Message-ID: <3657E918.7672A675@netlink.com.au>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:36:08 +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: Re: More on PPN review, etc.
References: <01be1596$4a6d3020$516039cc@eglaze.vsta.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Ed Glaze III wrote:

> It seems that posting them once was not enough for one person
> because she later forwarded them all back to the listserv as
> attachments, even what I thought was private e-mail between us
> when she asked what I thought of sterilization.
>

are you upset that i asked you publicly about your support for
quinacrine?

maybe you could be a bit more honest in your 'reviews' of ppn on other
lists and clarify that it was  not a question about sterilisation, but
about a specific form of sterilisation, which remains untested,
implicated in uterine cancers, and used entirely in poorer countries
through private clinics.  i did not ask you about sterilisation,
because i don't have any argument with sterilisation per se. i asked
you about a particularly nasty form which sterilises women by using a
chemical which scars the fallopian tubes - this scarring is what makes
women sterile.  this is the form of sterilisation you support, and i
think that your support for this goes further than you have been
prepared to admit.

> Evidently she was
> just baiting me since I hadn't mentioned it yet and she knew I would
>
> have a stance she could disagree with.

no, i did not bait. i asked a very straightforward question. you gave
less than a straightforward reply.

> Luckily, in my intro I said
> that I was not married or she might have asked if I was still
> beating
> my wife.

oh please.

angela