From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:12:14 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <Bvrn43.6IF@rice.edu>, amn@owlnet.rice.edu (Analisa Marie Norris) writes:
>My gosh, are you people always so rude when you
>don't like the way someone thinks?  I apologize 
>from the bottom of my heart to anyone I may
>have offended by my long lines and non-sequitors,
>and will sincerely try my hardest in the future to
>prevent such awful things from finding their way 
>into my posts.
>
>Okay, yes I'm new to this group, so any helpful sug-
>gestions would be deeply appreciated (as long as they 
>can be made politely...)
>
>Thanks for the "constructive" criticism.

Okay, I'll be nice.  Some general suggestions:
1) Think and explain your reasoning CLEARLY.
2) Read the information for new users in the group:  news.announce.newusers
   This is good reading for ALL potential posters.
3) Follow the group for a while before attempting to contribute.  Often it 
   becomes clear what the particpants consider "old ground".
4) Break the lines in your postings to approx. 77 char; many newsreaders
   have difficulty with long lines; just because something looks okay on
   your setup doesn't mean it is readable to others.
   It makes a poster look "stupid" if they can't remember something so
   simple.  Since it was your first posting I thought I asked rather
   nicely (though I did stick in a jab at Ron X who seemed to continually
   have problems with this simple act, thus lowering his crediblility)
5) Clear, logical, reasoned thinking is valued highly over the "I'm right,
   your an idiot" attitude.  This should be construed to rule out the
   "proof by assertion" style arguments  as well.

Specific to this group:
1) Recognize that different people have different ideas of what is "wrong".
   Your beliefs are not necessarily universal; so proofs that use circular
   reasoning based on YOUR beliefs as their basic assumption are unlikely
   to be accepted by the opposite side.
2) Use standardly recognized definitions for terms.  In this group you'll
   draw a flamefest if you deviate from std. medical terms; specifically
   babies are born, before birth there are only zygotes, embryoes, fetuses
   and such. There are no such things as "unborn babies".  It may sound
   very warm and fuzzy and emotionally nice, but it isn't correct
   terminology and you'll likely get toasted for it.
3) Don't dismiss the decisions of others as "mere rationalizations";
   certainly not without knowing all the details.
4) Dismissing the experiences of others (as in "mere inconvience")
   will also most likely send you scuttling for your asbestos suit.
   Respect of others is the KEY here; members of both sides historically
   have shown a failing on this issue.  This could be improved.
5) Facts and statistics are appreciated but you MUST supply citations.
   Primary sources are better than what would be construed as biased
   sources by one or the other party.  Almanacs and other collections of
   statistics aren't primary, but also have no real reason to bias the
   data either way.

I've tried to write this in a neutral way (pointing out common mistakes
made by both sides that tend to muddle, not clarify, the issue).  Remember,
please, that CLEAR thinking and reasoning will sway more people than
resorting to flaming.

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women