Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 17:58:56 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)

In article <1992Nov2.032636.29543@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>In article <92305.065719ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>In article<1992Oct25.235140.24530@midway.uchicago.edu>e elizabeth bartley says
>>>In article <92297.173453ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>>In <1992Oct20.184633.12546@midway.uchicago.edu> e elizabeth bartley writes:
>>>
>>>>>That way, my KILLfile will catch all of Keegan's harrassment and I
>>>>>won't have to see it.  It then won't bother me so you should be happy.
>>>>>Keegan can continue needling me and believing he's making me look like
>>>>>a hypocrite so *he* can be happy.
>>>
>>>>Oh I don't think you need Mr. Keegan to make you look
>>>>like a hypocrite, Ms. Bartley.  IMHO, a post such as
>>>>this does that all on its own.
>>>
>>>Why?  Because I don't think Doug has much standing to object to Keegan
>>>harassing me if Keegan harassing me doesn't bother me?
>>
>>No.  Because you frequently describe the behaviour of
>>Mr. Keegan while stating you have not read his posts
>
>Ever hear of second-hand quotes, Ms. Birmingham? Killfiles are FAR from a
>perfect mechanism.

Mr. Darcy are you suggesting one should base their
opinion of someone on "second-hand quotes"?
Are you suggesting that I should have based my
opinions of you only on what I saw written by,
say, Trish O Tuama or DAC or Susan Garvin, perhaps?

>>...and
>>define his choice of responding to your publicly posted
>>statements in this newsgroup as harassment.
>
>Since Ms. Bartley is highly unlikely to respond to any given attack of his,
>we can reasonably assume that his purpose isn't constructive dialogue, right,
>Ms. Birmingham? And if not constructive dialogue, is "harrassment" such an
>implausible second choice?

Are you suggesting that a post in a newsgroup can only
be responded to those addressed in the header?  Here
I thought a public post was, well, public and that anyone
was permitted to respond?  Are you harassing Ms. Garvin
when you follow up one of her posts after she said she
she won't respond to you?

>>The latter
>>being, imho, merely a variation on the theme of declaring
>>abortion related questions in t.a to be flames.
>
>Just because a question is "abortion related" [sic] doesn't mean it can't
>still be inflammatory, Ms. Birmingham. Surely even you with your overriding
>biases and your severely-limited powers of reading comprehension don't
>actually believe that the two are mutually exclusive (?).

It would depend I presume on how one defines a flame.
I define a flame as "Kebbie you are a scum sucking slime
whose own mother would abort you today given half a chance".
I do not define a flame as "I thought you were prochoice?"

>If anything, I'd expect a abortion-related question to be MORE inflammatory
>than the average...

So what you are saying is that every post to t.a is a flame?

>>>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth
>Bartley
>>
>>You do realize, don't you, that there is not a single
>>prochoice organization that supports imprisonment
>>for those who obtain restricted abortions?
>
>But it has yet to be proven that a single "prochoice" [sic] organization
>exists which would disassociate itself from Ms. Bartley or anyone with similar
>views

Name one pro-choice organization that wants or even supports
jailing women for obtaining banned abortions?

Nor dear boy, has anyone stated Ms. Bartley would be
disassociated from anything.  What has been said is
no pro-choice organization would agree with her stated
desire to criminalize abortion.



Linda
--
Polls show that the majority of Canadians believe that abortion
is a private matter between a woman and her doctor and are,
therefore pro-choice.
    Abortion in Law and History: The pro-choice perspective, 1990
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47807 alt.abortion.inequity:5065