From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:56:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1980@sousa.ltn.dec.com>  pimentel@earrth.enet.dec.com
(John Pimentel) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct15.001825.144271@watson.ibm.com>,
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...

I find it interesting that you deleted the attributions, since previous
posts by you included them.  Were I of a suspicious nature, I'd say that
you did so to make it less obvious that you're the one that was wrong and
wound up looking foolish.  I'll just stick them back in, since I went to
the trouble of seeing who it was originally...

>>In  <1964@sousa.ltn.dec.com>  pimentel@luner.enet.dec.com
>>(John Pimentel) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Oct13.003325.24835@cfctech.cfc.com>,
>>>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes...
>>>>In article <Bvx7Bo.DzG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
>>>>(kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>>What the hell are you talking about? "Child manufacture"? "Raw materials"?
>>>>We're talking about HUMAN REPRODUCTION, fer crissakes, not heavy industry!!
>>>>

[The following lines were also missing from John's reply.]
>>>>You, sir, are a babbling idiot with nothing but a pro-life agenda and some
>>>>cheap scare tactics. Please demanufacture yourself into raw materials, and
>>>>leave us alone...
>>>
>>>Actually the discussion had taken this twist by a Pro-Choice individual
[End of restored text.  I'm sure I can't *imagine* how John lost it.  :-)  ]

>>>stating that the man's only "contribution" was the sperm or "99.9999% of
>>>the raw material and 100% of the labor was provided by the woman".
>>
>>Nope, you're wrong.  That was stated by a "pro-lie" person who makes
>>up extremely stupid arguments and then attributes them to pro-choicers.
>
>Really,

Yes, really.

[A bunch of stuff about *HUMAN REPRODUCTION* deleted, since it was
Kevin Darcy and not me who wrote the referenced paragraph.]

>>>if you wish to believe that the twist came from a Pro-Life that's alright,
>>>as I've never seen a Pro-Choice keep the facts straight. (no smilie, just
>>>the facts).
>>
>>You probably *should* have included a smilie, as it would have made
>>you look like less of an idiot when it was pointed out that you
>>couldn't keep the facts straight.
>
>Really?  We'll see.

Yes, really (again).  I trust you've seen by now that Steve Kellmeyer is,
in fact, *not* a "Pro-Choice individual".  And I believe it's obvious
that you couldn't keep the facts straight.  That you looked like an
idiot is an opinion, so I don't feel I need to defend that; I think
the (straightened-out) facts speak for themselves.

Note that my only contribution to this exchange was to point out that
you were wrong and Kevin was right regarding which side of the issue
that Kellmeyer is on.  If you want to discuss *other* things Kevin
said, then you needn't bother quoting what *I* said.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)