Their hiding the truth
osprey
name calling, bickering back and forth. Yea it gets stupid at times,
and hey I am not innocent myself.
Now naturally many of the pro-aborts in here call me a liar and anyone
else who opposes their opinions. It doesn't really matter because
after you been in here a while and you study their maturity level you
soon come to just over look their rants and raves, insults, calling
others liar and so forth.
The bottom line is they can't even recognize their own downfalls
and/or faults.
Of course I am talking mainly about the pro-aborts. Like Bob, David,
Ray, James, Krisblake4eva, Patrick, Pat, Adam, Craig, and a few others
but they stick out.
And yes they all collect around each other like scared little hens.
The bottom line is these individuals can NOT handle the debate on
abortion. They resort to changing the topic, making wild accusations,
or like Craig does...makes these HUGE long post that basically say
nothing and answer nothing.
You got Ray and James. Their method is .. call them a liar
You got David..making claims and when asked to back them up he pulls a
Patrick and says "I all ready done that, look it up"
Krisblake4eva, oh boy where do we start with this one. She is a real
hoot. She will make up anything and answer nothing. When backed into
a corner her way of answering any question is to answer it by changing
the topic.
Pat, well she has been lost for a long time. She things she is smart
by playing on words. I remember her one big claim: A mother is not a
mother until after birth and she claimed it was a fact. I said it was
a persons opinion. And I proved it by showing the definition, which
did say a mother is a mother at the point of conception.
James Keeton, he likes to tell small parts of a story and leave out
key elements. In other words he likes to make you think it was
something else. For example: He said US soldiers killed a mother in
front of her children. He left it at that. Now a person who didn't
know better would think that was awful. But many of us that did know
better knew what he was doing. He was pulling the same stunt the
Iraqi Defense minister pulls by telling lies and trying to decieve
you. He left out the key elements. The mother was in a vehicle. That
vehicle was charging through a check point. The driver ignored the
signs and verbal warnings to stop. The driver ignored the warning
shots. This is combat, and in combat the vehicle is to be considered a
threat. And those same US soldiers just lost members from a car bomg.
You see how the story changes now? From his deceptive version to the
truth.
Adam is another one that likes to play silly word games.
Ok the bottom line again is this. None of these people can debate a
issue. And when they start to lose they go on the attack. Why?
Because their arguments are weak and have a lot of holes.
Now I asked a few key questions
1. Are you anti-abortion (in other words do you support abortion or
not)
This is a relevant question. This is a abortion NG right? So why not
find out if the people in here support abortion or not?
What do you get? Well you get people like Krisblake who answers it "I
am pro-choice".
That wasn't the question. So you see, she is trying to change the
topic. Yes, she is hiding her opinion.
You got James who refused to answer it. Again, hiding his opinion.
And then resorting to calling me a liar and anyone else who saw
through his BS.
Paul Anderson was the only one that hit on exactly what I was looking
for. He answered Brian by telling Brian you can't be anti-abortion
and pro-choice. This is what they are hiding folks. They don't want
to come out and say that they feel you must support abortion to be
pro-choice.
Then you got Craig who said most of the people who he thinks is
pro-choice are not anti-abortion. Again, there you have it. The
opposite of anti-abortion is and can only be...pro-abortion. There is
no middle ground. When Craig got caught with his own words...his
tactic...attack and forge my post. Which he done and got caught
again. Then he post a huge long post. The reason he does this is to
confuse you and cause you to lose track of the other persons points.
It is a deceptive tactic.
Then you got Ray. Answering the question with another question. And
then calling the person a liar.
Pat Winstanley, never answered it
Patrick same thing
Oh he said he answered it, but when I asked him to provide the proof
he said to go look it up. There you go, he can't produce the
evidence.
It is amazing watching their arguments unravel. And it is easy to see
they can't debate that question. And it is obvious they want to hide
their position on abortion.
Then there was the 2nd question
Do you have to support abortion to be pro-choice?
Some say no, some don't answer it, some like Paul said you can't
oppose abortion and be pro-choice at the same time.
Again, they want to hide their position.
They can't win this. They know it. They can't debate the issue at
all. I have even said to them, you want to debate with me...any day.
I am fully capable and prepared to debate. But they have to grow up
first and stop with their lies, making up their accusations, changing
the topic. In other words, if you want to debate, lets debate. But
you will stick to the issue and you will not side track me. And if
you are going to resort to lies, name calling, decietful tactics I
will call you on it and I will expose them.
Now, who wants to debate the issue of abortion?
I want to credit the others in here who have shown the honesty and
ability to debate.
Brian, Chris, Hylander, Papajack
And yes there are some pro-choicers in here who are very honest and
able to debate with class
Beth, I have not seen her in a long time
June, I have not seen her either
And even Ron Nicolson at times, can debate in a classy style.
Krisblake4eva
>Over the past week, I know many have read the rants, the raves, the
>name calling, bickering back and forth. Yea it gets stupid at times,
>and hey I am not innocent myself.
Noooooooooooooo...really?
>
>Now naturally many of the pro-aborts in here call me a liar
That's because you are...a scathing one, too.
>and anyone
>else who opposes their opinions.
There are lots of people that have opposing opinions to mine, and
notall are as patently dishonest as you.
It doesn't really matter because
>after you been in here a while and you study their maturity level you
There's no need to study your shit because it is as open as freshly
wounded skin.
>soon come to just over look their rants and raves, insults, calling
>others liar and so forth.
If the shoe bloody well fits...
>
>The bottom line is they can't even recognize their own downfalls
>and/or faults.
>
>Of course I am talking mainly about the pro-aborts. Like Bob, David,
>Ray, James, Krisblake4eva, Patrick, Pat, Adam, Craig, and a few others
>but they stick out.
Funny, LIAR, but none of us are Pro-Aborts.
>
>And yes they all collect around each other like scared little hens.
I am not afraid of your opinions, Heishtrash.
>
>The bottom line is these individuals can NOT handle the debate on
>abortion. They resort to changing the topic, making wild accusations,
>or like Craig does...makes these HUGE long post that basically say
>nothing and answer nothing.
>
>You got Ray and James. Their method is .. call them a liar
>You got David..making claims and when asked to back them up he pulls a
>Patrick and says "I all ready done that, look it up"
>Krisblake4eva, oh boy where do we start with this one. She is a real
>hoot. She will make up anything and answer nothing. When backed into
>a corner her way of answering any question is to answer it by changing
>the topic.
>Pat, well she has been lost for a long time. She things she is smart
>by playing on words. I remember her one big claim: A mother is not a
>mother until after birth and she claimed it was a fact. I said it was
>a persons opinion. And I proved it by showing the definition, which
>did say a mother is a mother at the point of conception.
>James Keeton,
Keegan, you bloody idiot! If you're going to insult somebody, at
least spell their fucking name correctly!
he likes to tell small parts of a story and leave out
>key elements. In other words he likes to make you think it was
>something else. For example: He said US soldiers killed a mother in
>front of her children. He left it at that. Now a person who didn't
>know better would think that was awful. But many of us that did know
>better knew what he was doing. He was pulling the same stunt the
>Iraqi Defense minister pulls by telling lies and trying to decieve
>you. He left out the key elements. The mother was in a vehicle. That
>vehicle was charging through a check point. The driver ignored the
>signs and verbal warnings to stop. The driver ignored the warning
>shots. This is combat, and in combat the vehicle is to be considered a
>threat. And those same US soldiers just lost members from a car bomg.
>You see how the story changes now? From his deceptive version to the
>truth.
>Adam is another one that likes to play silly word games.
Have you finished farting, idiot boy?
>
>Ok the bottom line again is this. None of these people can debate a
>issue. And when they start to lose they go on the attack. Why?
>Because their arguments are weak and have a lot of holes.
Bring out the Lysol - this one's a stinker...
>
>Now I asked a few key questions
>
>1. Are you anti-abortion (in other words do you support abortion or
>not)
>
>This is a relevant question. This is a abortion NG right? So why not
>find out if the people in here support abortion or not?
>
>What do you get? Well you get people like Krisblake who answers it "I
>am pro-choice".
I am Pro-Choice, and that should pretty much tell you where I stand
with the issue, since the main issue here is about CHOICE, stupid ass.
[...]
>I want to credit the others in here who have shown the honesty and
>ability to debate.
>
>Brian, Chris, Hylander, Papajack
I am not too sure about Brian, yet - there's still time...
As far as Chris, Hylander, and PapaJack -- those are three insane
individuals that absolutely possess NO consideration for pregnant
women.
[...]
Pat Winstanley
noneed...@mail.com says...
> Subject: Their hiding the truth
> From: noneed...@mail.com (osprey)
> Newsgroups: alt.abortion
>
> Over the past week, I know many have read the rants, the raves, the
> name calling, bickering back and forth. Yea it gets stupid at times,
> and hey I am not innocent myself.
>
> Now naturally many of the pro-aborts in here call me a liar
>
Actually there are no 'pro-aborts' here.
The people who are pointing out your lies are honest people who detest
liars like yourself.
osprey
Sorry but you are, and since you never would answer the question I asked
you giving you plenty of opportunity to clear it, I will consider you
pro-abortion
The fact that you try to hide it is evidence enough.
>
>
>>And yes they all collect around each other like scared little hens.
>
>
> I am not afraid of your opinions, Heishtrash.
Yes you are
>
>
>>The bottom line is these individuals can NOT handle the debate on
>>abortion. They resort to changing the topic, making wild accusations,
>>or like Craig does...makes these HUGE long post that basically say
>>nothing and answer nothing.
>>
>>You got Ray and James. Their method is .. call them a liar
>>You got David..making claims and when asked to back them up he pulls a
>>Patrick and says "I all ready done that, look it up"
>>Krisblake4eva, oh boy where do we start with this one. She is a real
>>hoot. She will make up anything and answer nothing. When backed into
>>a corner her way of answering any question is to answer it by changing
>>the topic.
>>Pat, well she has been lost for a long time. She things she is smart
>>by playing on words. I remember her one big claim: A mother is not a
>>mother until after birth and she claimed it was a fact. I said it was
>>a persons opinion. And I proved it by showing the definition, which
>>did say a mother is a mother at the point of conception.
>>James Keeton,
>
>
> Keegan, you bloody idiot! If you're going to insult somebody, at
> least spell their fucking name correctly!
Soon as you learn to get a few things right, then I will
>
> he likes to tell small parts of a story and leave out
>
>>key elements. In other words he likes to make you think it was
>>something else. For example: He said US soldiers killed a mother in
>>front of her children. He left it at that. Now a person who didn't
>>know better would think that was awful. But many of us that did know
>>better knew what he was doing. He was pulling the same stunt the
>>Iraqi Defense minister pulls by telling lies and trying to decieve
>>you. He left out the key elements. The mother was in a vehicle. That
>>vehicle was charging through a check point. The driver ignored the
>>signs and verbal warnings to stop. The driver ignored the warning
>>shots. This is combat, and in combat the vehicle is to be considered a
>>threat. And those same US soldiers just lost members from a car bomg.
>>You see how the story changes now? From his deceptive version to the
>>truth.
>>Adam is another one that likes to play silly word games.
>
>
> Have you finished farting, idiot boy?
Is that another fetish of yours?
>
>
>>Ok the bottom line again is this. None of these people can debate a
>>issue. And when they start to lose they go on the attack. Why?
>>Because their arguments are weak and have a lot of holes.
>
>
> Bring out the Lysol - this one's a stinker...
>
>
>>Now I asked a few key questions
>>
>>1. Are you anti-abortion (in other words do you support abortion or
>>not)
>
>
>>This is a relevant question. This is a abortion NG right? So why not
>>find out if the people in here support abortion or not?
>>
>>What do you get? Well you get people like Krisblake who answers it "I
>>am pro-choice".
>
>
> I am Pro-Choice, and that should pretty much tell you where I stand
> with the issue, since the main issue here is about CHOICE, stupid ass.
>
Again, you are showing that you want to hide your true feelings about
abortion. You may be pro-choice but you are also pro-abortion
> [...]
>
>
>>I want to credit the others in here who have shown the honesty and
>>ability to debate.
>>
>>Brian, Chris, Hylander, Papajack
>
>
> I am not too sure about Brian, yet - there's still time...
>
> As far as Chris, Hylander, and PapaJack -- those are three insane
> individuals that absolutely possess NO consideration for pregnant
> women.
All because you can't defeat them in their arguments. Your tricks don't
work with them either..:o)
>
> [...]
osprey
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <8912d58d.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> noneed...@mail.com says...
>
>>Subject: Their hiding the truth
>>From: noneed...@mail.com (osprey)
>>Newsgroups: alt.abortion
>>
>>Over the past week, I know many have read the rants, the raves, the
>>name calling, bickering back and forth. Yea it gets stupid at times,
>>and hey I am not innocent myself.
>>
>>Now naturally many of the pro-aborts in here call me a liar
>>
>
>
> Actually there are no 'pro-aborts' here.
Yes there are, you are one of them
>
> The people who are pointing out your lies are honest people who detest
> liars like yourself.
Hey, I don't lie. You do however, and you try to hide what you really are.
Ray Fischer
>Over the past week, I know many have read the rants, the raves, the
>name calling, bickering back and forth.
Your incessant lying about what people write and your hatred of all
that dare to disagree with you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
I am Pro-Choice.
Can't you read properly?
[...]
>The fact that you try to hide it is evidence enough.
I haven't tried to hide anything.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>And yes they all collect around each other like scared little hens.
>>
>>
>> I am not afraid of your opinions, Heishtrash.
>
>Yes you are
No, I am not.
>
>>
>>
>>>The bottom line is these individuals can NOT handle the debate on
>>>abortion. They resort to changing the topic, making wild accusations,
>>>or like Craig does...makes these HUGE long post that basically say
>>>nothing and answer nothing.
>>>
>>>You got Ray and James. Their method is .. call them a liar
>>>You got David..making claims and when asked to back them up he pulls a
>>>Patrick and says "I all ready done that, look it up"
>>>Krisblake4eva, oh boy where do we start with this one. She is a real
>>>hoot. She will make up anything and answer nothing. When backed into
>>>a corner her way of answering any question is to answer it by changing
>>>the topic.
>>>Pat, well she has been lost for a long time. She things she is smart
>>>by playing on words. I remember her one big claim: A mother is not a
>>>mother until after birth and she claimed it was a fact. I said it was
>>>a persons opinion. And I proved it by showing the definition, which
>>>did say a mother is a mother at the point of conception.
>>>James Keeton,
>>
>>
>> Keegan, you bloody idiot! If you're going to insult somebody, at
>> least spell their fucking name correctly!
>
>
>Soon as you learn to get a few things right,
Irresponsibility.
[...]
>
>>
>> he likes to tell small parts of a story and leave out
>>
>>>key elements. In other words he likes to make you think it was
>>>something else. For example: He said US soldiers killed a mother in
>>>front of her children. He left it at that. Now a person who didn't
>>>know better would think that was awful. But many of us that did know
>>>better knew what he was doing. He was pulling the same stunt the
>>>Iraqi Defense minister pulls by telling lies and trying to decieve
>>>you. He left out the key elements. The mother was in a vehicle. That
>>>vehicle was charging through a check point. The driver ignored the
>>>signs and verbal warnings to stop. The driver ignored the warning
>>>shots. This is combat, and in combat the vehicle is to be considered a
>>>threat. And those same US soldiers just lost members from a car bomg.
>>>You see how the story changes now? From his deceptive version to the
>>>truth.
>>>Adam is another one that likes to play silly word games.
>>
>>
>> Have you finished farting, idiot boy?
>
>
>Is that another fetish of yours?
I am NOT Bystander, Bobstander.
>
>>
>>
>>>Ok the bottom line again is this. None of these people can debate a
>>>issue. And when they start to lose they go on the attack. Why?
>>>Because their arguments are weak and have a lot of holes.
>>
>>
>> Bring out the Lysol - this one's a stinker...
>>
>>
>>>Now I asked a few key questions
>>>
>>>1. Are you anti-abortion (in other words do you support abortion or
>>>not)
>>
>>
>>>This is a relevant question. This is a abortion NG right? So why not
>>>find out if the people in here support abortion or not?
>>>
>>>What do you get? Well you get people like Krisblake who answers it "I
>>>am pro-choice".
>>
>>
>> I am Pro-Choice, and that should pretty much tell you where I stand
>> with the issue, since the main issue here is about CHOICE, stupid ass.
>>
>
>
>Again,
Again, I snip lies.
[...]
>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>I want to credit the others in here who have shown the honesty and
>>>ability to debate.
>>>
>>>Brian, Chris, Hylander, Papajack
>>
>>
>> I am not too sure about Brian, yet - there's still time...
>>
>> As far as Chris, Hylander, and PapaJack -- those are three insane
>> individuals that absolutely possess NO consideration for pregnant
>> women.
>
>
>All because you can't defeat them in their arguments
I don't care about them; I care about my family and me
osprey
You mean even though you are pro-choice your still not pro-life? You
don't favor life?
> [...]
>
>
>>The fact that you try to hide it is evidence enough.
>
>
> I haven't tried to hide anything.
Yea you are, you want to hide your stand on abortion and now it appears
you want to hide your stand on life.
You don't get it. I know your pro-choice, but that isn't what I was
asking. So don't tell me your not hiding something, you most certainly are.
For what ever reason I don't know, but I do know your hiding your stand
on those two questions for a reason.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>And yes they all collect around each other like scared little hens.
>>>
>>>
>>>I am not afraid of your opinions, Heishtrash.
>>
>>Yes you are
>
>
> No, I am not.
Yes you are, and your hiding your stand even shows it more.
>
>
>>>
>>>>The bottom line is these individuals can NOT handle the debate on
>>>>abortion. They resort to changing the topic, making wild accusations,
>>>>or like Craig does...makes these HUGE long post that basically say
>>>>nothing and answer nothing.
>>>>
>>>>You got Ray and James. Their method is .. call them a liar
>>>>You got David..making claims and when asked to back them up he pulls a
>>>>Patrick and says "I all ready done that, look it up"
>>>>Krisblake4eva, oh boy where do we start with this one. She is a real
>>>>hoot. She will make up anything and answer nothing. When backed into
>>>>a corner her way of answering any question is to answer it by changing
>>>>the topic.
>>>>Pat, well she has been lost for a long time. She things she is smart
>>>>by playing on words. I remember her one big claim: A mother is not a
>>>>mother until after birth and she claimed it was a fact. I said it was
>>>>a persons opinion. And I proved it by showing the definition, which
>>>>did say a mother is a mother at the point of conception.
>>>>James Keeton,
>>>
>>>
>>>Keegan, you bloody idiot! If you're going to insult somebody, at
>>>least spell their fucking name correctly!
>>
>>
>>Soon as you learn to get a few things right,
>
>
> Irresponsibility.
Funny, you saying that. The person who wants to hide their stand on how
they feel about life and abortion
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>>>he likes to tell small parts of a story and leave out
>>>
>>>
>>>>key elements. In other words he likes to make you think it was
>>>>something else. For example: He said US soldiers killed a mother in
>>>>front of her children. He left it at that. Now a person who didn't
>>>>know better would think that was awful. But many of us that did know
>>>>better knew what he was doing. He was pulling the same stunt the
>>>>Iraqi Defense minister pulls by telling lies and trying to decieve
>>>>you. He left out the key elements. The mother was in a vehicle. That
>>>>vehicle was charging through a check point. The driver ignored the
>>>>signs and verbal warnings to stop. The driver ignored the warning
>>>>shots. This is combat, and in combat the vehicle is to be considered a
>>>>threat. And those same US soldiers just lost members from a car bomg.
>>>>You see how the story changes now? From his deceptive version to the
>>>>truth.
>>>>Adam is another one that likes to play silly word games.
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you finished farting, idiot boy?
>>
>>
>>Is that another fetish of yours?
>
>
> I am NOT Bystander, Bobstander.
Neither am I, and what does that have to do with your fetishes?
>
>
>>>
>>>>Ok the bottom line again is this. None of these people can debate a
>>>>issue. And when they start to lose they go on the attack. Why?
>>>>Because their arguments are weak and have a lot of holes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bring out the Lysol - this one's a stinker...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now I asked a few key questions
>>>>
>>>>1. Are you anti-abortion (in other words do you support abortion or
>>>>not)
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is a relevant question. This is a abortion NG right? So why not
>>>>find out if the people in here support abortion or not?
>>>>
>>>>What do you get? Well you get people like Krisblake who answers it "I
>>>>am pro-choice".
>>>
>>>
>>>I am Pro-Choice, and that should pretty much tell you where I stand
>>>with the issue, since the main issue here is about CHOICE, stupid ass.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Again,
>
>
> Again, I snip lies.
Snip your post then, your the one hiding things.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I want to credit the others in here who have shown the honesty and
>>>>ability to debate.
>>>>
>>>>Brian, Chris, Hylander, Papajack
>>>
>>>
>>>I am not too sure about Brian, yet - there's still time...
>>>
>>>As far as Chris, Hylander, and PapaJack -- those are three insane
>>>individuals that absolutely possess NO consideration for pregnant
>>>women.
>>
>>
>>All because you can't defeat them in their arguments
>
>
> I don't care about them; I care about my family and me
That is obvious you don't care
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
I guess that answers my question.
[...]
>>>The fact that you try to hide it is evidence enough.
>>
>>
>> I haven't tried to hide anything.
>
>
>Yea you are,
Nah, I am not.
[...]
>You don't get it. I know your pro-choice,
If you know I am Pro-Choice, why do you insist that I am Pro-Abortion?
[...]
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And yes they all collect around each other like scared little hens.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am not afraid of your opinions, Heishtrash.
>>>
>>>Yes you are
>>
>>
>> No, I am not.
>
>
>Yes you are,
No, I am not.
[...]
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>The bottom line is these individuals can NOT handle the debate on
>>>>>abortion. They resort to changing the topic, making wild accusations,
>>>>>or like Craig does...makes these HUGE long post that basically say
>>>>>nothing and answer nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>You got Ray and James. Their method is .. call them a liar
>>>>>You got David..making claims and when asked to back them up he pulls a
>>>>>Patrick and says "I all ready done that, look it up"
>>>>>Krisblake4eva, oh boy where do we start with this one. She is a real
>>>>>hoot. She will make up anything and answer nothing. When backed into
>>>>>a corner her way of answering any question is to answer it by changing
>>>>>the topic.
>>>>>Pat, well she has been lost for a long time. She things she is smart
>>>>>by playing on words. I remember her one big claim: A mother is not a
>>>>>mother until after birth and she claimed it was a fact. I said it was
>>>>>a persons opinion. And I proved it by showing the definition, which
>>>>>did say a mother is a mother at the point of conception.
>>>>>James Keeton,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Keegan, you bloody idiot! If you're going to insult somebody, at
>>>>least spell their fucking name correctly!
>>>
>>>
>>>Soon as you learn to get a few things right,
>>
>>
>> Irresponsibility.
>
>
>Funny, you saying that.
That makes absolutely no sense, Bobsucker.
[...]
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>>>>he likes to tell small parts of a story and leave out
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>key elements. In other words he likes to make you think it was
>>>>>something else. For example: He said US soldiers killed a mother in
>>>>>front of her children. He left it at that. Now a person who didn't
>>>>>know better would think that was awful. But many of us that did know
>>>>>better knew what he was doing. He was pulling the same stunt the
>>>>>Iraqi Defense minister pulls by telling lies and trying to decieve
>>>>>you. He left out the key elements. The mother was in a vehicle. That
>>>>>vehicle was charging through a check point. The driver ignored the
>>>>>signs and verbal warnings to stop. The driver ignored the warning
>>>>>shots. This is combat, and in combat the vehicle is to be considered a
>>>>>threat. And those same US soldiers just lost members from a car bomg.
>>>>>You see how the story changes now? From his deceptive version to the
>>>>>truth.
>>>>>Adam is another one that likes to play silly word games.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Have you finished farting, idiot boy?
>>>
>>>
>>>Is that another fetish of yours?
>>
>>
>> I am NOT Bystander, Bobstander.
>
>Neither am I,
You are Heishman AND Bystander all rolled into one, Bobstander.
[...]
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ok the bottom line again is this. None of these people can debate a
>>>>>issue. And when they start to lose they go on the attack. Why?
>>>>>Because their arguments are weak and have a lot of holes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bring out the Lysol - this one's a stinker...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Now I asked a few key questions
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Are you anti-abortion (in other words do you support abortion or
>>>>>not)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This is a relevant question. This is a abortion NG right? So why not
>>>>>find out if the people in here support abortion or not?
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you get? Well you get people like Krisblake who answers it "I
>>>>>am pro-choice".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am Pro-Choice, and that should pretty much tell you where I stand
>>>>with the issue, since the main issue here is about CHOICE, stupid ass.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Again,
>>
>>
>> Again, I snip lies.
>
>Snip your post then,
I am snipping yours, but I have to leave something to laugh by...
[...]
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I want to credit the others in here who have shown the honesty and
>>>>>ability to debate.
>>>>>
>>>>>Brian, Chris, Hylander, Papajack
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am not too sure about Brian, yet - there's still time...
>>>>
>>>>As far as Chris, Hylander, and PapaJack -- those are three insane
>>>>individuals that absolutely possess NO consideration for pregnant
>>>>women.
>>>
>>>
>>>All because you can't defeat them in their arguments
>>
>>
>> I don't care about them; I care about my family and me
>
>
>That is obvious you don't care
Why should I give a fuck about a gaggle of goons that want nothing
more than to watch the demise of pegnant women?
Loser.
osprey
Nope, just another one you are running from and showing you want to hide
something
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>>The fact that you try to hide it is evidence enough.
>>>
>>>
>>>I haven't tried to hide anything.
>>
>>
>>Yea you are,
>
>
> Nah, I am not.
Yes you are
>
> [...]
>
>
>>You don't get it. I know your pro-choice,
>
>
> If you know I am Pro-Choice, why do you insist that I am Pro-Abortion?
You can be both, and since you want to hide your feelings about abortion
I think you are pro-abortion
Hey, you could have been honest about it, but you chose to be dishonest
and hide from the question.
> [...]
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>And yes they all collect around each other like scared little hens.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not afraid of your opinions, Heishtrash.
>>>>
>>>>Yes you are
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I am not.
>>
>>
>>Yes you are,
>
>
> No, I am not.
Yes you are
>
> [...]
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>The bottom line is these individuals can NOT handle the debate on
>>>>>>abortion. They resort to changing the topic, making wild accusations,
>>>>>>or like Craig does...makes these HUGE long post that basically say
>>>>>>nothing and answer nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You got Ray and James. Their method is .. call them a liar
>>>>>>You got David..making claims and when asked to back them up he pulls a
>>>>>>Patrick and says "I all ready done that, look it up"
>>>>>>Krisblake4eva, oh boy where do we start with this one. She is a real
>>>>>>hoot. She will make up anything and answer nothing. When backed into
>>>>>>a corner her way of answering any question is to answer it by changing
>>>>>>the topic.
>>>>>>Pat, well she has been lost for a long time. She things she is smart
>>>>>>by playing on words. I remember her one big claim: A mother is not a
>>>>>>mother until after birth and she claimed it was a fact. I said it was
>>>>>>a persons opinion. And I proved it by showing the definition, which
>>>>>>did say a mother is a mother at the point of conception.
>>>>>>James Keeton,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Keegan, you bloody idiot! If you're going to insult somebody, at
>>>>>least spell their fucking name correctly!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Soon as you learn to get a few things right,
>>>
>>>
>>>Irresponsibility.
>>
>>
>>Funny, you saying that.
>
>
> That makes absolutely no sense, Bobsucker.
To you probably not. You are too dishonest to know what it means.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>he likes to tell small parts of a story and leave out
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>key elements. In other words he likes to make you think it was
>>>>>>something else. For example: He said US soldiers killed a mother in
>>>>>>front of her children. He left it at that. Now a person who didn't
>>>>>>know better would think that was awful. But many of us that did know
>>>>>>better knew what he was doing. He was pulling the same stunt the
>>>>>>Iraqi Defense minister pulls by telling lies and trying to decieve
>>>>>>you. He left out the key elements. The mother was in a vehicle. That
>>>>>>vehicle was charging through a check point. The driver ignored the
>>>>>>signs and verbal warnings to stop. The driver ignored the warning
>>>>>>shots. This is combat, and in combat the vehicle is to be considered a
>>>>>>threat. And those same US soldiers just lost members from a car bomg.
>>>>>>You see how the story changes now? From his deceptive version to the
>>>>>>truth.
>>>>>>Adam is another one that likes to play silly word games.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you finished farting, idiot boy?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is that another fetish of yours?
>>>
>>>
>>>I am NOT Bystander, Bobstander.
>>
>>Neither am I,
>
>
> You are Heishman AND Bystander all rolled into one, Bobstander.
Nope, and that was proven false a long time ago.
I know you are
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
It does, quite frankly.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>>>The fact that you try to hide it is evidence enough.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I haven't tried to hide anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yea you are,
>>
>>
>> Nah, I am not.
>
>Yes you are
No, I am not.
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>You don't get it. I know your pro-choice,
>>
>>
>> If you know I am Pro-Choice, why do you insist that I am Pro-Abortion?
>
>
>You can be both,
What makes you think I am both?
[...]
>Hey, you could have been honest about it,
I am honest when I say that I am Pro-Choice; I support a woman's right
to choose as to the course of her pregnancy.
[...]
>
>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>And yes they all collect around each other like scared little hens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not afraid of your opinions, Heishtrash.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes you are
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, I am not.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes you are,
>>
>>
>> No, I am not.
>
>Yes you are
No, I am not.
It makes no sense, at all. Period.
[...]
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>he likes to tell small parts of a story and leave out
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>key elements. In other words he likes to make you think it was
>>>>>>>something else. For example: He said US soldiers killed a mother in
>>>>>>>front of her children. He left it at that. Now a person who didn't
>>>>>>>know better would think that was awful. But many of us that did know
>>>>>>>better knew what he was doing. He was pulling the same stunt the
>>>>>>>Iraqi Defense minister pulls by telling lies and trying to decieve
>>>>>>>you. He left out the key elements. The mother was in a vehicle. That
>>>>>>>vehicle was charging through a check point. The driver ignored the
>>>>>>>signs and verbal warnings to stop. The driver ignored the warning
>>>>>>>shots. This is combat, and in combat the vehicle is to be considered a
>>>>>>>threat. And those same US soldiers just lost members from a car bomg.
>>>>>>>You see how the story changes now? From his deceptive version to the
>>>>>>>truth.
>>>>>>>Adam is another one that likes to play silly word games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have you finished farting, idiot boy?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that another fetish of yours?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am NOT Bystander, Bobstander.
>>>
>>>Neither am I,
>>
>>
>> You are Heishman AND Bystander all rolled into one, Bobstander.
>
>Nope,
Yep.
[...]
You don't know anything - only than your fetish for dressing in
women's clothing.
osprey
Think what you want. I don't care.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>
>
>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 15:38:19 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>> wrote:
[...]
>> You don't know anything - only than your fetish for dressing in
>> women's clothing.
>
>
>Think what you want. I don't care.
Hey, there are two posts out there, coincidentally written by one
Robert heishman from Delaware.
osprey
So?
As I said it wasn't me. I am not into that sick crap, sorry to
dissappoint you. But I told you that a long time ago when you kept
emailing me asking me about it and expressing your own personal
fetishes. Which I asked you to stop emailing me also about it. And
your STILL emailing me.
Krisblake4eva
>Krisblake4eva <Krisbl...@cs.com> wrote in message news:<0rv69vkefchmaeom1...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:42:22 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Krisblake4eva wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 15:38:19 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> You don't know anything - only than your fetish for dressing in
>> >> women's clothing.
>> >
>> >
>> >Think what you want. I don't care.
>>
>> Hey, there are two posts out there, coincidentally written by one
>> Robert heishman from Delaware.
>
>So?
>
>As I said it wasn't me.
Hmmm...Shaggy made a song for irresponsible fuggers like you.
>I am not into that sick crap,
Not when you're osprey - but RHEISH is one wild side of you!
sorry to
>dissappoint you. But I told you that a long time ago when you kept
>emailing me asking me about it and expressing your own personal
>fetishes.
And I asking you to produce the e-mails in which I have expressed such
cross-dressing fanatsies. The problem is, NONE EXIST.
To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
Rheish?).
osprey
They exist and will be proven as soon as you prove that it was me that
made that post and not a imposter. I know it wasn't me. So you prove
that it was actually me and prove it wasn't someone else using my name
or someone else with the same name.
>
> To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
> interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
> Rheish?).
The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not
interested in your fetishes. Yes there is something wrong with it. You
need help.
Patrick Humphrey
>> [...]
>So?
She's e-mailing you aout as much as I am, Heishman. Is there anything you
DON'T lie about? (Google is NOT your friend, in this case.)
"I have not made any logical error except point out that people like you
have something to hide when it comes to being honest about your stand on
abortion." -- Robert Heishman, 2003 April 9th
No matter how many times you repeat your "excuses"
Follow your own worthless advice, cross-dresser.
--PLH, Heishman's almost as credible as the Iraqi Information Minister
Patrick Humphrey
>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>[...]
What a surprise -- you refuse to produce the proof of your assertion. Given
your past record, that indicates a very strong possibility that you're lying,
as usual.
>> To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>> interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>> Rheish?).
>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not interested
>in your fetishes. Yes there is something wrong with it. You need help.
You don't get to help her if she doesn't want it -- and she doesn't need the
help of a fraud named Robert Heishman, for sure. Where's your proof, failed
transvestite?
--PLH, "Heishman? No fashion sense at all!" -- Gianni Versace
osprey
Sorry but you have no room to talk. Given your past record. Be gone
hypocrite.
Let us remind the readers of Patrick running from providing evidence to
a claim he made:
===============================================================================
osprey <noneed...@mail.com> writes:
>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>> osprey <noneed...@mail.com> writes:
[...]
>>>Patrick
>>>Are you anti-abortion?
>>>Do you favor abortion?
>>>Do you feel a person must support abortion to be pro-choice?
>> I already answered your questions, Booby...and you, of course,
pretended you
>> never saw them.
>Provide the source that proves it then
Google for yourself. Check the abortion newsgroups for the last week or so.
>> Doesn't it just suck for you that reality isn't as binary as you
want it to
>> be?
>We will see if you can back up what you said and provide the entire
post in
>which you claimed to have answered the questions. For now, until I
see you
>prove you answered them, we will leave it at you refusing to answer.
You're just a whiny goldbricker who doesn't want inconvenient answers to his
dishonest questions.
--PLH, not at all surprised by Heishman's usual tactics
=========================================================================================
osprey
> --PLH, Heishman's almost as credible as the Iraqi Information Minister (the man Patrick believes)
>
>
Be gone hypocrite!!
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>
>
>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>> noneed...@mail.com (osprey) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Krisblake4eva <Krisbl...@cs.com> wrote in message news:<0rv69vkefchmaeom1...@4ax.com>...
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:42:22 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 15:38:19 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>>>[...]
>>>
>>
>>>>>>You don't know anything - only than your fetish for dressing in
>>>>>>women's clothing.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>Think what you want. I don't care.
>>>>
>>
>>>>Hey, there are two posts out there, coincidentally written by one
>>>>Robert heishman from Delaware.
>>>
>>
>>>So?
>>
>>
>>>As I said it wasn't me. I am not into that sick crap, sorry to
>>>dissappoint you. But I told you that a long time ago when you kept
>>>emailing me asking me about it and expressing your own personal
>>>fetishes. Which I asked you to stop emailing me also about it. And
>>>your STILL emailing me.
>>
>>
>> She's e-mailing you aout as much as I am, Heishman. Is there anything you
>> DON'T lie about? (Google is NOT your friend, in this case.)
To be honest, since Robert mention in a psot I read Saturday about the
legitmacy of his e-mail address, I took the bait and e-mailed him. Of
course, this was AFTER he claimed I was e-mailing him about these
supposed fetishes I had. He's projecting in an attempt to hide the
truth about his being - that he's truly a fanatic about women's
clothing.
[...]
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>
>
>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>> noneed...@mail.com (osprey) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Krisblake4eva <Krisbl...@cs.com> wrote in message news:<0rv69vkefchmaeom1...@4ax.com>...
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:42:22 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 15:38:19 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>>>[...]
>>>
>>
>>>>>>You don't know anything - only than your fetish for dressing in
>>>>>>women's clothing.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>Think what you want. I don't care.
>>>>
>>
>>>>Hey, there are two posts out there, coincidentally written by one
>>>>Robert heishman from Delaware.
>>>
>>
>>>So?
>>
>>
>>>As I said it wasn't me. I am not into that sick crap, sorry to
>>>dissappoint you. But I told you that a long time ago when you kept
>>>emailing me asking me about it and expressing your own personal
>>>fetishes. Which I asked you to stop emailing me also about it. And
>>>your STILL emailing me.
>>
>>
>> She's e-mailing you aout as much as I am, Heishman. Is there anything you
>> DON'T lie about? (Google is NOT your friend, in this case.)
Oh, and the three e-mails (one to see if he'd respond) and the others
(which were only in response to his responses). I did make a point of
addressing him on his irresponsibility, and the possible consequencs
of such, etc.
I have the e-mails readily available for your review, if you wish to
see them.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
The aforementioned e-mails DO NOT exist. He accused me of writing
e-mails asserting to him my *supposed* fetishes. Simply, I have not
done as such, NOR do I possess fetishes (other than my fetish for my
husband's sweet demeanor.)
>
>>> To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>>> interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>>> Rheish?).
>
>>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not interested
>>in your fetishes. Yes there is something wrong with it. You need help.
>
>You don't get to help her if she doesn't want it -- and she doesn't need the
>help of a fraud named Robert Heishman, for sure. Where's your proof, failed
>transvestite?
There isn't any.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
They do not.
[...]
>>
>> To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>> interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>> Rheish?).
>
>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not
>interested in your fetishes.
Prove that you did - Supply the e-mails that indicate you said this to
me - and supply the e-mails where I have expressed such fetishes.
Problem is, such e-mails do not exist.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
What a desprate lunatic. Your reading comprehension is the pits and
you expect everybody to do your bloody work for you?
No wonder you're ripping off the state of Delaware!
osprey
He produced nothing. Anyone can say do a google search. That produces
nothing, and when a google search was done, his so called claim was not
supported.
osprey
You have
Simply, I have not
> done as such, NOR do I possess fetishes (other than my fetish for my
> husband's sweet demeanor.)
You mean your fetishes of your husband in your clothes, but that is a
fantasy because you told me he wouldn't do that which is why you are
seeking others to do that with you.
>
>
>
>>>>To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>>>>interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>>>>Rheish?).
>>>
>>>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not interested
>>>in your fetishes. Yes there is something wrong with it. You need help.
>>
>>You don't get to help her if she doesn't want it -- and she doesn't need the
>>help of a fraud named Robert Heishman, for sure. Where's your proof, failed
>>transvestite?
>
>
> There isn't any.
Where is your proof that the post made about me isn't a imposter?
Hint: You can't prove it, in fact it may have even been you for all we
know for what ever sick reason.
osprey
They do
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>>>interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>>>Rheish?).
>>
>>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not
>>interested in your fetishes.
>
>
> Prove that you did - Supply the e-mails that indicate you said this to
> me - and supply the e-mails where I have expressed such fetishes.
> Problem is, such e-mails do not exist.
Prove the post isn't someone that is a imposter first.
You are the one that brought up the whole issue to start with, I didn't
drag your silly fetishes into this until you continued going on and on
and on, and I asked you to stop or else I would tell about your
fetishes. But you didn't listen, you continued going on and on and on.
All because you couldn't win on the issues.
>
osprey
Just because I have talked about your sick fetishes and just because you
can't win on the issues, is no reason for you to lie..:o)
Prove that post isn't a imposter
I never made any such sick post as the one you are refering too.
I don't know if you made that post up or not either.
>
>
>
> [...]
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
Very little effort is required to see the lying asshole you are.
That produces
>nothing, and when a google search was done, his so called claim was not
>supported.
As I have said before, your reading comprehension is shit.
osprey
Tell you what then, you provide the proof of his claim then. If you want
to say I am lying about it, then prove I am lying.
>
> That produces
>
>>nothing, and when a google search was done, his so called claim was not
>>supported.
>
>
> As I have said before, your reading comprehension is shit.
Prove his claim then.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
By all means, produce the e-mail. I am sure you and your fellow thugs
can come up with some phoney e-mails.
>
> Simply, I have not
>> done as such, NOR do I possess fetishes (other than my fetish for my
>> husband's sweet demeanor.)
>
>You mean your fetishes of your husband in your clothes,
Excuse me?
but that is a
>fantasy because you told me he wouldn't do that which is why you are
>seeking others to do that with you.
It must feel good for you to lie about people as much as you have
without having to take any responsibility? Remember when you told me
in your e-mail that you;re a well respect corrections officer and a
great father??? Yes, your patent dishonest and patent disrespect for
others really reflects as such.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>>>>>interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>>>>>Rheish?).
>>>>
>>>>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not interested
>>>>in your fetishes. Yes there is something wrong with it. You need help.
>>>
>>>You don't get to help her if she doesn't want it -- and she doesn't need the
>>>help of a fraud named Robert Heishman, for sure. Where's your proof, failed
>>>transvestite?
>>
>>
>> There isn't any.
>
>Where is your proof that the post made about me isn't a imposter?
You're the one that claims it was an imposter; it's up to you to
suffiently prove it.
By the way, how do you know it's an imposter that wrote the posts..?
I also recollect you mentioning that it was a mere coincidence. Why
can't you keep your fucking lies straight?
>
>Hint: You can't prove it,
It isn't my job to prove that it was an imposter who wrote those
posts.
in fact it may have even been you for all we
>know for what ever sick reason.
I never lived in Delaware...or in Maryland.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>Just because I have talked about your sick fetishes...
You've certainly accused me of having sick fetishes I just don't have.
>
>Prove that post isn't a imposter
Prove that it is, since it is you that claimed it was coincidentally
another Robert Heishman and an imposter who wrote those posts.
[...]
>
>I never made any such sick post as the one you are refering too.
YOu never tell the truth, either. So why must anyone believe a
solitary word you write, Rheish?
[...]
osprey
As soon as you prove that the post you are refering too isn't an imposter.
>
>
>> Simply, I have not
>>
>>>done as such, NOR do I possess fetishes (other than my fetish for my
>>>husband's sweet demeanor.)
>>
>>You mean your fetishes of your husband in your clothes,
>
>
> Excuse me?
No, I will not excuse you.
>
>
> but that is a
>
>>fantasy because you told me he wouldn't do that which is why you are
>>seeking others to do that with you.
>
>
> It must feel good for you to lie about people as much as you have
> without having to take any responsibility?
Sorry, but the only one that is lying here is you. I told you that the
post was not me, that I am not into that, but yet instead of debating
the issues in here that are about abortion, you keep bringing it up over
and over and over.
Remember when you told me
> in your e-mail that you;re a well respect corrections officer and a
> great father???
And that is very true.
Yes, your patent dishonest and patent disrespect for
> others really reflects as such.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but you are the one with the sick problems here
and I told you before, you really need help.
I would rather discuss the issues like abortion instead of your sick
fetishes. Go to another NG and discuss it I am sure there are probably
plenty of perverts out there for you.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>>>>>>interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>>>>>>Rheish?).
>>>>>
>>>>>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not interested
>>>>>in your fetishes. Yes there is something wrong with it. You need help.
>>>>
>>>>You don't get to help her if she doesn't want it -- and she doesn't need the
>>>>help of a fraud named Robert Heishman, for sure. Where's your proof, failed
>>>>transvestite?
>>>
>>>
>>>There isn't any.
>>
>>Where is your proof that the post made about me isn't a imposter?
>
>
> You're the one that claims it was an imposter; it's up to you to
> suffiently prove it.
No, you are the one that keeps refering to it and insisting it is me.
Now prove the post isn't an imposter.
You can't
And you know just how dishonest you are? You can't even admit you can't.
>
> By the way, how do you know it's an imposter that wrote the posts..?
It has to be because I never made any such post.
> I also recollect you mentioning that it was a mere coincidence. Why
> can't you keep your fucking lies straight?
>
>
>>Hint: You can't prove it,
>
>
> It isn't my job to prove that it was an imposter who wrote those
> posts.
Yes it is, you are the one who keeps dragging that in here all the time
when you can't win on the issues. So go for it, prove that the post
were made by me. I never ever made any such post. I am not into that
sick crap, and I told you that before.
>
> in fact it may have even been you for all we
>
>>know for what ever sick reason.
>
>
> I never lived in Delaware...or in Maryland.
That doesn't mean you couldn't have connected with that ISP in Delaware
or Maryland, or where ever it is located. Heck, with your dishonesty
you probably did do it just to set it up. I don't know, don't care.
As I said, I would rather stick to the issues. you are the one that
keeps bringing that up and you kept it up until you gave me no other
choice but to talk about your emails to me and how you were into that.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
It's up to you to comprehend what you read; not us!
[...]
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
They don't, and you know it.
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>>To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>>>>interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>>>>Rheish?).
>>>
>>>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not
>>>interested in your fetishes.
>>
>>
>> Prove that you did - Supply the e-mails that indicate you said this to
>> me - and supply the e-mails where I have expressed such fetishes.
>> Problem is, such e-mails do not exist.
>
>Prove the post isn't someone that is a imposter first.
You're claiming that it was an imposter, as well as another Robert
heishman, that wrote the posts.
It's up to you to prove both of those claims.
>
>You are the one that brought up the whole issue to start with,
No, actually Karen was the poster that dug up those little beauties -
not me!
I didn't
>drag your silly fetishes into this
No, because none exist.
[...]
osprey
You know what you have written, and you know you need help.
>
>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>>>>>interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>>>>>Rheish?).
>>>>
>>>>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not
>>>>interested in your fetishes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Prove that you did - Supply the e-mails that indicate you said this to
>>>me - and supply the e-mails where I have expressed such fetishes.
>>>Problem is, such e-mails do not exist.
>>
>>Prove the post isn't someone that is a imposter first.
>
>
> You're claiming that it was an imposter, as well as another Robert
> heishman, that wrote the posts.
>
> It's up to you to prove both of those claims.
You are claiming you didn't write the emails
It's up to you to prove you didn't.
You said I am a crossdresser it is up to you to prove it, and prove that
the post is from me and not someone else.
>
>
>>You are the one that brought up the whole issue to start with,
>
>
> No, actually Karen was the poster that dug up those little beauties -
> not me!
I don't care who dug them up. Either her, you or who ever is playing a
sick little game.
>
> I didn't
You keep bringing it up over and over and over. Because you can't win
on the issues.
>
>>drag your silly fetishes into this
>
>
> No, because none exist.
Too bad your ashamed. But then again, after the nasty little sick
things you have said, you should be ashamed.
>
> [...]
>
osprey
As I said, you are ashamed, and you should be. You really have some
serious sick issues.
>
>
>>Prove that post isn't a imposter
>
>
> Prove that it is, since it is you that claimed it was coincidentally
> another Robert Heishman and an imposter who wrote those posts.
You can't prove it and your so dishonest you can't admit it. So you are
trying to turn the tables..not going to work...:o)
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>I never made any such sick post as the one you are refering too.
>
>
> YOu never tell the truth, either. So why must anyone believe a
> solitary word you write, Rheish?
Hey, after some of the sick things you have said, I doubt you are even
married at all. No real man would have a sick woman like you. That is
if you really are a woman.
osprey
No, up to you to prove that post is from me since you are the one that
keeps refering to it.
Hey, you could just end this whole thing and just be honest and admit
you don't know and can't prove it.
That would be a huge leap for you of course.
>
> [...]
>
>
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
I thought you wanted me to prove that the *poster* is an imposter.
>
>>
>>
>>> Simply, I have not
>>>
>>>>done as such, NOR do I possess fetishes (other than my fetish for my
>>>>husband's sweet demeanor.)
>>>
>>>You mean your fetishes of your husband in your clothes,
>>
>>
>> Excuse me?
>
>No, I will not excuse you.
I was not asking for your permission when I wrote "excuse me?"
>
>>
>>
>> but that is a
>>
>>>fantasy because you told me he wouldn't do that which is why you are
>>>seeking others to do that with you.
>>
>>
>> It must feel good for you to lie about people as much as you have
>> without having to take any responsibility?
>
>Sorry, but the only one that is lying here is you. I told you that the
>post was not me,
I didn't think you were an inanimate object.
[...]
>
>
> Remember when you told me
>> in your e-mail that you;re a well respect corrections officer and a
>> great father???
>
>And that is very true.
Read my statement directly below:
>
>
> Yes, your patent dishonest and patent disrespect for
>> others really reflects as such.
>
>
>Sorry to dissapoint you, but you are the one with the sick problems here
>and I told you before, you really need help.
You claim that I have (non-existing) problems.
>
>I would rather discuss the issues like abortion...
Or about your cross-dressing fetish.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>>>>>>>interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>>>>>>>Rheish?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not interested
>>>>>>in your fetishes. Yes there is something wrong with it. You need help.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't get to help her if she doesn't want it -- and she doesn't need the
>>>>>help of a fraud named Robert Heishman, for sure. Where's your proof, failed
>>>>>transvestite?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There isn't any.
>>>
>>>Where is your proof that the post made about me isn't a imposter?
>>
>>
>> You're the one that claims it was an imposter; it's up to you to
>> suffiently prove it.
>
>No, you are the one that keeps refering to it and insisting it is me.
You have not sufficently proved otherwise.
[...]
>> By the way, how do you know it's an imposter that wrote the posts..?
>
>It has to be because I never made any such post.
But you also mentioned it was coincidentally another poster who wrote
the post, as I have stated below:
>
>> I also recollect you mentioning that it was a mere coincidence. Why
>> can't you keep your fucking lies straight?
>>
>>
>>>Hint: You can't prove it,
>>
>>
>> It isn't my job to prove that it was an imposter who wrote those
>> posts.
>
>Yes it is, you are the one who keeps dragging that in here
It's already in here, thanks to Karen.
[...]
>
>>
>> in fact it may have even been you for all we
>>
>>>know for what ever sick reason.
>>
>>
>> I never lived in Delaware...or in Maryland.
>
>That doesn't mean you couldn't have connected with that ISP in Delaware
>or Maryland,
Is it a regional or nation wide service? I thought it was primarily
designated for Delaware and Marylamnd. Tell me more since you seem to
have so much knowledge about DelMarva...
>As I said, I would rather stick to the issues.
No, you lie about people's positions. That isn't sticking ot the
issue of CHOICE.
[...]
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
Sorry, but you're not making sense.
[...]
>>
>>
>>>Prove that post isn't a imposter
>>
>>
>> Prove that it is, since it is you that claimed it was coincidentally
>> another Robert Heishman and an imposter who wrote those posts.
>
>You can't prove it...
You can't prove that it wasn't YOU that wrote the posts.
>
>
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>I never made any such sick post as the one you are refering too.
>>
>>
>> YOu never tell the truth, either. So why must anyone believe a
>> solitary word you write, Rheish?
>
>Hey, after some of the sick things you have said,
What sick things have I (supposedly) said? proof, too, please.
>
Krisblake4eva
osprey
Yes you were and I will not give you any excuses.
>
>
>>>
>>> but that is a
>>>
>>>
>>>>fantasy because you told me he wouldn't do that which is why you are
>>>>seeking others to do that with you.
>>>
>>>
>>>It must feel good for you to lie about people as much as you have
>>>without having to take any responsibility?
>>
>>Sorry, but the only one that is lying here is you. I told you that the
>>post was not me,
>
>
> I didn't think you were an inanimate object.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>
>> Remember when you told me
>>
>>>in your e-mail that you;re a well respect corrections officer and a
>>>great father???
>>
>>And that is very true.
>
>
> Read my statement directly below:
>
>
>>
>> Yes, your patent dishonest and patent disrespect for
>>
>>>others really reflects as such.
>>
>>
>>Sorry to dissapoint you, but you are the one with the sick problems here
>>and I told you before, you really need help.
>
>
> You claim that I have (non-existing) problems.
As I said, you are ashamed and you really should be.
>
>
>>I would rather discuss the issues like abortion...
>
>
> Or about your cross-dressing fetish.
You mean the fetish you have with men and you can't find any to play
your game. Go to New York or something, maybe San Fransico, you are
bound to find many there.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>>>>>>>>interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>>>>>>>>Rheish?).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not interested
>>>>>>>in your fetishes. Yes there is something wrong with it. You need help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't get to help her if she doesn't want it -- and she doesn't need the
>>>>>>help of a fraud named Robert Heishman, for sure. Where's your proof, failed
>>>>>>transvestite?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There isn't any.
>>>>
>>>>Where is your proof that the post made about me isn't a imposter?
>>>
>>>
>>>You're the one that claims it was an imposter; it's up to you to
>>>suffiently prove it.
>>
>>No, you are the one that keeps refering to it and insisting it is me.
>
>
> You have not sufficently proved otherwise.
I don't have too, you keep bringing it up, you prove it. The real
problem is you can't win at the issues.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>>>By the way, how do you know it's an imposter that wrote the posts..?
>>
>>It has to be because I never made any such post.
>
>
> But you also mentioned it was coincidentally another poster who wrote
> the post, as I have stated below:
I said it could have been, it could have been you for all I know.
>
>
>>>I also recollect you mentioning that it was a mere coincidence. Why
>>>can't you keep your fucking lies straight?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hint: You can't prove it,
>>>
>>>
>>>It isn't my job to prove that it was an imposter who wrote those
>>>posts.
>>
>>Yes it is, you are the one who keeps dragging that in here
>
>
> It's already in here, thanks to Karen.
And Karen was challenged to prove it too, and Karen couldn't, and
eventually she dropped it because it isn't me.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>>>in fact it may have even been you for all we
>>>
>>>
>>>>know for what ever sick reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>I never lived in Delaware...or in Maryland.
>>
>>That doesn't mean you couldn't have connected with that ISP in Delaware
>>or Maryland,
>
>
> Is it a regional or nation wide service?
I don't know.
I thought it was primarily
> designated for Delaware and Marylamnd. Tell me more since you seem to
> have so much knowledge about DelMarva...
Why don't you tell me.
>
>
>>As I said, I would rather stick to the issues.
>
>
> No, you lie about people's positions. That isn't sticking ot the
> issue of CHOICE.
I have not lied about anyone's position.
You hide yours, because you are too cowardly to come out and admit what
you support and believe. You have to hide behind terms like
"pro-choice" instead.
>
> [...]
>
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
Yes, but I did not write what you're claiming I wrote.
Simply, the e-mails you said I wrote do not exist - I never wrote any
such e-mails, that's why!
>>
>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>>>>>>interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>>>>>>Rheish?).
>>>>>
>>>>>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not
>>>>>interested in your fetishes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Prove that you did - Supply the e-mails that indicate you said this to
>>>>me - and supply the e-mails where I have expressed such fetishes.
>>>>Problem is, such e-mails do not exist.
>>>
>>>Prove the post isn't someone that is a imposter first.
>>
>>
>> You're claiming that it was an imposter, as well as another Robert
>> heishman, that wrote the posts.
>>
>> It's up to you to prove both of those claims.
>
>You are claiming you didn't write the emails
You are claiming that I did. So, by all means, produce the e-mails I
have *supposedly* written. YOU CAN'T, however, because they do not
exist.
[...]
>
>You said I am a crossdresser it is up to you to prove it, and prove that
>the post is from me and not someone else.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>You are the one that brought up the whole issue to start with,
>>
>>
>> No, actually Karen was the poster that dug up those little beauties -
>> not me!
>
>I don't care who dug them up.
You just said I was the one who brought up the whole issue to start
with, I didn't! It's obvious you don't regard the truth, Robert.
[...]
>>>drag your silly fetishes into this
>>
>>
>> No, because none exist.
>
>Too bad your ashamed.
Too bad you're ashamed of having a penis that does not exist.
osprey
osprey
Your ashamed of your sickness and your fetishes. It probably cost you
your marraige. I hope you don't have kids, it could cost you custody as
well if it really got out about your sickness.
> [...]
>
>
>>>
>>>>Prove that post isn't a imposter
>>>
>>>
>>>Prove that it is, since it is you that claimed it was coincidentally
>>>another Robert Heishman and an imposter who wrote those posts.
>>
>>You can't prove it...
>
>
> You can't prove that it wasn't YOU that wrote the posts.
You keep bringing it up, you keep refering to it as if I actually posted
it, you can't prove it, you are trying to turn it around now because you
know that you can't prove it.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I never made any such sick post as the one you are refering too.
>>>
>>>
>>>YOu never tell the truth, either. So why must anyone believe a
>>>solitary word you write, Rheish?
>>
>>Hey, after some of the sick things you have said,
>
>
> What sick things have I (supposedly) said? proof, too, please.
Sorry but I don't discuss the sick things you do.
>
>
osprey
> Yes, it is true. I have a sickness and need help.
I know, please get it soon!!!
>
> [...]
>
>
osprey
You supply the proof that the post was made by me and not someone else,
and I will provide you the emails.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>To note: The one thing I did mention about cross-dressing was your
>>>>>>>interest in it (not that there's anything wrong with it, correct
>>>>>>>Rheish?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The one thing that I did mention to you several times is I am not
>>>>>>interested in your fetishes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Prove that you did - Supply the e-mails that indicate you said this to
>>>>>me - and supply the e-mails where I have expressed such fetishes.
>>>>>Problem is, such e-mails do not exist.
>>>>
>>>>Prove the post isn't someone that is a imposter first.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're claiming that it was an imposter, as well as another Robert
>>>heishman, that wrote the posts.
>>>
>>>It's up to you to prove both of those claims.
>>
>>You are claiming you didn't write the emails
>
>
> You are claiming that I did.
Your claiming you didn't, so prove you didn't
So, by all means, produce the e-mails I
> have *supposedly* written. YOU CAN'T, however, because they do not
> exist.
Just as a post written by me on your sick fetish does not exist!!!
>
> [...]
>
>
>>You said I am a crossdresser it is up to you to prove it, and prove that
>>the post is from me and not someone else.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>You are the one that brought up the whole issue to start with,
>>>
>>>
>>>No, actually Karen was the poster that dug up those little beauties -
>>>not me!
>>
>>I don't care who dug them up.
>
>
> You just said I was the one who brought up the whole issue to start
> with, I didn't! It's obvious you don't regard the truth, Robert.
You did, in these recent threads yes. That was dropped a very long time
ago when Karen realized she had nothing to go on other than someone
playing a sick joke. You obviously have some obsession with it, and you
hung on to it. Reasons are obvious because you are the one that has the
sick fetishes.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>>>>drag your silly fetishes into this
>>>
>>>
>>>No, because none exist.
>>
>>Too bad your ashamed.
>
>
> Too bad you're ashamed of having a penis that does not exist.
See, there you go...your fetish. You fantasize about men not having
their male parts.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
You're pathetically dishonest liar and forger. You need professional
help.
[...]
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
What Robert re-created:
>> Yes, it is true. I have a sickness and need help.
Yes, Robert, we know you're sick and in dire need of a prison
sentance.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>You supply the proof,
To a lying, forgiing mother fucker?
[...]
osprey
You are the one that started bringing this crap back up, I kept ignoring
it for a while, but you kept going on and on and on and on. It is
obvious you are obsessed with this, and your just not going to let it go.
If anyone needs help it is you. I have tried very hard to keep on just
the issues with you, but you want to get away from the issues, because
you know your arguments are weak, and go to other things that have
absolutely nothing to do with the issues in abortion.
>
> [...]
osprey
sentance?
osprey
forgiing?
That is twice you spelled words wrong
the other one was sentance
it is sentence
you are getting too upset. Which I can understand why.
You are caught up in your own lies and fantasy.
>
> [...]
>
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
Yes, forging. You also re-altered my e-mail to make it appear as if I
have written it, when I did not.
osprey
Please Krissy, your getting desperate again. You having those hot
flashes again?
Why don't you just learn when you are defeated ok?
You can't prove that post was made by me, I told you it wasn't made by
me, you keep dragging it on.
Just drop it, agree to never bring it up again, and I never bring up
what I said you emailed me again.
If you can't address the issues, don't reply.
I gave you plenty of chances to address the issues, from now on with
pro-aborts like yourself I will never give more than one chance again
with the questions. I will just record them as you pretend to answer
them with your smoke screens.
I asked you if you support abortion, you couldn't answer that.
I do support a woman's right to choice
I do oppose abortion
You:
You support a woman's right to choice
You refuse to answer your stand on abortion
because you want to hide your feelings on it.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>Please [Krisblake4eva],
You're a patent forgerer of both e-mails and posts. You have done
BOTH in an attempt to keep me quiet. I am very glad that you publicly
forged my posts, because that way, people will really see what a
pathetic, forging asswipe that you are. Congrats on being the world's
biggest asshole.
osprey
As far as emails, I asked you to stop sending them. I am not interested
in your crap and your sick thoughts.
As far as forging on here, you have no room to talk. You get back what
you dish. You have been cutting and snipping my post, making them
appear to be different. Don't cry when it happens back to you.
You have done
> BOTH in an attempt to keep me quiet.
I don't care if your quiet or not.
I am going to stick to the issues, which is what you don't want to stick
too. Your interested in men with out their male organs an crossdressing
instead. Take it to another room or something.
I am very glad that you publicly
> forged my posts,
Yes I did, on purpose. Just as you snipped and changed mine.
because that way, people will really see what a
> pathetic, forging asswipe that you are.
Just like they seen what you are. You do it, Craig does it, and that is ok?
Not hardly. But since you seem to think it is ok, how does it feel to
have it done back.
Congrats on being the world's
> biggest asshole.
Sorry, 2nd biggest.
I haven't beaten you yet.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
You've snipped and added YOUR OWN TEXT to make it appear I wrote what
you wrote. I did NOT do that to you, nor will I.
[...]
>I am going to stick to the issues,
Is that why you forged my e-mail and sent it back to me with a
response at the bottom of the e-mail to what YOU'VE deliberately
forged? What an idiot!
[...]
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
You?
http://www.firststateforce.org/heishman.htm
Or is this the man whose identity you have robbed?
osprey
Please, you really need to stop being in such denial.
Don't whine and cry, when you are very mean, ignorant, say nasty things
to people in here, cut up post, snip them....you are one of the worst in
here. Don't expect people to feel sorry for you when you have a few
things done back at you.
You certainly deserve it.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>I am going to stick to the issues,
>
>
> Is that why you forged my e-mail
I told you, I don't see any forged e-mails in here sorry.
osprey
Hey, just noticing that you get very upset when you can't win a argument
or have control, you start making mistakes.
>
>
> http://www.firststateforce.org/heishman.htm
>
> Or is this the man whose identity you have robbed?
Hey, what do you know. You found some proof of my being in corrections.
We play in DC in May, Steve Tyler may be playing with us again
hopefully. If you can, come listen to us. You would really like the show.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
[...]
>> http://www.firststateforce.org/heishman.htm
>>
>> Or is this the man whose identity you have robbed?
>
>Hey, what do you know. You found some proof of my being in corrections.
That's if it is you behind the name. :-)
june gill
news:8912d58d.03040...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Hi Robert. Nice to know you missed me. :) I did take a few weeks off from
posting: I seem to need a breather now and again when things get a little
stale.
> Pat, well she has been lost for a long time. She things she is smart
> by playing on words. I remember her one big claim: A mother is not a
> mother until after birth and she claimed it was a fact. I said it was
> a persons opinion. And I proved it by showing the definition, which
> did say a mother is a mother at the point of conception.
Actually I posted to you on this topic and you didn't reply, and that's what
made me take a few weeks off, because I thought you weren't talking to me
anymore, so I curled up in a corner with my security blanket. ;) Obviously
you didn't see my post, but I asked you whether you'd refer to a childless
woman who'd had a miscarriage, or several, as a mother.
[snip]
> Now I asked a few key questions
>
> 1. Are you anti-abortion (in other words do you support abortion or
> not)
>
> This is a relevant question. This is a abortion NG right? So why not
> find out if the people in here support abortion or not?
>
> What do you get? Well you get people like Krisblake who answers it "I
> am pro-choice".
>
> That wasn't the question. So you see, she is trying to change the
> topic. Yes, she is hiding her opinion.
I think the problem is, Robert, that you're wording the question in a way
that makes it a false dichotomy. You don't have to be pro- or
anti-anything - you can be neutral, or you can be one or the other
conditionally. I realise that you want a straight 'yes' or 'no' answer, so
I'll say upfront that I'm not anti-abortion and I'm even pro-abortion in
certain cases, ie when the woman doesn't want to have a child. Having said
that, I would never advocate abortion to anyone, and I would fight against
anyone trying to force a woman to abort just as much as I fight those who
try to force her to carry to term. If you want to call me a 'pro-abort'
because of this, I don't mind, because I know it's not a course of action I
would ever want to happen, and if some people don't understand this, then
it's their problem and I'm at peace with myself on the issue (no pun
intended).
> You got James who refused to answer it. Again, hiding his opinion.
> And then resorting to calling me a liar and anyone else who saw
> through his BS.
>
> Paul Anderson was the only one that hit on exactly what I was looking
> for. He answered Brian by telling Brian you can't be anti-abortion
> and pro-choice. This is what they are hiding folks. They don't want
> to come out and say that they feel you must support abortion to be
> pro-choice.
>
> Then you got Craig who said most of the people who he thinks is
> pro-choice are not anti-abortion. Again, there you have it. The
> opposite of anti-abortion is and can only be...pro-abortion. There is
> no middle ground.
That's where I have to disagree with you - there is a middle ground. For
instance, some people favour a vegetarian diet, others don't, but that
doesn't mean that any of the latter are anti-vegetarian diets, does it? It
seems to me that there's a whole spectrum in the abortion debate between
pro-abortion, where the extremists think that every pregnancy should be
aborted (is anyone such an extremist?), through those who think that
abortion-on-demand should be available for the entire 9 months (not too many
of those either); those who think abortion-on-demand should only be
available for the first and second trimester (and the third if the woman's
health is threatened); first trimester only; those who think that abortion
should only be available if the woman's health or life is endangered plus
rape and incest cases, right up to the extremists who think that abortion
should never be allowed even if the pregnancy kills the woman (surprisingly
large numbers at that extreme). That's the problem with your question:
people's perceptions of it make them feel that if they aren't at one
extreme - totally anti-abortion, as above - then you'll categorise them as
being at the other extreme, which advocates the abortion of all foetuses ...
and nobody likes to be told that they hold a view to which they don't
subscribe, do they?
[snip]
> Do you have to support abortion to be pro-choice?
Conditionally, as set out above, yes.
> They can't win this.
What are we trying to win, Robert? A battle of terminology? I really don't
think it's worth fighting about - you know what they say about roses by any
other name.
[snip]
> Now, who wants to debate the issue of abortion?
Since we've debated quite a few times, you probably want someone else, eh?
> I want to credit the others in here who have shown the honesty and
> ability to debate.
>
> Brian, Chris, Hylander, Papajack
>
> And yes there are some pro-choicers in here who are very honest and
> able to debate with class
>
> Beth, I have not seen her in a long time
>
> June, I have not seen her either
Reporting for duty. :)
> And even Ron Nicolson at times, can debate in a classy style.
--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk
osprey
Yes it is me. Go on, do your thing you are very well known for. Attack
that too..:o)
Thats all you got to do in life I guess, and that is your level.
I am very proud of the band I play in and the things we do and places we
go. And what we do for the kids is great and we all love doing it.
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
It's not a matter of denial - I KNOW I didn't add my own text in your
text to make it appear as though you said it.
>
>Don't whine and cry, when you are very mean, ignorant, say nasty things
>to people in here, cut up post, snip them....
I am simply pointing out your ignorance, hatefulness, and dishonesty.
you are one of the worst in
>here.
Oh, goodie, I don't impress Robert heishman! Excellent!
The list thing I want from you is your admiration. It isn't worth the
paper it's written on.
Don't expect people to feel sorry for you when you have a few
>things done back at you.
Stop projecting.
>
>You certainly deserve it.
You don't deserve one ounce of respect from any human being.
>
>
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>I am going to stick to the issues,
>>
>>
>> Is that why you forged my e-mail
[...]
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
Then you should be VERY ashamed of yourself.
[...]
osprey
june gill wrote:
> "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:8912d58d.03040...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
>
> Hi Robert. Nice to know you missed me. :) I did take a few weeks off from
> posting: I seem to need a breather now and again when things get a little
> stale.
Yea I did June, I enjoy my conversations with you. Yea I will be having
to take a little time off soon myself. We are gearing up for some
shows, spring and summer are coming and we start playing for the public
instead of the schools.
>
>
>>Pat, well she has been lost for a long time. She things she is smart
>>by playing on words. I remember her one big claim: A mother is not a
>>mother until after birth and she claimed it was a fact. I said it was
>>a persons opinion. And I proved it by showing the definition, which
>>did say a mother is a mother at the point of conception.
>
>
> Actually I posted to you on this topic and you didn't reply,
sorry if I missed that
and that's what
> made me take a few weeks off, because I thought you weren't talking to me
> anymore, so I curled up in a corner with my security blanket. ;) Obviously
> you didn't see my post, but I asked you whether you'd refer to a childless
> woman who'd had a miscarriage, or several, as a mother.
Oh I remember that, I thought I responded.
I said I would leave that up to the mother to decide.
My whole point about the "mother" issue was that it is a persons
opinion. Not a fact as to when a person is considered a mother.
Personally I would consider just as much a mother as anyone else. If
she didn't agree, that would be her own opinion.
My sister lost a child, she was in here 7th month. I think she was a
mother then as I think she is now. She did have another child after that.
The loss of the first child devistated her. After all this was to be
her first child. They named the child and buried the child.
As I was saying though, Pat wants to say that it is indeed a fact that a
woman isn't a mother until after birth.
This simply is not true. Even the dictionary states a woman who
conceives.
So again, this would be up to the mother. It would be her decision, not
mine. Personally I would think she is a mother though.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Now I asked a few key questions
>>
>>1. Are you anti-abortion (in other words do you support abortion or
>>not)
>>
>>This is a relevant question. This is a abortion NG right? So why not
>>find out if the people in here support abortion or not?
>>
>>What do you get? Well you get people like Krisblake who answers it "I
>>am pro-choice".
>>
>>That wasn't the question. So you see, she is trying to change the
>>topic. Yes, she is hiding her opinion.
>
>
> I think the problem is, Robert, that you're wording the question in a way
> that makes it a false dichotomy. You don't have to be pro- or
> anti-anything - you can be neutral, or you can be one or the other
> conditionally.
Yes a few others have pointed this out and I did agree there could be a
point of being neutral. But again in fairness, these people refusing to
say anything except they are pro-choice could at least say that. Now
Matt Pillsbury said that and Ron said that they had no opinion on it.
I realise that you want a straight 'yes' or 'no' answer, so
> I'll say upfront that I'm not anti-abortion and I'm even pro-abortion in
> certain cases, ie when the woman doesn't want to have a child. Having said
> that, I would never advocate abortion to anyone,
Ok, now you and I would agree on this. However I would say I am
anti-abortion. And I would never advocate a abortion to anyone either.
I would however never block someone from allowing them to have their
choice. If the choice was abortion I just wouldn't support the choice.
I wouldn't block her from having one either.
and I would fight against
> anyone trying to force a woman to abort just as much as I fight those who
> try to force her to carry to term. If you want to call me a 'pro-abort'
> because of this, I don't mind, because I know it's not a course of action I
> would ever want to happen, and if some people don't understand this, then
> it's their problem and I'm at peace with myself on the issue (no pun
> intended).
>
>
>>You got James who refused to answer it. Again, hiding his opinion.
>>And then resorting to calling me a liar and anyone else who saw
>>through his BS.
>>
>>Paul Anderson was the only one that hit on exactly what I was looking
>>for. He answered Brian by telling Brian you can't be anti-abortion
>>and pro-choice. This is what they are hiding folks. They don't want
>>to come out and say that they feel you must support abortion to be
>>pro-choice.
>>
>>Then you got Craig who said most of the people who he thinks is
>>pro-choice are not anti-abortion. Again, there you have it. The
>>opposite of anti-abortion is and can only be...pro-abortion. There is
>>no middle ground.
>
>
> That's where I have to disagree with you - there is a middle ground.
Yes and I can retract that in another post. And I think I will.
For
> instance, some people favour a vegetarian diet, others don't, but that
> doesn't mean that any of the latter are anti-vegetarian diets, does it? It
> seems to me that there's a whole spectrum in the abortion debate between
> pro-abortion, where the extremists think that every pregnancy should be
> aborted (is anyone such an extremist?), through those who think that
> abortion-on-demand should be available for the entire 9 months (not too many
> of those either); those who think abortion-on-demand should only be
> available for the first and second trimester (and the third if the woman's
> health is threatened); first trimester only; those who think that abortion
> should only be available if the woman's health or life is endangered plus
> rape and incest cases, right up to the extremists who think that abortion
> should never be allowed even if the pregnancy kills the woman (surprisingly
> large numbers at that extreme). That's the problem with your question:
> people's perceptions of it make them feel that if they aren't at one
> extreme - totally anti-abortion, as above - then you'll categorise them as
> being at the other extreme, which advocates the abortion of all foetuses ...
> and nobody likes to be told that they hold a view to which they don't
> subscribe, do they?
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Do you have to support abortion to be pro-choice?
>
>
> Conditionally, as set out above, yes.
You and I disagree on this. Which is ok.
osprey
Nope not even close. And you rank way above in that area.
Yes I did forge your post, and I made it very deliberate. And I done it
for a reason. Not that you would understand the reason or evaluate your
own behavior. But you should. You do deserve it.
>
>>here.
>
>
> Oh, goodie, I don't impress Robert heishman! Excellent!
> The list thing I want from you is your admiration. It isn't worth the
> paper it's written on.
>
> Don't expect people to feel sorry for you when you have a few
>
>>things done back at you.
>
>
> Stop projecting.
>
>
>>You certainly deserve it.
>
>
> You don't deserve one ounce of respect from any human being.
Rational and intelligent human beings yes, and I respect them back.
you however, no, and I am not out to win your respect either. You will
get back everything you dish out to me. You dish out respect, you would
get it back. You dish out ignorance, you get it back. Don't cry about it.
osprey
Not at all, very proud in fact.
>
> [...]
Patrick Humphrey
>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:22:33 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
[...]
>>>>It's up to you to comprehend what you read; not us!
>>> No,
>> Yes, it is true. I have a sickness and need help.
Thank you, Heishman...anyone can walk right back up the thread and see that
the above line was created by YOU. You really ARE that stupid, aren't you?
The original that you're so afraid of:
>> Yes, it is!
>I know, please get it soon!!!
Life must suck for you, now that the Iraqi Information Minister is out of a
job, just like the rest of his crackhead regime.
--PLH["...and to Robert Heishman I leave...a boot to the head."]
Patrick Humphrey
>http://www.firststateforce.org/heishman.htm
>Or is this the man whose identity you have robbed?
Good Lord...what a schmuck! As a crossdresser, he's just plain fugly.
--PLH["BulletHead Bob is hell on mirrors."]
Patrick Humphrey
>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>> noneed...@mail.com (osprey) writes:
>>>Krisblake4eva <Krisbl...@cs.com> wrote in message news:<0rv69vkefchmaeom1...@4ax.com>...
>>>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:42:22 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 15:38:19 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>[...]
>>>>>>You don't know anything - only than your fetish for dressing in
>>>>>>women's clothing.
>>>>>Think what you want. I don't care.
>>>>Hey, there are two posts out there, coincidentally written by one
>>>>Robert heishman from Delaware.
>>> So?
>>>As I said it wasn't me. I am not into that sick crap, sorry to
>>>dissappoint you. But I told you that a long time ago when you kept
>>>emailing me asking me about it and expressing your own personal
>>>fetishes. Which I asked you to stop emailing me also about it. And
>>>your STILL emailing me.
>> She's e-mailing you aout as much as I am, Heishman. Is there anything you
>> DON'T lie about? (Google is NOT your friend, in this case.)
>> "I have not made any logical error except point out that people like you
>> have something to hide when it comes to being honest about your stand on
>> abortion." -- Robert Heishman, 2003 April 9th
>> No matter how many times you repeat your "excuses"
>> Follow your own worthless advice, cross-dresser.
>> --PLH, Heishman's almost as credible as the Iraqi Information Minister
...to which you added
>>(the man Patrick believes)
> Be gone hypocrite!!
Have a sane adult attempt to enlighten you as to how to use your newsreader's
filtering capabilities, Coward Heishman. You don't decide whether I post or
not.
(and that picture of you is ugly)
--PLH[but, hey, he's a crossdresser AND a fraud]
Krisblake4eva
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>
>
>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:22:33 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 10:49:25 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 10:37:26 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 09:24:07 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>osprey <noneed...@mail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Apr 2003 02:17:41 -0700, noneed...@mail.com (osprey) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Krisblake4eva <Krisbl...@cs.com> wrote in message news:<0rv69vkefchmaeom1...@4ax.com>...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:42:22 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 15:38:19 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You don't know anything - only than your fetish for dressing in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>women's clothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Think what you want. I don't care.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hey, there are two posts out there, coincidentally written by one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Robert heishman from Delaware.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>So? As I said it wasn't me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Hmmm...Shaggy made a song for irresponsible fuggers like you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not into that sick crap,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Not when you're osprey - but RHEISH is one wild side of you!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>sorry to dissappoint you. But I told you that a long time ago when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>kept emailing me asking me about it and expressing your own personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>fetishes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>And I asking you to produce the e-mails in which I have expressed such
>>>>>>>>>>>>cross-dressing fanatsies. The problem is, NONE EXIST.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>They exist and will be proven as soon as you prove that it was me that made
>>>>>>>>>>>that post and not a imposter. I know it wasn't me. So you prove that it was
>>>>>>>>>>>actually me and prove it wasn't someone else using my name or someone else
>>>>>>>>>>>with the same name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What a surprise -- you refuse to produce the proof of your assertion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sorry but you have no room to talk. Given your past record. Be gone
>>>>>>>>>hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Let us remind the readers of Patrick running from providing evidence to
>>>>>>>>>a claim he made:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What a desprate lunatic. Your reading comprehension is the pits and
>>>>>>>>you expect everybody to do your bloody work for you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No wonder you're ripping off the state of Delaware!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He produced nothing. Anyone can say do a google search.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Very little effort is required to see the lying asshole you are.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell you what then, you provide the proof of his claim then.
>>>>
>>>>
osprey
Patrick Humphrey wrote:
> osprey <noneed...@mail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:22:33 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>>>It's up to you to comprehend what you read; not us!
>>>>
>
>>>>No,
>>>
>
>>>Yes, it is true. I have a sickness and need help.
>>
>
> Thank you, Heishman...anyone can walk right back up the thread and see that
> the above line was created by YOU. You really ARE that stupid, aren't you?
>
> The original that you're so afraid of:
Nope not at all, I admitted I changed it because she deserves it. She
does it to others, Craig does it, I did it right back.
>
>
>>>Yes, it is!
>>
>
>>I know, please get it soon!!!
>
>
> Life must suck for you, now that the Iraqi Information Minister is out of a
> job, just like the rest of his crackhead regime.
>
> --PLH["...and to Robert Heishman I leave...a boot to the head."]
Life is good, thank you.
I am sorry they can't find your hero yet though.
osprey
Patrick, you really think I care what you think? I know your arguments
are so weak and pathetic, like Krisblake4eva, that this is what you are
going to do, attack personally. You can't win on the issues at all.
As far as what you think of me personally doesn't mean a thing. My wife
and children think differently, which means more to me than what some
child molestor thinks from Texas
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>
>
>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>> osprey <noneed...@mail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:22:33 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>>>>It's up to you to comprehend what you read; not us!
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>No,
>>>>
>>
>>>>Yes, it is true. I have a sickness and need help.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you, Heishman...anyone can walk right back up the thread and see that
>> the above line was created by YOU. You really ARE that stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> The original that you're so afraid of:
>
>Nope not at all, I admitted I changed it because she deserves it. She
>does it to others,
I did not change your text in the fashion you've changed mine. You're
a big bully that cannot accept anything different from your own,
shit-filled opinions, so you have to retaliate like the mentally
defective asswipe to prove you the biggest cock in the lot. I've got
news for you, Ugly, you're the biggest, fatest, DICKLESS, ugliest
dickless bafoon in here.
[...]
osprey
Krisblake4eva wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:24:17 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>>
>>>osprey <noneed...@mail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:22:33 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>It's up to you to comprehend what you read; not us!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No,
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it is true. I have a sickness and need help.
>>>>
>>>Thank you, Heishman...anyone can walk right back up the thread and see that
>>>the above line was created by YOU. You really ARE that stupid, aren't you?
>>>
>>>The original that you're so afraid of:
>>
>>Nope not at all, I admitted I changed it because she deserves it. She
>>does it to others,
>
>
> I did not change your text in the fashion you've changed mine.
What you done was basically the same thing. You altered to make it
appear different. Since you can't be honest enough to admit what you
done was wrong, don't cry when someone does something back to you.
You're
> a big bully that cannot accept anything different from your own,
> shit-filled opinions, so you have to retaliate like the mentally
> defective asswipe to prove you the biggest cock in the lot. I've got
> news for you, Ugly, you're the biggest, fatest, DICKLESS, ugliest
> dickless bafoon in here.
Thank you..:o)
>
>
> [...]
>
>
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>
>
>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:24:17 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>>>
>>>>osprey <noneed...@mail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:22:33 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's up to you to comprehend what you read; not us!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, it is true. I have a sickness and need help.
>>>>>
>>>>Thank you, Heishman...anyone can walk right back up the thread and see that
>>>>the above line was created by YOU. You really ARE that stupid, aren't you?
>>>>
>>>>The original that you're so afraid of:
>>>
>>>Nope not at all, I admitted I changed it because she deserves it. She
>>>does it to others,
>>
>>
>> I did not change your text in the fashion you've changed mine.
>
>What you done was basically the same thing.
What I *done* was nothing what you're accusing me of doing.
You altered to make it
>appear different.
I did NOT add text within your text make it appear as though you
said what I had written. You did, however, do exactly that to me.
>Since you can't be honest enough to admit what you
Irresponsibility - on your part.
>
> You're
>> a big bully that cannot accept anything different from your own,
>> shit-filled opinions, so you have to retaliate like the mentally
>> defective asswipe to prove you the biggest cock in the lot. I've got
>> news for you, Ugly, you're the biggest, fatest, DICKLESS, ugliest
>> dickless bafoon in here.
>
>
>Thank you..:o)
You're very welcome, imposter.
osprey
What you done was just as bad. You apologize for your altering, and I
apologize for mine. I am willing to do that, and I admit I done that as
I gave my reasons for doing it.
>
>>appear different.
>
>
> I did NOT add text within your text make it appear as though you
> said what I had written. You did, however, do exactly that to me.
Look up the word forge and alter, you will note that they don't just say
that all you have to do is add text. You will see that you are just as
guilty.
Now as I said, you make a open apology, I will apologize to you.
We drop it, and never do it again. But I am not going to feel make any
excuses for you until you can come clean and be honest about your own
actions.
>
>
>
>>Since you can't be honest enough to admit what you
>
>
> Irresponsibility - on your part.
Dishonesty on yours. And this offer I am making will prove it.
Krisblake4eva
You have altered post in the past. This is forging and altering.
I have done it to you deliberately to show you what it is like.
I will make a open apology to you if you will come out and be honest and
admit your altering of not just my post but many others, was wrong and
you will not do it again.
If you can not accept this offer, don't cry when people do it to you and
don't expect me and I am sure others as well, to feel sorry for you when
your post get altered.
You apologize, and I will apologize. Then we can drop it, and not do it
again.
This offer is made to you in hopes you will be honest about your own
actions if you expect others to be honest with you.
>
>
>> You're
>>
>>>a big bully that cannot accept anything different from your own,
>>>shit-filled opinions, so you have to retaliate like the mentally
>>>defective asswipe to prove you the biggest cock in the lot. I've got
>>>news for you, Ugly, you're the biggest, fatest, DICKLESS, ugliest
>>>dickless bafoon in here.
>>
>>
>>Thank you..:o)
>
>
> You're very welcome, imposter.
There was just one part you got wrong
I am not the biggest, fatest, (your fetish again about male organs),
ugliest, bafoon in here.
You are..:o)
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
[...]
>>>appear different.
>>
>>
>> I did NOT add text within your text make it appear as though you
>> said what I had written. You did, however, do exactly that to me.
>
>Look up the word forge and alter,
And you will see your name...
[...]
>Now as I said, you make a open apology,
Fuck you and your apology, you irresponsible control freak.
[...]
>
>We drop it,
You drop it - and not your pantyhose.
[...]
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Since you can't be honest enough to admit what you
>>
>>
>> Irresponsibility - on your part.
>
>
>Dishonesty on yours.
Yes, you're irresponsible. And for a police officer
to do as you have done in these newsgroups, I have to
question the State of Delaware Department of Corrections who hired
such a loser like you (granted, you're truly Robert Heishman).
[...]
>>
>>
>>> You're
>>>
>>>>a big bully that cannot accept anything different from your own,
>>>>shit-filled opinions, so you have to retaliate like the mentally
>>>>defective asswipe to prove you the biggest cock in the lot. I've got
>>>>news for you, Ugly, you're the biggest, fatest, DICKLESS, ugliest
>>>>dickless bafoon in here.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you..:o)
>>
>>
>> You're very welcome, imposter.
>
>There was just one part you got wrong
No, I am not.
>
>I am not the biggest, fatest, [...]
>ugliest, bafoon in here.
>
>You are..:o)
No, I am not ugly, fat, big, nor am I an anti-choice bafoon.
On the other hand, we have
the hard evidence that you are EVERYTHING
as I have described of you, above.
osprey
Then it is to be shown you can't be honest
Yes you are.
>
> On the other hand, we have
> the hard evidence that you are EVERYTHING
> as I have described of you, above.
As if it means anything except to the low life losers such as yourself
and your fellow comrades...lol..:o)
Believe me, the world isn't skipping a beat..:o)
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>Then it is to be shown....
That you're an idiot.
[Rest snipped]
Stop projecting, Barney Rubble (just you're dumber and uglier).
>
>>
>> On the other hand, we have
>> the hard evidence that you are EVERYTHING
>> as I have described of you, above.
>
>As if it means anything....
It bothers you enough to wildly respond and commit patent forgery!
Patrick Humphrey
>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>> osprey <noneed...@mail.com> writes:
>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:22:33 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>>>It's up to you to comprehend what you read; not us!
>>>>>No,
>>>>Yes, it is true. I have a sickness and need help.
>> Thank you, Heishman...anyone can walk right back up the thread and see that
>> the above line was created by YOU. You really ARE that stupid, aren't you?
>> The original that you're so afraid of:
>Nope not at all, I admitted I changed it because she deserves it. She does it
>to others, Craig does it, I did it right back.
In other words, you're a whiny little bastard sputtering "but, THEY did it
first!". No wonder you're a powerless little union thug in Delaware.
>>>>Yes, it is!
>>>I know, please get it soon!!!
>> Life must suck for you, now that the Iraqi Information Minister is out of a
>> job, just like the rest of his crackhead regime.
>> --PLH["...and to Robert Heishman I leave...a boot to the head."]
>Life is good, thank you.
Yeah, I'll bet...out there catching sharks on the taxpayers' dollar.
>I am sorry they can't find your hero yet though.
You have no idea of why my heroes are, BulletHead...and UTMDAH are still in
business this morning. They'll even deal with *you*, should you ever require
their services.
--PLH, it's a local reference, but it's familiar to the world
osprey
It bothers you enough to lose control of your self and attack on
personal levels..:o)
Actually it is fun, because I can just say a few things and people like
you and Patrick will just jump..:o)
Patrick Humphrey
>>>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>>>>noneed...@mail.com (osprey) writes:
>>>>>>>Krisblake4eva wrote:
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>So?
>> ...to which you added
>>>>(the man Patrick believes)
>>> Be gone hypocrite!!
I know you don't care what anyone thinks, BulletHead. You're just a petty
thug who thinks he's in a position of power.
>As far as what you think of me personally doesn't mean a thing. My wife and
>children think differently, which means more to me than what some child
>molestor thinks from Texas
Why drag some stranger into your little whinefest? This is between you and
me, Barney Rubble.
--PLH, how about that DCOA? ;-)
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
Like you done to other when lying about their position? Idiot.
>
>Actually it is fun, because I can just say a few things and people like
>you and Patrick will just jump..:o)
It's more fun bringing up your ugly little cross-dressing past and
watch you forge posts in retaliation.
osprey
Oh my, Patrick talking about other people's looks. When he has got to
be one of the ugliest I think I have seen.
Anyone want to see what Patrick the stalker looks like?
http://www.rackjite.com/humphrey.htm
Just some of the things you should be warned about with Patrick
L.(loser) Humphrey
Patrick L. Humphrey, the Squealer
About 15 years ago I came aware that there were really only four issues
in the libertarian platform: Me, I, My and Mine. Blowing that whistle
back then on what is now a given, gained me the obsessive ire of the
libertarian stalker pictured left. (picture copied from his home page at
Rice University)
Those 15 long years ago, Patrick L. Humphrey decided that one of the
many aliases I have used over the years was my real name. Subsequently
this little tattletale has followed me to every BBS and network I have
posted in to spread the word. This is not your typical little kid
squealing on another occasionally; this is a grown man with so
pathological an obsession he has given his entire on-line life and
reputation to doing very little other than feeding what he thinks my
real name (multiple times a day, more days than not, for over 15 years)
into the system to ensure every other unstable right-wing/libertarian
can get to what they think my front door for saying what they do not
want said. As Humprhey has so boldly and loudly admitted, he does this
so I be made responsible and accountable for what I choose to say on
Usenet.
In the Spring of ’95 Mr. Humphrey began leaving messages on Usenet in
talk.politics.misc boasting he was coming by my home on weekends.
"Oh...and you need to trim the mustache...--Patrick L. ‘El Lago, April
9, about 14:35 -- remember me?’ Humphrey"
"The tire swing in front of your house..."
"You need to clean up the toys in your driveway..."
"I guess it's just an amazing coincidence, then, that the pictures on
your home page just happen to bear an uncanny resemblance to the fellow
out in front of your listed address when I came down the street one
afternoon three weeks ago..."
"I don't think so, because you don't resemble me at all...and that much
I know from personal experience, after two weekends ago. --Patrick L.
‘it was a worthwhile 88 miles spent’ Humphrey"
Rack stated in a message "Be sure to understand this is about the sixth
occasion this squealer has been to what he presumes to be my home..."
"Try *fourth* --Patrick L. 'bout time to put on the Spandex and pedal
over that way :-)’ Humphrey"
And not to forget one of his most memorable closing quotes:
"Patrick L. 'a grandfather to be -- and any congratulations from a sick
little asshole named Peter Nyikos will be returned with a grenade with a
pulled pin' Humphrey"
After 10 years of his relentless cyber stalking, and now these day/time
stamps of his arrivals (cowardly given after the fact) physically
stalking my family, I finally drew the line. I contacted his provider
over something, as he and scores of other like minded netscabs had
complained to mine over nothing. His provider happened to be Rice
University where he had a free employee account. I made it clear to Rice
that I wished only that he be asked to stop the invasion of my privacy
(whether he had the name and property correct was irrelevant, it was the
principle of the thing). I also made certain they understood that in no
way was I asking his job be put in any kind of jeopardy, for Patrick
Humphrey, already with one foot firmly planted in La La Land, gave me
concern over myself, or God knows who else, becoming a victim of yet
another disgruntled employee rampage.
A few weeks later I received a letter of apology from Rice University
for the "rudeness" and "lack of integrity" of one of their employees and
that Patrick Humphrey would not be addressing me from the Rice system
again. The very day I received the letter, Patrick L. Humphrey was
posting from a new commercial account rather than his Rice account. He
made sure not to miss one single day in his 10 year obsession of keeping
his reputation as THE Network Squealer, Stalker & Loser in tact.
If ever there was someone on the net representing the loser/geek aspect
of it all, its Patrick L. Humphrey. His messages flow over the political
debate areas devoid of political comment. They are all either personal
attacks, squealing private information on others, where he rides his
bikey, what intersections he passes, where he and his wife Dale go on
weekends, where he sits at hockey games, and his threats of stalking any
liberal in Texas.
He is the consummate LOSER.
=======================================================================================================
Could this be the same Patrick L. Humphrey?
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>osprey <noneedtob...@mail.com> writes:
It's hard to avoid your ugliness, in all respects.
>I know you don't care what anyone thinks, BulletHead. You're just a petty
>thug who thinks he's in a position of power.
Shame he cannot control what we post or say. He can't even control us
via his forgeries.
>
>>As far as what you think of me personally doesn't mean a thing. My wife and
>>children think differently, which means more to me than what some child
>>molestor thinks from Texas
>
>Why drag some stranger into your little whinefest? This is between you and
>me, Barney Rubble.
Barney Rubble - LOL.
osprey
Hey, Barney was cool actually..:o)
At least he wasn't a stalker..:o)
>
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>
>
Other than your boyfriend's ass?
>
>Anyone want to see what Patrick the stalker looks like?
>
>http://www.rackjite.com/humphrey.htm
Everybody can access Patrick's personal website. i am surprised you
have not, already.
Of course, the link you posted leads to a bullshit website.
>
>Could this be the same Patrick L. Humphrey?
>
>http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/94-6984.man.html
Rotflmao. I knew you'd post this one.
Unfortunately for you, you've posted information about the wrong
Patrick Humphrey.
osprey
I have not lied about a position your too afraid to reveal your thoughts on
>
>
>>Actually it is fun, because I can just say a few things and people like
>>you and Patrick will just jump..:o)
>
>
> It's more fun bringing up your ugly little cross-dressing past and
> watch you forge posts in retaliation.
Hey, go with what you got to go with, you have nothing else. So why
should I take what little you have away?
:o)
you certainly can't win on any issues thats for sure..
osprey
Your reading comprehensions dear are once again shown to be ... well
lets be nice...
not readily available
I said
Could this be the same Patrick L. Humphrey?
But here is some more on your comrade..:o)
From: Brimstone (brim...@asia.com)
Subject: Patrick L Humphrey FAQ - child stalker and pedophile
View: Complete Thread (6 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: 2002-12-02 21:50:26 PST
Patrick L. Humphrey
Internet Child Stalker
(A constant danger to any child living in the Houston Metro Area)
Additional Information:
About Patrick Humphrey
Several weeks ago, a little nine year old girl received the first of
several thousand e-mails spamming her mail box. Many of the e-mails
had sexual content and some calling Megan a whore, etc...you get the
idea. After investigating, we discovered the stalkers had placed ads
in sexual fourms all over the internet with Megan's home address and
phone number, informing readers that porngraphy of Megan could be
bought for a set price.
We traced the one stalker to Texas. Thisman is from the Houston area,
Patrick L. Humphrey, has a known history of stalking people over the
internet. Now it seems Humphrey has taken on the role of a pedophile
stalking innocent children. Humphrey was fired last week from Rice
University for his involvment in stalking. Humphrey aslo supports the
harassment of this little girl through the actions of Scott Bradbury.
We just learned that Humphrey supports the killing of innocent
children world wide, no wonder to doesn't bother him to stalk a nine
year old girl.
Humphrey is a childless man who supports abortion in a usenet channel
called alt.abortion. Because Humphrey is childless, be will always
resent other men who are fathers. Humphrey believes he can find relief
through his anger and hate by bashing people who support children. The
facts are clear, Patrick Humphrey hates children.
News Article About Humphrey:
Houston (API) - An employee of Rice University was fired and arrested
for taking naked pictures of himself masturbating and putting the
pictures in women's restrooms at the University. Patrick L. Humphrey
was dismissed from the University after surveillance cameras caught
him virtually in the act. "It's the most disgusting thing we've run
across" quotes Malcom Gillis, President of Rice University. "We have a
zero tolerance policy on that sort of behavior" he added. The
complaints about Humphrey started last year when the university
starting receiving loads of email complaining about Humphrey's
Internet activities. This in turn led to an investigation, which just
happened to stumble across Humphrey taking pictures of himself while
masturabting in public places. "We were just in shock", said one
anonymous female freshman who was a victim. "We are here for an
education and to find perverts like this at the University" she added.
Records show that Humphrey had also been disciplined for harassment of
Internet users during his employment at Rice. An ongoing University
police investigation has begun to see if other related incidents at
the University can be traced to Humphrey.
Who is Patrick L. Humphrey - 101
From: ZORRO (ku...@dotplanet.com)
Subject: Patrick L. Humphrey
Newsgroups: misc.transport.road, talk.politics.misc,
houston.personals, rec.sport.hockey, alt.abortion.inequity
Date: 2000/03/21
Patrick, you never contribute to the debate. All you present is
braggadocio, insults, and accusations.
Please tell us why you feel so threatened when others exercise their
right to free speech?
During the Revolution, in which the United States won it's
independence from Brittain, Anonymity was crucial to promoting the
exchange of ideas. The principles of government, on which this nation
was founded, were presented in a brilliant discourse entitled "The
Federalist Papers". Newspapers of the time printed editorials without
disclosing the identity of the author. This was necessary to protect
them from police action by the Tories.
Anonymous writings, publication with pen names, is still legal in the
United States. It is crucial to preserving our right to free speech
which is the first protection of all our other rights and freedoms.
We allow you the freedom to disagree. You are free to write why you
believe free speech should be abolish. However; You are not free to
use the tactics you have been using.
There is a tort called "Public disclosure of private facts". You and
Logan Villa have utilized this in your attempts to stiffle my exercise
of my free speech. You persist in disclosing my name and my employment
without my permission to do so. My posts have always associated me
with INFORMED CITIZENS. Which is a distinct and seperate entity from
my employer. I have never disclosed my employment in any of my posts.
Please tell us why you feel so threatened when others exercise their
right to free speech.
It is obvious this is the reason you harrass and continually post
nothing but insulting names in response to anyone posts outside your
small little circle of approved friends. Friends who used the same
tactics as you. It is sad but true that you and logan villa have been
very effective in utilizing these tactics to kill participation in
this newsgroup by all but a few. It is obvious to me this is your
objective.
Please tell us, what is something you picked up in your Russian
Studies classes? Free Speech was never allowed there until recently.
We have seen the results of this. A nation with by far the greatest
wealth in the most abundant resources of any nation. A nation that has
many brilliant minds as evident by the literature of their writers,
writings the people there could not read. A nation where all people
have had access to an excellent education but at the same time have
been taught to not think for themselves. Is a nation in ruins with
people starving because of a long history of stiffling free speech.
Why do you want to bring this to the United States of America? Is is
because you hate America?
You have proudly disclosed in your posts that you work for Rice
University. Is this what Rice is promoting in their classes? Is this
their policy on free speech? We see from the return address on your
posts and the times of the posts that you monitor these newsgroups and
post to them during your free time. Yet you call the employers of
others to ask them if they are aware their employees are posting
during their work hours. Tell us; Are these postings on behalf of the
University?
A review of the speakers Rice has brought to town, noticing Rice
University was the only place in town where people could see "Waco -
The Rules of Engagement", indicates this is not the type of attitude
and behavior this University would want to be associated with.
So tell us; Why do you feel so threatened when others exercise their
right to free speech?
Who is Patrick L. Humphrey - 102
Below is a few quotes from Humphrey showing his death wishes towards
Mr. Ellis.
( Start Quote )
--PLH, it's a pity Ellis wasn't at the top of the North Tower last
Tuesday morning.
--PLH, Your word is worth about as much as a dead hijacker...here's to
hoping Donnie will be with some of them as soon as possible.
--PLH, think of Ellis as a target in a midway shooting gallery.
--PLH, Donnie serves as a good example of why some people are alive
solely because it's against the law to kill them.
--PLH, actually Donnie deserves more, but unfortunately he couldn't be
gotten into one of Al Qaeda's caves that got daisy-cuttered.
--PLH, Keep spinning your wheels, Donnie...Your day is drawing
nearer.as usual, he'll never know what hit him.
--PLH, considering coming back home through Arkansas, heh heh
--PLH, notice that some people are alive solely because it's against
the law to kill them?
--PLH, Keep on firing at your feet, Donnie...and raise your aim a bit
higher...like your head.
--PLH, Too bad his hero took the coward's way out at the end 57 years
ago and killed himself...so why doesn't Don emulate his hero *that*
faithfully?
( End Quote )
Who is Patrick L. Humphrey - 103
Below is a news article posted on the newsgroups by
ron0...@my-deja.com
LEXINGTON (Rueters) - A Houston man has been arrested in Kentucky and
charged with trying to buy two elementary school boys for sex after
FBI agents monitoring the Internet identified him as a pedophile, the
agency said on Thursday.
Patrick L. Humphrey was arrested on June 3 after traveling to Kentucky
from Houston, with the intention of buying the boys and taking them
back to Texas for illegal sex, the FBI said in a statement.
Humphrey, was arrested after arriving at an agreed-upon meeting place
with $100 in cash for the purchase, the FBI said.
Brian Goldman, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI's Houston
field office, told Reuters the arrest came as a result of FBI
monitoring of Internet chatrooms. Humphrey was using the nickname of
Aero55.
``He was identified by our Crimes Against Children Task Force as a
person who was actively seeking to purchase children for sexual
exploitation. He was using the Internet,'' Goldman said.
Goldman declined to say whether an FBI agent had posed as a seller but
he said that no other arrests had been made and that no children had
been at risk.
A federal criminal complaint filed against Humphrey alleges that he
traveled across state lines with intent to engage in prohibited sexual
relations with a minor. If convicted, he faces a prison sentence of up
to 15 years and a fine.
Humphrey lives currently in the Houston area, and is an employee of
Rice University. Rice University officials refused to comment.
Who is Patrick L. Humphrey - 104
Foul Language?
Because Heishman is apparently a lying bastard who thinks he's
emulating this
Jesus fellow, and everything's his business because his alleged god
says so.
Personally, I hope reality crosschecks the stupid SOB right across the
face
and gives him a little of what he wants for those who dare to disagree
with
him.
You sleazy, disingenuous son of a bitch -- why didn't you say "accused
(but
might as well be guilty)"? That'd have been a lot more of an accurate
description of what you were saying.
You'd better pray to your alleged deity that you _never_ cross my path
in real
life, because I'll give you precisely the respect you've earned, and
that is
none at all. You'll need a new set of ears after I burn yours off with
the
dressing-down I'll give you.
You're a goddamn cafeteria Christian, a hypocrite, and a lowlife to
boot.
That's my opinion of trash like you, Robert. Do the human race a big
favor
and remove yourself from it, okay?
--PLH, who'll dance a jig on Heishman's grave
Patrick L. Humphrey Fired From Rice University
Had it not been for Doc Tavish (Scott Bradbury) contacting Rice
University,
an investigation into Humphrey's activities wouldn't of happened. The
investigation started in the summer of 2001 after numerous complaints
by
Bradbury to Malcom Gillis and others at Rice University.
After a few months of investigating, Rice University did indeed find
out
that Humphrey had been stalking, posting, and surfing during
university time
along for posting in singles newsgroups (Humphrey is married) on Rice
time.
When the University confronted Patrick with the evidence, Patrick
chose to
lie and blame that others had set him up. The University didn't
believe him
and his lying lead to the University firing Patrick L Humphrey in
early
February of 2002 despite the fact Patrick had worked over 12 years for
the
University.
The University currently has his rice.edu on lockout still collecting
evidence to support their termination of Patrick L Humphrey
Patrick L. Humphrey's current profile even complains that Scott
Bradbury
tried to get him fired.
Scott Bradbury succeeded
finger pat...@io.com
Login: patrick Name: Patrick L. Humphrey
Directory: /home/p/patrick Shell: /usr/local/bin/tcsh
Office: West of Eden, 713 348-4989 Home Phone: 713 266-7764
Last login Sun Apr 7 13:23 (CDT) on pts/24 from hs1
New mail received Sun Apr 7 20:28 2002 (CDT)
Unread since Sun Apr 7 18:26 2002 (CDT)
Plan:
Guess what? Those of you who have stalked me here from my other
address
aren't going to find anything you don't already know about me.
I can be reached at the usual work and home numbers, if you can figure
out
how to access the web page mentioned below.
(For those of you trying to get me in trouble with my employers (that
means
Scott "Doc Tavish" Bradbury, for the most part, at the moment), this
address
belongs to an ISP that has nothing to do with where I work. The
closest
connection you'll find is that one of this ISP's owners is an alumnus
of the
university I work for.)
As always, I reserve the right to deal with e-mail as I see fit -- w
Thanks to Scott Bradbury and Patrick L Humphrey's stupidity, he no
longer
works for Rice.
--
Pat
From Peter Nyikos
The sleazeball Patrick simulates sinks to new lows. I'm supposed to
infere a disgusting, vulgar comment from Susan Garvin's hateful ones
which nevertheless are nothing like the words I used above.
Patrick, do me a favor, will you? Show this post to Dale Ann,
including the following words:
Dale Ann, I'm truly sorry to expose you to this bickering, but Patrick
is doing things that naive people like Chaney think reflect very badly
on you, whereas I realize that (1) he is probably spinning tall tales
about you and (2) he is also spinning tall tales about his true
attitudes about things. He probably has you convinced that Usenet is a
silly game having nothing to do with real life, and for your peace of
mind I suggest that you continue to take him at face value on this.
For if you had theattitude that a lot of us here have, namely that
lies spoken here are real lies, you might be tempted to sue him for
divorce, and that is not something I would like to encourage. He needs
to keep at least one foot in the real world.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Check Back Often...More to Come
Krisblake4eva
wrote:
>I have not lied about a position....
You have lied about my positon.
>>
>>
>>>Actually it is fun, because I can just say a few things and people like
>>>you and Patrick will just jump..:o)
>>
>>
>> It's more fun bringing up your ugly little cross-dressing past and
>> watch you forge posts in retaliation.
>
>Hey, go with what you got to go with, you have nothing else.
I can play on your own game to discredit yourself.
[...]
Krisblake4eva
Patrick Humphrey
>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>> osprey <noneed...@mail.com> writes:
>>>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
[Heishman's forgery of Krisbam]
>>>>Thank you, Heishman...anyone can walk right back up the thread and see that
>>>>the above line was created by YOU. You really ARE that stupid, aren't you?
>>>>The original that you're so afraid of:
>>>Nope not at all, I admitted I changed it because she deserves it. She does
>>>it to others, Craig does it, I did it right back.
>> In other words, you're a whiny little bastard sputtering "but, THEY did it
>> first!". No wonder you're a powerless little union thug in Delaware.
[...]
>>>Life is good, thank you.
>> Yeah, I'll bet...out there catching sharks on the taxpayers' dollar.
>>>I am sorry they can't find your hero yet though.
>> You have no idea of why my heroes are, BulletHead...and UTMDAH are still in
>> business this morning. They'll even deal with *you*, should you ever
>> require their services.
>>
>> --PLH, it's a local reference, but it's familiar to the world
>Oh my, Patrick talking about other people's looks. When he has got to be one
>of the ugliest I think I have seen.
Your opinion and a dollar will get you downtown on Metro, too. See if you can
figure out what that makes your opinion worth.
>Anyone want to see what Patrick the stalker looks like?
>http://www.rackjite.com/humphrey.htm
*R*O*T*F*L*!
I guess you think this is still 1991. Of course, you *could* go to my pages,
which have a few pictures of me (and Dale) more recent than that -- like the
one of us from just six weeks ago -- but I know, that wouldn't be convenient
to your little tour de farce, would it? (Of course, you wouldn't notice that
Dave Dahlman, the kook who's been whining at me for twenty years, hasn't
bothered with updating his rant about me in three years or so -- he has a link
to my page that hasn't been at that URL in two years. Kooks of a feather, and
all that.)
[Dahlman's whining]
>Could this be the same Patrick L. Humphrey?
>http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/94-6984.man.html
You're about as sharp as a marble, BulletHead...aside from the little details
that I've never been charged with anything, or been a resident of Alabama *or*
Illinois, my middle name isn't Lamar and never has been. Feel free to prove
me wrong on that.
--PLH, it'll be fun to watch
Patrick Humphrey
>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:40:50 -0400, osprey <noneed...@mail.com>
>wrote:
>>Anyone want to see what Patrick the stalker looks like?
>>http://www.rackjite.com/humphrey.htm
>Everybody can access Patrick's personal website. i am surprised you
>have not, already.
I suspect he has.
>Of course, the link you posted leads to a bullshit website.
...not to mention that Dave "Rack Jite" Dahlman hasn't even bothered with his
little paean to me in three years.
>>Could this be the same Patrick L. Humphrey?
>>http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/94-6984.man.html
>Rotflmao. I knew you'd post this one.
>Unfortunately for you, you've posted information about the wrong
>Patrick Humphrey.
Yeah, he could have at least posted about the one that's the barman at a pub
in Paducah, or the MD in Britain...
--PLH, I'm going to have to stop in Paducah next time I head home to see the
parents
osprey
Houston (API) - An employee of Rice University was fired and arrested
for taking naked pictures of himself masturbating and putting the
pictures in women's restrooms at the University. Patrick L. Humphrey
was dismissed from the University after surveillance cameras caught
him virtually in the act. "It's the most disgusting thing we've run
across" quotes Malcom Gillis, President of Rice University. "We have a
zero tolerance policy on that sort of behavior" he added. The
complaints about Humphrey started last year when the university
starting receiving loads of email complaining about Humphrey's
Internet activities. This in turn led to an investigation, which just
happened to stumble across Humphrey taking pictures of himself while
masturabting in public places. "We were just in shock", said one
anonymous female freshman who was a victim. "We are here for an
education and to find perverts like this at the University" she added.
Records show that Humphrey had also been disciplined for harassment of
Internet users during his employment at Rice. An ongoing University
police investigation has begun to see if other related incidents at
the University can be traced to Humphrey.
LEXINGTON (Rueters) - A Houston man has been arrested in Kentucky and
dditional Information:
About Patrick Humphrey
Several weeks ago, a little nine year old girl received the first of
several thousand e-mails spamming her mail box. Many of the e-mails
had sexual content and some calling Megan a whore, etc...you get the
idea. After investigating, we discovered the stalkers had placed ads
in sexual fourms all over the internet with Megan's home address and
phone number, informing readers that porngraphy of Megan could be
bought for a set price.
We traced the one stalker to Texas. Thisman is from the Houston area,
Patrick L. Humphrey, has a known history of stalking people over the
internet. Now it seems Humphrey has taken on the role of a pedophile
stalking innocent children. Humphrey was fired last week from Rice
University for his involvment in stalking. Humphrey aslo supports the
harassment of this little girl through the actions of Scott Bradbury.
We just learned that Humphrey supports the killing of innocent
children world wide, no wonder to doesn't bother him to stalk a nine
year old girl.
Humphrey is a childless man who supports abortion in a usenet channel
called alt.abortion. Because Humphrey is childless, be will always
resent other men who are fathers. Humphrey believes he can find relief
through his anger and hate by bashing people who support children. The
facts are clear, Patrick Humphrey hates children.
Who is Patrick L. Humphrey - 101
( Start Quote )
( End Quote )
Foul Language?
I can be reached at the usual work and home numbers, if you can figure
out
osprey
Patrick Humphrey wrote:
> osprey <noneed...@mail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>>
>>>osprey <noneed...@mail.com> writes:
>>
>
>>>>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>>>
>
> [Heishman's forgery of Krisbam]
>
>
>>>>>Thank you, Heishman...anyone can walk right back up the thread and see that
>>>>>the above line was created by YOU. You really ARE that stupid, aren't you?
>>>>>The original that you're so afraid of:
>>>>
>
>>>>Nope not at all, I admitted I changed it because she deserves it. She does
>>>>it to others, Craig does it, I did it right back.
>>>
>
>>>In other words, you're a whiny little bastard sputtering "but, THEY did it
>>>first!". No wonder you're a powerless little union thug in Delaware.
>>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>>Life is good, thank you.
>>>
>
>>>Yeah, I'll bet...out there catching sharks on the taxpayers' dollar.
>>
>
>>>>I am sorry they can't find your hero yet though.
>>>
>
>>>You have no idea of why my heroes are, BulletHead...and UTMDAH are still in
>>>business this morning. They'll even deal with *you*, should you ever
>>>require their services.
>>>
>>>--PLH, it's a local reference, but it's familiar to the world
>>
>
>>Oh my, Patrick talking about other people's looks. When he has got to be one
>>of the ugliest I think I have seen.
>
>
> Your opinion and a dollar will get you downtown on Metro, too.
Wow, you seem to think your opinion is worth anymore...LOL
See if you can
> figure out what that makes your opinion worth.
Soon as you figure out what yours is worth ok..:o)
>
>
>>Anyone want to see what Patrick the stalker looks like?
>
>
>>http://www.rackjite.com/humphrey.htm
>
>
> *R*O*T*F*L*!
>
> I guess you think this is still 1991. Of course, you *could* go to my pages,
> which have a few pictures of me (and Dale) more recent than that -- like the
> one of us from just six weeks ago -- but I know, that wouldn't be convenient
> to your little tour de farce, would it? (Of course, you wouldn't notice that
> Dave Dahlman, the kook who's been whining at me for twenty years, hasn't
> bothered with updating his rant about me in three years or so -- he has a link
> to my page that hasn't been at that URL in two years. Kooks of a feather, and
> all that.)
>
> [Dahlman's whining]
>
>
>>Could this be the same Patrick L. Humphrey?
>
>
>>http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/94-6984.man.html
>
>
> You're about as sharp as a marble, BulletHead...aside from the little details
> that I've never been charged with anything, or been a resident of Alabama *or*
> Illinois, my middle name isn't Lamar and never has been. Feel free to prove
> me wrong on that.
>
> --PLH, it'll be fun to watch
I think Scott Bradbury has done that job all ready..:o)
Do they put up postings in residential areas notifying them about you
Patrick? I would think, being a parent myself, I would certainly want
to know if someone like you was living in the area.
( Start Quote )
( End Quote )
Foul Language?
I can be reached at the usual work and home numbers, if you can figure
out