who was.  So are you now saying you do not
support legislation to force me to tell a future spouse that I have
had a vasectomy?

dk>What would you say is the value of motherhood Eric?  I would 
dk>guess it is something you know as little about as you know about
dk>editors. 
 
ef>I value motherhood and fatherhood equally. You obviously don't.
 
And what is that value Eric?  You claimed I was devaluing the 
status of motherhood.  Are you evading the question because you
can't answer it?

ef>Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: soc.men