From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:46:22 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug31.193714.10606@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com writes:

> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> -> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com writes:
> -> > of course you do. no one would ever question that.
> -> > as ms. birmingham said above:
> -> > 
> -> >         "That it is not surprising that someone
> -> >         who desires to control what women do with
> -> >         their bodies would wish to control the
> -> >         content of people's posts.  I can't
> -> >         imagine any other reason for restricting
> -> >         freedom of expression."
> -> 
> ->   Just a point of information.  Mr. Holtzinger
> -> explicitly left himself out of the proposed list of
> -> moderators, which included both pro-choice and
> -> pro-life posters familiar to the regulars here (you
> -> have a right to disagree with cer- tain of those
> -> individuals, but at least both sides were
> -> represented).
> 
> you cut out the topic of discussion, jimmy, and then
> inserted "the proposed list of moderators" which wasn't
> mentioned in the post you replied to. i'm sure you
> didn't mean to be this misleading, but you were.

  Umm, Mr. Keegan, I just felt like expanding on the nature of Ms. Birmingham's
objections.  I have included the entire post I last made on the subject below.  
MY topic of discussion was Linda's comments.  Not yours, or Darcy's.

> ->   For these reasons, I find the nature of the above
> -> attack 
> 
> if you mean darcy's attack on ms. birmingham, i agree.
> he certainly owes her an apology.
> 
> -> explicable only by Ms. Birmingham's feelings towards
> -> Mr. Holtzinger, and not on the merits of the
> -> proposal.
> 
> you seem to have your threads confused jimmy.

  It's the same thread.

> ->   I am forced to agree with Mr. Chaney's opinion
> -> that this is simply a flame at Holtzinger, and not a
> -> valid reason to not have a moderated group.
> 
> now you have your names confused, jimmy. i replied to
> darcy who replied to ms. birmingham.

  Who was replying to Ms. Birmingham who replied to Doug.  I restricted my 
comments to HER comments.  I only left in your att. line so people would know
who was quoting Linda.  I suppose it wasn't really needed.
 
> ->   Personally, I repeat my previous objection to the
> -> mod group, namely that while a lack of flaming would
> -> be nice, the sheer volume would be enough to swamp
> -> any one moderator, and I have no idea if two is even
> -> possible.  It WOULD be nice to see the majority of
> -> arguments made on something a bit more subsantial
> -> than cutesy little snide comments on other's motives
> -> and such (of which, alas, I am also guilty of) --
> -> but I will not be holding my breath.
> 
> just think, jimmy, you can be the first to refrain
> about snide comments as to the motivations of others.
> perhaps some will emulate your conduct.

  After you, Alphonse...

> but you should pay more attention to the threads you're
> responding to so you don't inadvertantly make another
> blunder as you did here.

  Allow me to direct you to the following.  Please note that everything is as it
was.  Holtzinger's original article included a list of moderators.  It would
have been impossible for Linda to miss it.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion