From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 27 Aug 1992 11:19:44 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug27.141622.22014@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <17gnj8INN3v9@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
>  I recall it well.  And another study by Elise Jones and Darroch Forrest of
>the Guttmacher Institute (in Family Planning Perspectives, January 1992; pg 12)
>"suggesting the extent to which failure results from improper and irregular use
>rather than from the inherent limitations of the method."  I can post some of
>this if there is interest.

It would be of interest to me.

>> The information is
>> >> freely available in our society.
>Why don't you help?  I certainly don't expect you
>to completely trust my own judgement.

Jim, I'm beginning to think you can't read.  Take a look at the words,
above: "The information is freely available in our society."  Those are
my words, and that's why I'm not too interested in helping *you* on *your*
little crusade to packege it all neatly.  I have better ways to spend my
time.

>  You are still a fool to not care if someone makes a choice based on in-
>complete or inaccurate information.  No, worse than a fool, you're bloody
>callous towards these these women you're trying to defend.

Typify it as you like.  I happen to think that, rather than callousness,
I am exhibiting a RESPECT for others that obviously evades you.  I RESPECT
other people to make decisions for themselves based upon the depth and
breadth of knowledge THEY deem to be appropriate.  And it's a respect that
I demand others accord to me, too.

It turns my stomach to see arrogant nosiness thinly disguised as 'compassion',
frankly.  And it's a completely avoidable arrogance, too.

>> Well, we are talking about legally imposed 'education' here, Jim.
>  NO WE ARE NOT! 

Look, Jim, 
You are having some trouble here.

DID I start this string of events by posting a question to you?  DID I
personally invite you into this commentary?  DID either Roy or I ask you
what *you* wanted to talk about?

No.  I commented on ROY's statement (at least, I think it was Roy. Ray wrote
me a note to say it wasn't him).  You jumped in.  I don't think it's polite
for *you* to now tell use what we are talking about.

If you want to go off on a tangent, let me assure you we will all pay attention
to a handly disclaimer in the beginning of your post:  "I'm now going off on
a tangent...."

I'd recommend it.

>  "Forced"  You love that word, despite the fact it doesn't apply to me.  STOP
>using it in reference to me.  

What an egotistical little person you are, to be sure!  Since *I've* also
said in this very forum, that I'm speaking only to those who have a legis-
lative agenda, I'd expect you 'should' already know that I'm not off busily
maligning you just for the hell of it.  I'm not exactly sure why we are all
supposed to be so careful of you, but you don't need to return the favor...

Jim, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't try so very hard to cram it on, OK?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion