Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
J
Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Davej
> This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
>
And no condoms either -- we don't want to lose any of those holy
sperm. Basically the Catholic position is to encourage idiots to
breed.
Ray Fischer
>This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
You just hate women.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
W.T.S.
>
> This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
abortion are immoral filth. Abortion is good, decent and wholesome.
>
> http://www.godfuckproliers.org/asshole.html
>
Abortion, it saves the lives, health, and futures of women.
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
SkyEyes
> This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Whether theist or atheist, anyone who opposes abortion qualifies as a
FORCED-BIRTHER.
Nobody ever said every atheist was perfect.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
elizabeth
> Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> --
> J Young
>
> http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
The bible is proabortion.
Only cults and nations who need more cannon fodder force gestation.
The_Echo_Chamber
> This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
But, once they're born, J and his ilk don't give a damn about them any
more.
MIPS
"Ray Fag Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4e17cfe5$0$2202$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>J <jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
>>child.
>
> But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
>
You just hate women.
There is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
child.
MarkA
> This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
I guess you've never seen a young, healthy woman bleeding to death from a
ruptured ectopic pregnancy?
--
MarkA
If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
MarkA
> This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Last updated in 2007. I guess Mr Wallace came to his senses?
thomas p.
news:ivasej$iaj$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Ray Fag Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4e17cfe5$0$2202$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>J <jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
>>>child.
>>
>> But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
>>
>
>
>
> You just hate women.
>
> There is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> child.
That is correct; fortunately it is not even possible.
> Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
Correct again! Invincible ignorance is the only requirement.
thomas p
I bring you the stately matron Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched
and dishonored from pirate raids in Kiao-Chow, Manchuria, South Africa and
the Philippines, with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle,
and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies. Give her soap and a towel, but hide
the looking-glass.
Mark Twain
Andrew W
news:4r53j4....@news.alt.net
>
> This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> child. Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a
> belief in God is not necessary to possess the morality required to
> oppose abortion.
Here's a solution for the abortion problem
Campaign for better distribution of contraception and better education of
young people.
This will dramatically reduce the incidents of abortion.
There's not much one can do to stop abortion by chastising women or doctors.
It will always happen in society.
What we have to do is go to the root of the problem instead of hacking away
at the branches like the religious community tries to do.
--
Every theist is an atheist when it comes to everyone else's gods.
Education cures religious fundamentalism.
pnyikos
> J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
>
> But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
If Ray were threatened with waterboarding if he didn't provide
meaningful documentation for this claim, he wouldn't even try,
but instead he would probably say something like "You stupid
assholes! This was said on USENET, you dumbshits! Are you
clueless or insane enough to think that people take stuff
like this literally when it is said THERE??"
> You just hate women.
This from someone who once said, "I don't give a shit about women".
The url for the post where Fischer said it is:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/318c4191f3850693
I recalled it in the following post, giving the above url:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/5b2e463551bf06b7
In his followup, Fischer deleted the url--note the dangling colon in
what he kept of what I had written--and took advantage of his deletion
to slanderously accuse me of lying:
----------------- begin excerpt
>And you said you don't give a shit about women:
nyioks is, of course, lying is sleazy ass off.
> Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
I explained it but you choose to keep being a lying sleazebag.
============= end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/c10d3b5ea090cc18
Note also the slanderous Subject line change to: "Nyikos shows himself
to be a lying sleazebag with no ethics"
Nothing daunted, I reposted both the url and the entire post in which
it appeared, calling Fischer's bluff above as follows:
------------------- begin excerpt
> > Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
> I explained it
Repeat the transparently dishonest "explanation" that ignored the
context of Ospery asking you "if you would help and/or support a woman
who wants to get an abortion?"
================= end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/c1b55e1f17bc7d24
.
.
His bluff successfully called, Fischer now resorted to deleting BOTH
the url for his "don't give a shit" remark AND the repost of the
article in which it appeared, slanderously (and in a Pee Wee
Hermanistic way) changing the Subject line to:
"Nyikos lies about giving a shit about women"
Here is how he topped off this demonstration of what a completely
shameless liar he is:
---------------- begin excerpt
>> >And you said you don't give a shit about women:
>
>> nyioks is, of course, lying is sleazy ass off.
>
>The following post shows what a shameless,
Asshole nyikos takes a trip in fantasyland and insists that somewhere
in some post is the proof he wants.
=============== end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/8d3aa22ec6472dc0
.
This performance clinched for him the following "award":
Pathological Liar of the Month (May 2010) First Runner-up: Fischer
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.women/browse_thread/thread/971cb0bbf4d3254f/ab3d1553c75daead
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.women/msg/ab3d1553c75daead
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jul 8, 7:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> > --
> > J Young
> > Jvisi...@live.com
>
> >http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
>
> The bible is proabortion.
"elizabeth" must use a different bible than the one Christians use OR
the ones Jews use.
Exodus 21:22-23 prescribes penalties for causing miscarriages in
women.
> Only cults and nations who need more cannon fodder force gestation.
And only cults like the one "elizabeth" belongs to are so pro-abortion
that they will recommend gangraping females to death for opposing
abortion:
I feel that antiabort males should have their genitals ripped off
and forced down their throats, and antiabort females gangraped
until death.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/4881aa97c3a63918
Any antiabort male should have his balls ripped off
with pliers. And "denise" needs to get gangraped
to death.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/7c4b3fb1356665b1
That was "elizabeth" demonstrating that turning the other cheek, the
way Denise Noe consistently did in reaction to the abuse showered on
her, only works when the opponent has a conscience.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:22:57 -0400, J wrote:
> > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> Last updated in 2007.
So? perhaps he didn't have anything to add to what he is already
saying, contenting himself with what the links have to say.
> I guess Mr Wallace came to his senses?
Are you so fanatically in favor of abortion that you consider everyone
who is opposed to it to be loco?
Note that the website accepts people who are only partially opposed to
abortion. It does explain, however, that anyone who supportst the
radical RvW decision does not qualify.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jul 8, 10:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
Note how The Echo Chamber makes NO attempt to refute what "J" writes:
> But, once they're born, J and his ilk don't give a damn about them any
> more.
I have no idea what Jon Young's "ilk" is supposed to be. He is just
about the most *sui generis* person I've ever encountered on the
internet.
And since you are "The Echo Chamber" I don't expect you to enlighten
us NOR to give one iota of evidence for your assertion about Jon, let
alone about his "ilk".
Peter Nyikos
SkyEyes
> On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 7:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> > > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> > > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> > >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> > > --
> > > J Young
> > > Jvisi...@live.com
>
> > >http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
>
> > The bible is proabortion.
>
> "elizabeth" must use a different bible than the one Christians use OR
> the ones Jews use.
>
> Exodus 21:22-23 prescribes penalties for causing miscarriages in
> women.
And Numbers chapter 5 describes the temple priests giving an
abortifacient drug given to women thought to have been unfaithful.
It was all about children and women being chattel property in those
days, Nyikos, as you would know if you had a scrap of education. If
it was a wanted pregnancy (i.e., if the *man* wanted it) and someone
caused a miscarriage, then there was a penalty. If it was a pregnancy
from *another* man (or even just the possibility), then it was to be
gotten rid of.
At a bare minimum, the Numbers passage lets you know that the ancient
Hebrews didn't consider fetii to be "human beings" or have "human
rights." They were merely chattel.
pnyikos
wrote:
> "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4r53j4....@news.alt.net
>
>
>
> > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> > child. Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a
> > belief in God is not necessary to possess the morality required to
> > oppose abortion.
>
> Here's a solution for the abortion problem
> Campaign for better distribution of contraception and better education of
> young people.
> This will dramatically reduce the incidents of abortion.
There is precious little evidence for this, especially not if the "sex
is fun" philosophy of Planned Parenthood is what drives the
"education."
On the other hand, various restrictions on abortion HAVE cut it here
in South Carolina to less than half of what it was at its peak ca.
1987.
> There's not much one can do to stop abortion by chastising women or doctors.
Stop, no. Reduce, yes.
> It will always happen in society.
> What we have to do is go to the root of the problem instead of hacking away
> at the branches like the religious community tries to do.
See above.
Peter Nyikos
elizabeth
>
> > On Jul 8, 7:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> > > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> > > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> > >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> > > --
> > > J Young
> > > Jvisi...@live.com
>
> > >http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
>
> > The bible is proabortion.
Oh, my ....
> "elizabeth" must use a different bible than the one Christians use OR
> the ones Jews use.
>
> Exodus 21:22-23 prescribes penalties for causing miscarriages in
> women.
But it's only a fine, at most, if the husband asks for it. There is
no penalty for self induced abortion, and this was common at the time.
_Eve's Herbs_ by John Riddle
Additionally, if a man had even the slightest suspician, with no
evidence, that his wife was unfaithful, he could force her to drink an
abortacient IN THE TEMPLE . .. Numbers 5:11-31 describes this. See
Baruch Levine's analysis of this section in the Anchor Reference
Bible, there must be a few in YOUR alleged university's library.
This Torah lesson was reiterated in the story of David and Bathsheba.
and the Talmud is very prochoice.
> > Only cults and nations who need more cannon fodder force gestation.
>
> And only cults like the one "elizabeth" belongs to are so pro-abortion
> that they will recommend gangraping females to death for opposing
> abortion:
It's less than what those cunts would force other women to do,
GESTATE, because only a rapist, al a Garrido and his cuntwife, would
force a woman to do that.
> I feel that antiabort males should have their genitals ripped off
> and forced down their throats, and antiabort females gangraped
> until death.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/4881aa97c3a63918
>
> Any antiabort male should have his balls ripped off
> with pliers. And "denise" needs to get gangraped
> to death.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/7c4b3fb1356665b1
>
> That was "elizabeth" demonstrating that turning the other cheek, the
> way Denise Noe consistently did in reaction to the abuse showered on
> her, only works when the opponent has a conscience.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Go kill yourself, OopsNy.
james g. keegan jr.
<8eb18abf-b9c1-4702...@l37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2:56 am, "Andrew W" <remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>
>
> > There's not much one can do to stop abortion by chastising women or doctors.
>
> Stop, no. Reduce, yes.
the plagiarist nyikos is probably salivating at the thought of
chastising women.
james g. keegan jr.
<9e9fcb5d-1592-4933...@gc3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 3:08 pm, The_Echo_Chamber <echochambe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 10:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> > > child.
>
> Note how The Echo Chamber makes NO attempt to refute what "J" writes:
then you accept the accuracy of *all* the comments made about you that
you haven't refuted, right plagiarist??
james g. keegan jr.
<a669cae3-bfd8-4026...@r18g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 11:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > >This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> > >child.
> >
> > But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
>
> If Ray were threatened with waterboarding if he didn't provide
> meaningful documentation for this claim
since you have *never* documented *any* claim you were called on to
support, plagiarist, you're probably not the best person to point
fingers at others.
pnyikos
> On Jul 18, 1:15 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 7:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> > > > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> > > > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> > > >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> > > > --
> > > > J Young
> > > > Jvisi...@live.com
>
> > > >http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
>
> > > The bible is proabortion.
>
> Oh, my ....
>
> > "elizabeth" must use a different bible than the one Christians use OR
> > the ones Jews use.
>
> > Exodus 21:22-23 prescribes penalties for causing miscarriages in
> > women.
>
> But it's only a fine, at most, if the husband asks for it.
That is a misreading of the text. The ancient Near East had some well
established laws, including the code of Hammurabi, for dealing with
all kinds of complications.
In the ancient Near East, a monetary value was put on various lives,
and the Middle Assyrian Laws A 50 addresses the same situation
addressed by Exodus 21:22-23 when it says that a
person who strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry "shall
pay a life" [_napshate umalla_].
The person who gave me this information wrote:
"The penalty is a sum representing the value of the life lost. Note
that only if there are aggravated circumstances such as the death of
the mother herself, or the fetus
being the first-born son of the husband, is the penalty death."
Raymond Westbrook wrote in
"Lex talionis and Exodus 21:22-25," [_Revue Biblique_ (1986) pp.
52-69.]
about one of the crucial words in this Biblical passage. Here is
most
of the first half of a summary that appeared in
_Birth in Babylonia and the Bible_, By Marten Stol [BRILL, 2000]:
Raymond Westbrook has proposed a new interpretation
of this Exodus law [114]. We summarize his findings.
The text starts with a vague plural: an undetermined
number of men are fighting. Then, a woman becomes
involved: apparently, she happened to be there and she
is hurt by a push or so. As a consequence, she loses
her unborn child. At this moment we, as readers, pause
and ponder over the first juridicial problem that arises
now: which of the men gave the push and is the guilty
one? The problem of damages, brought by an unknown
perpetrator, is a well known problem in any discussion
on a skirmish where people are wounded. Now, Westbrook
sees this problem formulated in the obscure remark, “and
there is no *’ason*”. What does this word mean? “Harm”,
“mischief” are the usual translations. Westbrook understands
the word to mean: “damage caused by an unknown perpetrator”...
Let us return to Exodus. “There is no *‘ason”*, so here the
perpetrator is known. Understandably, the law now switches
to the singular, referring to the man who had done it: “he
shall certainly be fined, according as the woman’s husband
shall lay upon him”. A private arrangement is made, the
amount of the fine probably dependent on the financial
possibilities of the guilty person. It must have been something
like the “ransom” (*kofer*) of verse 30.
Now follows the short remark “and he shall give (it) in
*p^clilim*”. Often translated as “he shall pay as the judges
(determine)”; so already the Targum and Jerome (*arbitri*).
Nobody knows what *p^clilim* means and Westbrook, in
line with his interpretation of *‘ason*, proposes “he alone”.
Only he, the man identified as guilty, has to pay; not the
other fighters. In the few other passages where we find
this obscure word *p^clilim*, “alone” is a possible
translation. Here, it expresses the idea of sole responsibility.
--pp. 44-45
Footnote:
[114] R. Westbrook, “Lex talionis and Exodus 21:22-25,"
*Revue Biblique* (1986) 52-69. ...
> There is
> no penalty for self induced abortion, and this was common at the time.
I doubt it. What sources does John Riddle cite?
> _Eve's Herbs_ by John Riddle
>
> Additionally, if a man had even the slightest suspician, with no
> evidence, that his wife was unfaithful, he could force her to drink an
> abortacient IN THE TEMPLE . .. Numbers 5:11-31 describes this.
The passage is so ambiguous, it is not even clear whether a
miscarriage is the intended effect.
More importantly, this is a magical setting, trial by ordeal, in which
the effect depends on whether the wife is innocent or guilty of being
unfaithful.
> See
> Baruch Levine's analysis of this section in the Anchor Reference
> Bible, there must be a few in YOUR alleged university's library.
Stop pretending to believe that I am someone other than who I am.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
That is part of what tenure is all about, but I don't think Keegan and
his henchmen and henchwomen, including "elizabeth,"
know the first thing about tenure.
PS there is a pair of threads in talk.origins which should lay to rest
anyone's doubts that I am who I say I am. In stark contrast,
"elizabeth" has consistently refused to either confirm or deny that 'e
is a woman, and that her/his name is Elizabeth Frantes.
Ray Fischer
> "Andrew W" <remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>
>> Here's a solution for the abortion problem
>> Campaign for better distribution of contraception and better education of
>> young people.
>> This will dramatically reduce the incidents of abortion.
>
>There is precious little evidence for thiso
nyikos is lying.
> especially not if the "sex
>is fun" philosophy of Planned Parenthood
nyikos is a fascist sleazebag.
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 8, 11:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
>>
>> But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
>
>If Ray were threatened with waterboarding if he didn't provide
The usual smears and personal attacks from the usual relibigot sleazebag.
>> You just hate women.
>
>This from someone who once said, "I don't give a shit about women".
You care about women the same way that Nazis care about Jews.
Unlike you misogynist assholes I don't think that women should be
treated differently than men, for or against.
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The bible is proabortion.
>
>"elizabeth" must use a different bible than the one Christians use OR
>the ones Jews use.
nyikos doesn't even know what's in the Bible. He just believes
whatever his corrupt cult tells him.
>Exodus 21:22-23 prescribes penalties for causing miscarriages in
>women.
The penalty is a fine chosen by the husband of the woman.
>> Only cults and nations who need more cannon fodder force gestation.
>
>And only cults like the one "elizabeth" belongs to are so pro-abortion
nyikos is lying again.
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 18, 7:22 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 1:15 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 8, 7:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
>> > > > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
>> > > > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>>
>> > > >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>>
>> > > > --
>> > > > J Young
>> > > > Jvisi...@live.com
>>
>> > > >http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
>>
>> > > The bible is proabortion.
>>
>> Oh, my ....
>>
>> > "elizabeth" must use a different bible than the one Christians use OR
>> > the ones Jews use.
>>
>> > Exodus 21:22-23 prescribes penalties for causing miscarriages in
>> > women.
>>
>> But it's only a fine, at most, if the husband asks for it.
>
>That is a misreading of the text.
nyikos is lying about the Bible.
> The ancient Near East had some well
Non sequitur
>The person who gave me this information wrote:
Did that person write the Bible?
MarkA
> On Jul 9, 9:03 pm, MarkA <some...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:22:57 -0400, J wrote:
>> > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
>> > child. Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a
>> > belief in God is not necessary to possess the morality required to
>> > oppose abortion.
>>
>> >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>>
>> Last updated in 2007.
>
> So? perhaps he didn't have anything to add to what he is already saying,
> contenting himself with what the links have to say.
Perhaps. However, most web sites that are still active get an occasional
update.
>
>> I guess Mr Wallace came to his senses?
>
> Are you so fanatically in favor of abortion that you consider everyone who
> is opposed to it to be loco?
I am fanatically in favor of a woman's right to make her own decisions. I
am fanatically in favor of the idea that a microscopic clump of cells
does not have the right to commandeer the use of a woman's body against
her will. I am fanatically in favor of the right that moralists such as
you do not have the right to restrict a woman's choices in matters that
are not your concern.
I do not consider anti-abortionists to be "loco". I consider them to have
misplaced priorities, which they seek to impose on others against their
will.
> Note that the website accepts people who are only partially opposed to
> abortion. It does explain, however, that anyone who supportst the
> radical RvW decision does not qualify.
It seems that you don't know much about Roe v Wade. At the time of the
decision, it was about equal rights for women, not equal rights for the
fetus. The whole "right to life" issue didn't arise until much later.
>
> Peter Nyikos
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
elizabeth
and you call yourself an academic?
> I doubt it. What sources does John Riddle cite?
Read the book. And read up on him, he's a real prof.
> > _Eve's Herbs_ by John Riddle
>
> > Additionally, if a man had even the slightest suspician, with no
> > evidence, that his wife was unfaithful, he could force her to drink an
> > abortacient IN THE TEMPLE . .. Numbers 5:11-31 describes this.
>
> The passage is so ambiguous, it is not even clear whether a
> miscarriage is the intended effect.
So you didn't read Levine. I gave you sources, you don't read them.
> More importantly, this is a magical setting, trial by ordeal, in which
> the effect depends on whether the wife is innocent or guilty of being
> unfaithful.
Nope. they bloody well knew what caused abortion.
> > See
> > Baruch Levine's analysis of this section in the Anchor Reference
> > Bible, there must be a few in YOUR alleged university's library.
>
> Stop pretending to believe that I am someone other than who I am.
You sure don't post like a real academic.
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>
> The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
> representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
> That is part of what tenure is all about, but I don't think Keegan and
> his henchmen and henchwomen, including "elizabeth,"
> know the first thing about tenure.
>
> PS there is a pair of threads in talk.origins which should lay to rest
> anyone's doubts that I am who I say I am. In stark contrast,
> "elizabeth" has consistently refused to either confirm or deny that 'e
> is a woman, and that her/his name is Elizabeth Frantes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kelsey Bjarnason
pnyikos wrote:
>> Here's a solution for the abortion problem
>> Campaign for better distribution of contraception and better education of
>> young people.
>> This will dramatically reduce the incidents of abortion.
>
> There is precious little evidence for this,
Perhaps, perhaps not, but there are really only two paths one can go down to
reducing abortion. One is to reduce the need for it, the other is to make
it difficult to get one.
Reducing the need for it more or less necessitates education, availability
of contraceptive measures, and continued research into more effective
contraceptives (and ones with fewer side-effects).
Well, that or simply spiking everyone's water supply with some form of anti-
aphrodisiac, drug them into not boffing like bunnies at every opportunity.
The alternative - making it simply more difficult to get one - has proven
disastrous in the past, because if you need one and the local clinic or
hospital won't provide one, there's always _someone_ willing to do it for a
fee. All too frequently in non-sterile conditions. Failing that, one may
be forced to resort to coat hangers.
We've seen it in the past, when abortion was not readily available, the
results were absolutely horrific. Why anyone would want to *return* to that
state... well, barring an intense, seething hatred of women, there's really
just no excuse for promoting those conditions.
> On the other hand, various restrictions on abortion HAVE cut it here
> in South Carolina to less than half of what it was at its peak ca.
> 1987.
South Carolina may well have made it more difficult to get an abortion
locally. Did they make it notably difficult to go a state over and have it
done there? How did they avoid the return of the back-street abortionist?
How's the number of unwanted kids now, compared to what it was before this
action?
Simply lowering the number of "legitimate procedures" in one area does not
paint the whole picture; it needs to encompass all the effects of the action
taken.
Andrew W
news:buaif8-...@spankydtr.localhost.net
This is a very sensible post.
It seems that Christians do want to take us back to the horrid dark ages.
I think that reading the Bible too seriously can lead to delusion.
The Bible needs to be put on the shelf and only read as a historic document
of curiosity of how people lived long ago.
pnyikos
> "MIPS" <mi...@woerten.invalid> skrev i meddelelsennews:ivasej$iaj$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ray Fag Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >news:4e17cfe5$0$2202$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >>J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>>This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> >>>child.
>
> >> But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
>
> > You just hate women.
>
> > There is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> > child.
>
> That is correct; fortunately it is not even possible.
I see you are one of those people who has been brainwashed into
thinking "unborn child" is an oxymoron, whereas the first meaning of
"child" in the OED expressly includes the unborn, and one of the
synonyms given is "foetus". Ditto the Merriam-Webster Unabridged
dictionary, except that it uses the American spelling "fetus."
> > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> Correct again! Invincible ignorance is the only requirement.
>
> thomas p
I see that you are one of those brainwashed abortion rights "useful
idiots" who thinks only ignorant people oppose abortion.
But the "ignorance" is not invincible. All but the most martyrdom-
inclined would spurn the "remedy" espoused by "elizabeth":
I feel that antiabort males should have their genitals ripped off
and forced down their throats, and antiabort females gangraped
until death.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/4881aa97c3a63918
Any antiabort male should have his balls ripped off
with pliers. And "denise" needs to get gangraped
to death.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/7c4b3fb1356665b1
That was "elizabeth" demonstrating that turning the other cheek, the
way Denise Noe consistently did in reaction to the abuse showered on
her, only works when the opponent has a conscience.
Of course, "turning the other cheek" is only for Christians, whom you
despise, isn't it?
> I bring you the stately matron Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched
> and dishonored from pirate raids in Kiao-Chow, Manchuria, South Africa and
> the Philippines, with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle,
> and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies. Give her soap and a towel, but hide
> the looking-glass.
>
> Mark Twain
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jul 18, 1:15 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 7:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> > > > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> > > > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> > > >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> > > > --
> > > > J Young
> > > > Jvisi...@live.com
>
> > > >http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
>
> > > The bible is proabortion.
>
> > "elizabeth" must use a different bible than the one Christians use OR
> > the ones Jews use.
>
> > Exodus 21:22-23 prescribes penalties for causing miscarriages in
> > women.
>
> And Numbers chapter 5 describes the temple priests giving an
> abortifacient drug
The passage is too ambiguous for certain identification.
> given to women thought to have been unfaithful.
>
> It was all about children and women being chattel property in those
> days, Nyikos, as you would know if you had a scrap of education.
If I had a scrap of neo-feminist herstory-style brainwashing, you
mean.
> If
> it was a wanted pregnancy (i.e., if the *man* wanted it) and someone
> caused a miscarriage, then there was a penalty.
There was a penalty no matter what, if Raymond Westbrook's analysis
that I posted in response to "elizabeth" is correct. Raymond Westbrook
is an expert in ancient Near Eastern languages and laws at Johns
Hopkins University, and I'll take him over anyone who lacks those
credentials. His analysis has stood the test of time for nearly three
decades now.
The only question was whether the penalty was paid by the guilty
party, when his identity was known, or the community as a whole, if it
was not known.
By the way, what do you think of elizabeth's recommendation for the
treatment of antiabort males and females? See my reply of a few
minutes ago to thomas p.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jul 18, 1:15 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[deletia of things dealt with in first reply]
> > And only cults like the one "elizabeth" belongs to are so pro-abortion
> > that they will recommend gangraping females to death for opposing
> > abortion:
>
> It's less than what those cunts would force other women to do,
> GESTATE,
to death, always? Stop lying. All but the mentally ill antiaborts
would allow an abortion to save a woman's life. Most of those who
seem to fit that category are in the same sort of denial you are in
wrt 3rd trimester abortions: they believe there is no abortion that is
necessary, in this day and age, to save a woman's life.
> because only a rapist, al a Garrido and his cuntwife, would
> force a woman to do that.
She'd have to be made pregnant against her will first.
> > I feel that antiabort males should have their genitals ripped off
> > and forced down their throats, and antiabort females gangraped
> > until death.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/4881aa97c3a63918
>
> > Any antiabort male should have his balls ripped off
> > with pliers. And "denise" needs to get gangraped
> > to death.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/7c4b3fb1356665b1
>
> > That was "elizabeth" demonstrating that turning the other cheek, the
> > way Denise Noe consistently did in reaction to the abuse showered on
> > her, only works when the opponent has a conscience.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Go kill yourself, OopsNy.
Never tell someone to do what you wouldn't or couldn't do yourself.
--elizabeth flaunting her hypocrisy in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/9b4d544b20e2dc9b
Message-ID: <09e39b72-de16-403d-95fa-
ebd120...@34g2000prs.googlegroups.com>
By the way, you were obsessed with Osprey all the while he was gone
for more than a year; will you remain obsessed with him even longer
this time around?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> In article
> <9e9fcb5d-1592-4933-a4dd-3defbd587...@gc3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 3:08 pm, The_Echo_Chamber <echochambe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 8, 10:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> > > > child.
>
> > Note how The Echo Chamber makes NO attempt to refute what "J" writes:
>
> then you accept the accuracy of *all* the comments made about you that
> you haven't refuted, right plagiarist??
You are a joke, Keegan and your infantile clinging to your ridiculous
charge of plagiarism is a tired, old delusion refuted long ago, such
as in:
Pathological Liar of the Month (July 2010):
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/msg/f91b0bde06325f20?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/browse_thread/thread/012e583b2b54e794/f91b0bde06325f20
This idiotic clinging to your delusion thru hundreds if not thousands
of posts is a symptom of something, probably being bored with life and
having no friends besides hate-crazed lunatics like "elizabeth".
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 18, 4:39 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 1:15 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 8, 7:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
>> > > > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
>> > > > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>>
>> > > >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>>
>> > > > --
>> > > > J Young
>> > > > Jvisi...@live.com
>>
>> > > >http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
>>
>> > > The bible is proabortion.
>>
>> > "elizabeth" must use a different bible than the one Christians use OR
>> > the ones Jews use.
>>
>> > Exodus 21:22-23 prescribes penalties for causing miscarriages in
>> > women.
>>
>> And Numbers chapter 5 describes the temple priests giving an
>> abortifacient drug
>
>The passage is too ambiguous for certain identification.
The passage is too embarrassing for a immoral apologist to accept.
pnyikos
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 11:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > > J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > >This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> > > >child.
>
> > > But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
>
> > If Ray were threatened with waterboarding if he didn't provide
> > meaningful documentation for this claim
> since you have *never* documented *any* claim you were called on to
> support,
Even you acknowledged that "Spartakus" was right when he admitted that
I had met Humprhey's demand that I document Chilton wanting the age of
consent to 14.
Of course, neither he nor you acknowledged how you had slandered me
with the claim that I had run away from that challenge, in direct
follow-up to my meeting it. Documentation of this slander and the
fact that it IS a slander can be found in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/15ddd4a1bb1882db
You are a pathological liar, Keegan, and I think almost everyone
familiar with your ways knows that. The smart money says you and your
allies, most valuable of whom is the selfsame "Spartakus," know it.
Y'all just think lying is perfectly OK when *you* do it, don't you?
You're an atheist, aren't you?
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 10, 2:51 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "MIPS" <mi...@woerten.invalid> skrev i meddelelsennews:ivasej$iaj$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Ray Fag Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >news:4e17cfe5$0$2202$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> >>J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >>>This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
>> >>>child.
>>
>> >> But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
>>
>> > You just hate women.
>>
>> > There is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
>> > child.
>>
>> That is correct; fortunately it is not even possible.
>
>I see you are one of those people who has been brainwashed into
That coming from an immoral catholic apologist.
pnyikos
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:23:26 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 9:03 pm, MarkA <some...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:22:57 -0400, J wrote:
> >> > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> >> > child. Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a
> >> > belief in God is not necessary to possess the morality required to
> >> > oppose abortion.
>
> >> >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> >> Last updated in 2007.
>
> > So? perhaps he didn't have anything to add to what he is already saying,
> > contenting himself with what the links have to say.
>
> Perhaps. However, most web sites that are still active get an occasional
> update.
>
>
>
> >> I guess Mr Wallace came to his senses?
>
> > Are you so fanatically in favor of abortion that you consider everyone who
> > is opposed to it to be loco?
>
> I am fanatically in favor of a woman's right to make her own decisions. I
> am fanatically in favor of the idea that a microscopic clump of cells
...is what is removed in an abortion?
If so, you are truly ignorant. Abortion prior to 6 weeks LMP is
almost unheard of, except for self-induced abortions, nowadays done
either with RU-486 or "menstrual extraction". And by 6 weeks LMP the
embryo is neither microscopic nor a clump of cells.
> does not have the right to commandeer the use of a woman's body against
> her will. I am fanatically in favor of the right that moralists such as
> you do not have the right to restrict a woman's choices in matters that
> are not your concern.
>
> I do not consider anti-abortionists to be "loco". I consider them to have
> misplaced priorities, which they seek to impose on others against their
> will.
>
> > Note that the website accepts people who are only partially opposed to
> > abortion. It does explain, however, that anyone who supportst the
> > radical RvW decision does not qualify.
>
> It seems that you don't know much about Roe v Wade.
I probably know a whole lot more than you, including the whopping
history errors Blackmun made.
> At the time of the
> decision, it was about equal rights for women, not equal rights for the
> fetus. The whole "right to life" issue didn't arise until much later.
It arose in the latter half of the 19th century, ignoramus. That was
one of the things Blackmun was either arguing in bad faith about, or
was duped by the lies of Cyril Means.
Joseph Dellapenna's article, "Abortion and the Law: Roe's Distortion
of the Historical Record," in: _Abortion and the Constitution_,
Georgetown University Press, 1987, is a good place to start for
anyone wishing to learn just how distorted Justice Blackmun's account
was, even considering the information available at the time.
A particularly striking example is Blackmun's claim that
"The few state courts called upon to interpret their laws in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries did focus
on the State's interest in protecting the woman's health rather than
in
preserving the embryo or fetus." [410 U.S. at 151: as usual, "U.S."
refers to _United States Reports_, the journal of record for all
United
States Supreme Court decisions.] This claim, as demonstrated by R.
Byrne
in _Fordham Law Review_, vol 14, is totally false and is contradicted
(*inter alia*) by a New Jersey case cited earlier in the Opinion
of the Court itself, in a footnote only three pages earlier!
It appears from this that either Blackmun (who wrote the Opinion of
the
Court) or Means or both were arguing in bad faith. The New Jersey
case
in question, *State v. Gedicke*, 43 N. J. L. 86, 90 (1881), contains
the following passage:
This law was further extended March 26th, 1872 ... to
protect the life of the child also, and inflict the same
punishment, in case of its death, as if the mother should
die.
This New Jersey decision is also cited by Means, *op. cit.*, and
it is possible that Blackmun was relying slavishly on Means and had
not read the text of the decision himself.
Adding to the irony is the fact that, in support of the claim about
"The few state courts ...," Blackmun's sole reference is an earlier
New
Jersey decision, *State v. Murphy*, 27 N. J. L. 112, 114 (1858).
One can see the hand of Means in this too, as Means claimed on p. 389
of his "phoenix" article that this was the only state supreme court
case which expounded the purpose of *early* 19th century abortion
statutes.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
That is part of what tenure is all about, but I don't think Keegan and
his henchmen and henchwomen know the first thing about tenure.
Are you angling to become one of those henchmen, Mark A.?
pnyikos
You're responding to yourself, twit.
> > I doubt it. What sources does John Riddle cite?
>
> Read the book. And read up on him, he's a real prof.
You can't cite a single source that he used to show there was no
penalty for self induced abortion, nor that it was common at the time,
can you?
Raymond Westbrook is an expert in ancient Near Eastern languages and
laws, and a real prof at Johns Hopkins University. What's Riddle's
credentials?
> > > _Eve's Herbs_ by John Riddle
Hardly the title an academic would choose for a scholarly treatise, is
it?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
That is part of what tenure is all about, but I don't think Keegan and
his henchmen and henchwomen know the first thing about tenure.
pnyikos
> [snips]
>
> pnyikos wrote:
> >> Here's a solution for the abortion problem
> >> Campaign for better distribution of contraception and better education of
> >> young people.
> >> This will dramatically reduce the incidents of abortion.
>
> > There is precious little evidence for this,
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not, but there are really only two paths one can go down to
> reducing abortion. One is to reduce the need for it, the other is to make
> it difficult to get one.
>
> Reducing the need for it more or less necessitates education, availability
> of contraceptive measures, and continued research into more effective
> contraceptives (and ones with fewer side-effects).
>
> Well, that or simply spiking everyone's water supply with some form of anti-
> aphrodisiac, drug them into not boffing like bunnies at every opportunity.
>
> The alternative - making it simply more difficult to get one - has proven
> disastrous in the past,
The distant past, when antibiotics were not yet widely available nor
were safe methods of self-induced abortion. See references below for
what is available now.
>because if you need one and the local clinic or
> hospital won't provide one, there's always _someone_ willing to do it for a
> fee. All too frequently in non-sterile conditions. Failing that, one may
> be forced to resort to coat hangers.
Not any more. See references below. By the way, there is not a
single authenticated example of a successful coathanger abortion.
>
> We've seen it in the past, when abortion was not readily available, the
> results were absolutely horrific. Why anyone would want to *return* to that
> state...
It's impossible in the first place. You are sadly uninformed.
> > On the other hand, various restrictions on abortion HAVE cut it here
> > in South Carolina to less than half of what it was at its peak ca.
> > 1987.
>
> South Carolina may well have made it more difficult to get an abortion
> locally. Did they make it notably difficult to go a state over and have it
> done there?
No, but second or third trimester abortion, which is the only real
reason for going over into another state, only involves ca. 10% of all
abortions.
> How did they avoid the return of the back-street abortionist?
There were no other prohibitions, only a parent-or-grandparent consent
for unemancipated minors, but even they could get judicial bypasses.
Back alley abortionists are obsolete anyway. There is a menstrual
extraction apparatus for self-induced abortion, marketed by Planned
Parenthood:
It could readily be black-marketed, should major prohibitions occur in
the future. But I doubt that any will go further than the Portuguese
system of allowing abortion up thru the 10th week LMP. That is the
system I favor.
There are also instructions for making a safe menstrual extraction
apparatus from materials available in many hardware stores, in _A
Woman's Book of Choices_.
> How's the number of unwanted kids now, compared to what it was before this
> action?
"unwanted" is a slippery concept. How would anyone go about finding
statistics for such a thing?
By the way, why did you set follow-ups to alt.atheism alone?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
pnyikos
wrote:
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote in message
[further snip]
> > We've seen it in the past, when abortion was not readily available,
> > the results were absolutely horrific. Why anyone would want to
> > *return* to that state... well, barring an intense, seething hatred
> > of women, there's really just no excuse for promoting those
> > conditions.
>
> This is a very sensible post.
You are as badly out of date as Kelsey. Rip van Winkle was more up to
date after 20 years than you two are. See my reply to him a few
minutes ago.
I see you restored the crossposted newsgroups like I did, so you
apparently don't think everything about his post was sensible.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 10, 2:51 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "MIPS" <mi...@woerten.invalid> skrev i meddelelsennews:ivasej$iaj$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >> > "Ray Fag Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:4e17cfe5$0$2202$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >> >>J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >>>This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> >> >>>child.
>
> >> >> But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
>
> >> > You just hate women.
>
> >> > There is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> >> > child.
>
> >> That is correct; fortunately it is not even possible.
>
> >I see you are one of those people who has been brainwashed into
>
> That coming from an immoral catholic apologist.
What would an amoral jerk like you know about morality? As for the
mindless suggestion that I am brainwashed...
My abortion rights stance is based on an agnostic world-view, one I've
held for a good part of my life, you hate-ravaged liar. I've reasoned
it out very carefully, and you were powerless to refute it back in the
mid-90's already, when I posted a long scholarly article I did on the
subject:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/browse_thread/thread/a067f1a351c4dff2/86c7adc552c783db
Let's see you try to explan what you think consittutes my acting as a
"catholic apologist".
You can''t do it, can you? You have allowed your mental faculties to
atrophy as a result of being spoiled rotten by Keegan, Spartakus, and
a whole gaggle of other abortion rights fanatics. You have very
little left except mindless insults like the one you've administered
just now.
Kelsey Bjarnason
pnyikos wrote:
>> The alternative - making it simply more difficult to get one - has proven
>> disastrous in the past,
>
> The distant past, when antibiotics were not yet widely available nor
> were safe methods of self-induced abortion.
To a point.
> Not any more. See references below. By the way, there is not a
> single authenticated example of a successful coathanger abortion.
Kinda the point. :)
>
>> South Carolina may well have made it more difficult to get an abortion
>> locally. Did they make it notably difficult to go a state over and have
>> it done there?
>
> No, but second or third trimester abortion, which is the only real
> reason for going over into another state, only involves ca. 10% of all
> abortions.
Meaning that more than half of all abortions in S.C. were second and third
trimester? Perhaps. Even so, that just means we're talking about a subset
of abortion in general. New restrictions are in, abortion is down...
supposedly as a result of the restrictions, rather than as a result of
vastly improved sex education, massively increased availability of
contraception and the like.
Which, in turn, means those "more than half" went somewhere. Across the
line to have them done somewhere else. Self-induced. Or carried to term,
despite not wanting to do so (if they wanted to, that "more than half"
wouldn't have existed in the first place).
Magic aside... *where did they go*? All we have is "restrictions...
resulted in fewer abortions". There are huge, fatal gaping wounds in this
tale, not just a few minor holes.
> Back alley abortionists are obsolete anyway. There is a menstrual
> extraction apparatus for self-induced abortion, marketed by Planned
> Parenthood:
>
> http://pop.org/content/abortion-for-all-how-the-international-planned-
parenthood-federation-promotes-abortion-around-the-world-894
Quoting:
""Menstrual regulation" (MR) or "menstrual extraction" (ME) are synonyms for
an abortion procedure that is especially suited to circumventing the
abortion laws of developing countries, because the abortions are performed
so early that the "evidence" which results is either destroyed during the
procedure or easily disposed of."
...
"Menstrual regulation is commonly defined as evacuation of the uterus in a
woman who has missed her menstrual period by 14 days or less..."
Again, we're missing what happened to those "more than half", and as far as
legitimate options are concerned, your offering only works up to a point
where, let's be honest, many women don't even *know* they're pregnant.
>> How's the number of unwanted kids now, compared to what it was before
>> this action?
>
> "unwanted" is a slippery concept.
Not really, in this case. Any progeny resulting from someone who seeks an
abortion, only to be told that the new regulations mean she cannot have it,
is pretty much by definition an unwanted kid... as it simply *would not
exist* were it not for the new rulings.
> How would anyone go about finding
> statistics for such a thing?
Apparently someone already has... "more than half", I believe was the phrase
used.
> By the way, why did you set follow-ups to alt.atheism alone?
Because someone else set them to another group, one I don't read. If
someone wishes to debate the matter with me, they can come here, or bugger
off.
Actually, in most cases, I'd actually prefer they buggered off, to be
honest.
SkyEyes
> On Jul 18, 4:39 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 1:15 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 7:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> > > > > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> > > > > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> > > > >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > J Young
> > > > > Jvisi...@live.com
>
> > > > >http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
>
> > > > The bible is proabortion.
>
> > > "elizabeth" must use a different bible than the one Christians use OR
> > > the ones Jews use.
>
> > > Exodus 21:22-23 prescribes penalties for causing miscarriages in
> > > women.
>
> > And Numbers chapter 5 describes the temple priests giving an
> > abortifacient drug
>
> The passage is too ambiguous for certain identification.
Translation: "I can't come up with a good argument, so I'll
obfuscate."
>
> > given to women thought to have been unfaithful.
>
> > It was all about children and women being chattel property in those
> > days, Nyikos, as you would know if you had a scrap of education.
>
> If I had a scrap of neo-feminist herstory-style brainwashing, you
> mean.
Wouldn't know, not being a feminist myself. I left the movement when
Schulamith Firestone and her bunch started in with the man-hatred.
Personally, I *like* men - lots. Don't want a world composed only of
women.
>
> > If
> > it was a wanted pregnancy (i.e., if the *man* wanted it) and someone
> > caused a miscarriage, then there was a penalty.
>
> There was a penalty no matter what, if Raymond Westbrook's analysis
> that I posted in response to "elizabeth" is correct. Raymond Westbrook
> is an expert in ancient Near Eastern languages and laws at Johns
> Hopkins University, and I'll take him over anyone who lacks those
> credentials. His analysis has stood the test of time for nearly three
> decades now.
That's because in those days, Nyikos, children were wealth. It
*really* doesn't take an advanced degree to puzzle it out. Women and
children were *chattel*. Men assumed, unless they had reason to think
otherwise, that their pregnant wives were carrying *their own* child -
therefore, it had value, and if a miscarriage was caused, well, that
was taking away the man's wealth, wasn't it?
Whereas if a man thought his wife had been unfaithful, then she was
possibly pregnant with someone *else's* property - and that property
must be flushed out.
The point of the Numbers chapter 5 passage is that it demonstrates
clearly that the life and/or health of the fetus or embryo was *not* a
major concern.
>
> The only question was whether the penalty was paid by the guilty
> party, when his identity was known, or the community as a whole, if it
> was not known.
...because children were *property*. See above.
>
> By the way, what do you think of elizabeth's recommendation for the
> treatment of antiabort males and females? See my reply of a few
> minutes ago to thomas p.
I don't much hold with what elizabeth says; she's a mite to close to
bein' crazy for me (although I understand she has her reasons). I
*do* agree with her, however, that being forced to carry a child to
term that the woman does not, for whatever reason, want, is
*slavery*. And I agree with her that those wanting to take away
abortion rights are *forced birthers*. I also agree that the best
form of contraception is sterilization, if you can get it.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Ray Fischer
>> >I see you are one of those people who has been brainwashed into
>>
>> That coming from an immoral catholic apologist.
>
>What would an amoral jerk like you know about morality?
Smirk. You defend child molesters. You demand the abject obedience of
women, even if it kills them. You lie with insane hate.
Obviously almost anybody knows more of morality than do you, pervert.
> As for the
>mindless suggestion that I am brainwashed...
Good to see you admit that YOUR claim wass mindless.
>My abortion rights stance is based on an agnostic world-view,
You stack up insane lies and irrational nonsense in order to justify
your contempt for women. That's how you demand their abject obedience
and even death.
> you hate-ravaged liar. I've reasoned
>it out very carefully,
Self-serving rationalization isn't reason.
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 19, 8:09�am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:23:26 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
>> > Are you so fanatically in favor of abortion that you consider everyone who
>> > is opposed to it to be loco?
>>
>> I am fanatically in favor of a woman's right to make her own decisions. �I
>> am fanatically in favor of the idea that a microscopic clump of cells
>
>...is what is removed in an abortion?
Smirk. Nyikos resorting the very snipping he whines about.
>If so, you are truly ignorant. Abortion prior to 6 weeks LMP is
>almost unheard of, except for self-induced abortions,
They're "almost unheard of" except for all the ones that are done.
Idiot.
>> > Note that the website accepts people who are only partially opposed to
>> > abortion. �It does explain, however, that anyone who supportst the
>> > radical RvW decision does not qualify.
>>
>> It seems that you don't know much about Roe v Wade.
>
>I probably know a whole lot more than you,
You don't know shit.
> including the whopping
>history errors Blackmun made.
There's the insanity of the religibot. It cannot accept being wrong
about anything.
elizabeth
You sure are obsessed with what you insist are the obsessions of
others . .. .
> By the way, you were obsessed with Osprey all the while he was gone
> for more than a year; will you remain obsessed with him even longer
> this time around?
Just hope he finally took my advice and killed himself.
> Peter Nyikos
elizabeth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your expert doesn't trump my expert, Baruch Levine, whose expertise in
Biblical Hebrew got *him* in the Anchor Ref Bible.
And that's directly about Numbers.
elizabeth
>
> The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
> representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
> That is part of what tenure is all about, but I don't think Keegan and
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you won't read my sources.
Funny how someone who claims to be an academic can't find the texts I
found in a university library.
pnyikos
decided to go on a month long (give or take a few days) posting
break. On my return, I'll check back on this thread for sure, since
I've said a lot of things I haven't said in years to a number of
people whom I never encountered.
This break of mine should make Keegan very happy, because he gets to
tell one of his favorite whoppers: X went on a posting break because
his lies got to be too much for him to defend. He loves to tell this
on the return of X, but almost never explains what those alleged lies
are supposed to be.
Anyway, he has a whole month to come up with what HE thinks of as a
plausible example. But chances are he won't try: why spoil a
perfectly good whopper by trying to justify it and falling flat?
By the way, he and Fischer seem to be in some sort of competiiton as
to who can tell the most whoppers and the biggest whoppers. Fischer
is on the ropes in a thread with some of the same newsgroups
crossposted that appear here, with everyone else on that thread
unafraid to say and show what a liar and coward he is.
But he goes right on telling whoppers on it. Lacking a conscience, he
has no reason to EVER think the exposes of his lies are too much for
him to handle. He just handles them with massive deletia and lying
about the things he has deleted.
On Jul 23, 1:35 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 9:00 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 5:43 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 18, 6:54 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 18, 7:22 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > There is
> > > > > no penalty for self induced abortion, and this was common at the time.
>
> > > and you call yourself an academic?
>
> > You're responding to yourself, twit.
>
> > > > I doubt it. What sources does John Riddle cite?
>
> > > Read the book. And read up on him, he's a real prof.
>
> > You can't cite a single source that he used to show there was no
> > penalty for self induced abortion, nor that it was common at the time,
> > can you?
<crickets chirping>
> > Raymond Westbrook is an expert in ancient Near Eastern languages and
> > laws, and a real prof at Johns Hopkins University. What's Riddle's
> > credentials?
<crickets chirping>
> > > > > _Eve's Herbs_ by John Riddle
>
> > Hardly the title an academic would choose for a scholarly treatise, is
> > it?
>
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>
> > The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
> > representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
> > That is part of what tenure is all about, but I don't think Keegan and
> > his henchmen and henchwomen know the first thing about tenure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So you won't read my sources.
Not as long as you keep those crickets chirping. Why should I
bother looking for possibly nonexistent needles in a haystack, the
credentials of whose author you don't even mention except that he is a
"real prof."
How do you know that, by the way? Have you ever e-mailed him? You've
never dared to e-mail me, lest you discover what an ass you've been
all these years, even pretending to believe I am a sock puppet for Bob
"Osprey" Heishman.
My departmental e-mail address is listed below. You'll keep on
avoiding it like the plague, won't you?
> Funny how someone who claims to be an academic can't find the texts I
> found in a university library.
Dream on with that idiotic "can't", you self-important jerk.
pnyikos
I forgot to add my virtual sig with my e-mail address, promised
above:
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Specialty: set-theoretic topology
Ph.D. Carnegie-Mellon University, 1971
pnyikos
> decided to go on a month long (give or take a few days) posting
> break. On my return, I'll check back on this thread for sure, since
> I've said a lot of things I haven't said in years to a number of
> people whom I never encountered.
Haste makes waste: I forgot to add the word "before" after "never
encountered".
NOW I'm out o' here.
Peter Nyikos
Patrick
Your expert doesn't trump my expert, Baruch Levine, whose expertise in
Biblical Hebrew got *him* in the Anchor Ref Bible.
And that's directly about Numbers.
+ MY daddy can beat up your daddy.
+ Oh.... wait.... My Daddy is dead.....
Patrick
news:c59139ef-1f2c-4916...@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT: My obligations have piled up to where I've
decided to go on a month long (give or take a few days) posting
break. On my return, I'll check back on this thread for sure, since
I've said a lot of things I haven't said in years to a number of
people whom I never encountered.
Have a nice time. See you when you get back!
Ray Fischer
>GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT: My obligations have piled up to where I've
>decided to go on a month long (give or take a few days) posting
Sling shit and run - the classic nyikos tactic
Alan Ferris
wrote:
Drink does that to a man.
"+ Back to this lie, I stated that a fetus the size of a thumb can
be developed outside a womb. I do not have the specific reference,
but when the Mccaulley (sp) septuplets were born a few years
back, it seemed to me that the smallest was around one pound.
+ As I look at my left thumb, I cannot imagine it weighing less
than a pound." - Patrick Barker
Message-ID: <3a50a3a6$0$1507$53a6...@news.erinet.com>
james g. keegan jr.
<518b1c7d-54ff-4957...@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 9:20 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a669cae3-bfd8-4026-9f39-8e2444364...@r18g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jul 8, 11:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > > > J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > >This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> > > > >child.
> >
> > > > But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
> >
> > > If Ray were threatened with waterboarding if he didn't provide
> > > meaningful documentation for this claim
>
> > since you have *never* documented *any* claim you were called on to
> > support,
>
> Even you acknowledged that "Spartakus" was right when he admitted that
> I had met Humprhey's demand that I document Chilton wanting the age of
> consent to 14.
>
> Of course, neither he nor you acknowledged how you had slandered me
> with the claim that I had run away from that challenge, in direct
> follow-up to my meeting it. Documentation of this slander and the
> fact that it IS a slander can be found in:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/15ddd4a1bb1882db
as so often happens, the plagiarizing professor blatantly lies and tries
to befuddle reaers with bogus documentation.
james g. keegan jr.
<10c46643-b7fb-4b66...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 9:16 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <9e9fcb5d-1592-4933-a4dd-3defbd587...@gc3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jul 9, 3:08 pm, The_Echo_Chamber <echochambe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 8, 10:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> > > > > child.
> >
> > > Note how The Echo Chamber makes NO attempt to refute what "J" writes:
> >
> > then you accept the accuracy of *all* the comments made about you that
> > you haven't refuted, right plagiarist??
>
> You are a joke
i see you ran from the question clearly focused at your insane
statement, plagiarist.
james g. keegan jr.
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 10, 2:51 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "MIPS" <mi...@woerten.invalid> skrev i
> >> meddelelsennews:ivasej$iaj$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> > "Ray Fag Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:4e17cfe5$0$2202$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >> >>J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >>>This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> >> >>>child.
> >>
> >> >> But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
> >>
> >> > You just hate women.
> >>
> >> > There is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> >> > child.
> >>
> >> That is correct; fortunately it is not even possible.
> >
> >I see you are one of those people who has been brainwashed into
>
> That coming from an immoral catholic apologist.
..as well as a plagiarist.
james g. keegan jr.
<b6f410ad-78b7-4999...@s17g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 11:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >On Jul 10, 2:51 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> "MIPS" <mi...@woerten.invalid> skrev i
> > >> meddelelsennews:ivasej$iaj$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> > >> > "Ray Fag Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> > >> >news:4e17cfe5$0$2202$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> > >> >>J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> > >> >>>child.
> >
> > >> >> But when you take the lives of born children, that's "different".
> >
> > >> > You just hate women.
> >
> > >> > There is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn
> > >> > child.
> >
> > >> That is correct; fortunately it is not even possible.
> >
> > >I see you are one of those people who has been brainwashed into
> >
> > That coming from an immoral catholic apologist.
>
> What would an amoral jerk like you know about morality?
interesting observation from a well-known plagiarist.
james g. keegan jr.
<c59139ef-1f2c-4916...@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT: My obligations have piled up to where I've
> decided to go on a month long (give or take a few days) posting
> break.
your lies caught up with you again, eh plagiarist?
james g. keegan jr.
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT: My obligations have piled up to where I've
> >decided to go on a month long (give or take a few days) posting
>
> Sling shit and run - the classic nyikos tactic
he has done the same thing dozens of times before. everyone who knows
him is on to him
elizabeth
>
> - Show quoted text -
How can we miss you when you won't go away?
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 22, 11:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >I see you are one of those people who has been brainwashed into
>
> >> That coming from an immoral catholic apologist.
>
> >What would an amoral jerk like you know about morality?
>
> Smirk. You defend child molesters.
Lie number one. No attempt at documentation, since none exists.
> You demand the abject obedience of
> women, even if it kills them.
Lie number two. No attempt at documentation, since none exists.
> You lie
Lie number three. No attempt at documentation, since none exists.
> with insane hate.
Lie number four. No attempt at documentation, since none exists.
> Obviously almost anybody knows more of morality than do you,
Besides being lie number five, the "Obviously" makes it pure "garbage
out" to go with the earlier "garbage in."
>pervert.
Lie number six. No attempt at documentation, since none exists.
> > As for the
> >mindless suggestion that I am brainwashed...
>
> Good to see you admit that YOUR claim wass mindless.
Besides being lie number seven, it is completely illogical, inasmuch I
backed up my claim in detail.
> >My abortion rights stance is based on an agnostic world-view,
>
> You stack up insane lies
Lie number eight. No attempt at documentation, since none exists.
> and irrational nonsense
Lie number nine. No attempt at documentation, since none exists.
> in order to justify
> your contempt for women.
Lies number ten and eleven. No attempt at documentation, since none
exists, quite unlike my documentation of you saying you don't give a
shit about women, and you lying over and over about that:
Pathological Liar of the Month (May 2010) First Runner-up: Fischer
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.women/browse_thread/thread/971cb0bbf4d3254f/
ab3d1553c75daead
Message-ID:
<d5170c04-4d8d-4d57...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.women/msg/ab3d1553c75daead
> > you hate-ravaged liar. I've reasoned
> >it out very carefully,
>
> Self-serving rationalization isn't reason.
And that's all you've got, whereas I have a peer-reviewed paper on the
subject full of reasoning, including documentation of me nailing one
"RF" in a self-contradiction.
I was naive enough to think that you might actually stir up a legal
tempest if I spelled out your name in full, RF. Now I know you are
just a pathetic loser trapped in a never-ending hell of lies piled
upon lies.
> --
> Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
> rfisc...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 19, 8:09 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:23:26 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
> >> > Are you so fanatically in favor of abortion that you consider everyone who
> >> > is opposed to it to be loco?
>
> >> I am fanatically in favor of a woman's right to make her own decisions. I
> >> am fanatically in favor of the idea that a microscopic clump of cells
>
> >...is what is removed in an abortion?
>
> Smirk. Nyikos resorting the very snipping he whines about.
Not the kind of snipping that I actually denounce. By using the broad
category "snipping" you are indulging in a dirty debating tactic:
(IV) The One Shade of Gray Meltdown, which consists of
seizing upon one or a few common features in order to portray
disparate things as though they were the same. Sometimes
the features are so abstract that they aren't even mentioned.
For example, the mentioning of a possibility might
get painted as though it were an implication that the
possibility is the only correct one, or even as though
it were an outright assertion to that effect.
But perhaps the most common, and one of the most reprehensible uses,
is to use the lumping to charge the adversary with hypocrisy. Such is
the case with post after post by Ray Fischer, including the one
to which I am replying and the one linked below.
Notice how, in the post linked below, he is
lumping together questions that can be straightforwardly answered NO
(perhaps with the addition of insults of which Ray is probably the
most prolific spewer in these newsgroups) with questions to which
either a YES or NO answer would be extremely damaging to the would be
answerer.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9f52b63ea8d8038f
> >If so, you are truly ignorant. Abortion prior to 6 weeks LMP is
> >almost unheard of, except for self-induced abortions,
>
> They're "almost unheard of" except for all the ones that are done.
Got any stats to show how many those are? I think you are just
talking off the top of your hate-ravaged head.
Back in the 1990's, a pro-choice poster to the abortion newsgroups,
Elizabeth Bartley, commented that Planned Parenthood will not do
abortions earlier than 8 weeks LMP.
That's 8 weeks, not a mere 6 weeks. I have never seen anything
since then that would indicate otherwise. Nor do I expect to, since
at that early stage it is almost impossible to be sure that the
conceptus has been removed.
Continued in next reply.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> >On Jul 19, 8:09 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:23:26 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
[About the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League:]
> >> > Note that the website accepts people who are only partially opposed to
> >> > abortion. It does explain, however, that anyone who supportst the
> >> > radical RvW decision does not qualify.
>
> >> It seems that you don't know much about Roe v Wade.
>
> >I probably know a whole lot more than you,
>
> You don't know shit.
You deleted the proof that you are lying here. I've reposted it
below. I expect you to delete it again and lie again, *ad infinitum*
while displaying ZERO knowledge of it yourself.
> > including the whopping
> >history errors Blackmun made.
>
> There's the insanity of the religibot. It cannot accept being wrong
> about anything.
A truly self-referential statement by Fischer, who deleted the
following to hide the fact that his words do NOT apply to me:
Joseph Dellapenna's article, "Abortion and the Law: Roe's Distortion
of the Historical Record," in: _Abortion and the Constitution_,
Georgetown University Press, 1987, is a good place to start for
anyone wishing to learn just how distorted Justice Blackmun's account
was, even considering the information available at the time.
A particularly striking example is Blackmun's claim that
"The few state courts called upon to interpret their laws in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries did focus
on the State's interest in protecting the woman's health rather than
in preserving the embryo or fetus."
[410 U.S. at 151: as usual, "U.S." refers to
_United States Reports_, the journal of record for all United States
Supreme Court decisions.] This claim, as demonstrated by R. Byrne in
_Fordham Law Review_, vol 14, is totally false and is contradicted
(*inter alia*) by a New Jersey case cited earlier in the Opinion of
the Court itself, in a footnote only three pages earlier!
It appears from this that either Blackmun (who wrote the Opinion of
theCourt) or Means or both were arguing in bad faith. The New Jersey
case in question, *State v. Gedicke*, 43 N. J. L. 86, 90 (1881),
contains the following passage:
This law was further extended March 26th, 1872 ... to
protect the life of the child also, and inflict the same
punishment, in case of its death, as if the mother should
die.
This New Jersey decision is also cited by Means, *op. cit.*, and
it is possible that Blackmun was relying slavishly on Means and had
not read the text of the decision himself.
Adding to the irony is the fact that, in support of the claim about
"The few state courts ...," Blackmun's sole reference is an earlier
New Jersey decision, *State v. Murphy*, 27 N. J. L. 112, 114 (1858).
One can see the hand of Means in this too, as Means claimed on p. 389
of his "phoenix" article that this was the only state supreme court
case which expounded the purpose of *early* 19th century abortion
statutes.
pnyikos
> On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 7:22 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 18, 1:15 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > [deletia of things dealt with in first reply]
>
> > > > And only cults like the one "elizabeth" belongs to are so pro-abortion
> > > > that they will recommend gangraping females to death for opposing
> > > > abortion:
See documentation below.
> > > It's less than what those cunts would force other women to do,
> > > GESTATE,
>
> > to death, always? Stop lying. All but the mentally ill antiaborts
> > would allow an abortion to save a woman's life. Most of those who
> > seem to fit that category are in the same sort of denial you are in
> > wrt 3rd trimester abortions: they believe there is no abortion that is
> > necessary, in this day and age, to save a woman's life.
>
> > > because only a rapist, al a Garrido and his cuntwife, would
> > > force a woman to do that.
>
> > She'd have to be made pregnant against her will first.
<crickets chirping>
And now for the quotes that show how hate-crazed "elizabeth" is.
> > > > I feel that antiabort males should have their genitals ripped off
> > > > and forced down their throats, and antiabort females gangraped
> > > > until death.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/4881aa97c3a63918
>
> > > > Any antiabort male should have his balls ripped off
> > > > with pliers. And "denise" needs to get gangraped
> > > > to death.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/7c4b3fb1356665b1
>
> > > > That was "elizabeth" demonstrating that turning the other cheek, the
> > > > way Denise Noe consistently did in reaction to the abuse showered on
> > > > her, only works when the opponent has a conscience.
>
> > > > Peter Nyikos
Unable to cope with the reasoning above, elizabeth spews more hate:
> > > Go kill yourself, OopsNy.
>
> > Never tell someone to do what you wouldn't or couldn't do yourself.
> > --elizabeth flaunting her hypocrisy in:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/9b4d544b20e2dc9b
> > Message-ID: <09e39b72-de16-403d-95fa-
> > ebd120fb0...@34g2000prs.googlegroups.com>
>
> You sure are obsessed with what you insist are the obsessions of
> others . .. .
Pee Wee Hermanism noted.
> > By the way, you were obsessed with Osprey all the while he was gone
> > for more than a year; will you remain obsessed with him even longer
> > this time around?
>
> Just hope he finally took my advice and killed himself.
That's one more indication of how serious your obsession with him
is.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<9b50eb9d-de6f-4d26...@p10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 1:30 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 18, 7:22 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jul 18, 1:15 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > [deletia of things dealt with in first reply]
> >
> > > > > And only cults like the one "elizabeth" belongs to are so
> > > > > pro-abortion
> > > > > that they will recommend gangraping females to death for opposing
> > > > > abortion:
>
> See documentation below.
the plagiarizing professor waits more than a month to continue his
misrepresentations.
[...]
james g. keegan jr.
<81303740-9863-4ec6...@18g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2:56 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >On Jul 19, 8:09 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:23:26 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
>
> [About the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League:]
> > >> > Note that the website accepts people who are only partially opposed to
> > >> > abortion. It does explain, however, that anyone who supportst the
> > >> > radical RvW decision does not qualify.
> >
> > >> It seems that you don't know much about Roe v Wade.
> >
> > >I probably know a whole lot more than you,
> >
> > You don't know shit.
>
> You deleted the proof that you are lying here.
your post was cut at your first new lie, plagiarist.
[...]
james g. keegan jr.
<9ec3fa82-aaaf-4f02...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2:56 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >On Jul 19, 8:09 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:23:26 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
> > >> > Are you so fanatically in favor of abortion that you consider everyone
> > >> > who
> > >> > is opposed to it to be loco?
> >
> > >> I am fanatically in favor of a woman's right to make her own decisions.
> > >> I
> > >> am fanatically in favor of the idea that a microscopic clump of cells
> >
> > >...is what is removed in an abortion?
> >
> > Smirk. Nyikos resorting the very snipping he whines about.
>
> Not the kind of snipping that I actually denounce
your post was cut at your first new lie, plagiarist.
james g. keegan jr.
<f7a7cba7-0dae-438f...@g9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2:54 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >On Jul 22, 11:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > >> >I see you are one of those people who has been brainwashed into
> >
> > >> That coming from an immoral catholic apologist.
> >
> > >What would an amoral jerk like you know about morality?
> >
> > Smirk. You defend child molesters.
>
> Lie number one.
your post was cut at your first new lie, plagiarist.
Drafterman
> This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> --
> J Young
> Jvisi...@live.com
>
> http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
If you can't state your position without using weasel words that
appeal to emotion rather than sense, then I don't see anything worth
consideration.
pnyikos
> On Jul 8, 10:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> > --
> > J Young
> > Jvisi...@live.com
>
> >http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
>
> If you can't state your position without using weasel words that
> appeal to emotion
You are just revealing your ignorance about the word "child": both the
Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Unabridged
Dictionary specifically include unborn offspring in Definition 1 of
"child". And just to make the point clear, they include
"foetus" [respectively, "fetus"] as a synonym.
Nor do they label this definition as "archaic," let alone "obsolete."
>rather than sense, then I don't see anything worth
> consideration.
That's because you have been thoroughly brainwashed by abortion rights
propaganda, isn't it?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT: My obligations have piled up to where I've
> > decided to go on a month long (give or take a few days) posting
> > break.
>
> your lies caught up with you again, eh plagiarist?
This infantile "plagiarist" lie of yours about me was laid to rest
long ago, but you are stuck with repeating in just about every reply
you make to me because of some defect in your brain.
Here is the post and the thread where it was laid to rest:
Pathological Liar of the Month (July 2010):
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/msg/f91b0bde06325f20
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/browse_thread/thread/012e5...
And, of course, you can't credibly document the existence of any lies
by me; all you can do is provide infantile mockeries of documentation,
like you did for the ridiculous charge that I am a plagiarist.
But thanks for confirming just how close to being perfect my
prediction was right in the post to which you are responding. Only
your question mark at the end keeps it from being absolutely perfect:
____________ repost of words cravenly deleted by Keegan_______
This break of mine should make Keegan very happy, because he gets to
tell one of his favorite whoppers: X went on a posting break because
his lies got to be too much for him to defend.
================ end of first repost
The following was not a prediction, but is still holding up quite
well: Keegan breathed not even a hint as to what the alleged lies are
supposed to be.
------------------- repost of sentence following the above
He loves to tell this
on the return of X, but almost never explains what those alleged lies
are supposed to be.
=========== end of repost
NOTE TO OTHER READERS:
Is there ANYONE reading this who is not yet convinced that Keegan is a
troll?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> In article <4e2b2bd4$0$2121$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT: My obligations have piled up to where I've
> > >decided to go on a month long (give or take a few days) posting
>
> > Sling shit and run - the classic nyikos tactic
>
> he has done the same thing dozens of times before. everyone who knows
> him is on to him
Thus speak two people who would have been dismissed as trolls ages ago
were it not for their alliance with "Spartakus".
If it hadn't been for "Spartakus" shackling himself to these two
trolls, they would have lost all credibility ages ago. But
"Spartakus," unlike these two pathetic losers, is a master of
counterfeit sincerity, and so he has been able to make them look a lot
less evil than they really are.
"Spartakus" still holds down a job where he apparently has a lot of
responsibility, so he carefully avoids giving out his name or his
place of work, lest he be sued for perpetrating innumerable libels by
these two, and some also by himself.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
That is part of what tenure is all about, but I don't think Keegan,
Fischer,
or "Spartakus" know the first thing about tenure.
Drafterman
> On Aug 25, 9:53 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 10:22 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is no justification for taking the life of a defenselesss unborn child.
> > > Many cite religious reasons for their pro-life stance but, a belief in God
> > > is not necessary to possess the morality required to oppose abortion.
>
> > >http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
>
> > > --
> > > J Young
> > > Jvisi...@live.com
>
> > >http://tiny.cc/i2mj7
>
> > If you can't state your position without using weasel words that
> > appeal to emotion
>
> You are just revealing your ignorance about the word "child": both the
> Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Unabridged
> Dictionary specifically include unborn offspring in Definition 1 of
> "child". And just to make the point clear, they include
> "foetus" [respectively, "fetus"] as a synonym.
>
> Nor do they label this definition as "archaic," let alone "obsolete."
I don't recall, at any point, contending the use of the world "child."
If you wish, you can amend your reponse to address things I did, in
fact, say. I think that would be a more appropriate use of time.
>
> >rather than sense, then I don't see anything worth
>
> > consideration.
>
> That's because you have been thoroughly brainwashed by abortion rights
> propaganda, isn't it?
No. I made explicit my lack of consideration of the original post:
The use of weasel words and appeals to emotion.
>
> Peter Nyikos- Hide quoted text -
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 23, 2:54 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jul 22, 11:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >I see you are one of those people who has been brainwashed into
>>
>> >> That coming from an immoral catholic apologist.
>>
>> >What would an amoral jerk like you know about morality?
>>
>> Smirk. You defend child molesters.
>
>Lie number one.
It is not a lie at all, pervert. You're STILL supporting an
institution which continues to protect and shelter child molester.
>> You demand the abject obedience of
>> women, even if it kills them.
>
>Lie number two.
No lie at all, pervert. You STILL demand that women be forced to
give birth, even when it will likely result in their deaths.
>> You lie
>
>Lie number
Your screeching hate is little BUT lies.
>> Obviously almost anybody knows more of morality than do you,
>
>Besides being lie number
No lies from me, pervert.
>> >My abortion rights stance is based on an agnostic world-view,
>>
>> You stack up insane lies
>
>Lie number eight.
No attempt at documentation, since none exists.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 23, 2:56 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jul 19, 8:09 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:23:26 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
>> >> > Are you so fanatically in favor of abortion that you consider everyone who
>> >> > is opposed to it to be loco?
>>
>> >> I am fanatically in favor of a woman's right to make her own decisions. I
>> >> am fanatically in favor of the idea that a microscopic clump of cells
>>
>> >...is what is removed in an abortion?
>>
>> Smirk. Nyikos resorting the very snipping he whines about.
>
>Not the kind of snipping that I actually denounce.
Smirk. It's "different" when asshole nyikos does it.
That's _just_ the sort of "morality" he espouses.
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 23, 2:56 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jul 19, 8:09 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:23:26 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
>
>[About the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League:]
>> >> > Note that the website accepts people who are only partially opposed to
>> >> > abortion. It does explain, however, that anyone who supportst the
>> >> > radical RvW decision does not qualify.
>>
>> >> It seems that you don't know much about Roe v Wade.
>>
>> >I probably know a whole lot more than you,
>>
>> You don't know shit.
>
>You deleted the proof
"No attempt at documentation, since none exists."
>> > including the whopping
>> >history errors Blackmun made.
>>
>> There's the insanity of the religibot. It cannot accept being wrong
>> about anything.
>
>A truly self-referential statement by Fischer,
"I know you are but what am I?"
> who deleted the
>following to hide the fact that his words do NOT apply to me:
Nothing bad EVER applies to asshole nyikos because he's a rank
hypocrite and pathological control freak.
>Joseph Dellapenna's article
Why should anyone gove a shit about his opinions, asshole?
james g. keegan jr.
<4747f8fb-1486-49ae...@n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 8:47 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <4e2b2bd4$0$2121$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT: My obligations have piled up to where I've
> > > >decided to go on a month long (give or take a few days) posting
> >
> > > Sling shit and run - the classic nyikos tactic
> >
> > he has done the same thing dozens of times before. everyone who knows
> > him is on to him
>
> Thus speak two people who would have been dismissed as trolls ages ago
> were it not for their alliance with "Spartakus".
and here the plagiarist validates fischer's observation.
james g. keegan jr.
<c706f510-837f-4d11...@i9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 8:46 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c59139ef-1f2c-4916-aa8c-a2845a670...@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT: My obligations have piled up to where I've
> > > decided to go on a month long (give or take a few days) posting
> > > break.
> >
> > your lies caught up with you again, eh plagiarist?
>
> This infantile "plagiarist" lie of yours about me
your post was cut following your first new lie plagiarist.
[..]
IT Helpdesk
news:jgkeegan-0FEFDB...@news.individual.net...
Please provide evidence to support your accusation of plagiarism, James.
IT Helpdesk
IT Helpdesk
IT Helpdesk
IT Helpdesk
james g. keegan jr.
"IT Helpdesk" <ITHel...@deleted.com> wrote:
sure. please search the many threads involving nyikos and plagiarism.
for starters you can try +nyikos+plagiarist
within those results you'll see several hundred explanations of nyikos'
plagiarism as he defined plagiarism.
i'm a bit surprised you missed so many posts along those lines. were you
away or ill?
james g. keegan jr.
"IT Helpdesk" <ITHel...@deleted.com> wrote:
sure. please search the many threads involving nyikos and plagiarism.
james g. keegan jr.
"IT Helpdesk" <ITHel...@deleted.com> wrote:
sure. please search the many threads involving nyikos and plagiarism.
james g. keegan jr.
"IT Helpdesk" <ITHel...@deleted.com> wrote:
sure. please search the many threads involving nyikos and plagiarism.
james g. keegan jr.
"IT Helpdesk" <ITHel...@deleted.com> wrote:
sure. please search the many threads involving nyikos and plagiarism.
william mosco
> In article <j3au8f$2i...@tornado.tornevall.net>,
> "IT Helpdesk" <ITHelpd...@deleted.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:jgkeegan-0FEFDB...@news.individual.net...
> > > In article
> > > <c706f510-837f-4d11-8314-1be4e998d...@i9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On Jul 23, 8:46 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > In article
> > >> > <c59139ef-1f2c-4916-aa8c-a2845a670...@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> > > GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT: My obligations have piled up to where I've
> > >> > > decided to go on a month long (give or take a few days) posting
> > >> > > break.
>
> > >> > your lies caught up with you again, eh plagiarist?
>
> > >> This infantile "plagiarist" lie of yours about me
>
> > > your post was cut following your first new lie plagiarist.
> > > [..]
>
> > Please provide evidence to support your accusation of plagiarism, James.
>
> sure. please search the many threads involving nyikos and plagiarism.
>
> for starters you can try +nyikos+plagiarist
>
> within those results you'll see several hundred explanations of nyikos'
> plagiarism as he defined plagiarism.
>
> i'm a bit surprised you missed so many posts along those lines. were you
> away or ill?
repost your evidence so we can all laugh at you again...
james g. keegan jr.
<486dde8c-3583-42f2...@18g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
previously done several dozen times. don't you remember lying about it
in some of your replies?
IT Helpdesk
It would appear that you consider your accusation to be prima facie evidence
of the offense. Please provide real evidence to support your accusation of
plagiarism, James.
IT Helpdesk
It would appear that you consider your accusation to be prima facie evidence
of the offense. Please provide real evidence to support your accusation of
plagiarism, James.
IT Helpdesk
It would appear that you consider your accusation to be prima facie evidence
of the offense. Please provide real evidence to support your accusation of
plagiarism, James.
IT Helpdesk
It would appear that you consider your accusation to be prima facie evidence
of the offense. Please provide real evidence to support your accusation of
plagiarism, James.
IT Helpdesk
It would appear that you consider your accusation to be prima facie evidence
of the offense. Please provide real evidence to support your accusation of
plagiarism, James.
elizabeth
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:jgkeegan-D87671...@news.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <j3aub0$2p...@tornado.tornevall.net>,
> > "IT Helpdesk" <ITHelpd...@deleted.com> wrote:
>
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:jgkeegan-97E54C...@news.individual.net...
> >> > In article
> >> > <f7a7cba7-0dae-438f-b88f-a2cedfb90...@g9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Jul 23, 2:54 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> > >On Jul 22, 11:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> > >> >I see you are one of those people who has been brainwashed into
>
> >> >> > >> That coming from an immoral catholic apologist.
>
> >> >> > >What would an amoral jerk like you know about morality?
>
> >> >> > Smirk. You defend child molesters.
>
> >> >> Lie number one.
>
> >> > your post was cut at your first new lie, plagiarist.
>
> >> Please provide evidence to support your accusation of plagiarism, James.
>
> > sure. please search the many threads involving nyikos and plagiarism.
>
> > for starters you can try +nyikos+plagiarist
>
> > within those results you'll see several hundred explanations of nyikos'
> > plagiarism as he defined plagiarism.
>
> > i'm a bit surprised you missed so many posts along those lines. were you
> > away or ill?
>
> It would appear that you consider your accusation to be prima facie evidence
> of the offense. Please provide real evidence to support your accusation of
>
> - Show quoted text -
It would appear you feel that reposting irrelvant, nonresponsive
responses is worth repeating.
You are wrong.