Received: from netlink.com.au (merlin.netlink.com.au [203.16.172.196])
          by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP
	  id IAA02111 for <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:38:00 -0700 (MST)
Received: from netlink.com.au (h048.mel.netlink.com.au [203.62.225.48])
	by netlink.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA27450
	for <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:43:01 +1100
Message-ID: <364C5213.A0AA63DB@netlink.com.au>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:36:51 +1100
From: rc&am <rcollins@netlink.com.au>
Reply-To: rcollins@netlink.com.au
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: [Fwd: Rational Replies to Mr. Glaze]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------08D3B1914D689DBAC07BBBFE"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------08D3B1914D689DBAC07BBBFE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


--------------08D3B1914D689DBAC07BBBFE
Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="nsmail1S.TMP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="nsmail1S.TMP"

Message-ID: <364AEEA7.A7FE3D7C@netlink.com.au>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:20:24 +1100
From: rc&am <rcollins@netlink.com.au>
Reply-To: rcollins@netlink.com.au
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ttoal@jps.net
Subject: Re: Rational Replies to Mr. Glaze
References: <364A4A52.AFFA6D9B@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Ted Tool wrote:

> Angela said:
>
> "despite all this waving about of rationality and the facts,
> such thinking is actually mired in idiocy and ignorance."
>
> and:
>
> "no one is suffering because of overpopulation.  there is no scarcity.  mathus
> was wrong when he was writing, and you are wong now."
>
> Such absolute statements that you are right and the other is wrong, not even
> giving any support for your position,

i have offered both arguments of my own and others in support of these
statements.  you have chosen not to respond to those arguments, fine.  but,
really, don't extract small bits of my posts in order to give yourself the alibi
for not addressing the criticisms.

> serve no purpose other than to cause
> people to ignore you.

i don't think i have caused 'people' to ignore me.  i think though that you have
decided to ignore the criticisms of your and ed glaze's positions.  moreover, i
don't think you can get me to take responsibility for your decision not to address
any of the arguments made.

> About the only message coming thru from you that I'm
> getting is that you're angry.

'about the only message'?  what about the other 'messages'?  will you not reply to
those?  as for 'angry': yes, i am angry and appalled - at your statements,
suppositions, contradictory arguments, relative morality, and at the ways in which
you resort to injunctions that others be polite when responding to statements and
positions which are obscene.  this tactic to shield your arguments and position
from scrutiny may work on some of the people some of the time...  at some point
you need to take responsibility for the positions you espouse and the implications
of those positions.

angela






--------------08D3B1914D689DBAC07BBBFE--