From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 01:09:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.190117.5666@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.210314.8636@wdl.loral.com>
>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.234546.6461@csus.edu>,
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>># As you can tell, while the flamewar articles receive a general 30
>># minute to 1 hour response, this kind of post receives none in over 3
>># days. 

<yawn>

I hadn't seen it until today.  I did Mark it to come back to later
after I read it, but I had nothing specfic in mind to say, so I might
well not respond to it at all.

>># Pro-lifers might want to take note that the same group who is trying
>># to flame me (and unsuccessfully since I'm prepared to deal with them), 
>># had also been responsible for blowing Siren (one of their most
>># intellegent allies) off the net with their negativity, and is the same
>># group which is ignoring this article. 

Nitpick here: as I understand it, Siren's dislike of flames didn't
make her leave the Net; it prevented her from bothering from getting a
new source of net.access when she moved away from her old one.

>># That's because this article fails to meet their Steve Hall Dennis
>># Chaney Numbskull Raving Lunatic propaganda requirements, and they
>># can't twist this post into a flamefest. So they don't respond.  

In case you hadn't noticed, most replies to articles are made because
of disagreements.  These disagreements need not take the form of
flames, but on such a flame-ridden group it's not surprising they do.
Most praise is either never expressed or expressed through e-mail.

>>And if you would just make a point of writing *all* of your posts in a
>>similar vein you wouldn't have to read my mewlings about how you're a
>>deranged, low-minded bigot.

>Well, that depends on whether or not we hear the last ravings of
>deranged, low-minded bigots like Kaufman, Humphrey, Novak and Garvin.

>Deal? 

Nah.  There's only one of you; what business do you have demanding
that four people have to change their behavior before you change
yours?

But take Kaufman's ravings away, whether or not you take away yours --
please!  I'm embarrassed that he's on my side.

Seriously, though, the flamefests on talk.abortion are a vicious
circle: pro-choice flamers will continue flaming as long as pro-life
flamers give them a reason to flame, and pro-life flamers will
continue flaming as long as pro-choice flamers give them a reason to
flame.  And around and around and around goes the flamewar, slowly
escalating all the while.

>>What were you expecting?

>I was expecting what I got: proof, via this thread, that the only
>thing that pro-aborts want, on this net, is a flame war. They slam
>pro-lifers with their deranged attitudes, and then cry "deranced
>low-minded bigot" when the exact same treatment comes back at them. 

<yawn>

The nasty pro-choice flamers (with the exception of Kaufman) at least
have a tendency to be amusing, Mr. Chaney.  You lack their style.

>When pro-lifers drag the issue over to things like this thread, they
>have to pause, as you saw, for several days, to find a way to fit it
>back into their own agenda. 

No, Mr. Chaney.  They saw nothing major they disagreed with and
nothing major that had to be said occured to them, so they went on.

Unfortunately, that's the fate of many good articles on most
newsgroups ... regardless of how flame-infested they are; I've got a
friend who occasionally posts on rec.arts.comics and complains that
almost no one ever replies to his articles.  When he asks people he
knows that read rec.arts.comics why no one ever answers him, he gets
told "Well, you were right and there wasn't anything more to say."

If you want attention, keep posting flame-bait.  If you want to
convince people, the style in which you wrote the orginal article is
far more effective.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion