New Obama Campaign Gaffe: War Injuries Prevent McCain's Using A Keyboard
D. Spencer Hines
Talk about their shooting themselves in the FOOT!
The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
Are the wheels coming off the Obama Campaign?
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
----------------------------------------------
The Corner
<http://corner.nationalreview.com/print/>
Re: Wondering No More [Mark Steyn]
Jonah, why didn't the Obama guys and the AP figure that out? It's
extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our
commander in chief knows how to send an e-mail ...but not how to do a
five-minute Google search.
Wondering No More [Jonah Goldberg]
Yep. The day after 9/11, as part of its "get tough" makeover, the
Obama campaign is mocking John McCain for not using a computer,
without caring why he doesn't use a computer.
From the AP story about the computer illiterate ad: "Our economy
wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to
represent one our most serious national security threats," [Obama
spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who
wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how
to send an e-mail."
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "extraordinary." The
reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because
of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service
to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):
McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food
stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from
inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his
hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at
McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted
Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder
to throw a baseball.
In a similar vein I guess it's an outrage that the blind governor of
New York David Paterson doesn't know how to drive a car. After all,
transportation issues are pretty important. How dare he serve as
governor while being ignorant of what it's like to navigate New York's
highways.
Update: Well, now the story is up on Drudge (You heard it here
first!). Re: Mark's point about how the supposedly web-savvy Obama
campaign can't handle Google, here's another story confirming he has
difficulty using a keyboard. Ironically, it's from one of the most
pro-Obama journalists out there, Jacob Weisberg, in an article in
Slate in 2000:
"Six months ago, no one would have pegged McCain as the most
cybersavvy of this year's crop of candidates. At 63, he is the oldest
of the bunch and because of his war injuries, he is limited in his
ability to wield a keyboard."
Now, in response to some angry criticism already coming in: Feh.
Some say, So what if he was handicapped? He could still learn how to
send email.
Sure, but why would he? Bill Clinton sent two emails during his
entire presidency and often admitted he didn't know squat about the
internet.
One reader says "Steven Hawking knows how to use a computer!" Yes,
because if he didn't he couldn't do his job or communicate. McCain,
like Clinton, didn't have that problem. Here's a more sane version of
the same complaint:
You are ridiculous about this. While of course McCain probably can't
type for long periods or in the manner in which many of us do, there
are a tremendous amount of people that peck with just their index
fingers. He also can surely use a mouse. How much typing do you
really have to do to send emails and use the internet. Plus, when he
was asked point blank about it he never said he couldn't type. I am
sure he can't use a blackberry, but there are tons of people with far
worse injuries than McCain that use a computer.
That's absolutely true, I'm sure. But they need to use computers to
get through life. McCain doesn't. And the fact that he's not blaming
his disability hardly sounds like a serious indictment. If he did
blame his disability, many of the same folks yelling at me would be
complaining that McCain's whining.
Now, I'd hardly be surprised if McCain could type for short stretches
and all that. The point is, that it's perfectly understandable why he
wouldn't get in the habit of it.
Oh one last point for now: Lord knows I think the chicken-hawk
arguments are stupid. And I don't think the fact that Obama never
served in the military should count against him in and of itself. But
how stupid is it for the Obama campaign to claim that McCain is
unqualified to be president because he can't grasp cyber-security
issues based on the fact he has never sent an email when the McCain
campaign can just as easily say Obama can't understand first order
national security issues because he's never fired a rife, flown a
plane, commanded men in battle, or faced an enemy? I mean which
prepares someone to be commander in chief better, hitting "send" on
AOL or fighting a war?
Update II: On the other hand: I don't know what to make of this
interview with the New York Times. He sounds awfully web savvy in it,
which makes the Obama ad sound unfair. And if you read it closely, it
sounds like he knows how to surf with a mouse, but doesn't do much by
way of typing.
Jack G.
The Obama people implied that anyone who does not know how to use a
computer is not qualified to run for president. That just made about
80 million people angry. McCain can still count to 50 and that is how
many states we have.
D. Spencer Hines
J A
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:Qvnzk.77$MX3...@eagle.america.net...
> Provocative...
>
> Talk about their shooting themselves in the FOOT!
>
> The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
>
> Are the wheels coming off the Obama Campaign?
You were saying that a while ago, and yet they got McCain so frightended
that he's abandoned his principles; he's resorted to blatant lying, rovian
tactics, and making an unqualified lying religious right woman his running
mate.
Nobody ever lost money betting on the stupidity of the American public;
however, after 8 years of jesus-boy Bush, they may have learned some short
term lessons.
It may turn out that McCain is in the process of self immolation.
Let's hope so - for the good of the country.
Raymond O'Hara
if you can sign your name with a pen you can operate a computer.
it requires no manual dexterity. 1 finger is all you need.
this article is just more "vote for me i was a PoW"
God's Creator!
> Provocative...
>
> Talk about their shooting themselves in the FOOT!
>
> The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
>
> Are the wheels coming off the Obama Campaign?
>
Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*
SONG-BIRD McCAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020708_never_tortured.htm
JOHN MCCAIN IS NO WAR HERO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/34700-john-mccain-is-no-war-hero
God's Creator!
( Well, we all make mistakes... ) :-(
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todays U.S. "Judaism Vs. Islamism Holy Wars" News.
http://www.antiwar.com
Current (DOD) Casualties Report.
http://icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J A
exploded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt,"
a one-two punch hurled in front of three journalists and two aides but
unreported until recently, by Cliff Schecter in The Real McCain. "
Beauty and the Beast
By JoAnn Wypijewski September 10, 2008
A man fiddling with his wedding ring in the presence of another woman
usually has something on his mind. At his introduction of Sarah Palin to the
world on August 29, John McCain appeared a man possessed, playing with his
ring, fastening his gaze on her breasts, her backside, his right fingers
sliding up from that dratted gold band to the finger tip, pinching it as if
to control the volcano stirring within him. "Boxed up," the young McCain
once said in a near-frenzy, describing to a confidante the state of his
emotions under the Naval Academy's discipline; the expression suited his
performance that Friday in Dayton, when he finally regained composure by
assuming the rigid posture of attention that the academy had taught so well.
Here was McCain, the angry old warrior, deploying sex as a central political
weapon to recharge his potency, his party's fortunes and the cultural oomph
of the right. Not gender. The Republicans didn't need just any woman to
compete with Obama for the Wow factor, the Mmm factor, the stable, loving
family factor. It is a calculated bonus that adherents can now speak loftily
of making history, but for different reasons, drawing deep from the well of
their identities, and not for the first time, both McCain and the right
needed a sexual icon.
McCain's first wife, Carol, airbrushed from his "compelling story" even when
her three children trooped onstage to complete the convention's family
tableau, was a swimsuit model. Tall and slender when she saw John off to
Vietnam, she was five inches shorter when he returned, broken grievously
from a car accident, using a catheter and a wheelchair. "I don't look so
good myself," he told her; privately he told friends the sight of her
"appalled" him. He began looking for a more alluring replacement almost
immediately. Carol says she has "no bitterness," according to a story by
Sharon Churcher in the London Daily Mail. John just "wanted to be 25 again."
At 42 McNasty, as he was called in high school, took up with 24-year-old
Cindy, a former junior rodeo queen, and, having boosted his image and his
net worth via a marriage vow, soon reverted to the pattern of insults and
macho egotism that has typified most of his life. He denigrated her
education at USC as a tour through "the University of Spoiled Children." For
all but one of several miscarriages, he left her on her own. When she was
popping ten to fifteen pills a day to mask her pain and "do everything he
wanted," he never noticed. In 1992, in a rage over her gentle teasing about
his thinning hair, he exploded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like
a trollop, you cunt," a one-two punch hurled in front of three journalists
and two aides but unreported until recently, by Cliff Schecter in The Real
McCain. On the campaign trail in June he joked about "beating my wife" and
took umbrage when others failed to grasp the simple good fun in the remark.
In early August he said he'd encouraged Cindy to enter the Miss Buffalo Chip
beauty pageant at the high-revving, flesh-swinging biker rally in Sturgis,
South Dakota. It might have been a fine quip except that up on the stage
with her daughter Meghan, staring out toward the throng where a sign urged
Show Ur Tits 4 McCain, Cindy had the thin, fixed smile of endurance, not
joy. Just before the Palin pick, Mrs. McCain was so brittle that a
supporter's energetic handshake put her in a cast. With the press and vast
swaths of the country swooning over the Obama family, John needed a new
queen.
Like King Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther, who asserted his mastery by
decreeing male headship and then held a kind of beauty pageant to replace
Vashti as queen, McCain found his new "partner and soulmate" in Miss Wasilla
1984. Even Cindy, who suddenly let her hair down in bed-head style, perhaps
at last relieved of the burdens of wifely duties, calls it "a perfect
match." If only by association, John McCain may now fancy himself in the
image of his deepest desire, top gun.
There may be a trap for him in the Book of Esther, which Sarah Palin, a
biblical literalist, has used as a guide since becoming governor of Alaska,
but more on that in a moment. For in her immediate ascendancy, Palin has
fortified the Christian leadership that saw its first major organizing
successes in the 1970s using sex as a weapon behind the banner of Miss
Oklahoma 1958 (Anita Bryant) and her antigay crusade. With her husband,
Todd, "quite a package," Palin has fired up the Christian rank and file,
who, also since the 1970s, have been on the losing end of the economy but
have drawn a diverting strength from simultaneously attacking the heralds of
sexual liberation (feminists and gays) and appropriating their message:
holding out mind-blowing sex as God's special gift to his truest
heterosexual married believers; spawning a multimillion-dollar industry in
Christian sex guides, aids, toys, soft-core porn (gussied up as novels or
advice); and promoting a particular image of married womanhood as sex
machine, urged, as Dagmar Herzog notes in an interesting new book, Sex in
Crisis, to "keep their legs shaved and vaginas douched at all times. Just in
case."
For the party's cynical power elite, who simply want to make gobs of money
and have fun doing it, and never tire of a little culture war that helps
them achieve both, Palin is the sex symbol they've been waiting for, better
looking and more real than the ghastly gasbags Ann Coulter and Laura
Ingraham. Rush Limbaugh, who began a push for Palin as VP in February, can
hardly contain himself: "Sarah Palin: babies, guns, Jesus, hot damn!" he
crowed. "We're the ones that have the babe on the ticket!" Never before has
a political woman been pictured so often in a T-shirt, armed--Rambette.
Never before in a major political figure has the image of Mother been merged
so readily with fantasies from porno. "You Go, GILF," proclaim buttons on
Republican chests, that is, Governor (or Grandmother) I'd Like to Fuck, a
turn on the hungry married mom, or MILF, who has tapped the sex muscles and
credit cards of porn lovers for years. While older working-class men talk of
"Little Sarah" and her children, other men, including some on the left, have
been rapturous in expressing their librarian fetish. "I was trying to be as
frumpy as I could by wearing my hair on top of my head and these schoolmarm
glasses," Palin told Vogue, as if insensible to that venerable erotic
figure, the tigress unleashed once the glasses are removed and the tresses
fall. Why, Mrs. Palin, you're, you're b-b-beautiful... Exactly right, sonny,
and no fool either.
In Sarah Palin the right has its perfect emblem: moral avatar and commodity,
uniting the put-upon woman who gushes, "She's just like me!" and the chest
thumper who brays, "I'd do her, and her daughter" with those who have long
exploited the fear and sorry machismo of both, with the help of another
durable reactionary weapon. Now that it's official, as McCain's campaign
manager said, that "this election is not about issues; this election is
about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates,"
McCain's only live tag appears to be, Republicans Do It Better. Translation:
small-town, gun-toting, rough-and-ready, all-American Sarah and Todd versus
Barack and Michelle. White Power. (Or, close enough, White-ish.) Palin
Power.
And there's the rub for McCain. It looks like Palin's party now, and
whatever she does for his virility, she's not the hockey mom, or the babe,
or the third wife he can stomp on. If her acceptance speech was indicative,
she can match the "sneering, condescending attitude" that former Republican
Senator Bob Smith says is fundamental to McCain, but with a smile and a
dagger's turn. Her role model Esther doesn't just win favor from the king
and a reprieve for herself and her people; she enables her people to engage
in bloody slaughter against the king's other subjects, maneuvers for the
public execution of his closest adviser and the man's sons, sees her de
facto father become the de facto king; in sum, sabotages and unmans
Ahasuerus. Palin has been too cagey to identify exactly who her people are,
but in playing off cronies and oilmen in Alaska and even Christians to get
where she is, she does seem to have grasped the art, so vital to politics,
of the exquisitely timed double cross.
!Jones
<a...@re.com> wrote:
>At his introduction of Sarah Palin to the
>world [...], John McCain [...] fasten[ed] his gaze on her breasts...
Her breasts cause me no angst. It's her philosophy that's dangerous.
Her boobs ain't bad; Jane Fonda's were better... still are. I
wouldn't vote for either one of 'em for national office.
Jones
J A
"!Jones" <h...@there.org> wrote in message
news:lputc4hom108iq63m...@4ax.com...
I think she's looking pretty good. I'd fuck her in a minute.
The old boy probably has Oval Office fantasies that he's going to live it up
like Bill Clinton.
>
> Jones
>
>
Horvath
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>if you can sign your name with a pen you can operate a computer.
>it requires no manual dexterity. 1 finger is all you need.
>this article is just more "vote for me i was a PoW"
Oh, you are so brain dead. I spent a year in high school learning
typing. It is so useful today in my job. I look over a dumbass desk,
and reach his keyboard, and upside down, I type in the proper
commands.
Now where's the dexterity in that?
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
!Jones
<a...@re.com> wrote:
>The old boy probably has Oval Office fantasies that he's going to live it up
>like Bill Clinton.
I doubt it. I don't have any huge issues with McCain. I wish that
the Republicans would show a little fiscal restraint and control
spending... they've outspent the Democrats lately. I've only voted
Democratic since 2000 to vote against Bush.
Now, Palin... I'd sooner have Jane Fonda in office... 'bout the same,
I guess.
Jones
Tiglath
> "!Jones" <h...@there.org> wrote in message
>
> news:lputc4hom108iq63m...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:07:22 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "J A"
> > <a...@re.com> wrote:
>
> >>At his introduction of Sarah Palin to the
> >>world [...], John McCain [...] fasten[ed] his gaze on her breasts...
>
> > Her breasts cause me no angst. It's her philosophy that's dangerous.
> > Her boobs ain't bad; Jane Fonda's were better... still are. I
> > wouldn't vote for either one of 'em for national office.
>
> I think she's looking pretty good. I'd fuck her in a minute.
Five kids. Loosey goosey.
There is only so much the husband stitch can do.
When a head like a melon goes through the tunnel of love five times,
it doesn't matter if you have a thick cucumber or a fat salami.
Sarah is in the high-risk group of being run over by a truck thinking
she is the Lincoln Tunnel.
Loose shoes, tight pussy. That's where it's at.
Some posters seem to have it the other way around, not to mention the
hat too tight.
Now, given her religious beliefs, I bet you could flip her over and
get a real tight treat.
It might do her good too... conducive to be less full of shit, dilate
the eyes, improving her sight, lose the glasses. Maybe even see the
Kremlin from her balcony...
Impale Palin please.
Vincent
>> I think she's looking pretty good. I'd fuck her in a minute.
>
> Five kids. Loosey goosey.
>
> There is only so much the husband stitch can do.
>
> When a head like a melon goes through the tunnel of love five times,
> it doesn't matter if you have a thick cucumber or a fat salami.
not to mention being disgraceful, your ignorance of women is obvious
I grew up in an environment in which 5 children put you on the minority
side. ( I was 5th of 7, in 9 years).
Whatever Palin's other qualities, abilities or disabilities
This is simply beyond the pale
Vince
D. Spencer Hines
Beyond The Pale...
Tiglath Trailer-Trash Talk...
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Vincent" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:tSEzk.218$3e1.57@trnddc02...
Tiger
> " In 1992, in a rage over her gentle teasing about his thinning hair, he
> exploded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt,"
> a one-two punch hurled in front of three journalists and two aides but
> unreported until recently, by Cliff Schecter in The Real McCain. "
>
> Beauty and the Beast
> By JoAnn Wypijewski September 10, 2008
>
You wasted the the time to post this garbage? Find a new Hobby....
Tiger
>
> I think she's looking pretty good. I'd fuck her in a minute.
>
> The old boy probably has Oval Office fantasies that he's going to live it up
> like Bill Clinton.
>
>
>
>
>>Jones
>>
>>
>
>
>
More examples of Net brillance..... Sad.
Tiger
This is not Alt.sex.stories
J A
"Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48CF2362...@hotmail.com...
The only difference between this and what Republicans use on their
opponents, is that this the truth, verified by the people who were present.
His best political friend, Phil Gramm, left the Senate for a high paying job
at a Swiss bank (his wife was on the Enron board) and got the deregulation
bills passed in 2000 that made the current fiancial debacle possible.
It's costing this country billions, and there's now talk in high
international banking circles that the US needs an IMF inspection of its
financial system, like Argentina, and Italy have had in the past.
Garbage?
The whole Republican party has turned to garbage, and McCain's garbage is
just a small part of it.
Tiger
I guess the Clinton cronies At Fannie May & freddy Mac get a Pass? Nor
do you Notice it as the Left that pressured banks into easing loan money
in the first place. As to What MC Cain & wife chit chat about or call
each other; has little to do being my next President or anybodies business.
J A
It was lack of regulation that did this. It mainly came from the
Republicans, with some Demo help.
Too little regulation in the laws was then aggravated by the incompetent
corrupt Bush regime.
The incompetent handling of warnings about an impending attack, pre 9/11.
The incompetent Bora Bora operation that let bin Laden escape.
The unneccesary debacle of the Iraq invasion.
The Katrina debacle.
The mishandling of the problem of the Pakistan safe haven area for al Qaeda
and the Taliban.
The non-intervention into an obvious mortgage market abuse which created a
bubble and a crash.
Anyone who would want to continue this is loyal to a garbage political
party - not the United States.
The
Tiger
> "Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:48CF33A...@hotmail.com...
>
>>J A wrote:
>>
>>>"Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:48CF2362...@hotmail.com...
>>>
You do realize there are political newsgroups for this stuff??????
> It was lack of regulation that did this. It mainly came from the
> Republicans, with some Demo help.
>
> Too little regulation in the laws was then aggravated by the incompetent
> corrupt Bush regime.
When I hear terms like regime, Neocon, Etc. and other left wing crap I
see your a lost cause... Too Little regulation? You say that with no
clue of who or what that means. You seem to be bent on having the
Government tuck you in to bed, & hand you the toilet paper in the morning.
>
> The incompetent handling of warnings about an impending attack, pre 9/11.
Versus the incompetent handling of Kobar towers, the Uss Cole, first WTC
bombing, US Embassies in Kenya & Tanzania, blaha blah blah.....
>
> The incompetent Bora Bora operation that let bin Laden escape.
Next time we will put you in charge. Not as simple as you think. It's
called Tora Bora by the way...
>
> The unneccesary debacle of the Iraq invasion.
Needed, and successful long term. The debacle is Cowards who keep trying
cut and run, Wish to desert our allies, and can't see beyond CNN sound
bytes. We have defeated a Major army. Deposed Saddam, Provided a the
first functional democracy in the region. Provided safety to Iraqi's
Neighbors. Established freedom to millions.
>
> The Katrina debacle.
The French sold the place for a good reason. THe Chocolate city was in
the capable hands Ray Nagan Gov. Landru And Congressman Cold Cash
Jefferson. Sorry NO is a fucked up place of it's own making. Notice,
folk in Texas have their act together this week? Nor did folks in
Mississippi or Alabama act like morons after the same Katrina storm
>
> The mishandling of the problem of the Pakistan safe haven area for al Qaeda
> and the Taliban.
>
Great Obama wants to go to war with Pakistan. Great plan.....
> The non-intervention into an obvious mortgage market abuse which created a
> bubble and a crash.
So because people buy more house than they can afford it's our fault?
Yet you Jackasses demanded loser lending to poor credit risks......
>
> Anyone who would want to continue this is loyal to a garbage political
> party - not the United States.
>
> The
>
>
>
>
>
ANd you really think Pelosi, Finestein, Shummer,Kerry, Biden, Kennedy,
Reid, Clinton, Murtha & other losers could manage a damn Burger King?????
Go Mc Cain/Palin 2008!
Raymond O'Hara
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:59:31 -0700 (PDT), "Raymond O'Hara"
>
> >if you can sign your name with a pen you can operate a computer.
> >it requires no manual dexterity. 1 finger is all you need.
> >this article is just more "vote for me i was a PoW"
>
> Oh, you are so brain dead. I spent a year in high school learning
> typing. It is so useful today in my job. I look over a dumbass desk,
> and reach his keyboard, and upside down, I type in the proper
> commands.
>
> Now where's the dexterity in that?
>
>
> My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
> ultimate power in the universe."
most people type with two fingeres.
one need not be a touch typist to operate a computer, thats a skill
for secrataries
Horvath
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>> Oh, you are so brain dead. I spent a year in high school learning
>> typing. It is so useful today in my job. I look over a dumbass desk,
>> and reach his keyboard, and upside down, I type in the proper
>> commands.
>>
>> Now where's the dexterity in that?
>>
>
>
>most people type with two fingeres.
That explains your bad spelling, dumbass.
I'll show you two fingers.
>one need not be a touch typist to operate a computer, thats a skill
>for secrataries
You need say no more. You don't have the skill to be a secretary.
Hor...@Horvath.net
Vaughn Simon
"J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
news:zMGdnU4tHog6tlLV...@earthlink.com...
>
> The only difference between this and what Republicans use on their opponents,
> is that this the truth, verified by the people who were present.
That is beside the point. We have groups where your political posts are
appropriate and actually appreciated.
--
Vaughn
........................................................
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
.........................................................
Will poofread for food.
John Briggs
>
> We have defeated a Major army.
When? Where?
--
John Briggs
Tiglath
What a hipocrite!
It wasn't long ago that the Fair Readers were rudely exposed to Mr.
Hines scurrilous posts about my wife.
It must be that the Avalon doubles up as a trailer.
Vince contention that I don't know women because I said that their
distended vagina after having five kids affect the male pleasure
during intercourse, is silly. It's a true fact I learned long ago.
From his mangled post, one can glean that, apparently, he knows that
is not to be the case because he belongs to a large family -- a
disturbing implication.
On Sep 15, 10:55 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Beyond The Pale...
>
> Tiglath Trailer-Trash Talk...
> --
> DSH
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Vires et Honor
>
> "Vincent" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
Vincent
>
> Vince contention that I don't know women because I said that their
> distended vagina after having five kids affect the male pleasure
> during intercourse, is silly. It's a true fact I learned long ago.
>
> From his mangled post, one can glean that, apparently, he knows that
> is not to be the case because he belongs to a large family -- a
> disturbing implication.
Nonsense
You claimed that the number of children is itself the defining issue
It is not. Duration of labor, post natal treatment and exercise, size of
the infant,delivery trauma and surgery can all affect it
I am married to a physician,and I have taught physicians
in the leading published study
"Surprisingly, parity had little association with the overall
surface contact and length of the vagina. Parity is associated
with a significant increase in the length of the vaginal fornix.
The potential effect of parity may be via stretching and
elongation of the birth canal at the time of vaginal childbirth.
This effect is especially significant in the upper part
of the vagina where the dilation, thinning (effacement) and
taking up of the cervix is an active process, as opposed to
the lower vagina where passive stretching takes place during
parturition."
Human Reproduction Vol.21, No.6 pp. 1618–1622, 2006
doi:10.1093/humrep/del022
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society
of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved.
Kurt T.Barnhart1,5, Adriana Izquierdo2, E.Scott Pretorius3, David
M.Shera4,Mayadah Shabbout4 and Alka Shaunik1
length, not width
the association of parity with Width was negative
e.g.
Some of the most reliable older studies of vaginal width deal with
contraceptive diaphragm fitting. The vast majority of women are fitted
with quite a narrow range size 65-75. My students who were OB/GYNs said
that typically one increase in diaphragm size occurs after the first
pregnancy, but not after that and the increase was related to muscle
tone, which is a correctable condition
I believe Palin to be a totally unqualified candidate, but her
reproductive organs have nothing to do with the case.
Vince
Tiglath
> You claimed that the number of children is itself the defining issue
> It is not.
Vince, you should really stop re-working my arguments to conform to
your rebuttals.
It's strawmangering at its worse, and it makes you look bad in a
medium when a few clicks show what you are doing so clearly.
I said neither that it was the defining factor, nor that it was the
only one. I said absolutely nothing about those two points. It was
not my intention to lecture; we have you for that.
However...
> I am married to a physician,and I have taught physicians
>
> in the leading published study
>
Let's see...
Vince likes to preface sloppy work with fallacious arguments from
authority, and by default he props up a malformed arguments with
claims that he is such an expert in the matter that in fact he gets
paid to teach it.
It makes it all the more painful for him in the dénoûment... and he
SHOULD know it by now.
> "Surprisingly, parity had little association with the overall
> surface contact and length of the vagina. Parity is associated
> with a significant increase in the length of the vaginal fornix.
> The potential effect of parity may be via stretching and
> elongation of the birth canal at the time of vaginal childbirth.
> This effect is especially significant in the upper part
> of the vagina where the dilation, thinning (effacement) and
> taking up of the cervix is an active process, as opposed to
> the lower vagina where passive stretching takes place during
> parturition."
>
> Human Reproduction Vol.21, No.6 pp. 1618–1622, 2006
> doi:10.1093/humrep/del022
Vincent is lost in Tora Bora. He got the right mountain and cave,
but is checking the wrong end.
We see AGAIN, Fair Readers, Vince providing the evidence to support MY
argument in his rebuttal. It's something he does so often that it
has become a typical mannerism.
First, let's agree that for the issue at hand we don't care about the
fornix, the innermost part of the vagina. What wraps tighter around
the dick is the introitus -- i.e., the pussy hole, in Mr. Hines'
parlance
See YOUR OWN source, Vince: "The width of the vagina is narrowest at
the level of the introitus."
(Though women enjoy the feeling of fullness of a wholly inserted good
dick, I am told, the introitus and surrounding area is where serious
cock work has the best potential payoff. It's the reason why some
women can climax with just a finger darting around those parts.)
You read the WRONG part of the source, again, Vince.
The article actually gives clear numbers for the part of the vagina we
are talking about, again, the introitus.
Now here are the variables affecting the width of the introitus,
according to this study (Vincent's reference):
Variables Correlation P-value
---------------------------------------
Age Negative 0.55
Weight Positive 0.15
Height Positive 0.59
Parity Positive 0.86
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/21/6/1618/T2
It's pretty clear that of all the variables affecting the introitus
width, PARITY (the NUMBER of births) has the most significant positive
correlation.
Yet, for some strange reason, Vince believes that:
> In fact it says the contrary.
> length, not width
> the association of parity with Width was negative
We see here how Vince either can't read or is lying. HIS reference
clearly shows a POSITIVE CORRELATION between the introitus width and
parity.
It shows that Vince is most guilty of what he accuses me of, "not
knowing women," or pussy to be exact.
And if in doubt... he confirms it below...
> e.g.
>
> Some of the most reliable older studies of vaginal width deal with
> contraceptive diaphragm fitting. The vast majority of women are fitted
> with quite a narrow range size 65-75. My students who were OB/GYNs said
> that typically one increase in diaphragm size occurs after the first
> pregnancy, but not after that and the increase was related to muscle
> tone, which is a correctable condition
>
Wrong end of the vagina, AGAIN. Diaphragms are NOT fitted at the
introitus end, the business end for this discussion, but deep inside
the vagina
"A diaphragm is fitted properly if the posterior rim rests comfortably
in the posterior FORNIX, the anterior rim rests snugly behind the
pubic bone, and the cervix can be felt through the dome of the
device."
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040101/97.html (My capitals)
Vince never learns, folks. He regularly likes to fuck with a
porcupine and after new skin has pushed all the barbs out months
later, he forgets and has another go at it again.
The moral of this detour from politics to twat is that when it comes
to pussy Vince is like Mr. Hines with firearms, he just doesn't know
what end of the tube the round comes out of (or goes in in).
I hope Vince will not repeat the sad spectacle of repudiating his own
reference, and will not flee and stay away for months after the
pummelling as he's done in the past. We need you HERE to fight the
neocons -- pussy experience not necessary.
> I believe Palin to be a totally unqualified candidate, but her
> reproductive organs have nothing to do with the case.
>
I believe they are relevant in reply to Antero's assertion that he
would fuck the MILF any time. It's a sequitur.
Threads have twists and turns and sometimes go up and down all kind of
hairy issues, Vince. Keep up.
Vincent
> On Sep 16, 11:24 am, Vincent <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
>> You claimed that the number of children is itself the defining issue
>> It is not.
>
> Vince, you should really stop re-working my arguments to conform to
> your rebuttals.
>
> It's strawmangering at its worse, and it makes you look bad in a
> medium when a few clicks show what you are doing so clearly.
>
> I said neither that it was the defining factor, nor that it was the
> only one. I said absolutely nothing about those two points. It was
> not my intention to lecture; we have you for that.
here is exactly what you wrote
Five kids. Loosey goosey.
There is only so much the husband stitch can do.
When a head like a melon goes through the tunnel of love five times,
it doesn't matter if you have a thick cucumber or a fat salami.
Sarah is in the high-risk group of being run over by a truck thinking
she is the Lincoln Tunnel.
Loose shoes, tight pussy. That's where it's at.
and later
"I said that their distended vagina after having five kids affect the
male pleasure during intercourse, is silly. It's a true fact I learned
long ago."
The comments speak for themselves
you are writing about "male pleasure"
snipping abuse
>
>> "Surprisingly, parity had little association with the overall
>> surface contact and length of the vagina. Parity is associated
>> with a significant increase in the length of the vaginal fornix.
>> The potential effect of parity may be via stretching and
>> elongation of the birth canal at the time of vaginal childbirth.
>> This effect is especially significant in the upper part
>> of the vagina where the dilation, thinning (effacement) and
>> taking up of the cervix is an active process, as opposed to
>> the lower vagina where passive stretching takes place during
>> parturition."
>>
>> Human Reproduction Vol.21, No.6 pp. 1618–1622, 2006
>> doi:10.1093/humrep/del022
>
> Vincent is lost in Tora Bora. He got the right mountain and cave,
> but is checking the wrong end.
>
> We see AGAIN, Fair Readers, Vince providing the evidence to support MY
> argument in his rebuttal. It's something he does so often that it
> has become a typical mannerism.
>
> First, let's agree that for the issue at hand we don't care about the
> fornix, the innermost part of the vagina. What wraps tighter around
> the dick is the introitus -- i.e., the pussy hole, in Mr. Hines'
> parlance
>
> See YOUR OWN source, Vince: "The width of the vagina is narrowest at
> the level of the introitus."
>
Sure but so what
> (Though women enjoy the feeling of fullness of a wholly inserted good
> dick, I am told, the introitus and surrounding area is where serious
> cock work has the best potential payoff. It's the reason why some
> women can climax with just a finger darting around those parts.)
now you are describing what the woman likes, that was not your comment
above
"distended vagina after having five kids affect the male pleasure during
intercourse, "
Which is why the rest of your comment is garbage
other sources will tell you were the male pleasure centers are found
you make the same mistake again
>> e.g.
>>
>> Some of the most reliable older studies of vaginal width deal with
>> contraceptive diaphragm fitting. The vast majority of women are fitted
>> with quite a narrow range size 65-75. My students who were OB/GYNs said
>> that typically one increase in diaphragm size occurs after the first
>> pregnancy, but not after that and the increase was related to muscle
>> tone, which is a correctable condition
>>
>
> Wrong end of the vagina, AGAIN. Diaphragms are NOT fitted at the
> introitus end, the business end for this discussion, but deep inside
> the vagina
>
> "A diaphragm is fitted properly if the posterior rim rests comfortably
> in the posterior FORNIX, the anterior rim rests snugly behind the
> pubic bone, and the cervix can be felt through the dome of the
> device."
>
> http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040101/97.html (My capitals)
>
When you figure out what you are trying to prove Ill respond
you were writing about the male pleasure centers
not the female
Vince
Tiglath
Indeed. I don't see anywhere where I said that parity is the DEFINING
factor in the introitus width or the only one. Do you? If you do,
please highlight it, if you don't admit AT LEAST that your claim about
my claim: "You claimed that the number of children is itself the
defining issue." Is WRONG.
A little honesty, please.
> you are writing about "male pleasure"
>
If you understand that much you should not be focusing on the width of
the fornix. Which plays little or no role in male pleasure. Right?
>
> > First, let's agree that for the issue at hand we don't care about the
> > fornix, the innermost part of the vagina. What wraps tighter around
> > the dick is the introitus -- i.e., the pussy hole, in Mr. Hines'
> > parlance
>
> > See YOUR OWN source, Vince: "The width of the vagina is narrowest at
> > the level of the introitus."
>
> Sure but so what
>
So what? Well, only what I said, that you are looking at the wrong
end of the vagina, in a discussion about male pleasure, that's what.
> > (Though women enjoy the feeling of fullness of a wholly inserted good
> > dick, I am told, the introitus and surrounding area is where serious
> > cock work has the best potential payoff. It's the reason why some
> > women can climax with just a finger darting around those parts.)
>
> now you are describing what the woman likes, that was not your comment
> above
>
That's a parenthetical addendum saying that the area of the vagina
most relevant to male pleasure is in fact most relevant for the
female's as well.
Let's hear, according to Vince, what is the most relevant part of the
vagina for male's pleasure.
Are you going to answer it or ignore it?
>
> When you figure out what you are trying to prove Ill respond
>
> you were writing about the male pleasure centers
>
> not the female
Bad stinking red-herring from Vince.
I was clearly writing about the part of the vagina that gives the most
pleasure to the male. It's the narrowest part, naturally, the
introitus -- which some women (God bless them) learn to strongly
contract at will. That is the part also, contrary to what you
believed, that parity affects its width most of all variables that
affect it.
Snipped chart showing it, from your reference, noted.
You lost this one fair and square, Vince.
You remain a very bad loser.
!Jones
<fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>This is simply beyond the pale
Usenet does get raunchy.
Jones
!Jones
<te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>It wasn't long ago that the Fair Readers were rudely exposed to Mr.
>Hines scurrilous posts about my wife.
Usenet can get raunchy.
Jones
Tiglath
Shrinking violets of the Christian creationist mould, like Mr. Hines,
should not approach.
J A
>J A wrote:
>> "Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:48CF33A...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>>J A wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:48CF2362...@hotmail.com...
>>>>
>
>
>
> You do realize there are political newsgroups for this stuff??????
Oh come on, Hines.
>> It was lack of regulation that did this. It mainly came from the
>> Republicans, with some Demo help.
>>
>> Too little regulation in the laws was then aggravated by the incompetent
>> corrupt Bush regime.
> When I hear terms like regime, Neocon, Etc. and other left wing crap I see
> your a lost cause... Too Little regulation? You say that with no clue of
> who or what that means. You seem to be bent on having the Government tuck
> you in to bed, & hand you the toilet paper in the morning.
You stupid ass. Try driving your Toyota around on non-regulated streets -
the results will be analogous.
Like all Bushies, you shit your pants and flee from taking any responsibilty
for the results of the corrupt incompetents you support.
And as for being tucked in and handed toilet paper - it's you on government
retirement, receiving socialized medical insurance, not me.
>> The incompetent handling of warnings about an impending attack, pre 9/11.
>
> Versus the incompetent handling of Kobar towers, the Uss Cole, first WTC
> bombing, US Embassies in Kenya & Tanzania, blaha blah blah.....
Security at Kobar and for the USS Cole, located thousands of miles outside
the US, were isolated instances and were the reponsibilites of on the scene
military organizations.
The 9/11 attacks were on the US, and there were WARNINGS which the isipdid
Bush regime ignored.
The Bora Bora operation was a major operation with a major objective which
failed due to a lack of US commitment of troops as blocking forces - we were
relying on paid Afghanis who were previously being paid by bin Laden.
The fact that you can't tell the difference between any of these examples
says it all, housing officer..
J A
"Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimo...@att.FAKE.net> wrote in message
news:8FNzk.222179$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
> news:zMGdnU4tHog6tlLV...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> The only difference between this and what Republicans use on their
>> opponents, is that this the truth, verified by the people who were
>> present.
>
> That is beside the point. We have groups where your political posts are
> appropriate and actually appreciated.
Why are you telling me, moron?
The thread "Obama Flipflopping: Tried To Stall Troops' Withdrawal From Iraq"
wasn't started by me.
Jeffrey Hamilton
Gee, I just learned a lot. <g>
cheers....Jeff
Tiglath
This little aside has raised a few puzzling questions about
Vincent.
Shouldn’t a married man like Vincent know which part of the vagina is
the narrowest, and that it is that part which gives men the most
pleasure when it squeezes the penis?
Shouldn’t he know that if that part widens or loses any tightness it
means less pleasure for the male?
The name of that part, which engorges with blood and becomes firm
during the female arousal plateau and undergoes rhythmic contractions
during orgasm is called the Introitus, not the Fornix, the part
Vincent thinks is relevant here.
Most men need not read any anatomical study to know this. It’s
knowledge they acquire early in life as soon as they poke around the
question. Yet Vince doesn’t seem to know it.
Not knowing this sort of thing is a qualification to appear on Dr.
Phil’s TV show, at the very least.
The other puzzling question is that Vincent tells us that:
“I have taught physicians in the leading published study”
Vincent refers to this study:
Baseline Dimensions Of The Human Vagina
-- Kurt T. Barnhart,
Penn Fertility Care,
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and
Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, et al.
Here: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/6/1618/
In other words, a lawyer teaches anatomy to physicians… Quite a
claim.
Of necessity, that claim entails that Vincent knows that study very
well, being quite a short document as well.
Then, Vincent tells us unequivocally that according to the study:
“[T]he association of parity with Width was negative.”
Meaning that the more children a woman gives birth to the smaller is
the width of her vagina.
And since Vince knows what’s under discussion:
‘[Y]ou are writing about "male pleasure",’ he says.
He obviously means that the more births the smaller the width of the
part of the vagina that gives pleasure to the male. That would be the
Introitus Width.
Well, folks, even the quickest reading of Vince’s reference study
reveals that the OPPOSITE is true.
There is POSITIVE CORRELATION between the introitus width and parity
(number of births). It also happens to be the most significant of all
variables affecting that attribute of the vagina, as shown in study's
tabular data -- Table II
Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that Vinnie is thoroughly
unfamiliar with that study, and consequently he could not possibly be
telling the truth when he claimed to be teaching that study to
physicians.
I understand the human desire for a sense of importance, but unbridled
it leads exactly to a result 180 degrees to that sought.
This is not the first time this man has been caught in a brazen lie
trying to sound important. The “Professor” should really know
better.
I recommend he writes to Dr. Phil, for I am at fours and sixes as to
what to recommend to this married man who is so stunningly ignorant of
the female anatomy.
Puzzling indeed.
In a time we are trying to expose the lies of Sarah Palin and John
McCain, Democrats who are recalcitrant liars should take a vacation.
Vincent
> This little aside has raised a few puzzling questions about
> Vincent.
>
> Shouldn’t a married man like Vincent know which part of the vagina is
> the narrowest, and that it is that part which gives men the most
> pleasure when it squeezes the penis?
>
> Shouldn’t he know that if that part widens or loses any tightness it
> means less pleasure for the male?
>
> The name of that part, which engorges with blood and becomes firm
> during the female arousal plateau and undergoes rhythmic contractions
> during orgasm is called the Introitus, not the Fornix, the part
> Vincent thinks is relevant here.
>
you lose
most normal men have the pleasure center close to the tip not he base
> Most men need not read any anatomical study to know this. It’s
> knowledge they acquire early in life as soon as they poke around the
> question. Yet Vince doesn’t seem to know it.
>
> Not knowing this sort of thing is a qualification to appear on Dr.
> Phil’s TV show, at the very least.
>
>
> The other puzzling question is that Vincent tells us that:
>
> “I have taught physicians in the leading published study”
>
> Vincent refers to this study:
>
you cropped the quote
yes I have taught physicians
I am well aware of how they work
> Baseline Dimensions Of The Human Vagina
> -- Kurt T. Barnhart,
> Penn Fertility Care,
> Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
> and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and
> Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, et al.
>
> Here: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/6/1618/
>
> In other words, a lawyer teaches anatomy to physicians… Quite a
> claim.
>
> Of necessity, that claim entails that Vincent knows that study very
> well, being quite a short document as well.
>
> Then, Vincent tells us unequivocally that according to the study:
>
> “[T]he association of parity with Width was negative.”
>
> Meaning that the more children a woman gives birth to the smaller is
> the width of her vagina.
>
no that is not what it says
> And since Vince knows what’s under discussion:
>
> ‘[Y]ou are writing about "male pleasure",’ he says.
>
> He obviously means that the more births the smaller the width of the
> part of the vagina that gives pleasure to the male. That would be the
> Introitus Width.
>
> Well, folks, even the quickest reading of Vince’s reference study
> reveals that the OPPOSITE is true.
>
> There is POSITIVE CORRELATION between the introitus width and parity
> (number of births). It also happens to be the most significant of all
> variables affecting that attribute of the vagina, as shown in study's
> tabular data -- Table II
>
> Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that Vinnie is thoroughly
> unfamiliar with that study, and consequently he could not possibly be
> telling the truth when he claimed to be teaching that study to
> physicians.
>
I dont teach the study and you are misinterpreting it
> I understand the human desire for a sense of importance, but unbridled
> it leads exactly to a result 180 degrees to that sought.
>
> This is not the first time this man has been caught in a brazen lie
> trying to sound important. The “Professor” should really know
> better.
>
> I recommend he writes to Dr. Phil, for I am at fours and sixes as to
> what to recommend to this married man who is so stunningly ignorant of
> the female anatomy.
>
> Puzzling indeed.
>
> In a time we are trying to expose the lies of Sarah Palin and John
> McCain, Democrats who are recalcitrant liars should take a vacation.
>
the introitus is only critical to those Males with extremely short
sexual organs
I have no experience with such But Im sure from his comments that Mr
Tiglath is an expert in that area
Vince
Tiglath
>
> you lose
Meaningless two words at this point.
>
> most normal men have the pleasure center close to the tip not he base
>
The tip happens to be the urethral opening. If that is the spot that
gets you hot, you are evidence there is no Designer.
Lucky men's pleasure center is the whole dick, much as the glans is
the most sensitive part.
Regardless of the length of the shaft, the glands has a better time in
the Introitus than in the Fornix, for obvious reasons. Especially
with a woman who cultivates her introitus. You seem to be missing on
that too.
Vincent has reached groggy status. At this point he just throws
punches pell mell hoping for a lucky hit.
Too wobbly to do any good.
And he has nobody to throw in the towel for him.
It's the infirmary again.
>
> > The other puzzling question is that Vincent tells us that:
>
> > “I have taught physicians in the leading published study”
>
> > Vincent refers to this study:
>
> you cropped the quote
So? This is what I omitted "I am married to a physician." It
doesn't modify the other phrase in the slightest. You STILL assert
that you have taught to physicians a study you don't seem familiar
with. How do you account for it?
>
> yes I have taught physicians
> I am well aware of how they work
That changes nothing. You still show no sign of knowing the salient
facts of the study you claim you taught to physicians. We see you
moving the goalposts, Vince. You are beaten and just prolonging your
agony.
>
> > Then, Vincent tells us unequivocally that according to the study:
>
> > “[T]he association of parity with Width was negative.”
>
> > Meaning that the more children a woman gives birth to the smaller is
> > the width of her vagina.
>
> no that is not what it says.
>
I know what the study says. I am talking about what YOU wrote. You
wrote this:
“[T]he association of parity with Width was negative.”
Explain what it means.
>
> > Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that Vinnie is thoroughly
> > unfamiliar with that study, and consequently he could not possibly be
> > telling the truth when he claimed to be teaching that study to
> > physicians.
>
> I dont teach the study and you are misinterpreting it.
Make up your mind, Vinnie. You wrote:
“I have taught physicians in the leading published study” And then
you quoted the study.
It's too late to repudiate it.
>
> the introitus is only critical to those Males with extremely short
> sexual organs
Vince gets an even bigger shovel to dig in his hole...
Hilarious.
If you taught doctors "in the leading published study," as you claim,
you would know this.
On average, the LENGTH of the vagina is 3-4 inches at rest, and 5-6
inches aroused. It doesn't take a big dick to reach the end.
However, if you knew something about women you would know that the
entrance is narrow and it gets wider as you go deeper. The narrower
part is the lower third. Doing the old in-and-out properly you can
visit the whole length with each stroke, and no matter the size you
will always have more friction at the introitus. More friction = more
fun. A man with a big dick pushes the wall of the vagina and expands
it; however some women don't enjoy that feeling, and it even hurts,
while others, "size queens," love it.
Your ignorance of sex is appalling. I pity your unfortunate
lovers.
>
> I have no experience with such But Im sure from his comments that Mr
> Tiglath is an expert in that area
Unfortunately for you, writing dumb posts full of lies is no evidence
of a big dick, Vince.
D. Spencer Hines
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Vincent" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:t7_zk.281$Yw1.7@trnddc03...
Tiglath
> Hilarious!
Indeed. Mr. Hines allies himself AGAIN, with a contender who has just
had his ass kicked so hard my foot is still sore.
Exposed as a liar, ignorant of the most basic knowledge of sex and
women, and hoping the readers will overlook his shortcomings by saying
that at least he has a big dick to make up for them.
A liar at desperate stations flinging more lies.
All a contender needs to attract Mr. Hines.
Can it get better than this?
> --
> DSH
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Vires et Honor
> Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
>
> "Vincent" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
Tiglath
Vince is a sadist's dream. He is lucky I am not one. When you kick
him face down in the mud he keeps right on giving and offers his
teeth.
I limit myself to giving him the chance to come clean and avoid
further disgrace.
Although Vince is not a Republican when it comes to errors he is
indistinguishable from Bush and Mr. Hines, who will sink the rest of
their capital into a bad investment when they not only know it's a bad
investment but feel it in the marrow of their bones.
It's the macho thing insecure men have, for whom all issues at bottom
are a cock fight.
Case in point Vince's latest rejoinder, in which after an abysmal
performance he tries to find solace in the thought that his dick may
be bigger than his opponent's.
Poor men.
Vince is pondering if it will burst if he adds to his bladder of
lies. He has not answered yet perfectly fair questions.
He says I misinterpret his reference study, but can't say where and
how.
He won't explain what he meant by:
"length, not width the association of parity with Width was negative."
Instead he lets out word pairs like "you lose," "you're wrong," etc.
The sounds of the rhetorically moribund.
Mr. Hines doesn't seem to be helping his argument much.
But... the day is young...
Vincent
tig drivel alert
Don't worry, your insults wash off just as well as Hine's or anyone else.
>
> He won't explain what he meant by:
>
> "length, not width
the association of parity with Width was negative."
Do you have any idea what "positive" and "negative" association mean?
The association of length and parity was positive
The association of width and parity was negative
The bottom line was
"The dimensions and shape of the vagina are of great
importance in medicine and surgery; however, there appears
to be no single way to characterize the size and shape of the
human vagina. Although differences exist between women,
there are few covariates associated with these differences."
I taught health care risk management and the role of evidence based
medicine or as we called it "getting away from anecdotes"
Vince
Tiglath
> Tiglath wrote:
>
> tig drivel alert
>
> Don't worry, your insults wash off just as well as Hine's or anyone else.
>
Before you wash them off you should keep the kernel of truth in each
one of them, you are in the direst need to know thyself.
You are a man whose sense of ridicule is being starved by the gluttony
of his sense of importance.
In public.
If I EVER, EVER, got caught telling the lies you tell, I wouldn't dare
show my face around here again.
>
>
> > He won't explain what he meant by:
>
> > "length, not width
>
> the association of parity with Width was negative."
>
> Do you have any idea what "positive" and "negative" association mean?
>
> The association of length and parity was positive
> The association of width and parity was negative
>
Width of what? Not all segments of the vagina contribute equally to
"tightness". As you should know by now.
Why don't you quote the entire sentence where the study says that the
association of width and parity was negative?
It's obvious you can't.
Vince is lying again, the man just can't help himself.
There is NOTHING in the study that corresponds to his last statement
above.
The truth faces Vincent but Vincent won't face the truth.
The study quite clearly shows that the part of the vagina responsible
for any tightness, felt during coitus widens as the woman gives births
to more children.
To save face Vince continues to repudiate his own reference and deny
what's the common experience of men who have a healthy sex life.
It's hard to understand how Vince willing damages his credibility
further by posting falsehoods about a study any reader can easily
check out.
>
> I taught health care risk management and the role of evidence based
> medicine or as we called it "getting away from anecdotes"
There are no airs you can put on to allay the fact that you lied when
you wrote that you taught that study to physicians: Vincent
Branighan, you are a liar.
This is a man, folks whose idea of coital pleasure is banging his
urethral opening against the bottom of the vagina, or fornix.
There are pre-teen virgin males who know more about sex than you,
Vince.
Are you a virgin?
What did you do in your honeymoon, fish and drink beer?
!Jones
Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>> Usenet does get raunchy.
>
>Gee, I just learned a lot.
Just a comment; its intent wasn't to inform anyone. Now you know what
*I* think... use your two remaining wishes wisely. (Sex and money are
usually good bets.)
Jones
Jeffrey Hamilton
probably go for 'oil futures', short term.
cheers....Jeff
nicenips
He dropped his load of bombs
Never seein’ any dead
Caused a world o’ hurt
But it never stressed his head.
So the gookies shot ‘im down
And busted up his arms
When he was released
He went lookin’ for some charms.
His mate was sick with cancer
So he left his loyal wife
He saw no need to wait
He had to live his life.
He chanced upon some butt
And lookee what he found.
A rich and drugged-up slut
But at least she owned some ground.
But now he thinks he’s happy
Each morn when he arouses
And surveys all he’s gained,
Including six or seven houses.