OT: Would you...?

[Alphonsus Jr.]

Say you're a demolition man. If you have doubts about whether someone is in the building you're about to blow up, would you go ahead and blow it up anyway? Or would you first make sure that no one is in the building?

Or, say you're not the demolition man, but his friend standing next to him. Would you say to him, "Friend, the choice is yours, and I support your right to choose to push the button regardless of our doubts about whether anyone is in the building"? Or would you instead say, "Friend, I think we better not push the button until we're absolutely sure that no one is in the building"?

[thomas]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 12:57:10 AM UTC-4, Alphonsus Jr. wrote:
> Say you're a demolition man. If you have doubts about whether someone is in the building you're about to blow up, would you go ahead and blow it up anyway? Or would you first make sure that no one is in the building?
>
>
>
> Or, say you're not the demolition man, but his friend standing next to him. Would you say to him, "Friend, the choice is yours, and I support your right to choose to push the button regardless of our doubts about whether anyone is in the building"? Or would you instead say, "Friend, I think we better not push the button until we're absolutely sure that no one is in the building"?>

What if the person in the building is a fetus who will will grow up to be Hitler?

[Cactus Wren]

What if there was a butterfly on that fetus, that might have flapped its wings and created beneficial rainstorms in a drought-plagued Third World country?

[Andrew Schulman]

On Oct 5, 12:57 am, "Alphonsus Jr." <alphonsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Say you're a demolition man...
>
>
Is this an allegory about your returning to RMCG?

Andrew

[Alphonsus Jr.]

Old people. Middle-aged people. Young adults. Adolescents. Children. And on this spectrum are also the most innocent and defenseless of all: fetal humans. Not merely "fetuses." Fetal humans. Reject this brave new world's dehumanizing push.

Doubt about this is understandable. But such doubt is an argument against legalized surgical infanticide. Yes, if you're a demolition man, any doubt about someone being in the building militates against pushing the button. Push the button anyway? Monstrous. And such a person would be prosecuted for murder based on criminal negligence.

Yet it's legal to hire a surgical hitman. Huh?

As for whether any particular fetal human will become a Hitler, this is unknowable. And it's certainly no justification for acting like Hitler.

Notice that no one has answered the original questions. They've dodged them. This is because they well understand the implications yet remain shackled by fashionable opinion. Very common.

[Andrew Schulman]

On Oct 5, 2:27 pm, "Alphonsus Jr." <alphonsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Notice that no one has answered the original questions. They've dodged them. This is because they well understand the implications yet remain shackled by fashionable opinion. Very common.
>
>

It was a really silly question. That's why you got the answers you
got.

Andrew

[Alphonsus Jr.]

It wasn't silly at all.

By the way, friends, go here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=abortion&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=NFE&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsubl&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=witvUI2ZIrCy0QHI24GQCQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1429&bih=711

And then ask yourselves: "Do I really support the legal option to do that? I do? What's happened to me? What have I become? How did this happen? And how is it that I support that, yet I still believe that I occupy the moral high ground?"

[thomas]

I'll never eat chicken again.

[dsi1]

On 10/5/2012 8:52 AM, Alphonsus Jr. wrote:
>
> It wasn't silly at all.
>
> By the way, friends, go here:
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=abortion&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=NFE&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsubl&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=witvUI2ZIrCy0QHI24GQCQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1429&bih=711
>
> And then ask yourselves: "Do I really support the legal option to do that? I do? What's happened to me? What have I become? How did this happen? And how is it that I support that, yet I still believe that I occupy the moral high ground?"
>

I seriously doubt that an egocentric guy like you would choose to devote
your life to raising a kid for nearly 20 years. The only high ground
you'd occupy is when you run for the hills if faced with a future like
that.

You only get to occupy the the moral high ground by making the correct
choices and living a clean life. You're just figuring on taking the easy
way out by denying others the ability to make their own choices. It
ain't gonna work. In most cases, taking the easy way out is not the most
moral way to go. That's the breaks.

[Andrew Schulman]

On Oct 5, 2:52 pm, "Alphonsus Jr." <alphonsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It wasn't silly at all.
>
>

Think it through a little.

Andrew

[Alphonsus Jr.]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 1:35:31 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:

>denying others the ability to make their own choices.

If that choice involves murdering someone else, I'd absolutely deny that choice. Strange that you wouldn't.

[Alphonsus Jr.]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 3:07:58 PM UTC-7, Andrew Schulman wrote:

> Think it through a little.

Help me out.

[dsi1]

My wife and I are anti-abortion - we spent 30 years raising 3 kids. We
wouldn't be able to handle terminating a pregnancy but that was our
choice to make - not yours, not the pope's, not the republicans.

The only thing you're willing to do is spend a little time indulging in
righteous indignation instead of trying to improve the lives of the
unwanted kids that were not aborted. This shows poor character on your
part. Morally, you're about as high as a ditch.

[Alphonsus Jr.]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:55:05 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:


> My wife and I are anti-abortion - we spent 30 years raising 3 kids. We
>
> wouldn't be able to handle terminating a pregnancy but that was our
>
> choice to make - not yours, not the pope's, not the republicans.

In other words, "Hiring a surgical hitman is a personal choice. It may be good for me but not for you." It's definitely not good for the fetal human. How about that? Take another look at the link I provided above. And if you can't stomach taking another look, ask yourself why.

By the way, assume that I support slavery. I say to you, "Enslaving someone is my choice to make - not yours, not the pope's, not the republicans.'" No problem?

[thomas]

I totally support fetal killing (eggs for breakfast) and slavery (just ask my dog).

[dsi1]

On 10/5/2012 2:36 PM, Alphonsus Jr. wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:55:05 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:
>
>
>> My wife and I are anti-abortion - we spent 30 years raising 3 kids. We
>>
>> wouldn't be able to handle terminating a pregnancy but that was our
>>
>> choice to make - not yours, not the pope's, not the republicans.
>
>
> In other words, "Hiring a surgical hitman is a personal choice. It may be good for me but not for you." It's definitely not good for the fetal human. How about that? Take another look at the link I provided above. And if you can't stomach taking another look, ask yourself why.

Big talk from a guy that's lead a sheltered life. The reality is that
you never know what you're going to do unless you have to make a choice.
Abortion was always a choice for us until my girlfriend, now wife,
became pregnant. At that time, the both of us knew what we had to do -
fortunately for us, we both saw it the same way.

You talk all brave and honest but you'd tank if it all ever came down to
an abortion or vowing to commit your life long term to this one single
thing. Of this I have no doubt.

>
> By the way, assume that I support slavery. I say to you, "Enslaving someone is my choice to make - not yours, not the pope's, not the republicans.'" No problem?
>

You have no life experience so the only thing you got are stupid
arguments like this one. Sorry but I'm gonna have to shine that one on.

[Alphonsus Jr.]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 5:55:40 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:

> Big talk from a guy that's lead a sheltered life. The reality is that
>
> you never know what you're going to do unless you have to make a choice.
>
> Abortion was always a choice for us until my girlfriend, now wife,
>
> became pregnant. At that time, the both of us knew what we had to do -
>
> fortunately for us, we both saw it the same way.
>
>
>
> You talk all brave and honest but you'd tank if it all ever came down to
>
> an abortion or vowing to commit your life long term to this one single
>
> thing. Of this I have no doubt.

In other words, you're suggesting that it's somehow honorable to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. Yet this sounds reasonable to many today! These are the depths we've fallen to. Welcome to the brave new world.

In any event, I don't deny that hiring a surgical hitman is a choice. What I say is that said hiring makes the contractor a co-conspirator to first degree murder. At the very least, given the doubt mentioned in my first post above, a co-conspirator to murder rooted in criminal negligence.

Without resorting to any more ad hominem attacks, what do you say to that?

[Andrew Schulman]

If a demolition man blew up a building and killed someone in it, and
it was a situation where it could be shown that there was doubt about
someone still being in the building, the demolition man would
certainly lose his job at the least, and very likely be convicted of
manslaughter, and possibly murder if there was reason to suspect that
and it could be proved. So, absent an intent to kill, the demolition
man would be absolutely certain there was no one there unless it was a
case of negligence, but that wouldn't involve a moral choice, in fact,
it wouldn't even involve choice. You might call it anti-choice.

In the case of the friend, any reasonable person that thought it was
possible there was still someone in the building, and knew that that
person would likely be injured or killed, would warn their friend, for
all the reasons stated above, especially as that person might be
legally liable as well.

To say nothing of the moral liability involved for both people.

So your thread opener shows a lack of common sense or judgment; it's
absurd and foolish. In other words, it's silly.

Andrew

[Alphonsus Jr.]

I very consciously didn't simply say "negligence." I said "criminal negligence." I use these words in their technical legal sense.

Simple civil negligence - that is, tortious negligence - involves the breach of a duty of reasonable care, said breach causing damages. Thus, there are four elements: 1) duty, 2) breach, 3) causation, 4) damages. An outline could flow from each element. For example, under the heading of causation we'd distinguish sine qua non causation ("but-for"), substantial factor causation, actual causation, and proximate causation.

Criminal negligence is implicated when the risks of serious harm are so great that....

Forget it. I'm wasting my time.

[Cactus Wren]

"It is defined as an act that is:
careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

[Fadosolrélamisi]

This last comment is most enlightening as it defined it all ... you're caught up in a loop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PArM9atP6nE

[Andrew Schulman]

On Oct 5, 9:57 pm, "Alphonsus Jr." <alphonsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So your thread opener shows a lack of common sense or judgment; it's
> > absurd and foolish.  In other words, it's silly.
>
> > Andrew
>
> I very consciously didn't simply say "negligence." I said "criminal negligence."
>
>

Consciously or unconsciously, in your thread opener, you never used
the words "negligence" or "criminal negligence". And my posts to you
were specifically addressing your comment - "Notice that no one has
answered the original questions."

Your original questions were in the opening post.

On Oct 5, 9:57 pm, "Alphonsus Jr." <alphonsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Forget it. I'm wasting my time.

Wasting your time? Don't be silly!

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

On Oct 6, 12:21 am, Fadosolrélamisi <rei...@telus.net> wrote:
> This last comment is most enlightening as it defined it all ... you're caught up in a loop.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PArM9atP6nE
>

or:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZbtAFq7dP8

Andresito

[dsi1]

On 10/5/2012 3:29 PM, Alphonsus Jr. wrote:

>
> In other words, you're suggesting that it's somehow honorable to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. Yet this sounds reasonable to many today! These are the depths we've fallen to. Welcome to the brave new world.

Get back to me when the time comes that you have to make a choice.
Otherwise, I'm not interested in you telling me how you would act if you
were in this situation. You have no idea how this world works, man.

> In any event, I don't deny that hiring a surgical hitman is a choice. What I say is that said hiring makes the contractor a co-conspirator to first degree murder. At the very least, given the doubt mentioned in my first post above, a co-conspirator to murder rooted in criminal negligence.
>

My wife has assisted with D&C procedures.

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Ooooo ... I have to change my tune ... (a minor comfort zone discomfort ...)
I hope this two videos will not fall into the eyes of a blind man!

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Because ... talking is not seeing ...

[Alphonsus Jr.]

You haven't offered any arguments, but only ad hominem attacks and irrelevancies.

As for the latter, what I - or anyone else - might do after having caused an unwanted pregnancy is completely immaterial to what should be done. Your immersion in subjectivism blinds you to this.

Regarding the former, the strangely bilious, highly defensive quality of your attacks arouses my suspicion. Have you ever contracted with a surgical hitman, or in any way been an accessory to such a contract?

[Jonathan]

At what point does it become murder?
Is the termination of a cell with 46 chromosomes really all that different than the termination of a cell with 23?

[dsi1]

On 10/6/2012 6:28 AM, Alphonsus Jr. wrote:
>
>
> You haven't offered any arguments, but only ad hominem attacks and irrelevancies.
>
> As for the latter, what I - or anyone else - might do after having caused an unwanted pregnancy is completely immaterial to what should be done. Your immersion in subjectivism blinds you to this.
>

You should be the poster child for your wasted education position. I'm
not prepared to discuss morality on a theoretical, academic, abstract
level because I don't have the time nor do I want to type out a lot of
words which can come to nothing. Discussing morality with you would be
like discussing turbo-chargers with a toddler. Let's talk when you
decide to join and embrace humanity.

> Regarding the former, the strangely bilious, highly defensive quality of your attacks arouses my suspicion. Have you ever contracted with a surgical hitman, or in any way been an accessory to such a contract?
>

As I stated, my wife has assisted with D&C procedures. The reality is
that it will terminate a pregnancy if you've conceived. You can call her
a hit lady. I laugh at you sir! :-)

[Steven Bornfeld]

Jonathan, I was going to go there, but decided not to. In any case, I
know the answer like the palm of my hand!

Steve

[Alphonsus Jr.]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:22:36 AM UTC-7, Jonathan wrote:

> At what point does it become murder?

It's unclear. This very lack of clarity is an argument against surgical infanticide. Say I'm deer hunting. I see something move but I'm not sure if it's a deer. Because I'm unsure, I don't pull the trigger. If I do and it turns out to be a human? Murder based on criminal negligence.

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 10/6/2012 6:25 PM, Alphonsus Jr. wrote:

> Your effort to demonize me is very strange. After all, you - not I - are the one who supports the legalized hiring of surgical hitmen to crush skulls, liquify brains, and mangle limbs via legalized surgical infanticide. And even though this makes you no better than the worst Nazi, I haven't said anything of the sort.
>


You apparently don't know much about Nazis.

Steve

[Alphonsus Jr.]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:13:20 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:

Your efforts to demonize me are very strange. After all, you - not I - are the one who supports the legalized hiring of surgical hitmen to crush skulls, liquify brains, and mangle limbs via surgical infanticide. And even though this makes you no better than the worst Nazi, I've refrained from saying this to you. No, you most definitely don't occupy the high ground. Not in any way.

[dsi1]

On 10/6/2012 12:25 PM, Alphonsus Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Your effort to demonize me is very strange. After all, you - not I - are the one who supports the legalized hiring of surgical hitmen to crush skulls, liquify brains, and mangle limbs via legalized surgical infanticide. And even though this makes you no better than the worst Nazi, I haven't said anything of the sort.
>

I'm not trying to demonize you. The truth is that you have no idea about
what's involved in raising kids. I've heard your schtick before from
males that have never been married or had any kids. You're entitled to
your opinion but I'm not going to buy what you're selling until you get
some street cred.

[florenc...@gmail.com]

Indeed ... this is a department in which there will never be a granting of a university degree as it takes a life time to acquire and master. These undervalued set of parenting skills are not only an art but are also at time, a pain, a necessity, a duty, a source of joy (and more), but in the end it could be summed up as a unique life experience emanating from the choices made by two human beings without knowing or understanding exactly what's coming from it... indeed ... one cannot talk about it with any authority without having walk the walk. This should not be a shocker for anyone, it's just the way it is.
The polarizing effect created by this type of debate (about the right or non-right to life) is definitely not knew. The fact that the arguments brought up (by either side) are made with the intent to shake the value system of the other side makes it a perfect example by which one could see an almost perfect progressive narrowing of the brain when the two irreconcilable views collide.
The imbecility in this is that both sides know very well that their views are irreconcilable, nonetheless, they keep putting dry wood on the fire, as if the size of the fire would be the good cause to bring the conflict to an end... but in reality is not all that we get is fire consumed by fire? (With an end result of resentments, enmity, and ... hatred).

[thomas]

You're setting up a false equivalence. Anti-abortion rhetoric is a bogus claim to reverence for life. These people (tiny handful of exceptions aside) do not engage in anti-death activism or rhetoric, and have no problem eating living things. Fetus-worship is nearly always a cover for restoration of patriarchal control over women. And it is funny when it comes from people who have so little experience with women.

[florenc...@gmail.com]

I am not setting anything! I am just trying to demystify a process by which two divergences get caught up into a no end spin ... Taking a side and disputing an opposite position is easy! What I am interested in is to understand why and how a rhetorical mechanism imprison itself through its own limitations, either way. The fact that there is no common ground that can be reached is to a large extent responsible for polarizing the two sides into their entrenched position.
The terminal consequence of such inflexible moral stand is that the debate ends up in a place where there's no where to go. No compromise, no common ground, no empathy, no understanding, clashes, emotionalism, hurts, stubbornness, vindication, and at last ... radicalization and a strong sense of righteousness.
Mind you ... even my own point of view risks the danger of being imprisoned by its own sense of righteousness!

[Alphonsus Jr.]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:02:46 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:

Yet more emotionalism clouding your reason. I'm not talking about raising kids. I'm talking about killing them.

[Jonathan]

If it's unclear, then you need to give your left hand a rest, because you could be guilty of mass homicide.
Time to get a good criminal lawyer!

[florenc...@gmail.com]

The fact that you present the building as being totally unimportant (a mere object...Woaw!!!!) constitute the greatest weakness of your case. Would you let the sky scraper speak? Would you listen or would you maintain her locked in this inconceivable role as an object?

[Steven Bornfeld]

I see you've concisely described the general tone of what passes for
"political process" in the U.S.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Steven Bornfeld]

I know you think you are.

[Fadosolrélamisi]

I was wondering if a "rapprochement" would be made!
Maybe (and who am I to emit such a proposal) the American polarized political landscape needs a third party, one that will lean to the left. But you guys are so scared of the word socialists ...

[Curmudgeon]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:35:23 -1000, dsi1
<ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:

>On 10/5/2012 8:52 AM, Alphonsus Jr. wrote:
>>
>> It wasn't silly at all.
>>
>> By the way, friends, go here:
>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=abortion&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=NFE&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsubl&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=witvUI2ZIrCy0QHI24GQCQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1429&bih=711
>>
>> And then ask yourselves: "Do I really support the legal option to do that? I do? What's happened to me? What have I become? How did this happen? And how is it that I support that, yet I still believe that I occupy the moral high ground?"
>>
>
>I seriously doubt that an egocentric guy like you would choose to devote
>your life to raising a kid for nearly 20 years. The only high ground
>you'd occupy is when you run for the hills if faced with a future like
>that.
>
>You only get to occupy the the moral high ground by making the correct
>choices and living a clean life. You're just figuring on taking the easy
>way out by denying others the ability to make their own choices. It
>ain't gonna work. In most cases, taking the easy way out is not the most
>moral way to go. That's the breaks.
>
Regrettably, my newsreader's kill filters only seem to block messages
submitted by the original poster. Responses from others to the orignal
post which quote the original still sneak through, unfortunately.

[dsi1]

On 10/7/2012 5:49 AM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
>
> I was wondering if a "rapprochement" would be made!
> Maybe (and who am I to emit such a proposal) the American polarized political landscape needs a third party, one that will lean to the left. But you guys are so scared of the word socialists ...
>

We is ascared of that word. That fact is clear to my Swedish step-mom.
What is unclear and perplexing to her is how we could have not have
medical care available to all our citizens. To her it goes against logic
and nature.

OTOH, Romneycare is a reality for the uninsured. we have friends that I
suspect are homeless and that's their only medical option. They've been
to the emergency room 5 times in the last couple of months. My wife and
daughter have had to drive them there for most of those times. It's one
of the few times where Romney got his facts straight. Yay!

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 10/7/2012 11:49 AM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
>
> I was wondering if a "rapprochement" would be made!
> Maybe (and who am I to emit such a proposal) the American polarized political landscape needs a third party, one that will lean to the left. But you guys are so scared of the word socialists ...
>

Seems pretty unlikely right now. The most powerful independent
political force right now seems to be the libertarian instinct. They've
found a temporary home in the Republican party, but it's not a
comfortable home. The Republicans are squeezed between the social
conservatives (mostly remnants of the old South, redolent of Christian
fundamentalism) and the near-anarchist Tea Party, with the so-called
"fiscal conservatives/social centrists" (the remnants of the Rockefeller
Republicans) rapidly being squeezed out of existence.
The problem is fluid; right now the general perception is that a
libertarian third party would hurt the Republicans more--hence the
pressure to keep them in the increasingly unruly "big tent".
Socialism? Clifford Odets is gone, Pete Seeger is 93. The health care
plan put forward by Richard Nixon (!) is more radical than the
Affordable Health Act. Somehow, the Republican party has convinced vast
numbers of the working class that they are the party of the little guy
(the little white guy, at least). In this atmosphere, Obama is a
socialist. It's a bit tough to take for this grandson of a Communist.

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Le dimanche 7 octobre 2012 10:23:32 UTC-7, dsi1 a écrit :

You guys have started this weird habit of using the name of the president (or in this case the running opposite party contender to the presidency) followed by the word "care" ... up here above the ?? parallel we just call it Healthcare ... Our universal healthcare is far from being free from having problems but ...
at least ... it's available for almost all of our citizens ...

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Le dimanche 7 octobre 2012 10:44:12 UTC-7, Steven Bornfeld a écrit :

Well .. thanks for the quick condensed U.S. political history! A lot of octopussian directions within the same political party if I understand well ...
Up here (are we that up?) it seems like the balancing act of our two main political party ,the liberal and the conservative, is starting to lose ground as an old dormant third party, considered up to now inoffensive seems to be making a come back ... the centre left Neo-Democrat Party, the one that has given birth to our healthcare system is breaking through once more and its orange color has never been so menacing to the red and blue ... the last time they were in power ... I was not yet in Canada!

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Eh! As far as I know ... I could be on your kill file system!
Technology will provide ... eventually ... a way to customize our computer to the extant that we will be able to hear only what we want to hear ...
I for one have never screen someone out through a kill filter ... but ... I have to concede that I have put to work my "ignore" natural selective umbrella more than once ...
It's amazing (not that word again!) to see how much is socially acceptable on the net. Daily, on the web, it is possible to witness social behaviours that would absolutely not be allowed in the real world.

[Curmudgeon]

Alain, there is only one RMCG individual on my killfile list, and it
isn't you!

[dsi1]

Americans iz crazy! "Obamacare" is the mocking name that the republicans
use to make fun of universal health coverage. As it goes, the democrats
have chosen to use it to mock the republicans.

This is what we've come to in American politics. The republicans have
been reduced to name calling and trying to come up with "zingers." If
you think that America has been reduced to it's most idiotic, sad, and
most dishonorable level in our lifetime, I can't disagree.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Did you miss the Republican primary season, in which the other
Republican candidates were denigrating the Massachusetts health system
as "ObamneyCare"?

S.

[Alphonsus Jr.]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 3:33:17 PM UTC-7, Fadosolrélamisi wrote:

> It's amazing (not that word again!) to see how much is socially acceptable on the net.

I couldn't agree more. I couldn't agree more! Take this very thread, for example. There's only one person in it who doesn't support the legalized hiring of surgical hitmen to crush the skulls, liquify the brains, and mangle the limbs of fetal humans. Everyone else in this thread has been processed. What's more, they believe that THEY occupy the moral high ground. Amazing indeed!

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Com'n Alphonsus Jr. ... You were just waiting for this glorious opportunity to make a triumphal re-entree ... and here you are with the exact same words, the exact same attitude, and the exact same strategy! Double amazing, indeed!!

[thomas]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 7:38:04 PM UTC-4, Alphonsus Jr. wrote:
>
>Take this very thread, for example. There's only one person in it who doesn't support the legalized hiring of surgical hitmen to crush the skulls, liquify the brains, and mangle the limbs of fetal humans.>

And that one person is also the only heterosexual poster who has never managed to get a woman pregnant.

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Le dimanche 7 octobre 2012 16:11:03 UTC-7, dsi1 a écrit :
> On 10/7/2012 11:43 AM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
>
> > Le dimanche 7 octobre 2012 10:23:32 UTC-7, dsi1 a �crit :

A positive point for me in all that is that I've learn the word zinger!
(Was not that the brand of a sewing machine?)

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Le dimanche 7 octobre 2012 16:29:15 UTC-7, Steven Bornfeld a écrit :
> On 10/7/2012 5:43 PM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
>
> > Le dimanche 7 octobre 2012 10:23:32 UTC-7, dsi1 a �crit :

Yes ... I miss that! I cannot keep up with all this political wit!

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Le dimanche 7 octobre 2012 15:39:45 UTC-7, Curmudgeon a écrit :
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:33:17 -0700 (PDT), Fadosolr�lamisi
>
> <rei...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Le dimanche 7 octobre 2012 09:29:09 UTC-7, Curmudgeon a �crit�:

Ouf! [;o)

[dsi1]

On 10/7/2012 1:53 PM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
>
> A positive point for me in all that is that I've learn the word zinger!
> (Was not that the brand of a sewing machine?)
>

That's SINGER, ya crazy Canadian! :-)

[Jonathan]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 7:38:04 PM UTC-4, Alphonsus Jr. wrote:

What exactly were you expecting when you started this thread?

[Alphonsus Jr.]

Precisely what's happened.

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Le dimanche 7 octobre 2012 17:14:52 UTC-7, dsi1 a écrit :

> On 10/7/2012 1:53 PM, Fadosolrélamisi wrote:
>
> >
>
> > A positive point for me in all that is that I've learn the word zinger!
>
> > (Was not that the brand of a sewing machine?)
>
> >
>
>
>
> That's SINGER, ya crazy Canadian! :-)

Crazy Canadian you bet! Thanks giving week-end, can you imagine that? (Of course no!) Our first turkey, a shifting turkey I call it (as we usually go to my wife's parent's place to celebrate this out of sinc, at least from you guys, Thanks giving day)... good wine, too much food as usual ... and the joy of discovering the extended family (no kids yet) just the boy friend, girl friend ... cool new voices added to the harmony ... all good laughter!
Ha! The fine balance of the SINGER!

[Steven Bornfeld]

I'll be right back. I have to check my FB privacy settings.

Steve

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 10/7/2012 7:55 PM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
>
> Yes ... I miss that! I cannot keep up with all this political wit!
>

American exceptionalism--where the sh.. uh, wit never ends!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20&feature=youtu.be

Steve

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Le lundi 8 octobre 2012 09:38:43 UTC-7, Steven Bornfeld a écrit :

> On 10/7/2012 7:55 PM, Fadosolrélamisi wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Yes ... I miss that! I cannot keep up with all this political wit!
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> American exceptionalism--where the sh.. uh, wit never ends!
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20&feature=youtu.be
>
>
>
> Steve

Haha ... good montage ... this guy Looks like a good candidate for the intelligence, ignorance thread!
I hope that you are aware of the influence it has on us, good neighbors!

[dsi1]

On 10/7/2012 5:04 PM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
> Le dimanche 7 octobre 2012 17:14:52 UTC-7, dsi1 a �crit :

>>
>> That's SINGER, ya crazy Canadian! :-)
>
> Crazy Canadian you bet! Thanks giving week-end, can you imagine that? (Of course no!) Our first turkey, a shifting turkey I call it (as we usually go to my wife's parent's place to celebrate this out of sinc, at least from you guys, Thanks giving day)... good wine, too much food as usual ... and the joy of discovering the extended family (no kids yet) just the boy friend, girl friend ... cool new voices added to the harmony ... all good laughter!
> Ha! The fine balance of the SINGER!
>

I like Thanksgiving - it's the only holiday that makes any sense to me.
Hope you have a great Canadian thanksgiving and eat a pasty for me, or
whatever the hell it is that you guys eat up there on this special day!

[dufres...@gmail.com]

>
> Forget it. I'm wasting my time.

Wasting your time? Don't be silly! You've entered an online forum dedicated to the discussion of Classical Guitar, which includes but is not limited to classical guitars, players of that instrument, composers for that instrument, music for the instrument and accessories for the instrument. You then, of your own free will, within the classical guitar forum and without invitation, started a discussion about abortion and provided direct links to pictures of little babies torn to pieces, with their little bloody heads, limbs and torsos scattered about the screen like so many bits of....well, like so many bits of mangled little babies.

Why would you call that a waste of your time? Silly boy! That's what we're here for! You've cracked the code! You have discovered the truth. This is a secret forum of people who want to be lectured on abortion by the morally righteous but hide like cowards behind derived newsgroup titles like rec.music.classical.guitar. None of us even play guitar! We post recordings of other people playing, and pretend like it's our own playing. Remember that time you posted recordings of someone else's playing and pretended it was your own? When that happened I just knew you were THE ONE. Frankly I never thought anyone would be smart enough to find us here, but you have proven to be extremely intelligent! You're like a Messiah to us.

I'll let you in on a little secret. We also want to be lectured about the downfall of mail-order brides, the error of wearing top-siders, and the dangers inherent to claiming that the Mazda MX-5 (aka Miata) is a sports car. I know you have experience with these subjects and are anxious to provide guidance.

The pulpit is yours, friend.

[Steven Bornfeld]

So sorry about that!

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Le lundi 8 octobre 2012 10:38:39 UTC-7, Steven Bornfeld a écrit :
> On 10/8/2012 12:45 PM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
>
> > Le lundi 8 octobre 2012 09:38:43 UTC-7, Steven Bornfeld a �crit :

>
> >> On 10/7/2012 7:55 PM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Yes ... I miss that! I cannot keep up with all this political wit!
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> American exceptionalism--where the sh.. uh, wit never ends!
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20&feature=youtu.be
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Steve
>
> >
>
> > Haha ... good montage ... this guy Looks like a good candidate for the intelligence, ignorance thread!
>
> > I hope that you are aware of the influence it has on us, good neighbors!
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> So sorry about that!

Haha! (Good answer!) Would it be safe to say that what's happening cannot be anything else than ... precisely what has happened!

[Alphonsus Jr.]

Funny! But really, all you needed to say was: "Yes, I too am a conformist. That is, like the rest, I too support the option to legally hire a surgical terrorist. And like them, I also believe that this places me atop the moral high ground." No need for the rest of the bullshit.

[Cactus Wren]

Dudes, he PLAYED us like a bunch of dumb surfers!!!

[dsi1]

On 10/8/2012 8:20 AM, Cactus Wren wrote:
> Dudes, he PLAYED us like a bunch of dumb surfers!!!

What you say might be true but have some respect for surfers. I love the
purity of those guys - they are probably the keenest weather watchers
around. Some of those skills have even rubbed off on me. They care
little for politics or a lot of those practical questions that bug us
every day. They only use what they need to survive. They are the only
people I know that don't really need words to do what they do nor are
they the ones most likely to use words to deceive others. Well that's my
idealized version of these noble savages. Of course, sooner or later,
life catches up with those guys. A tragedy!

You already know about Jeff Clark, who discovered one of the greatest
big wave surfing spot in his own back yard and nobody took him
seriously. He surfed Mavericks alone for well over a decade before
others finally believed him. I'm told that Mavericks surpasses the waves
that we get on our North shore during the winter months.

As far as Junior Boy goes, if he wants a little attention now and then,
I'm happy to oblige. Who the heck doesn't want a little attention? His
problem is that he's too greedy.

[thomas]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:15:09 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>
> As far as Junior Boy goes, if he wants a little attention now and then,
> I'm happy to oblige. Who the heck doesn't want a little attention? His
> problem is that he's too greedy.

He likes getting spanked just a little too much. If Al Gore hadn't invented the Internet, then Jr. would be having to pay for this kind of pro-grade abuse.

[dsi1]

Fortunate indeed is he to be living in these times and to have access to
Usenet. Had he been born most any other time, he would have been run out
of the village by now or burnt at the stake. OTOH, he'd probably like
that. :-)