Mr Humphrey, I have a question
Patrick Humphrey
>Exactly how old are you?
That's my business, unless you want to dig up my web pages.
>You can stop bragging about being elderly.
I'm not. I'm just stating some basic facts.
>My dad turned 90 this year, and he has enough integrity not to lash out
>at people with bad language, and put people down.
He obviously didn't have to deal with ignorant wonders like you who don't have
the brains to learn how to operate a newsreader *or* learn how Usenet operates
before trying to trash it. A little learning would avail you a lot, in this
case.
>Mr Humhrey, what exactly happened in your life to make you so angry?
What happened to make you such a pretentious mind-reader? I'm not angry.
(Prove I am. That should be a hoot.)
>Everyone here loves you, and cares about you. We have no hostility
>toward you!
Bullshit, Jeezoid. The guy you claim to follow wouldn't recognize an IQ-40
hypocrite like you in the first place -- if he ever existed to begin with.
>If it's the medication, I understand.
Sorry, son, that's YOUR fantasy, not mine.
>My mother suffered as the result of medication at the end of her life!
I hope part of it wasn't from her knowing what an arrogant little bastard you
turned out to be (at least online).
>Has someone near to you (friend or family) had an abortion?
No. My mother was pro-choice, my wife is pro-choice, our daughter is
pro-choice...and the two grandchildren might well be, as well, though that
remains to be seen a few years down the road. So, what's the problem?
>Mr Humphrey, if they have, God isn't holding it against them!
He's your god. My religion is my business, and I don't appreciate brainless
Bible-humpers like you who don't have enough brains to understand the purpose
of newsgroups before they come in to vandalize them.
>Jesus died to give forgiveness. I say this, not just for you, but for
>the others listening!
Then take your dump in the religious newsgroups, fucknutz. That's why they
exist in the first place.
>Anyone can come to Jesus for eternal Life. All they have to do is ask
>him for a personal relationship!!!
...unless, of course, they're gay, or not anti-abort loons like you and your
cohort, or not religious whackjobs, or {insert excuse}.
>There's no reason to hate Jesus or babies or anyone for that!!!
Idiot. Being a parent and grandparent hasn't made me hate babies -- and
neither has anything else, for that matter.
>Jesus Loves you...that's why he has made it so simple to come to him!
Jesus loves me? He'd goddamned well better use a condom! (and this old
ridge-runner from a Kentucky coal camp is 100% heterosexual, because that's
the way I was born -- and I'm married to an angel, so I've got my little
sliver of Xanadu.)
>Don't hate Jesus because of anyone...even (so called) christians because
>we mis represent him, sometimes!
...like you're doing with a vengeance right now, for sure.
>Your eternity is between you and Jesus...not the rest of the world's
>business. You can come to him right now, and he will receive you.
>For the group...anyone can come to Jesus and be saved!!!
For you: take it to a newsgroup where the readers care about your mental
problems. These four newsgroups (that WebTV morons like you can't crosspost
to, thank whatever gods there might be) are for discussing abortion. Think
you can figure THAT out?
>Jimi (Richard)
I guess you'll have to find some sane adult to teach you to operate your
(ahem) newsreader intelligently. (What you need is a *real* ISP, preferably
one that offers shell access. The knowledge thereby gained might even profit
_you_, somewhere down the road.)
--PLH, putting up my honest opinions as I've been doing for going on fourteen
years
Tink
<pat...@io.com> came around and stated thus:
Gee, don't hold back, tell him how you REALLY feel. ;-D
I skydive because I can't handle golf.
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
Patrick Humphrey
>For some reason, on 20 Jun 2003 00:05:20 -0500, Patrick Humphrey
><pat...@io.com> came around and stated thus:
[slice'n'dice of Jimi saved for more fun later, if needed]
>>I guess you'll have to find some sane adult to teach you to operate your
>>(ahem) newsreader intelligently. (What you need is a *real* ISP, preferably
>>one that offers shell access. The knowledge thereby gained might even profit
>>_you_, somewhere down the road.)
>>
>>--PLH, putting up my honest opinions as I've been doing for going on fourteen
>> years
>Gee, don't hold back, tell him how you REALLY feel. ;-D
Ya think I was a bit too subtle for him? ;-)
--PLH, oh, well, there's always the LART
Osprey
"Patrick Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk3ci4...@fnord.io.com...
> Tink <kjg...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >For some reason, on 20 Jun 2003 00:05:20 -0500, Patrick Humphrey
> ><pat...@io.com> came around and stated thus:
>
> [slice'n'dice of Jimi saved for more fun later, if needed]
>
> >>I guess you'll have to find some sane adult to teach you to operate your
> >>(ahem) newsreader intelligently. (What you need is a *real* ISP,
preferably
> >>one that offers shell access. The knowledge thereby gained might even
profit
> >>_you_, somewhere down the road.)
> >>
> >>--PLH, putting up my honest opinions as I've been doing for going on
fourteen
> >> years
>
> >Gee, don't hold back, tell him how you REALLY feel. ;-D
>
Patrick
Why did you run away when I asked you to back up your claim saying I am a
cop reject.
Amazing how when you were actually pinned against the wall to back it up you
suddenly disappeared from that conversation.
You made the claim I am a cop reject
Do you have the evidence yet to back up your claim?
anim...@yahoo.com
You must not value the gift of life to much. That's sad
Osprey
<anim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c21cc03.03062...@posting.google.com...
He doesn't value anything except himself, what else do you expect?
And he wonders why he has all the problems he has now, he deserves them.
james g. keegan jr.
news:vO2dnQWrA-d...@comcast.com:
[...nothing much...]
coward osprey (Robert Heishman), you falsely
claimed that six people were pro-abortion in
news:3E8EE004...@mail.com
by your failure to repost the full article
to support you claim while concurrently
responding to calls for you to post such
evidence, you have conclusively proven
that you lied about six people who post
here.
adding cowardice to your blatant dishonesty,
you have called on those you lied about to
post proof of their innocence of the lies
you posted about them.
this notice will be appended to each of your
posts to talk abortion and alt.abortion until
you have apologized for this specific lie.
Patrick Humphrey
You're a no-balls anonymous coward. That's what's sad. (I've got a wife,
daughter, and two grandchildren. They get my respect, not arrogant little
rats like you.)
--PLH, just being honest, as usual, something anti-aborts seem to be
genetically incapable of
Osprey
Well not going to get into your family. I am sorry they have to put up with
you, but according to one of your post you got other problems going on.
Which you deserve.
Then again there is the old saying Birds of a Feather flock together. So as
long as they are putting up with each other that means others don't have
too.
However, I am not going to focus on that. You made a claim that I was a cop
reject, and when I cornered you on it and asked you to back it up you ran
away from this. So where is your evidence Patrick on your claim I am a cop
reject?
anim...@yahoo.com
I'm sure your wife and children must be so proud to have the respect
of you're arrogance. I however, would be offended to recieve anything
from you. Obviosly I do have some "balls", or else I would have been
to coward to even enter this conversation you twit. You can say
whatever rude comments you want to make you feel better about
yourself. Maybe that's the only way you can deal with yourself. If it
makes you sleep better at night then attack me all you want. You're
not as smart as you think you are, or else you would'nt have to lower
you're standards like that. I pitty people like you.
Ray Fischer
>However, I am not going to focus on that. You made a claim that I was a cop
>reject,
You make a lot of claims you cannot support and which everybody can
see are outright lies. That's why nobody gives a shit about your
hypocritical whining.
Grow up.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
james g. keegan jr.
news:bd0ml3$4lo$1...@bolt.sonic.net:
> Osprey <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
>>However, I am not going to focus on that. You made a claim
>>that I was a cop reject,
>
> You make a lot of claims you cannot support and which
> everybody can see are outright lies. That's why nobody gives
> a shit about your hypocritical whining.
pardon me. "a lot of claims" is innacurate. coward bobby never
supported *any* claim he made.
he does seem to get caught blatantly lying each day he posts.
that's how he earned his reputation as the abortion newsgroups most
prolific liar.
Marie A.
Note to Newbies: A "liar" in this newsgroup has officially been
defined as anyone who doesn't agree with Keegan, Fischer, Spartakus,
Chilton, Winstanley, Humphrey and about five other infallible
pro-abortionists in here.
james g. keegan jr.
news:1dc521ed.0306...@posting.google.com:
if there are readers who don't know about coward bobby, or about
marie who formerly posted as cleopatra until that username became
so despised and disrespected that she needed to change it, i have
a suggestion.
do some research.
use your browser and fo to www.google.com. then select the groups
tab.
search for "Marie" who has used a couple of different addresses
or for coward bobby (noneed...@mail.com).
scan a few of their posts until you find one where they make a
claim or an assertion adn where someone asks them to document
their assertion(s).
note that neither of them ever have.
that should tell you some things.
Patrick Humphrey
So tell me, "Marie", if I'm so pro-abortion, just why is it I have a
pro-choice wife and a pro-choice daughter...and two grandchildren?
(Fortunately, you're not an official anything -- except, perhaps, the current
running joke of the abortion newsgroups.)
--PLH, it must have been a bad smog day in SoCal
The other Donald
NO! NO! NO!
Bobbi-boy is the running joke. Marie is an amateur compared to Bobbi when it
comes to being a complete idiot.
-Donald
AA #2104
Craig Chilton
Marie A. wrote:
[ ... ]
> Note to Newbies: A "liar" in this newsgroup has officially been
> defined as anyone who doesn't agree with Keegan, Fischer, Spartakus,
> Chilton, Winstanley, Humphrey and about five other infallible
> pro-abortionists in here.
By calling ANY of those people "pro-abortionists" -- let alone ALL of
them -- you have just PROVEN **yourself** to be BOTH a liar and an idiot.
Since there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist," as far as I know. I
have never met a person who seeks to force every pregnant woman to
get an abortion. And I'm betting that you haven't, either.
SO MUCH for any credibility YOU might ever have had with any newbie
who's intelligent!
Pro-CHOICERS **abound** in the USA, and outnumber those who
disagree with abortion by a consistent 2-1 ratio. Pro-Choicers are just
that: We ensure that ALL women will NEVER again be FORCED to
gestate to term against their will. NEVER a return to such involuntary
servitude. NEVER a return to 2nd-class-citizen status. EVER. They will
ALWAYS be free to CHOOSE between carrying-to-term and safe& legal
abortion-on-request.
ANTI-Choicers like you are hateful losers and malcontents who seek
to leave women with NO choice but to gestate.
Guess what, loser? It's NOT gonna happen. Ever.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Spartakus
> Note to Newbies: A "liar" in this newsgroup has officially
> been defined as anyone who doesn't agree with Keegan, Fischer,
> Spartakus, Chilton, Winstanley, Humphrey and about five other
> infallible pro-abortionists in here.
*Officially*?
That would imply that there is some sort of document that says this,
like the charter for talk.abortion. Maybe you could point out where
it says this in the talk.abortion charter.
Why do I get the feeling that you will be changing your identity
fairly soon?
Osprey
"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3f1079de...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> On 24 Jun 2003 17:40:08 -0700,
> Marie A. wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Note to Newbies: A "liar" in this newsgroup has officially been
> > defined as anyone who doesn't agree with Keegan, Fischer, Spartakus,
> > Chilton, Winstanley, Humphrey and about five other infallible
> > pro-abortionists in here.
>
> By calling ANY of those people "pro-abortionists" -- let alone ALL of
> them -- you have just PROVEN **yourself** to be BOTH a liar and an idiot.
> Since there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist," as far as I know. I
> have never met a person who seeks to force every pregnant woman to
> get an abortion. And I'm betting that you haven't, either.
Pro-abortionist does not mean, never has meant, and never will mean
"a person who seeks to force every pregnant woman to get an abortion"
The term pro-abortionist exist, it is real, and it does apply.
The term has also been defined, and NEVER..and I mean NEVER has anyone ever
proven that pro-abortionist means
"a person who seeks to force every pregnant woman to get an abortion"
Pro-abortionist means a person who supports a woman's right to have an
abortion
Simple as that.
The definition has been clearly shown.
Now my challenge to anyone, not just you Craig, but ANYONE
and I have challenged Pat to this too and she like everyone else has NEVER
been able to accept this challenge
Prove that pro-abortion means
Patrick Humphrey
>NO! NO! NO!
I don't know..."Marie"/Cleopatra gives him a pretty good run. (Disturbing
thought: she's in Oregon, Chickenhawk wants to go back to Oregon...I'm not
sure if I want to know if there *is* such a thing as a critical mass of
stupidity.)
--PLH, glad I'm a Texan
Patrick Humphrey
>LetEmE...@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote:
>> Note to Newbies: A "liar" in this newsgroup has officially
>> been defined as anyone who doesn't agree with Keegan, Fischer,
>> Spartakus, Chilton, Winstanley, Humphrey and about five other
>> infallible pro-abortionists in here.
>*Officially*?
>That would imply that there is some sort of document that says this,
>like the charter for talk.abortion. Maybe you could point out where
>it says this in the talk.abortion charter.
That I'd like to see, considering there's never been any such statement in it.
(As old as it is, I have my doubts the people who wrote it could foresee that
you and I would be here some day.)
>Why do I get the feeling that you will be changing your identity
>fairly soon?
I don't know -- maybe thirteen or fourteen years' experience in dealing with
online nitwits like "Marie", and being familiar with their tactics? ;-)
--PLH, just guessing
Osprey
Patrick
Your claim that I am a cop reject
Amazing when you were questioned to back that up you suddenly ran away.
Personally I knew you would. All of the sudden here you are again, the
snake in the grass you are, trying to slip in the back door and make some
more comments. Not that I really care because you are a slime ball
regardless.
But I am still curious about your claim that I am a cop reject. Where is
your proof and evidence of this claim you so often made?
Or are you going to deny it and run away again....ROFL!!!
The critical mass of stupidity is right there in your home
Marie A.
Pro-choice with respect to what, PLH? A person's choice to rape
someone? To assault someone? To drive drunk? To steal cars? You
weren't clear here. But, of course, that's not by accident, is it,
PLH? You favor abortions, isn't that right?
Osprey
"Marie A." <LetEmE...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1dc521ed.03062...@posting.google.com...
Marie
You are once again hitting the nail right on the head
Pro-choice?
Choice for what?
You see, that is where they want to play their word games.
Pro meaning favor
So what do they favor?
Do they favor a woman keeping the baby to full term?
That sounds like pro-life to me
Or do they favor a woman having the right to choose abortion?
That would be pro-abortion
Although they like to play silly games like saying pro-abortion means that
they favor all women aborting. But that simply is not true either and that
has been shown countless times. And when they are challenged to back that
definition up....
they can't. You just hear crickets chirping.
In fact, there are many times you hear crickets chirping. Like when Patrick
makes claims about people and when called upon it...
chirp..chirp..chirp..chirp
Ray the same thing..he has claimed I am a child molester
When called upon it....he says he didn't say it. Yet I have the proof.
For example
Ray said these qoutes...and yet he thinks people are stupid enough to
believe he didn't say it
From: rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
Subject: Re: Robert Heishman is now threatening people's lives
Organization: Sonic, San Jose
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <bc11vq$odl$1...@bolt.sonic.net>
References: <Xns93922E86222E...@24.24.2.165>
<bbtb2m$ta9$1...@bolt.sonic.net> <rmNEa.26912$TR6....@fe07.atl2.webusenet.com>
<rhidnW68gv3...@comcast.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 04:21:15 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18
X-Complaints-To: ab...@sonic.net
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1055132475 208.201.242.18 (Sun, 08 Jun 2003
21:21:15 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 21:21:15 PDT
"Just like you're now a child molester"
From: rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-lie disinformation
Organization: Sonic, San Jose
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <ae044k$fa$1...@newbolt.sonic.net>
References: <6f9e1b49.0206...@posting.google.com>
<6f9e1b49.02060...@posting.google.com>
<adundu$j42$1...@newbolt.sonic.net> <fzIM8.598$kW1.3...@newshog.newsread.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 17:43:50 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18
X-Complaints-To: ab...@sonic.net
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1023644630 208.201.242.18 (Sun, 09 Jun 2002
10:43:50 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 10:43:50 PDT
"Just as soon as you prove that you're not a liar and a child molester"
From: rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups:
alt.abortion,talk.abortion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.rom
an-catholic,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Is Heishman really a child molester?
Organization: Sonic, San Jose
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <b876mf$8ol$1...@bolt.sonic.net>
References: <5662bb3.03042...@posting.google.com>
<es0dav45060t1lftt...@4ax.com> <34b55be9.0304230859.
<3EA6E3AE...@mail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:13:20 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18
X-Complaints-To: ab...@sonic.net
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1051139600 208.201.242.18 (Wed, 23 Apr 2003
16:13:20 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:13:20 PDT
"Just like Heishman is a convicted child molester"
From: rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups:
talk.abortion,alt.abortion,alt.religion.christian,alt.teens,alt.bible
Subject: Re: The Deceipt of Pro-liars
Organization: Sonic, San Jose
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <a4u9ge$ljf$1...@newbolt.sonic.net>
References: <6f9e1b49.02011...@posting.google.com>
<6elc8.87$mV1.28...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
<a4tksk$p8v$1...@newbolt.sonic.net>
<i_wc8.97$XO4.50...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:36:45 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18
X-Complaints-To: ab...@sonic.net
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1014147405 208.201.242.18 (Tue, 19 Feb 2002
11:36:45 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:36:45 PST
"And you're a child molester"
From: rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion,alt.feminism,alt.feminazis
Subject: Re: Radical Abortion Opponents = Fascists
Organization: Sonic, San Jose
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <bci9ki$k2b$1...@bolt.sonic.net>
References: <3EE6F41B...@spam.com> <3EE9A04B...@spam.com>
<bce5cd$l9l$1...@bolt.sonic.net>
<8912d58d.03061...@posting.google.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:16:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18
X-Complaints-To: ab...@sonic.net
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1055697363 208.201.242.18 (Sun, 15 Jun 2003
10:16:03 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:16:03 PDT
"Where is your evidence to prove that you're not a child molester?"
And Ray thinks people are stupid enough to believe him when he denies ever
saying these things.
Patrick Humphrey claims I am a cop reject
Where is his evidence? Why is he avoiding the challenge to present this?
Because they know they are scum Marie, all of these pro-aborts are just
plain out scum. They lie constantly, they twist and distort what people are
saying, they think people are stupid enough to fall for their smoke and
mirrors.
Which is why you are seeing more people Marie become pro-life now. There
arguments are failing. They are losing ground.
Read what this has to say.
And guess what, these pro-aborts will not attack the issue or the article,
they will try to distort and twist it.
Your Turn: 30 years after 'Roe,' America is pro-life
By Don Nelson
SPECIAL TO THE RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
1/19/2003 09:15 pm
After 30 years of legal abortion and hundreds of millions of
abortion-advocacy dollars, abortion advocates may be justified in saying the
sky is falling. Recent Zogby polling data shows a growing pro-life shift.
For instance, in the last 10 years, one-third of Americans changed their
minds on abortion. For every convert to abortion, two became pro-life.
Fifty-seven percent now believe abortion is murder (Los Angeles Times).
Almost two-thirds of 18- to 29-year-olds would prohibit almost every
abortion. Thirty-three percent would allow abortion in no circumstances.
Another 30 percent would only tolerate abortion for cases of rape, incest
and the endangerment of the mother. America's future is prolife.
Second, Americans are negative toward abortion: 67.4 percent of Zogby's
respondents said that "if a relative or close friend told you she was
pregnant and wanted to get an abortion" they would either "tell her abortion
is wrong" (32.7 percent) or advise against her decision (34.7 percent); only
19.1 percent would advise her to go ahead "if she thinks it is right."
Third, the prolife position is politically advantageous. With few
exceptions, congressional candidates who stuck to their prolife position won
and created the Republican majority in the House and Senate. The prolife
women's political funding group Susan B. Anthony List trounced pro-abortion
Emily's list. SBA won 22 of 30 contests. Emily lost 17 of 22. The National
Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League backed 19 and lost 18.
Why the shift? Thirty years is long enough to demonstrate abortion's failure
to fulfill its promises. Abortion hasn't made families better or benefited a
woman's well-being. It has hurt them. Abortion can't help women because it
assumes women are inferior and need surgery to be equal. It assumes children
are a burden or a hurdle. The powerful negative impact of this message and
the condescending, anti-woman nature of abortion are reasons women make up
most of the pro-life leadership, why Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") works to
overturn Roe, and it explains the success of Feminists For Life's "Women
Deserve Better" (than abortion) Campaign.
The radical nature of abortion contributes to the shift, too. Though all
abortions are a horrific end to a human's life, advocacy for the brutal
partial birth abortion technique - which kills children by partially
delivering the child and then suctioning their brains out - damages
abortion. The violent dilation-and-extraction procedure dismembers the
unborn in the womb by tearing him to pieces. The dismembered child is
reassembled to make sure all the parts were extracted. As this becomes
known, it too will damage abortions.
Prolife education also contributes to the shift. Prolifers are winning the
debate about what the unborn is and what abortion does. Almost everyone has
seen an ultrasound and its visualization of children playing in the womb
early in pregnancy. It's clear that even in the early stages, abortion
terminates a pregnancy by killing a baby boy or girl. As a result, it is
clear that abortion is not what women do with their bodies, but what is done
to an unborn child's body. People know abortionists are lying when they say
the unborn is a mere blob of tissue or clump of cells.
These things, along with American compassion, are leading us to reject
abortion, provide positive alternatives and embrace the unborn's humanity.
These are also the reasons abortion fund-raisers say the sky is falling.
Patrick Humphrey
If I wasn't clear to you, that's YOUR problem, little blithering bimbo.
If you're too stupid to notice that I've stated more than a few times that I'm
pro-choice on the one issue that matters -- the woman's right to make her own
choice as to how to handle a pregnancy, and not have to be accountable to
circus freaks like you -- then why should I respect you at all, precisely?
>You favor abortions, isn't that right?
I just stated my position above -- and you're stupid. If I'm pro-abortion,
how did I wind up as a parent and grandparent? Could it be something you're
too brain-damaged to ever admit to understanding -- that birth is also a valid
choice?
Back to your smog, Morphing Moron.
--PLH, pro-choice and will gladly eviscerate anti-abort nitwits who refuse to
accept the reality of my position
Osprey
The only freak in this case is you Patrick
Choice on what issue Patrick?
How to handle the pregnancy?
There are only two options.
Do you favor her right to keep the child? (pro-life)
Do you favor her right to have a legal abortion? (pro-abortion)
The issue here is you, like all the other pro-aborts, is you are too afraid
to face the "issues"
>
> >You favor abortions, isn't that right?
>
> I just stated my position above -- and you're stupid. If I'm
pro-abortion,
> how did I wind up as a parent and grandparent?
So you are saying that if a person favors a woman's right to legalized
abortion that they can't be a parent now?
Could it be something you're
> too brain-damaged to ever admit to understanding -- that birth is also a
valid
> choice?
The one here brain-damaged is you Patrick for thinking people buy into your
crap.
Paul Anderson
wrote:
....
>Choice on what issue Patrick?
>
>How to handle the pregnancy?
>
>There are only two options.
>
>Do you favor her right to keep the child? (pro-life)
>Do you favor her right to have a legal abortion? (pro-abortion)
There is a third option, one that you cannot understand -- allow the
woman involved to choose for herself. (yes, yes, i know, "women are
too fucking stupid to be allowed to choose for themselves" -- sorry,
but i believe otherwise.)
Osprey
"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3efa3e08...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:47:43 -0400, "Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ....
>
> >Choice on what issue Patrick?
> >
> >How to handle the pregnancy?
> >
> >There are only two options.
> >
> >Do you favor her right to keep the child? (pro-life)
> >Do you favor her right to have a legal abortion? (pro-abortion)
>
> There is a third option, one that you cannot understand -- allow the
> woman involved to choose for herself.
choose what?
(yes, yes, i know, "women are
> too fucking stupid to be allowed to choose for themselves" -- sorry,
> but i believe otherwise.)
What choices though Paul?
What are the choices?
Paul Anderson
wrote:
See --- I knew you wouldn't understand. I don't fucking care about
"what are the choices" because I amd not the one who is fucking
choosing for HER.
Osprey
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:11:27 -0400, "Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> >news:3efa3e08...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:47:43 -0400, "Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> ....
> >>
> >> >Choice on what issue Patrick?
> >> >
> >> >How to handle the pregnancy?
> >> >
> >> >There are only two options.
> >> >
> >> >Do you favor her right to keep the child? (pro-life)
> >> >Do you favor her right to have a legal abortion? (pro-abortion)
> >>
> >> There is a third option, one that you cannot understand -- allow the
> >> woman involved to choose for herself.
> >
> >choose what?
> >
> >(yes, yes, i know, "women are
> >> too fucking stupid to be allowed to choose for themselves" -- sorry,
> >> but i believe otherwise.)
> >
> >What choices though Paul?
> >
> >What are the choices?
>
> See --- I knew you wouldn't understand.
I undestand perfectly. I also understand you can't answer the simple
questions.
You favor choice right...so you say.
What are the choices?
Lets try to ask it again.
What choices?
I don't fucking care about
> "what are the choices" because I amd not the one who is fucking
> choosing for HER.
Do you favor politicians choices and not care what they are?
Do you favor your wife's choices and not care what they are?
Do you favor your bosses choices and not care what they are?
You are ignoring the "choices" and fooling yourself. I say yourself because
you are not fooling me.
Ray Fischer
>> By calling ANY of those people "pro-abortionists" -- let alone ALL of
>> them -- you have just PROVEN **yourself** to be BOTH a liar and an idiot.
>> Since there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist," as far as I know. I
>> have never met a person who seeks to force every pregnant woman to
>> get an abortion. And I'm betting that you haven't, either.
>
>Pro-abortionist does not mean, never has meant, and never will mean
>
>"a person who seeks to force every pregnant woman to get an abortion"
pro-: favoring : supporting : championing
Mirriam-Webster Dictionary
>The term pro-abortionist exist, it is real, and it does apply.
And you are still the only person to describe himself as being
pro-abortion.
That you also describe yourself as being pro-choice, anti-abortion,
and anti-choice goes a long way to convincing everybody that you're a
lying sleazebag.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
james g. keegan jr.
> Osprey <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
>>The term pro-abortionist exist, it is real, and it does apply.
>
> And you are still the only person to describe himself as being
> pro-abortion.
freaks like coward bobby always have an obsessive need to control
> That you also describe yourself as being pro-choice,
> anti-abortion, and anti-choice goes a long way to convincing
> everybody that you're a lying sleazebag.
i think those things made more people mock coward bobby; they
already knew he was a lying sleazebag.
Osprey
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:bddmd1$ml0$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
> Osprey <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
> >"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> >> By calling ANY of those people "pro-abortionists" -- let alone ALL
of
> >> them -- you have just PROVEN **yourself** to be BOTH a liar and an
idiot.
> >> Since there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist," as far as I know.
I
> >> have never met a person who seeks to force every pregnant woman to
> >> get an abortion. And I'm betting that you haven't, either.
> >
> >Pro-abortionist does not mean, never has meant, and never will mean
> >
> >"a person who seeks to force every pregnant woman to get an abortion"
>
> pro-: favoring : supporting : championing
> Mirriam-Webster Dictionary
duh
no kidding
>
> >The term pro-abortionist exist, it is real, and it does apply.
>
> And you are still the only person to describe himself as being
> pro-abortion.
>
> That you also describe yourself as being pro-choice, anti-abortion,
> and anti-choice goes a long way to convincing everybody that you're a
> lying sleazebag.
>
ROFL
Ray you are a riot, especially when you get fustrated..:o)
You still can't prove that the term pro-abortion means what Pat and Craig
claim. Meanwhile I have proven with the use of a dictionary it doesn't mean
that. It means a person favors and/or supports the right to choose
legalized abortion. It means a person favors and/or supports a woman's
right to CHOOSE legalized abortion.
I am pro-choice in the sense that I favor everyones right to any legal
choice. Unlike you, I don't just single that choice out for abortion
I am anti-abortion because I will never support the choice of abortion
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Ray Fischer
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:bddmd1$ml0$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
>> Osprey <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> By calling ANY of those people "pro-abortionists" -- let alone ALL
>of
>> >> them -- you have just PROVEN **yourself** to be BOTH a liar and an
>idiot.
>> >> Since there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist," as far as I know.
>I
>> >> have never met a person who seeks to force every pregnant woman to
>> >> get an abortion. And I'm betting that you haven't, either.
>> >
>> >Pro-abortionist does not mean, never has meant, and never will mean
>> >
>> >"a person who seeks to force every pregnant woman to get an abortion"
>>
>> pro-: favoring : supporting : championing
>> Mirriam-Webster Dictionary
>
>duh
>
>no kidding
Therefore you promote and favor abortion.
>> >The term pro-abortionist exist, it is real, and it does apply.
>>
>> And you are still the only person to describe himself as being
>> pro-abortion.
>>
>> That you also describe yourself as being pro-choice, anti-abortion,
>> and anti-choice goes a long way to convincing everybody that you're a
>> lying sleazebag.
>
>ROFL
>
>Ray you are a riot, especially when you get fustrated..:o)
>
>You still can't prove that the term pro-abortion means what Pat and Craig
>claim.
Did just above. Someone who FAVORS abortion.
Someone like you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Osprey
favors AND/OR supports the RIGHT TO CHOOSE abortion
Nowhere does ANY definition EVER SAY that pro-abortion means the person
FAVORS ALL WOMEN ABORT
>
> Someone like you.
And you continue lying
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> Osprey <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Stop lying, Heishman. There is nothing about "right to choose" in the
definition I posted.
Again and again we see you lie by creating your own definitions and
insisting that they're true.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Osprey
Your definition does NOT state a pro-abortion favors all women to abort.
Marie A.
Patrick, I've posted in here, what, about four months or so? I believe
in that relatively short time I've noted about 57 million posts
telling this audience that you're a parent, a grandparent and
pro-choice. Like, whoopty effen do! Would you like a Congressional
medal of Honor for those singular accomplishments, Pat? Nope, nobody
but you has attained these dizzy heights of personal accomplishment.
An Oscar, maybe, if you get turned down on the Congressional Medal?
Since you've mentioned this so often, why don't you tell us all just
what in the hell that has to do with the objective merits of your
stance on elective abortions? If we were discussing child abuse, and
you favored whacking children around, would you be telling us your
position is stronger than Suzie Nevermarried's is because you're a
parent and grandparent? Geez, what a dope you are.
Yes, you did state your position, but you didn't successfully defend
your position. Big difference. When you state you favor choice in this
matter without reference to any limits put on a woman's choice, as in
purely elective, late-term abortions, then you effectively favor
ABORTION, not choice, because it it were otherwise you'd make no
distinctions in the other choices society allows her to make
unfettered by the law. Pat, you're the stupid one here.
Patrick Humphrey
>Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkisqu...@fnord.io.com>...
>> LetEmE...@yahoo.com (Marie A.) writes:
>> >Pro-choice with respect to what, PLH? A person's choice to rape
>> >someone? To assault someone? To drive drunk? To steal cars? You
>> >weren't clear here. But, of course, that's not by accident, is it,
>> >PLH?
>> If I wasn't clear to you, that's YOUR problem, little blithering bimbo. If
>> you're too stupid to notice that I've stated more than a few times that I'm
>> pro-choice on the one issue that matters -- the woman's right to make her
>> own choice as to how to handle a pregnancy, and not have to be accountable
>> to circus freaks like you -- then why should I respect you at all,
>> precisely?
>> >You favor abortions, isn't that right?
>> I just stated my position above -- and you're stupid. If I'm pro-abortion,
>> how did I wind up as a parent and grandparent? Could it be something
>> you're too brain-damaged to ever admit to understanding -- that birth is
>> also a valid choice?
>> Back to your smog, Morphing Moron.
>>
>> --PLH, pro-choice and will gladly eviscerate anti-abort nitwits who refuse
>> to accept the reality of my position
>Patrick, I've posted in here, what, about four months or so? I believe
Four months or so in this latest lame alias of yours, anyway.
>in that relatively short time I've noted about 57 million posts
14 million a month, eh? Let's see, at around 44,400 minutes to the month, on
average, I'd have to be posting an article just under every two seconds,
nonstop. You might want to to slice a few orders of magnitude off your
fact-free guess.
>telling this audience that you're a parent, a grandparent and
>pro-choice. Like, whoopty effen do! Would you like a Congressional
>medal of Honor for those singular accomplishments, Pat? Nope, nobody
>but you has attained these dizzy heights of personal accomplishment.
Sorry, but if you don't like my existence contradicting your predictable
anti-abort bullshit, you *could* ignore me. The last time I looked, no one
was (or is) being forced to read anything I post. How long has this allegedly
been a problem for you, again?
>An Oscar, maybe, if you get turned down on the Congressional Medal?
Why? Is common sense so rare these days that it rates a medal? That's not
the way I was raised.
>Since you've mentioned this so often, why don't you tell us all just
>what in the hell that has to do with the objective merits of your
>stance on elective abortions? If we were discussing child abuse, and
>you favored whacking children around, would you be telling us your
>position is stronger than Suzie Nevermarried's is because you're a
>parent and grandparent? Geez, what a dope you are.
Hardly -- you're the blubbering bitch all but stating that there are no
pro-choicers, just pro-aborts. Pro-abortion carries a connotation liars like
you don't want to deal with -- being in favor of abortion, period. That has
never been my position, for reasons that should be obvious even to you.
You're free to deny it, and I'm free to point out what an idiot you're being
by doing so. So, what's the problem?
>Yes, you did state your position, but you didn't successfully defend
>your position. Big difference. When you state you favor choice in this
>matter without reference to any limits put on a woman's choice, as in
>purely elective, late-term abortions, then you effectively favor
>ABORTION, not choice, because it it were otherwise you'd make no
>distinctions in the other choices society allows her to make
>unfettered by the law. Pat, you're the stupid one here.
My name is Patrick. Pat is Ms. Winstanley. (Whether you're capable of making
such fine distinctions, I've no idea.) Let's see -- how many elective
late-term abortions in this country are done just for grins every year, again?
The last CDC numbers I saw indicated that just about every third-trimester
abortion done was done for medical reasons -- i.e., either the abortion is
done or the woman dies as a result. Could it be that after the average woman
is more than three or four months into a pregnancy, she's very likely to have
already made the decision to go through with the whole process? That just
might explain why 11 of every 12 abortions in this country happen in the first
trimester, and all but a very tiny handful happen as late as the last
trimester for anything but medical reasons. (Under .01 *percent* of the total
annual figure -- and if you're so allegedly worried about -that- handful, what
are you doing besides sitting on your perch, singing your one-note song and
crapping on everyone walking by below?)
--PLH, Mariopatra is obviously part of the McCorvey handling team ;-)
Osprey
Excellent response Marie!!!
Couldn't have said it better.
MyTwoAngels
Of course you'd agree: Her post was carved from the same
mound of bullshit as was yours.
> Couldn't have said it better.
No, you couldn't have, since *she* bothers to articulate her crap.
Not to worry, though...the both of you have equally nothing worthwhile
to offer.
*Krisblake*
Patrick Humphrey
>"Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<mrudnZNc7Y5...@comcast.com>...
>> "Marie A." <LetEmE...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1dc521ed.03062...@posting.google.com...
[Marie's whining at me]
>> > Yes, you did state your position, but you didn't successfully defend
>> > your position. Big difference. When you state you favor choice in this
>> > matter without reference to any limits put on a woman's choice, as in
>> > purely elective, late-term abortions, then you effectively favor
>> > ABORTION, not choice, because it it were otherwise you'd make no
>> > distinctions in the other choices society allows her to make
>> > unfettered by the law. Pat, you're the stupid one here.
>> Excellent response Marie!!!
>Of course you'd agree: Her post was carved from the same
>mound of bullshit as was yours.
Just when you think the cross-dressing cop reject can't manage to lower the
bar any more, he comes up with this blatant demand for a circle-jerk.
>> Couldn't have said it better.
>No, you couldn't have, since *she* bothers to articulate her crap.
>Not to worry, though...the both of you have equally nothing worthwhile
>to offer.
They could save the bandwidth in huge quantities by condensing their crap down
to the following:
"<AOL>Me too!!!!</AOL>"
--PLH, Moron Marie and Cop Reject Heishman, a match made in...somewhere I
don't want to know
M is for Malapert
"Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0306...@posting.google.com...
Mariopatra couldn't actually be....you know, HWNSN, etc...?
Osprey
> krisblake...@xmsg.com (MyTwoAngels) writes:
>
> >"Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<mrudnZNc7Y5...@comcast.com>...
> >> "Marie A." <LetEmE...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1dc521ed.03062...@posting.google.com...
>
> [Marie's whining at me]
>
> >> > Yes, you did state your position, but you didn't successfully defend
> >> > your position. Big difference. When you state you favor choice in
this
> >> > matter without reference to any limits put on a woman's choice, as in
> >> > purely elective, late-term abortions, then you effectively favor
> >> > ABORTION, not choice, because it it were otherwise you'd make no
> >> > distinctions in the other choices society allows her to make
> >> > unfettered by the law. Pat, you're the stupid one here.
>
> >> Excellent response Marie!!!
>
> >Of course you'd agree: Her post was carved from the same
> >mound of bullshit as was yours.
>
> Just when you think the cross-dressing cop reject can't manage to lower
the
> bar any more, he comes up with this blatant demand for a circle-jerk.
Awww, poor Patty comes up with his usual crap..:o)
Want to see Patrick run?
Patrick, where is your evidence for your above claim?
wait, where did Patrick go?
chirp..chirp...chirp..chirp
There are those darn crickets again.
Patrick Humphrey
>> *Officially*?
Not unless he's moved across a continent...
--PLH, in the middle between the two coastal extremes ;-)
Marie A.
, singing your one-note song and
> crapping on everyone walking by below?)
>
> --PLH, Mariopatra is obviously part of the McCorvey handling team ;-)
Yeh, PAT! - or is it Paddy! - and we note ever so many notes in your
crowd's repertoire. When your crowd keeps humming one note, do you
expect us to come back with Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite? Yes,
indeed, such a rich and varied tonal scale. Must cover all of do and
reach right over there into re in one whole octave!
Pro-choice, abort...abort, pro-choice...pro-choice, abort...abort,
pro-choice, pro-choice, abort..........hum this to a funeral dirge of
your choosing, Pat.
Just thank your lucky stars your own mother wasn't humming a dirge
when she was carrying you.
Marie A.
> > Excellent response Marie!!!
>
> Of course you'd agree: Her post was carved from the same
> mound of bullshit as was yours.
>
> > Couldn't have said it better.
>
> No, you couldn't have, since *she* bothers to articulate her crap.
> Not to worry, though...the both of you have equally nothing worthwhile
> to offer.
>
> *Krisblake*
Osprey, you'll note that liberals, and by extension abortovorkians,
believe that by merely stating that someone has nothing to offer that
they've somehow won an argument. They never atually bother to refute
anything on the terms presented to them, but rather say, "Nanny,
nanny, I don't agree - so I win!"
Liberals always have great arguments such as, "You're full of shit"
and such.
Galen Hekhuis
We never resort to calling names like you do, you poo-poo face. I've told
you before we don't resort to the "I told you so" tactic to win arguments.
I would never say something like "You're full of shit," rather, we frame
our assertions much more elegantly, as in "You seem to be about to burst
there is so much fecal material inside of you." Do you have to
misrepresent everything?
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghek...@earthlink.net
A penny saved gathers no moss
Patrick Humphrey
>Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkisqs...@fnord.io.com>...
>>, singing your one-note song and crapping on everyone walking by below?)
>>
>> --PLH, Mariopatra is obviously part of the McCorvey handling team ;-)
>Yeh, PAT! - or is it Paddy! - and we note ever so many notes in your
>crowd's repertoire. When your crowd keeps humming one note, do you
>expect us to come back with Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite? Yes,
>indeed, such a rich and varied tonal scale. Must cover all of do and
>reach right over there into re in one whole octave!
You're not talking to your fantasized crowd, little morphing moron. You're
talking to *one* pro-choice individual. I know that's a concept that's a bit
beyond your grasp, but you're the one choosing to be stupid, so you get to
deal with the consequences of your decision. 'Tain't my problem.
>Pro-choice, abort...abort, pro-choice...pro-choice, abort...abort,
>pro-choice, pro-choice, abort..........hum this to a funeral dirge of
>your choosing, Pat.
Why should she be interested in the random firing of that solitary neuron of
yours?
>Just thank your lucky stars your own mother wasn't humming a dirge when she
>was carrying you.
Not that you'll ever understand, but at least I was wanted by my parents. Too
bad you couldn't have been as lucky.
--PLH, Mom chose to have me, and 48 years later, here I am. Deal with it,
podstilka...
Osprey
they have their little lines. Krisblake is a fruitcake, a total freak and
nut, not even worthy of attention. And when she doesn't get attention she
changes her alias.
Patrick, he is a lunatic. One that can not be trusted nor believed. They
spout nonsense and when challenged they run away. Right now Ray is just
pure amusement. They have their tactics Marie. You are well educated, they
can't even come close to being able to debate with you. It would be too
unfair. All they have are their empty lines and scripts, you have
intelligence.
:o)
Sneechres
Actually, Osprey, a sure-fire way to get Patrick to run is to ask him
why he has an obsession with tracerouting people's NNTP posting-host
numbers and then posting what town the traceroute spit back to him. I
know he does it to try and intimidate the newbs by giving them the
impression that he's going to show up at their houses and murder them
in their sleep...he thinks that's just hilarous.
(Watch, he'll deny the above, and I'll ask him the real reason he does
it...POOF! He's gone like a fart in the wind.)
--S
Osprey
"Sneechres" <snee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1414fd53.03062...@posting.google.com...
Oh I know why. He is a loser, a pathetic loser.
Most stalkers are losers
Craig Chilton
> "My Two Angels" <krisblake...@xmsg.com> wrote:
>> Robert Heishman wrote:
>>> Excellent response Marie!!!
>> Of course you'd agree: Her post was carved from the same
>> mound of bullshit as was yours.
>>> Couldn't have said it better.
>> No, you couldn't have, since *she* bothers to articulate her
>> crap. Not to worry, though...the both of you have equally nothing
>> worthwhile to offer.
> Osprey, you'll note that liberals, and by extension abortovorkians,
> believe that by merely stating that someone has nothing to offer that
> they've somehow won an argument. They never atually bother to refute
> anything on the terms presented to them, but rather say, "Nanny,
> nanny, I don't agree - so I win!" Liberals always have great arguments
> such as, "You're full of shit" and such.
Try the arguments in THIS **fact**-filled outline on for size,
pathetic little ignorant bigot. NONE of your ilk has ever been
able to disprove ANY of them. Put up or shut up, mealy-mouthed
liar.
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation*) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
*(AFTER the 7th month of gestation, rudimentary conscious
awareness is regarded possible, by medical science. But
that's a moot point since, per a report by JAMA, 99.99996%
of U.S. abortions already have been performed by that
point.)
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by its immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Marie A.
>
> Actually, Osprey, a sure-fire way to get Patrick to run is to ask him
> why he has an obsession with tracerouting people's NNTP posting-host
> numbers and then posting what town the traceroute spit back to him. I
> know he does it to try and intimidate the newbs by giving them the
> impression that he's going to show up at their houses and murder them
> in their sleep...he thinks that's just hilarous.
>
> (Watch, he'll deny the above, and I'll ask him the real reason he does
> it...POOF! He's gone like a fart in the wind.)
>
> --S
Sneech, these dirty little sneaking liberal bastards are all cut from
the same cloth. No wonder this entire crowd of baby-killers love the
two biggest political frauds in the history of this country. When I
first started posting in here, and didn't know what was up with these
sneaky little cretins, I noticed that the first thing they do whenever
someone starts carving them a new asshole is to run every conceivable
search they can hoping to find some post, some tidbit of information
from some usenet archive under the Smithsonian Museuam or some such
place, and manufacture a monumnental fairy tale from a misplaced
comma. Is that vintage Clinton or what? Thank God these dirty little
bastards don't have access to FBI Files and IRS data or every
pro-lifer in here would be pushing a shopping cart! Worse yet, never
post under the name of Vince Foster! That could be even more
dangerous. Marie)
Patrick Humphrey
[Screechie's fact-free rant deleted]
>Sneech, these dirty little sneaking liberal bastards are all cut from
>the same cloth. No wonder this entire crowd of baby-killers love the
>two biggest political frauds in the history of this country. When I
>first started posting in here, and didn't know what was up with these
>sneaky little cretins, I noticed that the first thing they do whenever
>someone starts carving them a new asshole is to run every conceivable
>search they can hoping to find some post, some tidbit of information
>from some usenet archive under the Smithsonian Museuam or some such
>place, and manufacture a monumnental fairy tale from a misplaced
>comma. Is that vintage Clinton or what? Thank God these dirty little
>bastards don't have access to FBI Files and IRS data or every
>pro-lifer in here would be pushing a shopping cart! Worse yet, never
>post under the name of Vince Foster! That could be even more
>dangerous. Marie)
The biggest danger a tiny-brainer like you can hope to comprehend is actually
posting something that *is* your honest opinion. A planarian has more backbone
than you or your short-bus comrades have ever shown in this forum, but then
that's just the way I was raised -- I'm honest enough to put my name on what I
post, and mental midgets like you can't deal with that. It's fun to watch you
and your guild of village idiots spin all sorts of fantasies about who we
really are, but it won't change the reality of the situation in the least.
I've been pro-choice for 30-odd years, and it's worked well -- so I'm not
going to change my SOP just because some of you anti-abort 5150s think you're
special. (Congratulate yourselves on your latest "achievement" -- our
grandchildren act more mature than you do online, and the oldest won't be ten
for another 17 months. Your villages definitely aren't being deprived.)
--PLH, this pro-choicer and Republican voter shoots *back*
james g. keegan jr.
> Just when you think the cross-dressing cop reject can't manage
> to lower the bar any more, he comes up with this blatant
> demand for a circle-jerk.
coward bobby heishman does seem to be running more amok than is
usual, even for him. it could be because the summer styles don't
flatter his grotesque form.
Patrick Humphrey
Let's hope he doesn't decide to participate in the local Gay Pride festivities
next month -- the typical summer here is hot and humid enough to divest him of
about 40 kilos just trying to prance from Hazard Street down to Crockett...
--PLH, Texas in the summer -- it ain't for wimps
Patrick Humphrey
>The man (and I use that term with a lot of reservation) must have gone
>off of his meds - he's right out in the deep end lately. Seems to have
>a bit of an obsession with PLH and Ray, too. Tell you, that'd make me
>want to shower.
I *would* have to see this after just getting out of a shower...
--PLH, I'll sleep better tonight, but then I've got Dale to keep me company
Bob
news:1dc521ed.03062...@posting.google.com:
> xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message
> news:<3f1079de...@netnews.mchsi.com>... who's intelligent!
>>
>> Pro-CHOICERS **abound** in the USA, and outnumber those who
>> disagree with abortion by a consistent 2-1 ratio. Pro-Choicers are
>> just that: We ensure that ALL women will NEVER again be FORCED to
>> gestate to term against their will. NEVER a return to such
>> involuntary servitude. NEVER a return to 2nd-class-citizen status.
>> EVER. They will ALWAYS be free to CHOOSE between carrying-to-term
>> and safe& legal abortion-on-request.
>
> I agree, Chilton. You won me over. That's why starting tomorrow I am
> going to adopt a pro-choice position regarding a woman's right to
> drown her three day old child. I have always been against this
> business of women having to nurse and care for these demanding little
> parasites against their will. Frankly, I view this as nothing less
> than involuntary servitude; it makes her a second class citizen. I
> mean, what gives here? Are we still in the 16th century or something?
> Who do these people think they are telling her what she can do with
> her own body? Think of it! A little parasite demanding her milk and 24
> hour attention. God-Almighty!
>
> Now, mind you, I am not pro-murder, but I'll be damned if women don't
> have the right to make a choice here. Chilton, your impressive logic
> and flawless argumentation have won me over. I am now officially a
> pro-choicer! (Marie)
>
The tirade you posted above makes you officically an idiot.
james g. keegan jr.
not at all; it was an idiot far earlier than the above tirade.
Sneechres
> snee...@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Actually, Osprey, a sure-fire way to get Patrick to run is to ask him
> > why he has an obsession with tracerouting people's NNTP posting-host
> > numbers and then posting what town the traceroute spit back to him. I
> > know he does it to try and intimidate the newbs by giving them the
> > impression that he's going to show up at their houses and murder them
> > in their sleep...he thinks that's just hilarous.
> >
> > (Watch, he'll deny the above, and I'll ask him the real reason he does
> > it...POOF! He's gone like a fart in the wind.)
> >
> > --S
>
> Sneech, these dirty little sneaking liberal bastards are all cut from
> the same cloth. No wonder this entire crowd of baby-killers love the
> two biggest political frauds in the history of this country. When I
> first started posting in here, and didn't know what was up with these
> sneaky little cretins, I noticed that the first thing they do whenever
> someone starts carving them a new asshole is to run every conceivable
> search they can hoping to find some post, some tidbit of information
> from some usenet archive under the Smithsonian Museuam or some such
> place, and manufacture a monumnental fairy tale from a misplaced
> comma.
You know, I still don't understand the mentality they apparently all
have which dictates that what a person says is an argument against
what a person says. I don't care about Museum pieces or manufactured
evidence so much as I care about this type of incoherent nonsense.
For example, you call someone a pervert, they then repeat the quote
that you called them a pervert as if their unsaid righteous
indignation was a refutation or something.
It's like they think if they play the victim I'll roll over and act
all sorry or something.
> Is that vintage Clinton or what? Thank God these dirty little
> bastards don't have access to FBI Files and IRS data or every
> pro-lifer in here would be pushing a shopping cart!
Um, no, you'd be dead. They'd happily throttle you or bash your skull
in with a rock for daring to dissent. I never allow them to claim
that they care about freedoms, because not a single one of them does.
Not even the first amendment they all claim to love so much.
Worse yet, never
> post under the name of Vince Foster! That could be even more
> dangerous.
Post as Alger Hiss and watch them kiss your ass at every opportunity.
--S
Craig Chilton
Marie A. wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> Pro-CHOICERS **abound** in the USA, and outnumber those who
>> disagree with abortion by a consistent 2-1 ratio. Pro-Choicers are just
>> that: We ensure that ALL women will NEVER again be FORCED to
>> gestate to term against their will. NEVER a return to such involuntary
>> servitude. NEVER a return to 2nd-class-citizen status. EVER. They will
>> ALWAYS be free to CHOOSE between carrying-to-term and safe& legal
>> abortion-on-request.
> I agree, Chilton. You won me over. That's why starting tomorrow I
> am going to adopt a pro-choice position regarding a woman's right to
> drown her three day old child. I have always been against this
> business of women having to nurse and care for these demanding little
> parasites against their will. Frankly, I view this as nothing less
> than involuntary servitude; it makes her a second class citizen. I
> mean, what gives here? Are we still in the 16th century or something?
> Who do these people think they are telling her what she can do with
> her own body? Think of it! A little parasite demanding her milk and 24
> hour attention. God-Almighty!
Actually, as bone-IGNORANT as you have proven yourself to be,
NOTHING you do or say would surprise me. NOR would it have any
credibility.
> Now, mind you, I am not pro-murder, but I'll be damned if women don't
> have the right to make a choice here. Chilton, your impressive logic
> and flawless argumentation have won me over. I am now officially a
> pro-choicer! (Marie)
Nope. You're still just what you've been all along.
A complete idiot.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Sneechres
Fact free? Asshole, you admitted it.
So how many times is that Patprick, that you ignored the inquiry?
Three? Four now? I disremember.
God I love it.
<clip>
> The biggest danger a tiny-brainer like you can hope to comprehend is actually
> posting something that *is* your honest opinion.
How was what she said NOT in fact an opinion, and how was it not hers?
A planarian has more backbone
> than you or your short-bus comrades have ever shown in this forum,
That makes sense considering the inflammatory tone of her posts.
but then
> that's just the way I was raised -- I'm honest enough to put my name on what I
> post, and mental midgets like you can't deal with that.
How about it's not important enough to deal with?
You stop getting credit for signing your name right after high school,
Pat.
But I guess you have to take whatever credit is due you, because
you'll never get any for posting something even halfway intelligent.
PS: You might want to reconsider telling people to deal with
anything, considering your embarrassing clip of the above. It seems
there are some things YOU won't deal with, hypocrite, including being
a 'net AND real-life stalker.
It's fun to watch you
> and your guild of village idiots spin all sorts of fantasies about who we
> really are,
Oh, you want credit for your name, but don't want to take credit for
the image you've created for yourself, which actually says a whole lot
more about you.
That's interesting.
Does that mean your online alter-ego is nothing like the real you?
> but it won't change the reality of the situation in the least.
You mean the reality and situations that you've denied ever posting?
The "you don't really know me" argument kind of negates the "you're
stupid for not knowing me" argument.
> I've been pro-choice for 30-odd years, and it's worked well
Worked well to what? What choices, exactly, do you promote?
-- so I'm not
> going to change my SOP just because some of you anti-abort 5150s think you're
> special.
YOU'RE certainly special, Patprick. Retards tend not to change their
opinions to suit the facts, either.
(Congratulate yourselves on your latest "achievement" -- our
> grandchildren act more mature than you do online, and the oldest won't be ten
> for another 17 months. Your villages definitely aren't being deprived.)
>
> --PLH, this pro-choicer and Republican voter shoots *back*
You should have shot into her mouth. It would save us from eventually
having to deal with the aforementioned unholy results who's ages you
so proudly boast about.
--S
Bob
news:Xns93A8E28D1A294...@24.24.2.167:
I realize that but was it "official"?
Ray Fischer
>I agree, Chilton. You won me over. That's why starting tomorrow I am
>going to adopt a pro-choice position regarding a woman's right to
>drown her three day old child.
Hatred and murder seem to be all that you understand.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Sneechres
> "james g. keegan jr." <kee...@nycap.rr.com> writes:
>
> >Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote in
> >news:szk65mr...@fnord.io.com:
>
> >> Just when you think the cross-dressing cop reject can't manage
> >> to lower the bar any more, he comes up with this blatant
> >> demand for a circle-jerk.
>
> >coward bobby heishman does seem to be running more amok than is
> >usual, even for him. it could be because the summer styles don't
> >flatter his grotesque form.
>
> Let's hope he doesn't decide to participate in the local Gay Pride festivities
> next month --
Why, are you afraid his costume is better than yours?
the typical summer here is hot and humid enough to divest him of
> about 40 kilos just trying to prance from Hazard Street down to Crockett...
>
> --PLH, Texas in the summer -- it ain't for wimps
I guess, since half the heat probably comes from your wife's
corduroy-clad thighs.
Here's to hoping the aptly-named Dale finally accepts that there's no
shame in wearing the muumuu.
--S
Osprey
news:<szkof0i...@fnord.io.com>...
> > "james g. keegan jr." <kee...@nycap.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > >Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote in
> > >news:szk65mr...@fnord.io.com:
> >
> > >> Just when you think the cross-dressing cop reject can't manage
> > >> to lower the bar any more, he comes up with this blatant
> > >> demand for a circle-jerk.
> >
> > >coward bobby heishman does seem to be running more amok than is
> > >usual, even for him. it could be because the summer styles don't
> > >flatter his grotesque form.
> >
> > Let's hope he doesn't decide to participate in the local Gay Pride
festivities
> > next month --
>
> Why, are you afraid his costume is better than yours?
ROFL
>
> the typical summer here is hot and humid enough to divest him of
> > about 40 kilos just trying to prance from Hazard Street down to
Crockett...
> >
> > --PLH, Texas in the summer -- it ain't for wimps
>
> I guess, since half the heat probably comes from your wife's
> corduroy-clad thighs.
>
> Here's to hoping the aptly-named Dale finally accepts that there's no
> shame in wearing the muumuu.
OUCH!!!
>
> --S
Patrick Humphrey
>Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkznk3...@hagbard.io.com>...
>> LetEmE...@yahoo.com (Marie A.) writes:
>> [Screechie's fact-free rant deleted]
>Fact free? Asshole, you admitted it.
I admitted to one thing -- the rest was your walkabout through your own
idiot's fantasy.
>So how many times is that Patprick, that you ignored the inquiry?
>Three? Four now? I disremember.
>God I love it.
If you take it that seriously, you have problems.
><clip>
>> The biggest danger a tiny-brainer like you can hope to comprehend is
>> actually posting something that *is* your honest opinion.
>How was what she said NOT in fact an opinion, and how was it not hers?
Given that the two of you Dumb and Dumber Siamese twins have a documented
history of lying and deception, it's only logical to assume your latest
ranting is nothing but more of the same.
>> A planarian has more backbone than you or your short-bus comrades have ever
>> shown in this forum,
>That makes sense considering the inflammatory tone of her posts.
Thanks -- you have no idea of what you just said, eh?
>> but then that's just the way I was raised -- I'm honest enough to put my
>> name on what I post, and mental midgets like you can't deal with that.
>How about it's not important enough to deal with?
It's supposedly not important, but you keep whining about it. Do the math.
>You stop getting credit for signing your name right after high school,
>Pat.
Your opinion, a kick to your fat ass (can you say concussion?), and a dollar
will get you downtown on Metro. That's how much your opinion is worth to me.
So, we're obviously on even terms in that regard, aren't we? (Of course, I
bother to occasionally point out that no one has to read anything I post --
which point invariably sails right over that pointy li'l head of yours.)
>But I guess you have to take whatever credit is due you, because
>you'll never get any for posting something even halfway intelligent.
...according to you. I won't mention that there are people out there that
will obviously see it a different way -- and neither one of us know who they
are.
>PS: You might want to reconsider telling people to deal with
>anything, considering your embarrassing clip of the above. It seems
>there are some things YOU won't deal with, hypocrite, including being
>a 'net AND real-life stalker.
Patent bullshit, Screechie. How do you stalk someone whose name you don't
know, or address, or appearance? I've got more important things to spend my
time on than that...but it's always a chuckle to mention one little fuzzy bit
of information and watch you paranoid nutbars get all wired. (Could you show
some conclusive proof that I am who you say I am? You'll have to manufacture
99% of that evidence, but I can see that's never been a particular hindrance
to you.)
>> It's fun to watch you and your guild of village idiots spin all sorts of
>> fantasies about who we really are,
>Oh, you want credit for your name, but don't want to take credit for
>the image you've created for yourself, which actually says a whole lot
>more about you.
You don't decide what image I've created for myself -- that's your opinion.
You know no more about me than I do about you, but that doesn't stop you from
pretending you're such an authority on me.
>That's interesting.
>Does that mean your online alter-ego is nothing like the real you?
You'll never know. Those who know me and actually deal with me in person know
a lot better than you ever will.
>> but it won't change the reality of the situation in the least.
>You mean the reality and situations that you've denied ever posting?
>The "you don't really know me" argument kind of negates the "you're
>stupid for not knowing me" argument.
I'll leave you to make up your own mind. (Assuming you can find it, that is.
I'd suggest looking under the couch, behind the dustbunnies.)
>> I've been pro-choice for 30-odd years, and it's worked well
>Worked well to what? What choices, exactly, do you promote?
What does "pro-choice" mean? Obviously, the choice I'm interested in is the
default one: the woman's right to make her own decisions when it comes to
reproduction, your delusions to the contrary be damned.
>> -- so I'm not going to change my SOP just because some of you anti-abort
>> 5150s think you're special.
>YOU'RE certainly special, Patprick. Retards tend not to change their
>opinions to suit the facts, either.
When you can grasp the difference between your screeching and fact, let the
readers know. Here's a fact for you: Norma "designated anti-abort slut"
McCorvey couldn't even get in the courthouse door a week ago -- and her
handlers' vows to appeal it all the way up to SCOTUS show that they're willing
to deny reality on just about any pretense.
>> (Congratulate yourselves on your latest "achievement" -- our grandchildren
>> act more mature than you do online, and the oldest won't be ten for another
>> 17 months. Your villages definitely aren't being deprived.)
>>
>> --PLH, this pro-choicer and Republican voter shoots *back*
>You should have shot into her mouth. It would save us from eventually
>having to deal with the aforementioned unholy results who's ages you
>so proudly boast about.
Is anyone forcing you to read what I post, Screechie? No?
--PLH, the conclusion is obvious
Patrick Humphrey
>Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkof0i...@fnord.io.com>...
>> "james g. keegan jr." <kee...@nycap.rr.com> writes:
>> >Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote in
>> >news:szk65mr...@fnord.io.com:
>> >> Just when you think the cross-dressing cop reject can't manage
>> >> to lower the bar any more, he comes up with this blatant
>> >> demand for a circle-jerk.
>> >coward bobby heishman does seem to be running more amok than is
>> >usual, even for him. it could be because the summer styles don't
>> >flatter his grotesque form.
>> Let's hope he doesn't decide to participate in the local Gay Pride
>> festivities next month --
>Why, are you afraid his costume is better than yours?
Why should I be? I'm one of the people that watches the parade (which was
held last night)...along with 80,000 or so other of us straight folks, in the
average year.
>> the typical summer here is hot and humid enough to divest him of
>> about 40 kilos just trying to prance from Hazard Street down to Crockett...
>>
>> --PLH, Texas in the summer -- it ain't for wimps
>I guess, since half the heat probably comes from your wife's
>corduroy-clad thighs.
*laugh* Blindness becomes you, little monkey.
>Here's to hoping the aptly-named Dale finally accepts that there's no
>shame in wearing the muumuu.
Gee, an inept "you married a man?" lame, years after I thought they'd died
out...I guess you're too clueless to notice the name of Roy Rogers' spouse.
Oh, well...
--PLH, how about those Supremes last week?
Sneechres
> snee...@yahoo.com (Sneechres) writes:
>
> >Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkof0i...@fnord.io.com>...
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <kee...@nycap.rr.com> writes:
>
> >> >Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote in
> >> >news:szk65mr...@fnord.io.com:
>
> >> >> Just when you think the cross-dressing cop reject can't manage
> >> >> to lower the bar any more, he comes up with this blatant
> >> >> demand for a circle-jerk.
>
> >> >coward bobby heishman does seem to be running more amok than is
> >> >usual, even for him. it could be because the summer styles don't
> >> >flatter his grotesque form.
>
> >> Let's hope he doesn't decide to participate in the local Gay Pride
> >> festivities next month --
>
> >Why, are you afraid his costume is better than yours?
>
> Why should I be?
Definately not.
The matching hockey getups are not to be outdone! The title of Most
Pathetic Loser is yours uncontested.
I'm one of the people that watches the parade (which was
> held last night)...along with 80,000 or so other of us straight folks, in the
> average year.
So? That's what happens to people with nothing better to do.
> >> the typical summer here is hot and humid enough to divest him of
> >> about 40 kilos just trying to prance from Hazard Street down to Crockett...
> >>
> >> --PLH, Texas in the summer -- it ain't for wimps
>
> >I guess, since half the heat probably comes from your wife's
> >corduroy-clad thighs.
>
> *laugh* Blindness becomes you, little monkey.
I guess it would have to, since looking at your wife's blinding
ricotta-legs caused it.
> >Here's to hoping the aptly-named Dale finally accepts that there's no
> >shame in wearing the muumuu.
>
> Gee, an inept "you married a man?" lame, years after I thought they'd died
> out...
Oh no, I can see Dale is a woman. A whole lot of one, at that.
> I guess you're too clueless to notice the name of Roy Rogers' spouse.
Please believe the comparison stops there.
--S
Sneechres
> snee...@yahoo.com (Sneechres) writes:
>
> >Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkznk3...@hagbard.io.com>...
> >> LetEmE...@yahoo.com (Marie A.) writes:
>
> >> [Screechie's fact-free rant deleted]
>
> >Fact free? Asshole, you admitted it.
>
> I admitted to one thing --
Too bad you won't admit to your motivations...and as a result we have
to speculate. That's your fault.
But they're not that important. Your behavior, much to your chagrin,
really does speak for itself.
> the rest was your walkabout through your own
> idiot's fantasy.
Oh, okay.
> >So how many times is that Patprick, that you ignored the inquiry?
> >Three? Four now? I disremember.
>
> >God I love it.
>
> If you take it that seriously, you have problems.
I DO take it seriously. That's because the problem is YOU.
You don't think your behavior tells people what kind of person you
are??
> >> The biggest danger a tiny-brainer like you can hope to comprehend is
> >> actually posting something that *is* your honest opinion.
>
> >How was what she said NOT in fact an opinion, and how was it not hers?
>
> Given that the two of you Dumb and Dumber Siamese twins have a documented
> history of lying and deception,
Well, compared to your documented history of assholery and following
people, I daresay you ought not to throw stones considering the glass
state of your house.
it's only logical to assume your latest
> ranting is nothing but more of the same.
That's not an answer. You accused her of not posting her honest
opinion. It certainly looked like an opinion to me. What is an
opinion, Patprick, and how did Marie's statements NOT in fact fit the
criteria?
> >> A planarian has more backbone than you or your short-bus comrades have ever
> >> shown in this forum,
>
> >That makes sense considering the inflammatory tone of her posts.
>
> Thanks -- you have no idea of what you just said, eh?
I know exactly what I said. Since nothing YOU said made any sense,
it's obvious you're becoming more and more confused.
Take a load off, grandpa. Try and remember where you left your
Alzheimer's meds.
> >> but then that's just the way I was raised -- I'm honest enough to put my
> >> name on what I post, and mental midgets like you can't deal with that.
>
> >How about it's not important enough to deal with?
>
> It's supposedly not important, but you keep whining about it.
Um, no one whined about it. In case you hadn't noticed, Patprick, no
one gives a shit that you use your real name to post here. For some
reason you think it's a big damn deal, as if we owe you respect for
it.
> Do the math.
2 + 2 = Patrick L. Humphrey is a dumbass.
Yep, adds up just right.
> >You stop getting credit for signing your name right after high school,
> >Pat.
>
> Your opinion,
Oh, so now you know what an opinion is.
For your next trick, are you going to accuse me of "hoping...to
comprehend...actually posting something that *is* [my] honest
opinion."?
> kick to your fat ass
Since when do you denigrate fat asses, considering you married one?
(PS: There isn't much fat on this ass, Grandpa, but if I need some,
Texas is the first place I'd go.)
(can you say concussion?), and a dollar
> will get you downtown on Metro. That's how much your opinion is worth to me.
Well, that and an entire post as a response.
Gee, I feel so priveleged.
> So, we're obviously on even terms in that regard, aren't we?
I guarantee you, Prick, we'll never be on even terms. (We might if
you used Dale as a stepstool.)
(Of course, I
> bother to occasionally point out that no one has to read anything I post --
Same goes your way, moronathon.
> >But I guess you have to take whatever credit is due you, because
> >you'll never get any for posting something even halfway intelligent.
>
> ...according to you.
Yeah, that's known as an opinion. Deal with it.
I won't mention that there are people out there that
> will obviously see it a different way --
Hey, whatever makes you feel better. I guess acknowledging that there
are people out there who can't judge a standard of intelligence is
part of that SOP you have no intention of changing.
and neither one of us know who they
> are.
What is it, secret friend day at the retirement center?
> >PS: You might want to reconsider telling people to deal with
> >anything, considering your embarrassing clip of the above. It seems
> >there are some things YOU won't deal with, hypocrite, including being
> >a 'net AND real-life stalker.
>
> Patent bullshit, Screechie.
Heh, I've read the posts. You can spin yourself until you puke,
Patrick, it's out there for the whole world to see what you've done to
other people.
> How do you stalk someone whose name you don't
> know, or address, or appearance?
You tell us, you're the expert.
I've got more important things to spend my
> time on than that...
So we've seen.
but it's always a chuckle to mention one little fuzzy bit
> of information and watch you paranoid nutbars get all wired. (Could you show
> some conclusive proof that I am who you say I am?
But...I thought you posted with your real name! Is Patrick L.
Humphrey not in fact your real name?
Are you trying to imply that you're *not* Patrick L. Humphrey?
Because that would pretty much tank your "I post with my real name"
credit, wouldn't it.
> >> It's fun to watch you and your guild of village idiots spin all sorts of
> >> fantasies about who we really are,
>
> >Oh, you want credit for your name, but don't want to take credit for
> >the image you've created for yourself, which actually says a whole lot
> >more about you.
>
> You don't decide what image I've created for myself --
Actually, fucktard, yes I do. That's what the word "image" means. No
one cares about your self-esteem, in case you failed to check.
> that's your opinion.
Yep, deal with it and quit whining.
> You know no more about me than I do about you,
Remember that next time you accuse someone of being an idiot for not
knowing. It's your fault if someone doesn't know because it's not
exactly as if you've been forthcoming, has it.
but that doesn't stop you from
> pretending you're such an authority on me.
No one is pretending to be an authority on you. We can, however, make
certain observations about your behavior here.
Deal with that, too.
> >That's interesting.
>
> >Does that mean your online alter-ego is nothing like the real you?
>
> You'll never know.
Oh, okay. Don't get upset when we have to guess based on what you
say.
Those who know me and actually deal with me in person know
> a lot better than you ever will.
They have my undying pity.
> >> but it won't change the reality of the situation in the least.
>
> >You mean the reality and situations that you've denied ever posting?
> >The "you don't really know me" argument kind of negates the "you're
> >stupid for not knowing me" argument.
>
> I'll leave you to make up your own mind.
Oh, believe me, I have. That's yet another thing you'll have to deal
with.
> >> I've been pro-choice for 30-odd years, and it's worked well
>
> >Worked well to what? What choices, exactly, do you promote?
>
> What does "pro-choice" mean?
I know what it means. I'm asking you what you think it means.
> Obviously, the choice I'm interested in is the
> default one:
There is no default choice. (Unless, when speaking on reproductive
terms, you're referring to childbirth.)
> the woman's right to make her own decisions when it comes to
> reproduction,
So you're in favor of people having multiple reproductive choices.
That's pretty specific. Why would you use a wildly general term to
describe that?
> >> -- so I'm not going to change my SOP just because some of you anti-abort
> >> 5150s think you're special.
>
> >YOU'RE certainly special, Patprick. Retards tend not to change their
> >opinions to suit the facts, either.
>
> When you can grasp the difference between your screeching and fact, let the
> readers know.
What for? History shows the facts sail over your head unacknowledged.
It's not my fault you're too unfamiliar with the facts to identify
them when they show up.
<clip>
> >> (Congratulate yourselves on your latest "achievement" -- our grandchildren
> >> act more mature than you do online, and the oldest won't be ten for another
> >> 17 months. Your villages definitely aren't being deprived.)
> >>
> >> --PLH, this pro-choicer and Republican voter shoots *back*
>
> >You should have shot into her mouth. It would save us from eventually
> >having to deal with the aforementioned unholy results who's ages you
> >so proudly boast about.
>
> Is anyone forcing you to read what I post, Screechie?
Nope. Is that your excuse for being a frickin' idiot?
> --PLH, the conclusion is obvious
The conclusion is that lobotmies were bigger in Texas, too.
--S
Sneechres
Apparently Patprick doesn't understand the meaning of the word "dale,"
as in valley. Over the hill and dale?
Anyway, she could fill one easily.
--S