re bob knepper was damn right in article qv aginn ba shelley u washington edu tannerg hardy u washington edu glenn tanner writes fierkelab bchm biochem duke edu eric roush writes in article apr leland stanford edu dkeisen leland stanford edu dave eisen writes why did i get sucked into this in article apr news yale edu austin jacobs writes don t you guys think so i mean c mon what the heck are women doing even thinking of getting into baseball they cause so many problems just assuming you re serious i guess you d be surprised to hear that us guys don t think so i would guess that a tiny fraction of of the folks reading your post agree with it i kind of doubt that even you agree with it sheesh i agree with you here dave anyone for starting rec sports idiots for guys like austin no but i am for starting rec sports idiots for people who respond to obvious flamebait nah let s reserve rec sports idiots for people who post obvious flamebait like yourself if someone posts something as controversial not to mention idiotic as what austin posted in a widely accessed newsgroup someone should challenge the statement there is a school of thought that suggests that silence consent whereas this idea may not apply to everything in life it certainly should apply to a forum of public discussion which r s b is if you ve been reading r s b lately you ll find that even elementary school children have had access to our postings alibet in an edited form it s making me think a little more carefully about some of the things i post in conclusion if someone like austin wants to post his drivel in some obscure newsgroup that i don t read fine he s got the right to rant rave and drool all he wants to in the name of free speech but if he drools in a newsgroup that i read then i will support the right of anyone to provide rebuttal to his drooling now of course you don t have to read any of this and if you want to cut down on flames then don t post flamebait you don t have to respond to flames either saves cyberspace sheesh eric
