XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   XPost: talk.atheism, us.issues.abortion   
   From: keegan@nycap.rr.com   
      
   The Plasmatron  wrote in   
   news:c0venh$aj3$1@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu:   
      
   > In alt.atheism james g. keegan jr.  wrote:   
   >> The Plasmatron  wrote in   
   >> news:c0qb08$2i2$5@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu:   
   >   
   >>> In alt.atheism james g. keegan jr.  wrote:   
   >>>> "Warnock"  wrote in   
   >>>> news:c0ojpm$4i0$27@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> "james g. keegan jr."  wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:Xns9486AFBBE18A4keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.17...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> >>of course you do. intersting that you bother to deny it.   
   >>>>>> >   
   >>>>>> > Submit evidence.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> sure. your position forces women to remain pregnant against their   
   >>>>>> will.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ****** Nothing wrong with that   
   >>>   
   >>>> so you admit you are comfortable enslaving woman and forcing them to   
   >>>> do your will.   
   >>>   
   >>>     You should not take his words out of context and attack a   
   >>>     strawman.   
   >   
   >> nor did i do that.   
   >   
   >> his position forces women to remain pregnant against their will.   
   >   
   >> he submits that there is "Nothing wrong with that."   
   >   
   >> would you care to define your "out of context" comment.   
   >   
   >     Cutting him off in mid sentence is certainly out of context.   
      
   nor did i do that. i suspect that is why you did not support your   
   allegation.   
      
   > Cutting off my first sentence from any supporting statements is also out   
   > of context, though to far less a degree.   
      
   are you complaining that i corrected your error where it occurred rather   
   than elsewhere?   
      
   > If you do not include qualifying and/or supporting statements then   
   > you're not attacking what was actually said, only a subset - hence the   
   > strawman refrence.   
      
   you're mistaken again recommended usenet convention is to include only   
   those remarks you are commenting upon. this is common knowledge and   
   something most people who have been posting for a week or more are well   
   aware of.   
      
   would you like me to point you to a usenet beginner's guide?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)