NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/men/19795

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 5.3 KB

Xref: sparky soc.men:19795 soc.women:20156 alt.abortion.inequity:5267 talk.abortion:49174 alt.feminism:4880
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!dialup-slip-1-3.gw.umn.edu!forb0004
From: [e-mail] (Eric Forbis)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 87
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: dialup-slip-1-3.gw.umn.edu
Organization: University of Minnesota
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:49:16 GMT
Lines: 87

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan King) writes:
>ef>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric Forbis) writes:
>dk>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan King) writes:
>
>dk>When I posted this, I kind of figured that there would be some fool that
>dk>would have trouble understanding the difference between doing something
>dk>because you believe it is the right thing, and doing something because
>dk>the government is forcing you to do it.  Was I ever surprised when the
>dk>fool that didn't understand the difference was also someone with no clue
>dk>on how to use an editor.  I guess being clueless in one area can at times
>dk>result in cluelessness in other areas.
>ef>Do you have so little to say that editor flames are necessary?
>It was easy and I went for it.  Perhaps if you ever get around to
>making posts with content you will get flamed for those.  As long as
>you continue to post your meaningless drivel, I will continue to
>figure you are clueless in a large number of areas and flame you
>for that.

If you're so wonderfully enlightened, why not tutor me in your wisdom?
Anything there beyond the upturned nose and easy insult? Doubtful....

>
>ef>Recently a
>ef>friendly net user (ask someone what this might be) who knew his editors gave
>ef>some good advice; problem solved. Imagine that.
>Perhaps you could ask this friend how to include content in your
>posts?

Untill this petty crap began, we were talking about spousal notification.
Try it.

>
>ef>As for your government-notification-libertarian-paranoia trip, I'll steal a
>ef>line from Drieux: Get a CLUE, get a BIG CLUE! Stating that a father has the
>ef>right to know what happens to his children begins and ends there; this
>ef>government agency tracking crap is your own personal nightmare.
>Now this is funny.  To have such a silly little newbie quote Drieux
>is hilarious.  Kind of reminds me of an over used quote from Lloyd
>Benson.

You're seriously going to attempt to ridicule as a "newbie"?! Really deep,
guy. Where'd they dig you up?

BTW, I've been posting here since August 1991. I've posted infrequently in
the past because of assholes like yourself and Drieux using this newsgroup
simply to spit on ideas you disagree with. Odd, Usenet boasts a more highly
educated user base than any other network, yet to an outsider newsgroups
like this look like a bunch of spoiled brats in a free for all. Too bad.

>
>ef>None of this is needed, nor has been suggested; seems to just be another
>ef>slimy way to cheat fathers out of their fatherhood. You seem to have missed
>ef>the point of the post: this is an example of spousal notifical with the shoe
>ef>on the other foot. Did you see the recent Northern Exposure episode where
>ef>Hollis, near- sterile, had deceived Shelly, who wishes to become a mother,
>ef>for several years? It's simple fraud; the stuff of divorce and court
>ef>action-- not invasive government agencies.
>Ah content, what a relief Eric.  I guess if you are not supporting
>government intervention it was kind of foolish of you to jump in to
>defend the original poster who was.  So are you now saying you do not
>support legislation to force me to tell a future spouse that I have
>had a vasectomy?

I support suing your butt off for fraud or related charges. As stands I
don't know if this is legally considered to be fraud; probably not, which
is why I support legislation recognizing it as such. No one arguing for
spousal notification wants government intervention into their lives; this is
an old straw man argument I'm getting tired of hearing.

>
>dk>What would you say is the value of motherhood Eric?  I would
>dk>guess it is something you know as little about as you know about
>dk>editors.
>ef>I value motherhood and fatherhood equally. You obviously don't.
>And what is that value Eric?  You claimed I was devaluing the
>status of motherhood.  Are you evading the question because you
>can't answer it?

I've answered; try listening. You don't think that basing a relationship on
fraud and deceit is demeaning? Believe it not, there are many women out
there who regard parenting as an integral componant of their marriage; when
you declare that you have the right to casually subvert their plans, you are
doing- what? 3 guesses, oh wise one of limitless content (phew). The
argument goes for both partners.
---------

Eric Forbis      [e-mail]