Abortion is killing
Papa Jack
"Daniel A. Morgan" <dmo...@exesolutions.com> Mon, 18 Nov 1996
To: Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net>
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> I do have one question. Why do innocent unborn children deserve
>> capital punishment?
===========================================================
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
> Deserve? deserve? What does "deserve" have to do with it? Do terminal
> cancer patients "deserve" to have treatment withheld? Do brain-dead
> patients "deserve" to have life support terminated?
> Quit the obfuscation.
===========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Thank you, Dan. Responses like yours make it much easier for me to
convince our readers what mean-spirited and insensitive clods Pro-
Abortion Righters (PARs) really are.
Terminal cancer patients and brain-dead patients did not have
some other person arranging with a physician for them to be given
cancer or what ever caused the brain death. Or, at least if they
did, both you and I would agree that was an act of homicide. But,
that is what happens in all cases of abortion. The unborn child's
death is arranged.
Why does "DESERVE" bother you so? Have you never stopped to ask
youself whether it is FAIR (from the unborn child's point of view)
for an abortionist to kill the child when it is healthy and growing
in a normal way? Or, do you just think of the convenience of the
woman -- and the hell with everything else? Remember, the unborn
child does not have cancer (or any other serious disease) and it
is not brain-dead. What reason do you give to justify killing it?
--
{ Papa Jack
{
{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
occ...@7.eleven
Papa Jack wrote:
> Papa Jack replies:
> Thank you, Dan. Responses like yours make it much easier for me to
> convince our readers what mean-spirited and insensitive clods Pro-
> Abortion Righters (PARs) really are.
here you go again, stroking your ego...i haven't noticed you convincing
anyone in this group so far...but don't despair, your time will come
when gas station attendants figure out how to get on the net...
Papa Jack
occ...@7.eleven wrote:
>
> Papa Jack wrote:
>
> > Papa Jack replies:
> > Thank you, Dan. Responses like yours make it much easier for me to
> > convince our readers what mean-spirited and insensitive clods Pro-
> > Abortion Righters (PARs) really are.
============================================================
> Occifer wrote:
> here you go again, stroking your ego...i haven't noticed you convincing
> anyone in this group so far...but don't despair, your time will come
> when gas station attendants figure out how to get on the net...
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
You misunderstand, Occifer. I get e-mail from lurkers who congratulate
me for "fighting the good fight" and for standing up to the
"foul-mouthed
bullies."
I'm not even trying to convince you -- that would be a foolish waste of
my time. I am trying to convince the lurkers who you never hear from.
I am honest and up front about that. Who are YOU writing to?
FREE CLUE: It will not be the best flame artists who win this battle.
Amey
Listen Jack your little cause will never be heard because ABORTION IS THE
BEST THING WHEN AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY HAPPENS. I should know I gladly had
one.
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote in article
<329491...@express-news.net>...
Papa Jack
Papa Jack comments:
Wrong, Amey, I and the millions of others who believe as I do WILL BE
heard. Just because you don't want me to be heard won't mean a thing.
You, and 1,300,000 other women, decide to kill your unborn babies each
year. I don't know your story, so I won't presume to sit in judgement
on you. But, I firmly believe that the great majority of abortions
are unnecessary -- thus, they are morally disgusting.
Have a nice day.
============================================================
> Amey wrote:
> Listen Jack your little cause will never be heard because ABORTION IS THE
> BEST THING WHEN AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY HAPPENS. I should know I gladly had
> one.
============================================================
> Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote in article
> <329491...@express-news.net>...
> > occ...@7.eleven wrote:
> > >
> > > Papa Jack wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Papa Jack replies:
> > > > Thank you, Dan. Responses like yours make it much easier for me to
> > > > convince our readers what mean-spirited and insensitive clods Pro-
> > > > Abortion Righters (PARs) really are.
============================================================
> > > Occifer wrote:
> > > here you go again, stroking your ego...i haven't noticed you convincing
> > > anyone in this group so far...but don't despair, your time will come
> > > when gas station attendants figure out how to get on the net...
============================================================
> > Papa Jack comments:
> > You misunderstand, Occifer. I get e-mail from lurkers congratulating
> > me for "fighting the good fight" and for standing up to the "foul-
> > mouthed bullies."
Ray Fischer
Papa Jackass <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>Wrong, Amey, I and the millions of others who believe as I do WILL BE
>heard. Just because you don't want me to be heard won't mean a thing.
I think you _should_ be heard. Whether that helps or hurts your cause
is your problem, and I intend to make _sure_ it's your problem.
>You, and 1,300,000 other women, decide to kill your unborn babies each
>year.
Lie #1: Women who get abortions decide that they don't want to be
pregnant. They don't decide to kill anything. And to describe an
embryo as a "baby" is just more pro-lie extremism.
> I don't know your story, so I won't presume to sit in judgement
>on you.
Since when?!?
> But, I firmly believe that the great majority of abortions
>are unnecessary -
Then don't get any more abortions.
Surely you don't think you know enough to decide for all those women
what is or is not necessary for them!
>- thus, they are morally disgusting.
Which is pretty much irrelevant. Disgusting is neither immoral nor
illegal.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Al Billings
Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
: Papa Jack comments:
: Wrong, Amey, I and the millions of others who believe as I do WILL BE
: heard. Just because you don't want me to be heard won't mean a thing.
You've been heard for more than 20 years now. You know what, it hasn't
made a difference. The majority of Americans don't agree with you or think
it is as important of an issue. If they did, we'd have a pro-life
president, wouldn't we and public opinion would have forced things like
the amendment to the constitution.
--
===================================================================
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your
ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-Howard Aiken
Al Billings http://www.memoria.com/alb/
mi...@memoria.com Iconoclast, Net.God, Dweeby Geek
===================================================================
C. L. Waltemath
> >- thus, they are morally disgusting.
>
> Which is pretty much irrelevant. Disgusting is neither immoral nor
> illegal.
>
Neither is stupidity, but often the stupid do themselves in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth is always stranger than fiction, fiction has to be plausible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
C. L. Waltemath
Portland, Oregon
Gary VanderMolen
Al Billings wrote:
>
> Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
> : Papa Jack comments:
> : Wrong, Amey, I and the millions of others who believe as I do WILL BE
> : heard. Just because you don't want me to be heard won't mean a thing.
>
> You've been heard for more than 20 years now. You know what, it hasn't
> made a difference. The majority of Americans don't agree with you or think
> it is as important of an issue. If they did, we'd have a pro-life
> president, wouldn't we and public opinion would have forced things like
> the amendment to the constitution.
How long did it take for blacks to win their full civil rights?
Much more than 20 years. Earlier this century, a majority of the
voters believed that blacks were not entitled to full civil rights.
Just because that was the majority belief didn't make it right.
Winning a majority is nice, but not necessary.
The important thing is to stand up for what you believe and to speak
out against things that you believe are evil. Whether or not that
coincides with the average American's attitude ("Me first") is not
important.
Ray Fischer
followups set to talk.abortion
Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
>How long did it take for blacks to win their full civil rights?
>Much more than 20 years. Earlier this century, a majority of the
>voters believed that blacks were not entitled to full civil rights.
And at the beginning of the century, women were considered
second-class citizens.
Apparently some people still haven't realized that that has changed.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Al Billings
Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
: Al Billings wrote:
: >
: > Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
: > : Papa Jack comments:
: > : Wrong, Amey, I and the millions of others who believe as I do WILL BE
: > : heard. Just because you don't want me to be heard won't mean a thing.
: >
: > You've been heard for more than 20 years now. You know what, it hasn't
: > made a difference. The majority of Americans don't agree with you or think
: > it is as important of an issue. If they did, we'd have a pro-life
: > president, wouldn't we and public opinion would have forced things like
: > the amendment to the constitution.
: How long did it take for blacks to win their full civil rights?
: Much more than 20 years. Earlier this century, a majority of the
: voters believed that blacks were not entitled to full civil rights.
: Winning a majority is nice, but not necessary.
: The important thing is to stand up for what you believe and to speak
: out against things that you believe are evil. Whether or not that
: coincides with the average American's attitude ("Me first") is not
: important.
The "Average American's attitude" has more often been "Mind your OWN
business and I'll mind mine." Perhaps you should learn this.
Gary VanderMolen
Al Billings wrote:
>
> The "Average American's attitude" has more often been "Mind your OWN
> business and I'll mind mine." Perhaps you should learn this.
Amendment rights because I am bothering your conscience too much!
For evil to succeed it is only necessary for good men to do nothing
while they are "minding their own business." This is why Hitler was able to
advance his power base so much in the late thirties.
Robert Duniway
In article <329A10...@cris.com>,
Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
>Al Billings wrote:
>>
>> The "Average American's attitude" has more often been "Mind your OWN
>> business and I'll mind mine." Perhaps you should learn this.
>
>Did I strike a raw nerve?
Probably not. Al just doesn't believe in suffering fools gladly, so he
gets a bit prickly.
> Sounds like you want to do away with my First
>Amendment rights because I am bothering your conscience too much!
That would be a major presumption on your part.
>For evil to succeed it is only necessary for good men to do nothing
>while they are "minding their own business." This is why Hitler was able to
>advance his power base so much in the late thirties.
Ah, the fine art of argument by platitude. Did you notice that what you
just said is obviously untrue? For evil to succeed first you need some
people doing evil. Then it certainly help if no one resists them, but
first things first. In the case of the Nazi power advance, the "good"
people who, in 20/20 hindsite, should have stood up to Hitler's army
earlier rather than waiting until later, were hoping to avoid getting
dragged into a World War. They weren't even thinking about trying to
avert a holocaust that none of them could have possibly known was going
to follow. How could anyone in their right mind believe this bit of
history is an appropriate metaphore for deciding whether or not to outlaw
abortion?
--
Bob Duniway dun...@u.washington.edu (206)547-7000
Naturally, everyone at the University of Washington endorses all of
my opinions. Please feel free to hold them accountable.
Al Billings
Robert Duniway (dun...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: In article <329A10...@cris.com>,
: Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
: >Al Billings wrote:
: >>
: >> The "Average American's attitude" has more often been "Mind your OWN
: >> business and I'll mind mine." Perhaps you should learn this.
: >
: >Did I strike a raw nerve?
:
: Probably not. Al just doesn't believe in suffering fools gladly, so he
: gets a bit prickly.
I haven't seen the original message, just Bob's reply to it.
No, I don't suffer fools gladly (if at all). I get real tired of morons
telling ME how to live MY life when they should be watching their own
shop. I'm married and raising a daughter (as Bob knows) and I've got
enough complexity there without busybodies imposing their version of
"correct morality" on me. That's what this whole abortion debate stinks
of. Believe what you want, even express it, but don't try to stop me from
believing and expressing my beliefs in my way. As the adage goes, your
right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
Or, to be simpler, mind your own damn business and I'll mind mine.
: > Sounds like you want to do away with my First
: >Amendment rights because I am bothering your conscience too much!
:
: That would be a major presumption on your part.
How does me telling people to mind their own business interfere with
their first amendment rights? I fail to see how it can in any way
interfere.
Papa Jack
Gary VanderMolen wrote:
>
> Al Billings wrote:
> >
> > Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
> > : Papa Jack comments:
> > : Wrong, Amey, I and the millions of others who believe as I do
> > : WILL BE heard. Just because you don't want me to be heard
> > : won't mean a thing.
=========================================================
> > Al Billings wrote:
> > You've been heard for more than 20 years now. You know what, it
> > hasn't made a difference. The majority of Americans don't agree
> > with you or think it is as important of an issue. If they did,
> > we'd have a pro-life president, wouldn't we and public opinion
> > would have forced things like the amendment to the constitution.
=========================================================
> Gary VanderMolen wrote:
> How long did it take for blacks to win their full civil rights?
> Much more than 20 years. Earlier this century, a majority of the
> voters believed that blacks were not entitled to full civil rights.
> Just because that was the majority belief didn't make it right.
> Winning a majority is nice, but not necessary.
> The important thing is to stand up for what you believe and to speak
> out against things that you believe are evil. Whether or not that
> coincides with the average American's attitude ("Me first") is not
> important.
=========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Very well said, Gary.
The majority of Americans don't agree with Al either. There are 3
basic groups measured in half-way objective polls (if there is any
such thing anymore). The first group are the Pro-Abortion Righters
(PARs) who favor unlimited abortion for any reason. The second
group are the Pro-Lifers (PLs) who are basically against all (or
almost all) forms of abortion. Finally, there are those who vote
for limited abortion for cases such as rape, incest, severe fetal
deformity, or grave threat to the pregnant woman's life. Now,
whichever side words their polls to capture the last group wins the
majority.
Actually, Al is right on one point, too many Americans just don't
want to think about something as unpleasant as abortion. Thus,
they avoid thinking out all the implications of public policy on
the subject. We have to admit that liberals are better than
conservatives at taking advantage of such ignorance and apathy.
Using propaganda tactics, they have made killing unborn children as
American as apple pie. They say don't use the word "abortion,"
talk about "CHOICE." Instead of admitting they are killing unborn
children, they defend "WOMEN'S RIGHTS." Unfortunately, such misin-
formation works with folks who aren't paying very much attention.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Gary VanderMolen
Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article <57d9so$c...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
> : Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
> : > Sounds like you want to do away with my First
> : >Amendment rights because I am bothering your conscience too much!
>
> their first amendment rights? I fail to see how it can in any way
> interfere.
What could be plainer? What you are really implying is that you want anti-
abortionists to shut up and go away.
Gary VanderMolen
Robert Duniway <dun...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article <57d83d$e...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
> Ah, the fine art of argument by platitude. Did you notice that what you
> just said is obviously untrue? For evil to succeed first you need some
> people doing evil. Then it certainly help if no one resists them, but
> first things first. In the case of the Nazi power advance, the "good"
> people who, in 20/20 hindsite, should have stood up to Hitler's army
> earlier rather than waiting until later, were hoping to avoid getting
> dragged into a World War. They weren't even thinking about trying to
> avert a holocaust that none of them could have possibly known was going
> to follow. How could anyone in their right mind believe this bit of
> history is an appropriate metaphore for deciding whether or not to outlaw
> abortion?
Long before Hitler's armies began marching, the harassment of Jews had
already begun. They were forced to wear special emblems so they could
be easily identified. The "good" people in Germany were too busy minding
there own business to speak out against this tyranny of the majority.
The end result was that millions of innocent Jews were exterminated.
Today, millions of innocent unborn children are being exterminated.
Those who don't speak out against this bloodshed will have to answer
for it some day.
Al Billings
Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
: Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article <57d9so$c...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
As nice as it might be if they did so, I don't see how my holding the
opinion that they are full of shit and should shut up is the same as
saying I want to do away with their constitutional right to free speech.
It should be obvious to most poeple.
Gary VanderMolen
Not A Speck of Cereal. wrote:
>
> The whole issue here is whether the anti-abortionists should be allowed
> to make legislation that removes the rights of those that would have an
> abortion. The prochoice people don't want them to shut up, but they
> certainly have a right to argue with them. Part of their argument, what
> Al is clearly saying, is that they don't have the right to interfere in the
> mothers business.
>
> Got it?
No, I don't get it. Because it is not just "the mother's business."
The State (government) has a duty to protect the sanctity of life,
regardless of whether it happens to reside temporarily in the womb or
outside of the womb.
Robert Duniway
In article <01bbdb53$14ca6e80$0100007f@localhost>,
Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>Long before Hitler's armies began marching, the harassment of Jews had
>already begun. They were forced to wear special emblems so they could
>be easily identified. The "good" people in Germany were too busy minding
>there own business to speak out against this tyranny of the majority.
>The end result was that millions of innocent Jews were exterminated.
>Today, millions of innocent unborn children are being exterminated.
>Those who don't speak out against this bloodshed will have to answer
>for it some day.
Answer to whom? Jehova? Armed pro-lifers? Irritating pro-lifers on
usenet? What are you trying to say? Do you expect to be holding the
abotion equivalent of the Neurenberg (sp?) Trials? Please respond, I'm
dying to know.
Robert Duniway
In article <329A71...@express-news.net>,
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>
>The majority of Americans don't agree with Al either. There are 3
>basic groups measured in half-way objective polls (if there is any
>such thing anymore). The first group are the Pro-Abortion Righters
>(PARs) who favor unlimited abortion for any reason. The second
>group are the Pro-Lifers (PLs) who are basically against all (or
>almost all) forms of abortion. Finally, there are those who vote
>for limited abortion for cases such as rape, incest, severe fetal
>deformity, or grave threat to the pregnant woman's life. Now,
>whichever side words their polls to capture the last group wins the
>majority.
Why not cite the polls that most directly address Al's comment? What
percentage of the public responds that they think abortion is a decision
which should be made by a woman in consultation with her family, doctor,
and religious community if applicable? There is a little range on this
question, depending on the exact wording, but it seems to center around
70%. Guess what, two out of three of the citizens in this country don't
think the government ought to step in and legally prohibit abortion. For
the moment, that is the political group that matters most.
Have a nice day.
Al Billings
Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
Well, the state doesn't see a need to protect the life in a womb
normally. What are you going to do about it?
Penny Thomas
"Gary VanderMolen" <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
>Long before Hitler's armies began marching, the harassment of Jews had
>already begun. They were forced to wear special emblems so they could
>be easily identified. The "good" people in Germany were too busy minding
>there own business to speak out against this tyranny of the majority.
>The end result was that millions of innocent Jews were exterminated.
>Today, millions of innocent unborn children are being exterminated.
>Those who don't speak out against this bloodshed will have to answer
>for it some day.
Oh please, not the holocaust analogy. A rhetorician would have a field day with
the faulty logic, but the most striking problem is that one little itty-bitty
point no one has resolved: the personhood issue. 8 week fetus or 35 year old
Jew? They are *not* the same. To say that abortion and the holocaust are
synomymous is simplistic at best, and, for many of us who lost family members or
friends, deeply insulting and belittling.
Penny Thomas
Papa Jack
Robert Duniway wrote:
>
> In article <01bbdb53$14ca6e80$0100007f@localhost>,
Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
> >Long before Hitler's armies began marching, the harassment of Jews had
> >already begun. They were forced to wear special emblems so they could
> >be easily identified. The "good" people in Germany were too busy minding
> >there own business to speak out against this tyranny of the majority.
> >The end result was that millions of innocent Jews were exterminated.
> >Today, millions of innocent unborn children are being exterminated.
> >Those who don't speak out against this bloodshed will have to answer
> >for it some day.
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Answer to whom? Jehova? Armed pro-lifers? Irritating pro-lifers
> on usenet? What are you trying to say? Do you expect to be holding
> the abotion equivalent of the Neurenberg (sp?) Trials? Please respond,
> I'm dying to know.
==========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Yeah, Gary, I know this sort of bantam rooster arrogance is irrita-
ting. But, then again Pro-Abortion Righters (PARs) like Robert make
it easier for us to convince the lurkers what a light-weight bunch
they really are. Can't you just hear Robert chanting, "Nyah, Nyah,
Nyah" on the schoolground?
What's that old saying, "Pride goes before the fall!"
Have a great Thanksgiving holiday.
Ray Fischer
Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
>Long before Hitler's armies began marching, the harassment of Jews had
>already begun. They were forced to wear special emblems so they could
>be easily identified.
At least you don't have to force pregnant women to wear emblems, since
pregnancy is usually pretty obvious in the later stages.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Bill Millard
On 26 Nov 1996 22:31:55 GMT, dun...@u.washington.edu (Robert Duniway)
wrote:
>In article <01bbdb53$14ca6e80$0100007f@localhost>,
>Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
>>
>>Long before Hitler's armies began marching, the harassment of Jews had
>>already begun. They were forced to wear special emblems so they could
>>be easily identified. The "good" people in Germany were too busy minding
>>there own business to speak out against this tyranny of the majority.
>>The end result was that millions of innocent Jews were exterminated.
>>Today, millions of innocent unborn children are being exterminated.
>>Those who don't speak out against this bloodshed will have to answer
>>for it some day.
>
>Answer to whom? Jehova? Armed pro-lifers? Irritating pro-lifers on
>usenet? What are you trying to say? Do you expect to be holding the
>abotion equivalent of the Neurenberg (sp?) Trials? Please respond, I'm
>dying to know.
>
>
>--
>Bob Duniway dun...@u.washington.edu (206)547-7000
>
>Naturally, everyone at the University of Washington endorses all of
>my opinions. Please feel free to hold them accountable.
It is one thing to be daft. Quite another to be arrogant as well.
Live better-----------------------------------Vote Republican
Children and fools speak the truth--Proverb
Papa Jack
Not A Speck of Cereal. wrote:
>
> [] Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article <57d9so$c...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
> [] > Al Billings
> [] > How does me telling people to mind their own business interfere
> [] > with their first amendment rights? I fail to see how it can in
> [] > any way interfere.
===========================================================
> [] "Gary VanderMolen" wrote:
> [] What could be plainer? What you are really implying is that
> [] you want anti-abortionists to shut up and go away.
===========================================================
> Chris wrote:
> Errr, you have an active imagination. Don't get yer panties all
> up in a bunch over nothing.
===========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
You see Gary, Chris has an inferiority complex which causes these
symptoms of exaggerated agressiveness. He believes such childish
comments will put you on the defensive. Actually, they just make
him look like some sort of a high school hot dog.
===========================================================
> Chris wrote:
> The whole issue here is whether the anti-abortionists should be
> allowed to make legislation that removes the rights of those that
> would have an abortion.
===========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Now Chris would decide whether or not Pro-Lifers "SHOULD BE ALLOWED
TO MAKE LEGISLATION."
Democracy be damned -- Chris and the other Pro-Abortioners will
decide such issues.
===========================================================
> Chris wrote:
> The prochoice people don't want them to shut up, but they certainly
> have a right to argue with them. Part of their argument, what Al
> is clearly saying, is that they don't have the right to interfere
> in the mothers business. Got it?
===========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Certainly one of the most sophmoric arguments I've read in months.
Obviously, Al overreacted and you're trying to bail him out.
Did you actually read what Al said?
No, I don't suffer fools gladly (if at all). I get real tired
of morons telling ME how to live MY life when they should be
watching their own shop. I'm married and raising a daughter
(as Bob knows) and I've got enough complexity there without
busybodies imposing their version of "correct morality" on me.
That's what this whole abortion debate stinks of. Believe what
you want, even express it, but don't try to stop me from believ-
ing and expressing my beliefs in my way. As the adage goes, your
right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
Or, to be simpler, mind your own damn business and I'll mind mine.
Where did Al say anything about the mother's business? Al clearly
just doesn't want to Gary (or any Pro-Lifer) to try to convince him
he is wrong. What he doesn't explain is why he is bothering to
exchange messanges on talk.abortion if he doesn't want to hear or
consider other points of view.
Have a nice Thanksgiving holiday.
Al Billings
Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
: Where did Al say anything about the mother's business? Al clearly
: just doesn't want to Gary (or any Pro-Lifer) to try to convince him
: he is wrong. What he doesn't explain is why he is bothering to
: exchange messanges on talk.abortion if he doesn't want to hear or
: consider other points of view.
Perhaps you're in talk.abortion. I'm reading and posting in
Seattle.general. If you and the other Abortion related assholes would quit
posting here, I wouldn't have to see it. I don't go in for pointless
abortion or creation "science" newsgroups.
Gary VanderMolen
Penny Thomas <pe...@idcomm.com> wrote in article <57ftse$5...@news-2.csn.net>...
> Oh please, not the holocaust analogy. A rhetorician would have a field day with
> the faulty logic, but the most striking problem is that one little itty-bitty
> point no one has resolved: the personhood issue. 8 week fetus or 35 year old
> Jew? They are *not* the same. To say that abortion and the holocaust are
> synomymous is simplistic at best, and, for many of us who lost family members or
> friends, deeply insulting and belittling.
No analogy is perfect. The point is, the Jews were made to be non-persons,
they had no rights, no lawyer interceded for them, no trial was held, they were led like
lambs to the slaughter, no proper grave awaited their remains.
All these aspects can be applied equally to aborted infants.
Ray Fischer
Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
>No analogy is perfect.
Some are less perfect than others.
> The point is, the Jews were made to be non-persons,
>they had no rights, no lawyer interceded for them, no trial was held, they were led like
>lambs to the slaughter, no proper grave awaited their remains.
>All these aspects can be applied equally to aborted infants.
And slaughtered sheep and cattle. Are you an accesory to a holocaust
when you buy a hamburger? Are YOU engaging in genocide?
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Papa Jack
> >Jews had already begun. They were forced to wear special emblems
> >so they could be easily identified. The "good" people in Germany
> >were too busy minding there own business to speak out against
> >this tyranny of the majority. The end result was that millions
> >of innocent Jews were exterminated. Today, millions of innocent
> >unborn children are being exterminated. Those who don't speak
> >out against this bloodshed will have to answer for it some day.
=========================================================
> Penny Thomas wrote:
> Oh please, not the holocaust analogy. A rhetorician would have a
> field day with the faulty logic, but the most striking problem is
> that one little itty-bitty point no one has resolved: the person-
> hood issue. 8 week fetus or 35 year old Jew? They are *not* the
> same....
=========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Yep, the "personhood" issue is a stickler. We keep having these
Pro-Abortion Righters (PARs) try to convince us unborn children
are NOT human beings or NOT children -- how totally illogical. Not
a one of them has made a cogent argument yet -- but, they do keep
trying. Most PARs resort to simple assertion and "ad hominem"
style insults, but once in awhile we get someone who actually tries
to use logic or documented experts. (It's been a while since we
had either).
I'm curious, why a 35 year old Jew. Weren't many of those killed
Jewish children?
What difference do you see between an unborn child (of any age)
and any of those killed by the holocaust. In both cases, we have
innocent human beings being slaughtered by hearless monsters for
inhumane reasons. Why do you advocate for the killers?
=========================================================
> Penny Thomas wrote:
> To say that abortion and the holocaust are synomymous is
> simplistic at best, and, for many of us who lost family members
> or friends, deeply insulting and belittling.
=========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
That makes no sense at all. The holocaust is mankind's best known
example of man's inhumanity to man. Now we have a situation where
over 1,000,000 innocent, healthy unborn children per year are
slaughtered simply for the convenience of their parents. I would
think the similarities would simply jump out at anyone who thinks
about it.
As Gary points out, the holocaust was only possible because, "The
'good' people in Germany were too busy minding there own business
to speak out against this tyranny of the majority." I understood
the Jews vowed, "Never again, never again." But, I guess that
only counts when it's Jews, huh? Think about it, Penny, before
you treat Pro-Lifers with such open contempt.
Which group would you turn to for support in Holocaust II --
Pro-Abortionists or Pro-Lifers?
Robert Duniway
In article <329BDC...@express-news.net>,
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>Not A Speck of Cereal. wrote:
>>
> ===========================================================
>> Chris wrote:
>> The whole issue here is whether the anti-abortionists should be
>> allowed to make legislation that removes the rights of those that
>> would have an abortion.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>Now Chris would decide whether or not Pro-Lifers "SHOULD BE ALLOWED
>TO MAKE LEGISLATION."
>
>Democracy be damned -- Chris and the other Pro-Abortioners will
>decide such issues.
Gee, it sure looks like Chris has a better grasp of the political
realities of this issue than you do. Approximately 70% of registered
voters report that they don't think it is appropriate to make legislation
forcing everyone to refrain from choosing abortions. Many of the people
who respond against legislating the abortion debate may be personally
opposed to abortion, but unlike you they are able to understand that it is
a morally complex issue, and don't feel the government should be
legislating individual conscience on an issue where there is not an
obvious right or wrong. You don't have to be pro-abortion to be
pro-choice. You just have to recognize that your moral judgement is not
so obviously superior to the moral judgemetn of your fellow citizens
that you ought to take away their right to exercise that judgement on
the grounds that you are saving babies. You are not saving babies, you
are trying to prevent abortion, and it looks like most people in this
country understand the difference, even if you don't. As long as those
numbers hold, legislating this issue would not be an expression of
democracy.
> ===========================================================
>> Chris wrote:
>> The prochoice people don't want them to shut up, but they certainly
>> have a right to argue with them. Part of their argument, what Al
>> is clearly saying, is that they don't have the right to interfere
>> in the mothers business. Got it?
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>Certainly one of the most sophmoric arguments I've read in months.
Really? Don't you review your own posts?
>What he doesn't explain is why he is bothering to
>exchange messanges on talk.abortion if he doesn't want to hear or
>consider other points of view.
Err, check the header. Someone started cross posting this thread to
several x.general newgroups. Al probably read it in Seattle.general, just
as I have. By the way, the cross posting probably explains why you've
been in over your head lately. You proably are more use to dealing with
the rants and trolling if you hide out in talk.abortion. Since it was so
widely cross posted, you are getting some comments from the public at
large, and are discovering that you're product just isn't selling too well
out here, and the people who aren't buying have enough experience,
education, and/or intelligence not to be sucked in by your weak logic and
smug patronizing asides about your years of experience and massive
debating prowess. If you want to avoid this comeuppance, try deleting the
cross posted newsgroups from the header. We ceratinly won't miss hearig
from you all that much.
>Have a nice Thanksgiving holiday.
Why thank you.
Al Billings
Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote (almost):
: Most Pro-Lifers resort to simple assertion and "ad hominem"
: style insults, but once in awhile we get someone who actually tries
: to use logic or documented experts. (It's been a while since we
: had either).
Hmm. It makes sense when I change that one word...
Melanie
The 70% figure does not entirely ring true. I am not aware of polls of
registered voters nationwide on this issue, though there are a number of
polls on the issue nationwide (as opposed to registered or likely voters
only.) Still, I would probably be in the 70% the way you worded the
response. I am not opposed to outlawing abortion in the case of medical
necessity (which does not include economic status.) Still, I would be
considered adamantly prolife, and I go to the clinics to encourage women
to choose life. Most people give different responses on the topic of
abortion depending on how the survey is worded. Many would favor the
"status quo" but also misunderstand what the "status quo" is.
A lot of people are surprised to find out that second trimester
abortions are legal, for instance.
> >> Chris wrote:
> >> The prochoice people don't want them to shut up, but they certainly
> >> have a right to argue with them. Part of their argument, what Al
> >> is clearly saying, is that they don't have the right to interfere
> >> in the mothers business. Got it?
> >
Well, I'd admit that not all who support abortion rights want prolifers
to "shut up" but some have gone out of their way to make protest (even
peaceful) on the issue extremely difficult and even illegal.
> You proably are more use to dealing with
> the rants and trolling if you hide out in talk.abortion. Since it was so
> widely cross posted, you are getting some comments from the public at
> large, and are discovering that you're product just isn't selling too well
> out here, and the people who aren't buying have enough experience,
> education, and/or intelligence not to be sucked in by your weak logic and
> smug patronizing asides about your years of experience and massive
> debating prowess. If you want to avoid this comeuppance, try deleting the
> cross posted newsgroups from the header. We ceratinly won't miss hearig
> from you all that much.
Well, whether or not the prolife message goes over well depends again on
your point of view, unless you are just referring to "Papa Jack" in
particular. One of the complaints I've seen in literature from
"abortion rights" groups is that prolifers have "won" on the issue of
whether there is a baby involved. Most people are at the least
uncomfortable with the topic and often uncomfortable with those on
either side who advocate for abortion rights or against.
--Melanie
Robert Duniway
In article <57iaa8$f...@news.microsoft.com>,
Not A Speck of Cereal. <chri...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>[] [....] Pro-Abortion Righters (PARs) like Robert make
>[] they really are.
>
>agenda. Submitted for your approval. Think of it what you
>will.
>
>[] Can't you just hear Robert chanting, "Nyah, Nyah,
>[] Nyah" on the schoolground?
>
>This is another good demonstration of Papa Jacks maturaty.
>
>Chris
Well, to be fair, after reading his response I did have trouble
suppressing my urge to make taunting sounds. Well, I think I'll go commit
some acts of vandalism now, or maybe catch Beavis and Butthead. Sure wish
I had my life together like Father Jack, but I just haven't lived as long
as he has, I suppose.
Don Nickell
If "ABORTION IS KILLING" then is screwing "PREMETIDATED MURDER?" Or is
doing it with a condrum "ATTEMPTED MURDER?"
Just and engineer wondering. That's how some of us think. ;=)
Papa Jack
Robert Duniway wrote:
>
> In article <329BDC...@express-news.net>,
> Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
> >Not A Speck of Cereal. wrote:
> >>
> > ===========================================================
> >> Chris wrote:
> >> The whole issue here is whether the anti-abortionists should be
> >> allowed to make legislation that removes the rights of those that
> >> would have an abortion.
===========================================================
> >Papa Jack comments:
> >Now Chris would decide whether or not Pro-Lifers "SHOULD BE ALLOWED
> >TO MAKE LEGISLATION."
> >Democracy be damned -- Chris and the other Pro-Abortioners will
> >decide such issues.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Gee, it sure looks like Chris has a better grasp of the political
> realities of this issue than you do. Approximately 70% of registered
> voters report that they don't think it is appropriate to make [sic]
> legislation forcing everyone to refrain from choosing abortions.
===========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Please cite the source and data for your stats. And, please, no
Planned Parenthood sponsored phoney polls.
Why do you Pro-Abortion Righters (PARs) have to misuse the poll
data. Let's look at the point that I am willing to grant
exceptions for cases involving incest, rape, severe fetal deformity,
or grave threat to the life of the mother. Therefore, you would
count me as part of your 70% "majority." That's BS of course.
Those people who favor UNLIMITED abortion have never been a majority
in the polls and you know it. Does that make you a liar?
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Many of the people who respond against legislating the abortion
> debate may be personally opposed to abortion, but unlike you they
> are able to understand that it is
> a morally complex issue, and don't feel the government should be
> legislating individual conscience on an issue where there is not an
> obvious right or wrong. You don't have to be pro-abortion to be
> pro-choice.
===========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
What is morally complex? The key question is whether or not an
unborn child is a human being/person. PARs say unborns are
not human beings/persons because they are (young) (less developed)
(smaller) (not viable) -- so, therefore it is okay to kill them.
Pro-Lifers (PLs), on the other hand, believe that embryoes/fetuses/
unborn children are human beings from conception. Thus, we believe
it is homicide to kill unborn children. In the emergency cases
noted above (rape, incest ....), we believe that may be justifiable
homicide, but in other cases it is morally repulsive for one
person to kill another person without justification.
Abortion is obviously wrong -- you may pretend it is not, but it is
clearly wrong.
I keep reading that you don't have to be pro-abortion to be pro
"choice." There was one lady who really tried to sincerely
defend that position in a series of intelligent posts a couple of
months ago. The PARs insulted her so badly that she left.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> You just have to recognize that your moral judgement is not
> so obviously superior to the moral judgemetn [sic] of your fellow
> citizens that you ought to take away their right to exercise that
> judgement on
> the grounds that you are saving babies. You are not saving babies, you
> are trying to prevent abortion, and it looks like most people in this
> country understand the difference, even if you don't.
> As long as those numbers hold, legislating this issue would not be an
> expression of democracy.
===========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Why not. Legislation to limit abortions to defined emergencies
would in fact "save babies." On what grounds do you believe it
would not -- just your assertion? This is most illogical.
Do you understand that no legislation is enacted without a
vote of the majority of the people's elected representatives?
I know you are used to the courts enacting the laws, but that
is not the way it is supposed to be.
We are slaughtering over 1,300,000 unborn children per year -- and
in most cases it is done just for the convenience of the parents.
Do you understand how shameful that is? No, I guess you are too
morally challenged to understand.
As I showed above, you are lying about the numbers. How can we
take your opinions seriously if you keep lying like that?
===========================================================
> >> Chris wrote:
> >> The prochoice people don't want them to shut up, but they certainly
> >> have a right to argue with them. Part of their argument, what Al
> >> is clearly saying, is that they don't have the right to interfere
> >> in the mothers business. Got it?
===========================================================
> >Papa Jack comments:
> >Certainly one of the most sophmoric arguments I've read in months.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Really? Don't you review your own posts?
===========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
I take it back, yours are more sophmoric than Chris'
===========================================================
> >Papa Jack wrote
> >What he doesn't explain is why he is bothering to
> >exchange messanges on talk.abortion if he doesn't want to hear or
> >consider other points of view.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Err, check the header. Someone started cross posting this thread to
> several x.general newgroups. Al probably read it in Seattle.general,
> just as I have.
===========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Does someone force you to read everything that shows up in
seattle.gen.?
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> By the way, the cross posting probably explains why you've been in
> over your head lately. You proably are more use to dealing with
> the rants and trolling if you hide out in talk.abortion. Since it
> was so widely cross posted, you are getting some comments from the
> public at large, and are discovering that you're product just isn't
> selling too well out here, and the people who aren't buying have
> enough experience, education, and/or intelligence not to be sucked
> in by your weak logic and smug patronizing asides about your years
> of experience and massive debating prowess.
===========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Why do I get a picture in my mind of you standing in front of a
mirror and admiring your good looks?
Your sophmoric attempts to put me on the defensive by such inane
statements would be far more impressive if you actually backed them
up with well thought out arguments supported with documentation.
Not so. You just write the sort of drivel we see here were you
strut around like a baby rooster -- crowing about how great you are.
Remember, Robert, when you grow up you too can brag about your
experience. You clearly have had very little so far in your very
young life.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> If you want to avoid this comeuppance, try deleting the cross
> posted newsgroups from the header. We ceratinly won't miss
> hearig [sic] from you all that much.
===========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Better idea -- you quit reading any articles I post.
I am in a good mood today, so I took it easy on you, boy.
Robert Duniway
In article <329BD1...@express-news.net>,>> In article <01bbdb53$14ca6e80$0100007f@localhost>,
> Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
>> >Long before Hitler's armies began marching, the harassment of Jews had
>> >already begun. They were forced to wear special emblems so they could
>> >be easily identified. The "good" people in Germany were too busy minding
>> >there own business to speak out against this tyranny of the majority.
>> >The end result was that millions of innocent Jews were exterminated.
>> >Today, millions of innocent unborn children are being exterminated.
>> >Those who don't speak out against this bloodshed will have to answer
>> >for it some day.
>
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> Answer to whom? Jehova? Armed pro-lifers? Irritating pro-lifers
>> on usenet? What are you trying to say? Do you expect to be holding
>> the abotion equivalent of the Neurenberg (sp?) Trials? Please respond,
>> I'm dying to know.
>
>Papa Jack comments:
>Yeah, Gary, I know this sort of bantam rooster arrogance is irrita-
>Nyah" on the schoolground?
I find this reaction amazing. Gary made a prediction, which was either a
veiled threat, or simply sloppy use of language. I asked him to state
what he meant by it directly, and suggested several possible
interpretations. Why is asking someone to say what he meant by, "Those
who don't speak out against this bloodshed will have to answer for it some
day." either an indication of my "bantom rooster arrogance" or likely to
convince lurkers that I'm a "light weight?" I suppose my asking you to
explain your statement is going to meet with a similarly dismissive
response, but don't delude yourself into believing you're wowing the
gallery with such a dodge.
>What's that old saying, "Pride goes before the fall!"
That old saying would be Proverbs 16:18 - "Pride goeth before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall." The old saying you should be
concerned with would be the one about the pot calling the kettle black. I
don't deny my arrogance. I just try to live up to it. I also don't worry
much about biblical warnings, and haven't for years. If you, on the other
hand, take the good book seriously, you have same significant repenting to
do.
>Have a great Thanksgiving holiday.
Okay, just for you Jack, I'll do that.
Papa Jack
Not A Speck of Cereal. wrote:
>
==========================================================
> RD: Answer to whom? Jehova? Armed pro-lifers? Irritating pro-
> RD: lifers on usenet? What are you trying to say? Do you expect
> RD: to be holding the abotion equivalent of the Neurenberg (sp?)
> RD: Trials? Please respond, I'm dying to know.
==========================================================
> [] Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
> [] Yeah, Gary, I know this sort of bantam rooster arrogance is
> [] irritating. But, then again Pro-Abortion Righters (PARs) like
> [] Robert make it easier for us to convince the lurkers what a
> [] light-weight bunch they really are.
> [] What's that old saying, "Pride goes before the fall!"
==========================================================
> Chris wrote:
> I think this statement pretty much sums up the Papagandist agenda.
> Submitted for your approval. Think of it what you will.
==========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Once I reinserted the parts you deleted, I am perfectly happy for
readers to look at my agenda. I have openly said over and over
that the most effective tool I have is the mean-spirited and arrogant
words of the Pro-Abortion Righters (PARs). Roberts childish brags
are a very good example of what I am talking about.
What is "Propaganda" about that? Do you consider me emphasizing
Robert's own words to be "propaganda." I did quote them accurately
didn't I.
==========================================================
> [] Papa Jack wrote:
> [] Can't you just hear Robert chanting, "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah" on the
> [] schoolground?
> [] What's that old saying, "Pride goes before the fall!"
==========================================================
> Chris wrote:
> This is another good demonstration of Papa Jacks maturaty.
==========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Robert said:
Answer to whom? Jehova? Armed pro-lifers? Irritating pro-
lifers on usenet? What are you trying to say? Do you expect
to be holding the abotion equivalent of the Neurenberg (sp?)
Trials? Please respond, I'm dying to know.
Doesn't that sound just like a little playground bully? And, you
have the gall to talk about my maturity? Go look in the mirror.
Happy holidays.
Jessica
Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
: Long before Hitler's armies began marching, the harassment of Jews had
: already begun. They were forced to wear special emblems so they could
: be easily identified. The "good" people in Germany were too busy minding
: there own business to speak out against this tyranny of the majority.
: The end result was that millions of innocent Jews were exterminated.
: Today, millions of innocent unborn children are being exterminated.
: Those who don't speak out against this bloodshed will have to answer
: for it some day.
Not really wanting to get involved in all this...but feeling the need to
correct you, Sir....
Jewish people were not the group that were persecuted before AND during
the Nazi's wet dream. And your statement about the "good" people is
incorrect. There was, as there always shall be, people that helped where
and when they could. To generalize to the point of recreating historical,
and tragic events in this manner is a shame and a farce.
You will not "win" people over to your point of view by trying to, in a
round about way, liken pro-choice groups with Nazi's, or any other
event/group/whatever that is generally viewed as wrong.
By doing this you are not only showing an extremely vulgar set of "common
senses", but you are also portraying yourself, and your views, in a rather
uncouth manner.
If you truly wish to make abortions illegal, your public view points
should not be of religious, mud slinging, irrational statements. They
should, however, be concise, well thought out, logical, and most of all,
medical in nature. This is not a moral issue, as whenever "morality" is
involved religion is soon to follow.
-Jessica, Pro-CHOICE (as in the "American" way)
Papa Jack
Robert Duniway wrote:
>
> In article <329BD1...@express-news.net>,
> Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
> >Robert Duniway wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <01bbdb53$14ca6e80$0100007f@localhost>,
Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
> >> >Long before Hitler's armies began marching, the harassment of Jews had
> >> >already begun. They were forced to wear special emblems so they could
> >> >be easily identified. The "good" people in Germany were too busy minding
> >> >there own business to speak out against this tyranny of the majority.
> >> >The end result was that millions of innocent Jews were exterminated.
> >> >Today, millions of innocent unborn children are being exterminated.
> >> >Those who don't speak out against this bloodshed will have to answer
> >> >for it some day.
==========================================================
> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
> >> Answer to whom? Jehova? Armed pro-lifers? Irritating pro-lifers
> >> on usenet? What are you trying to say? Do you expect to be holding
> >> the abotion equivalent of the Neurenberg (sp?) Trials? Please respond,
> >> I'm dying to know.
==========================================================
> >Papa Jack comments:
> >Yeah, Gary, I know this sort of bantam rooster arrogance is irrita-
> >ting. But, then again Pro-Abortion Righters (PARs) like Robert make
> >it easier for us to convince the lurkers what a light-weight bunch
> >they really are. Can't you just hear Robert chanting, "Nyah, Nyah,
> >Nyah" on the schoolground?
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> I find this reaction amazing. Gary made a prediction, which was
> either a veiled threat, or simply sloppy use of language. I asked
> him to state what he meant by it directly, and suggested several
> possible interpretations. Why is asking someone to say what he
> meant by, "Those who don't speak out against this bloodshed will
> have to answer for it some day." either an indication of my
> "bantom rooster arrogance" or likely to convince lurkers that I'm
> a "light weight?"
==========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
You said:
Answer to whom? Jehova? Armed pro-lifers? Irritating pro-
lifers on usenet? What are you trying to say? Do you expect
to be holding the abotion equivalent of the Neurenberg (sp?)
Trials? Please respond, I'm dying to know.
That read like smart-alec taunting to me. You basically seem to
be saying, "We're going to keep on killing those millions of
unborn children -- and there's not a damn thing you can do about
it." Am I wrong? Isn't that the message you mean to send to Gary?
Will there be a day of reckoning? Yep! There sure will. Will
you personally be held accountable? I don't know -- perhaps only
by your own horror when you finally comprehend what you supported
so strongly. It is clearly a great national disgrace for America
in the same sense that the holocaust was to Germany. Have the
German people suffered for their monsterous actions? I believe
they have. I also believe some day America will have to pay the
same sort of bill of shame for slaughtering millions with so little
conscience.
First picture: a German grandfather trying to explain what happened
in WWII and the holocaust to his grandchildren. Envision how awkard
and difficult it would be for him to be truthful without having his
own grandchildren consider him some sort of monster.
Second picture: Robert Duniway years from now trying to explain
what happened in the years between 1975 and 1999. How could America
have gone so far astray as to kill millions and millions of unborn
children in unnecessary abortions. "And, grandfather, what did YOU
do to fight this evil?" Will you lie, or will you tell the truth?
Will you actually try to convince your own grandchildren that
abortion is a good thing?
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> I suppose my asking you to explain your statement is going to meet
> with a similarly dismissive response, but don't delude yourself
> into believing you're wowing the gallery with such a dodge.
==========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
What sort of response do YOU think you deserve? Is the one above
responsive enough for you? Do you have a logical response?
I'm not trying to wow the gallery with my words -- I'm planning to
beat you by showing the lurkers what sort of light-weight person
you are. I will do that by using YOUR OWN WORDS -- just as I have
done here.
==========================================================
> >Papa Jack wrote:
> >What's that old saying, "Pride goes before the fall!"
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> That old saying would be Proverbs 16:18 - "Pride goeth before
> destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
==========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Good for you! You actually used a valid reference to make a point.
I don't see that from the PARs very often -- usually just "sound
and fury, signifying nothing."
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> The old saying you should be concerned with would be the one about
> the pot calling the kettle black.
==========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Good start, but no finish. WHY should I be concerned with that old
saying?
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> I don't deny my arrogance. I just try to live up to it.
==========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Don't lead with you chin like that, Robert. I can think of about
10 good flames -- I'm trying to stay away from such things. But,
darn, you sure make it difficult.
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> I also don't worry much about biblical warnings, and haven't for
> years. If you, on the other hand, take the good book seriously,
> you have same significant repenting to do.
==========================================================
Papa Jack replies:
I am not a religious person. However, I have great respect for the
beliefs of those who are religious persons.
If I were a religious person, I would try to convince you that we
both have some significant repenting to do. ;>)
Have a nice holiday.
Robert Duniway
In article <329DCD...@ns.net>, Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>Robert Duniway wrote:
>>
>> Gee, it sure looks like Chris has a better grasp of the political
registered
>> voters report that they don't think it is appropriate to make legislation
>> forcing everyone to refrain from choosing abortions. Many of the people
>> who respond against legislating the abortion debate may be personally
>> opposed to abortion, but unlike you they are able to understand that it is
>> a morally complex issue, and don't feel the government should be
>> legislating individual conscience on an issue where there is not an
>> obvious right or wrong. You don't have to be pro-abortion to be
>> so obviously superior to the moral judgemetn of your fellow citizens
>> that you ought to take away their right to exercise that judgement on
>> the grounds that you are saving babies. You are not saving babies, you
>> are trying to prevent abortion, and it looks like most people in this
>> country understand the difference, even if you don't. As long as those
>> numbers hold, legislating this issue would not be an expression of
>> democracy.
>
>registered voters nationwide on this issue, though there are a number of
>polls on the issue nationwide (as opposed to registered or likely voters
>only.) Still, I would probably be in the 70% the way you worded the
>response. I am not opposed to outlawing abortion in the case of medical
>necessity (which does not include economic status.) Still, I would be
>considered adamantly prolife, and I go to the clinics to encourage women
>to choose life. Most people give different responses on the topic of
>abortion depending on how the survey is worded. Many would favor the
>"status quo" but also misunderstand what the "status quo" is.
>A lot of people are surprised to find out that second trimester
>abortions are legal, for instance.
You are right that polls on this topic are somewhat unreliable because of
an unusually high sensitivity to wording. That sensitivity seems to
reflect the complexity with which most people think about this issue.
There are hard core extremists at both ends, but most people recognize
that the issue is not as simple as killing babie, nor is it as simple as
equating a fetus with a tumor. However, the 70% figure I gave is based on
several polls of registered or likely voters, conducted between 1980 and
1996, by both politicial parties. I prefer the party polls because their
primary interest is not in providing propoganda for the issue, but in
anticipating how the voters will respond to things like a pro-life plank
in the party platform. The Republicans know that the issue is a loser for
them in national politics, but you can't win primaries most places in
that party without at least splitting the pro-life vote. This produces
such absurdities as Bob Dole proclaiming that he hasn't read the party
platform in order the sheild himself from charges of extremism. The
consensus of opinion among Republic polsters is that while it might be
beneficial to try to characterize an opponent as going to extremes in
advocating for abortion on demand, it is a major loser to suggest that you
would support the repeal of Roe vs. Wade or would advocate outlawing
abortion.
Robert Duniway
>> >Papa Jack wrote
>> >What he doesn't explain is why he is bothering to
>> >exchange messanges on talk.abortion if he doesn't want to hear or
>> >consider other points of view.
>
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> Err, check the header. Someone started cross posting this thread to
>> several x.general newgroups. Al probably read it in Seattle.general,
>> just as I have.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack replies:
>Does someone force you to read everything that shows up in
>seattle.gen.?
You have a really hard time admitting when you make mistakes, don't you?
First you assume Al is reading your nonsense in talk.abortion, and then
rather than acknowledge that you were mistaken (a pretty trivial and
innocent mistake, at that) you try to somehow suggest that reading your
posts when they show up in seattle.general justifies your original
incorrect assertion. Those of us reading you in seattle.general are
largely doing so for entertainment, and you are providing plenty of it.
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> By the way, the cross posting probably explains why you've been in
>> over your head lately. You probably are more use to dealing with
>> the rants and trolling if you hide out in talk.abortion. Since it
>> was so widely cross posted, you are getting some comments from the
>> public at large, and are discovering that you're product just isn't
>> selling too well out here, and the people who aren't buying have
>> enough experience, education, and/or intelligence not to be sucked
>> in by your weak logic and smug patronizing asides about your years
>> of experience and massive debating prowess.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack replies:
>Why do I get a picture in my mind of you standing in front of a
>mirror and admiring your good looks?
Well, my wife says I look good, but I don't think so. What was your point
exactly?
>Your sophmoric attempts to put me on the defensive by such inane
>statements would be far more impressive if you actually backed them
>up with well thought out arguments supported with documentation.
>Not so. You just write the sort of drivel we see here were you
>strut around like a baby rooster -- crowing about how great you are.
Well, generally you don't get to be both a participant and a judge. I'm
sure I'm not convincing you of anything, but I hardly think your
evaluation of my ability to reason or muster relevant facts is very
objective. As for strutting around crowing, guilty as charged, but I
reserve that behavior for taking on smug patronizing individuals like you
when their arguments don't hold together and they are never-the-less
declaring victory. If you're a Christian (I don't know that you are, but
it seems likely given some of your posts) then you believe in a religious
system where this type of personal pride is out of bounds. As a "Godless
heathen" I'm free to be as arrogant as I feel like, and you can comfort
yourself with the irrational belief that your God will punish me for it
some day.
>Remember, Robert, when you grow up you too can brag about your
>experience. You clearly have had very little so far in your very
>young life.
Okay, how old am I? You have no idea, do you?
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> If you want to avoid this comeuppance, try deleting the cross
>> posted newsgroups from the header. We ceratinly won't miss
>> hearig [sic] from you all that much.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack replies:
>Better idea -- you quit reading any articles I post.
That would ceratinly make life easier for you, and you might notice that I
don't respond to the vast majority of them, but I have this vendetta
against people who cross post to unrelated newsgroups and then complain
when they meet with hostility. Why do you feel that it is more reasonable
for you to continue posting to seattle.general (not to mention
chicago.general, ca.general, oregon.general, etc.), clogging up these
newsgroups, and expecting people to just delete these threads, than it is
for you to take an extra ten seconds and delete the inapproapriate
newsgroups from the header before you post something? Go ahead, I'm dying
to hear your explanation.
>I am in a good mood today, so I took it easy on you, boy.
What do you imagine you could possibly do to me if you were in a bad mood?
Stop Jacking off in public. You'll embarrass yourself.
Robert Duniway
In article <329E44...@express-news.net>,
Okay, I see how you and Gary read it, and I can see how you got that from
what I wrote. So, for the record, the message I was trying to send to
Gary was: What exactly do you mean by the apparently threatening
statement, "Those who don't speak out against this bloodshead will have to
answer for it some day?" I also wanted to suggest that the various
possible meanings I listed are pretty far fetched, and if that was what he
meant his statement was probably incorrect.
>Will there be a day of reckoning? Yep! There sure will.
And to think, you complain that I make unsupported assertions.
>Will
>you personally be held accountable? I don't know -- perhaps only
>by your own horror when you finally comprehend what you supported
>so strongly.
Yes, I studied rhetoric in college too.
>It is clearly a great national disgrace for America
>in the same sense that the holocaust was to Germany.
Unsupported assertion # 2. Please note your making that any similar
complaints about other posters in the future will be hypocritical.
>Have the
>German people suffered for their monsterous actions? I believe
>they have. I also believe some day America will have to pay the
>same sort of bill of shame for slaughtering millions with so little
>conscience.
Okay, you believe such consequences will occur. I don't. Now why should
anyone value your opinion any more or less than they value mine?
>First picture: a German grandfather trying to explain what happened
>in WWII and the holocaust to his grandchildren. Envision how awkard
>and difficult it would be for him to be truthful without having his
>own grandchildren consider him some sort of monster.
>
>Second picture: Robert Duniway years from now trying to explain
>what happened in the years between 1975 and 1999. How could America
>have gone so far astray as to kill millions and millions of unborn
>children in unnecessary abortions. "And, grandfather, what did YOU
>do to fight this evil?" Will you lie, or will you tell the truth?
>Will you actually try to convince your own grandchildren that
>abortion is a good thing?
When have I ever said abortion is a good thing?
> ==========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> I suppose my asking you to explain your statement is going to meet
>> with a similarly dismissive response, but don't delude yourself
>> into believing you're wowing the gallery with such a dodge.
>
> ==========================================================
>Papa Jack replies:
>What sort of response do YOU think you deserve? Is the one above
>responsive enough for you? Do you have a logical response?
How can you demand a logical response to two unsupported assertions and a
questionable analogy? Again, I don't think I'll convince you, but I also
doubt you are winning by point on the judges cards. Furthermore, I have a
decided advantage in this debate. I beleive the issue is complex, and we
may well be left to make our individual judgements and won't come to
complete agreement. Taht is why I am so strongly pro-choice. You, on the
other hand, beleive that the issue is not complex, and that the government
ought to come down on your side and prevent people from deciding that
abortion is the best available option, except in the handful of exceptions
which you personally support. That position carries a much heavier burden
of proof, and you haven't demonstrated the capacity to carry that load.
>I'm not trying to wow the gallery with my words -- I'm planning to
>beat you by showing the lurkers what sort of light-weight person
>you are. I will do that by using YOUR OWN WORDS -- just as I have
>done here.
If you believe that you can win this debate by "showing the lurkers what
sort of light-weight person you are." you need to go back and take
introductory logic again.
> ==========================================================
>> >Papa Jack wrote:
>> >What's that old saying, "Pride goes before the fall!"
>
> ==========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> That old saying would be Proverbs 16:18 - "Pride goeth before
>> destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
>
> ==========================================================
>Papa Jack replies:
>Good for you! You actually used a valid reference to make a point.
>I don't see that from the PARs very often -- usually just "sound
>and fury, signifying nothing."
>
> ==========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> The old saying you should be concerned with would be the one about
>> the pot calling the kettle black.
>
> ==========================================================
>Papa Jack replies:
>Good start, but no finish. WHY should I be concerned with that old
>saying?
Look up a few lines, to that crack about not seeing valid references from
PARs trying to make a point. Then go a little further up, and apply the
same criterion to your unsubstantiated assertions of opinion and
questionable analogy to the holocaust. Do you see teh point yet?
> ==========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> I don't deny my arrogance. I just try to live up to it.
>
> ==========================================================
>Papa Jack replies:
>Don't lead with you chin like that, Robert. I can think of about
>10 good flames -- I'm trying to stay away from such things. But,
>darn, you sure make it difficult.
How disappointing, and I thought I was being such a good troll.
> ==========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> I also don't worry much about biblical warnings, and haven't for
>> years. If you, on the other hand, take the good book seriously,
>> you have same significant repenting to do.
>
> ==========================================================
>Papa Jack replies:
>I am not a religious person. However, I have great respect for the
>beliefs of those who are religious persons.
>
>If I were a religious person, I would try to convince you that we
>both have some significant repenting to do. ;>)
If you aren't a religious person (and I'll ceratinly take your word for
it) I'm curious as to what you meant above by your confident assertion
that there will be a day of reckoning.
Gary VanderMolen
Don Nickell <don_n...@nm-us.campus.mci.net> wrote in article <329DAA...@nm-us.campus.mci.net>...
> If "ABORTION IS KILLING" then is screwing "PREMETIDATED [sic] MURDER?" Or is
> doing it with a condrum [sic] "ATTEMPTED MURDER?"
>
> Just and [sic] engineer wondering. That's how some of us think. ;=)
Don, your logic appears to be as faulty as your spelling.
As a fellow engineer, please keep up appearances for our profession, and
use that spelling checker!
Gary VanderMolen
Jessica <jes...@animal.blarg.net> wrote in article <57lc3h$c...@animal.blarg.net>...
> Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
>
>
> : Long before Hitler's armies began marching, the harassment of Jews had
> : already begun. They were forced to wear special emblems so they could
> : be easily identified. The "good" people in Germany were too busy minding
> : there own business to speak out against this tyranny of the majority.
> : The end result was that millions of innocent Jews were exterminated.
> : Today, millions of innocent unborn children are being exterminated.
> : Those who don't speak out against this bloodshed will have to answer
> : for it some day.
>
>
> correct you, Sir....
>
> Jewish people were not the group that were persecuted before AND during
> the Nazi's wet dream. And your statement about the "good" people is
> incorrect. There was, as there always shall be, people that helped where
> and when they could. To generalize to the point of recreating historical,
> and tragic events in this manner is a shame and a farce.
>
> You will not "win" people over to your point of view by trying to, in a
> round about way, liken pro-choice groups with Nazi's, or any other
> event/group/whatever that is generally viewed as wrong.
>
> By doing this you are not only showing an extremely vulgar set of "common
> senses", but you are also portraying yourself, and your views, in a rather
> uncouth manner.
>
> If you truly wish to make abortions illegal, your public view points
> should not be of religious, mud slinging, irrational statements. They
> should, however, be concise, well thought out, logical, and most of all,
> medical in nature. This is not a moral issue, as whenever "morality" is
> involved religion is soon to follow.
>
>
>
> -Jessica, Pro-CHOICE (as in the "American" way)
Jessica, I was a resident of Holland (the Netherlands) during Hitler's regime.
I witnessed many of the things I mentioned in my first post. I'm at a loss to
understand where your "vulgar/uncouth" characterization is coming from.
As I stated in a subsequent post, no analogy is perfect. However, I believe
there are many valid parallels between the holocaust and the millions of children
aborted in modern times. This is an issue that transcends mere medical
concerns. Does your MD have an irrefutable definition of when human life begins?
Unfortunately, "pro-choice" is indeed the average American's way, in the same
manner that the average American is preoccupied with the pre-eminence of self
and the acquisition of material goods.
Gary VanderMolen
Robert Duniway <dun...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article <57neem$q...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
> As a "Godless
> heathen" I'm free to be as arrogant as I feel like, and you can comfort
> yourself with the irrational belief that your God will punish me for it
> some day.
[...and...]
> Stop Jacking off in public. You'll embarrass yourself.
Somehow I never thought that good manners were contingent upon
adherence to religion, but Robert is beginning to make me believe otherwise.
Loren Petrich
FOLLOWUPS TRIMMED!!!
In article <01bbdea1$fff27000$0100007f@localhost>,
Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
[abortion ~ Nazism...]
>Unfortunately, "pro-choice" is indeed the average American's way, in the same
>manner that the average American is preoccupied with the pre-eminence of self
>and the acquisition of material goods.
But those are what capitalism is all about. Do I take it that you
are a Communist, Mr. VanderMolen?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Papa Jack
Robert Duniway wrote:
>
> >> >Papa Jack wrote
> >> >What he doesn't explain is why he is bothering to
> >> >exchange messanges on talk.abortion if he doesn't want to
> >> >hear or consider other points of view.
===========================================================
> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
> >> Err, check the header. Someone started cross posting this
> >> thread to several x.general newgroups. Al probably read it in
> >> Seattle.general, just as I have.
===========================================================
> >Papa Jack replies:
> >Does someone force you to read everything that shows up in
> >seattle.gen.?
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> You have a really hard time admitting when you make mistakes,
> don't you?
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
No, not at all. I've made some lulus in my time. For example, I'm
setting here wasting my valuable time writing to you.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> First you assume Al is reading your nonsense in talk.abortion, and
> then rather than acknowledge that you were mistaken (a pretty
> trivial and innocent mistake, at that) you try to somehow suggest
> that reading your posts when they show up in seattle.general
> justifies your original incorrect assertion.
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
This is a great example of wasting time. You are so desperate to
find fault with me that you pick and pick on what you yourself
describe as a "trivial and innocent mistake." Do you know that I
was mistaken? Up above you said: "Al PROBABLY read it in Seattle.
general, just as I have." Now, you write as though you are so sure
Al read it in Seattle.general that you are willing to accuse me of
making a mistake.
I agree it is a petty matter brought up by a petty little mind. Oh,
excuse me, hope I didn't hurt your feelings.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Those of us reading you in seattle.general are largely doing so
> for entertainment, and you are providing plenty of it.
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
If I am entertaining you, you really ought to return the favor. I
don't find you anything but obnoxious and egotistical -- with
nothing to back up your arrogance.
===========================================================
> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
> >> By the way, the cross posting probably explains why you've been in
> >> over your head lately. You probably are more use to dealing with
> >> the rants and trolling if you hide out in talk.abortion. Since it
> >> was so widely cross posted, you are getting some comments from the
> >> public at large, and are discovering that you're product just isn't
> >> selling too well out here, and the people who aren't buying have
> >> enough experience, education, and/or intelligence not to be sucked
> >> in by your weak logic and smug patronizing asides about your years
> >> of experience and massive debating prowess.
===========================================================
> >Papa Jack replies:
> >Why do I get a picture in my mind of you standing in front of a
> >mirror and admiring your good looks?
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Well, my wife says I look good, but I don't think so. What was
> your point exactly?
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
You are married? Are you sure you're old enough to be married? I
had you pegged as a smart-alec 14 year old. See, I made another
mistake.
===========================================================
> >Papa Jack replies:
> >Your sophmoric attempts to put me on the defensive by such inane
> >statements would be far more impressive if you actually backed
> >them up with well thought out arguments supported with documen-
> >tation. Not so. You just write the sort of drivel we see here
> >were you strut around like a baby rooster -- crowing about how
> >great you are.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Well, generally you don't get to be both a participant and a judge.
> I'm sure I'm not convincing you of anything, but I hardly think
> your evaluation of my ability to reason or muster relevant facts
> is very objective.
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
Before I can evaluate your ability to reason or muster relevant
facts you must do so. I have not seen you post a single argument
which showed any evidence of reasoning. You have not, of course,
mustered any documentation for your points of view. So, all I can
judge is what you have shown me -- ZERO!!!
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> As for strutting around crowing, guilty as charged, but I reserve
> that behavior for taking on smug patronizing individuals like you
> when their arguments don't hold together and they are never-the-less
> declaring victory.
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
You see -- you simply don't understand how to present your arguments.
You use "ad hominem" arguments by calling me names -- that doesn't
convince anyone of anything. Then you say my arguments don't hold
together -- but you don't even try to give an example to show why
you say that. So, we can only assume it is just part of your mean-
ingless name calling. Learn to present your arguments in a more
mature mannner.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> If you're a Christian (I don't know that you are, but
> it seems likely given some of your posts) then you believe in a
> religious system where this type of personal pride is out of bounds.
> As a "Godless heathen" I'm free to be as arrogant as I feel like,
> and you can comfort yourself with the irrational belief that your
> God will punish me for it some day.
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
Previously, on this same string, you wrote:
I also don't worry much about biblical warnings, and haven't for
years. If you, on the other hand, take the good book seriously,
you have same significant repenting to do.
On Thursday, I replied:
I am not a religious person. However, I have great respect for
the beliefs of those who are religious persons.
Why are you so desperate to play the "religion card?" Does your
"heathen" behavior worry you subconsciously?
I would hazard a guess that your stereotype of a Pro-Lifer as a
religious person is so strong that you just refuse to believe that
I am not a religious person. Does that make you a religious bigot?
===========================================================
> >Papa Jack replies:
> >Remember, Robert, when you grow up you too can brag about your
> >experience. You clearly have had very little so far in your very
> >young life.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Okay, how old am I? You have no idea, do you?
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
As I stated above, I had you pegged as about 14 years old because of
your very immature writing style. Since you said you are married,
I will have to revise that estimate. Better yet, why don't you
just tell us how old you are.
I will go first, I'm 59 years old. I've been married to the same
fantastic woman for 40+ years, and we have three grown sons, two
daughters-in-law, and five perfect grandchildren. I completed and
retired from two separate careers (military officer and civilian
human resources director).
===========================================================
> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
> >> If you want to avoid this comeuppance, try deleting the cross
> >> posted newsgroups from the header. We ceratinly won't miss
> >> hearig [sic] from you all that much.
===========================================================
> >Papa Jack replies:
> >Better idea -- you quit reading any articles I post.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> That would ceratinly [sic] make life easier for you,
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
Not at all. Number 1, I know I am irritating you by doing so --
and there is some gratification in that. Number 2, I have the
common sense to know that I have the option of answering your or
ignoring you. I do what pleases me.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> and you might notice that I don't respond to the vast majority of
> them, but I have this vendetta against people who cross post to
> unrelated newsgroups and then complain when they meet with hostility.
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
That is a really stupid vendetta -- but, then, aren't most emotional
vendettas pretty dumb?
I didn't set up the header for this string. I simply copied it
based on the assumption the original writer is in one of these
cities or s/he wouldn't have used such addressing.
Many n.g.s are cluttered with really obnoxious messages from the
over-aggressive homosexuals and the fanatic flamers. Why don't you
take on these groups -- I have a time or two.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Why do you feel that it is more reasonable for you to continue
> posting to seattle.general (not to mention chicago.general, ca.
> general, oregon.general, etc.), clogging up these newsgroups, and
> expecting people to just delete these threads, than it is for you
> to take an extra ten seconds and delete the inapproapriate news-
> groups from the header before you post something? Go ahead, I'm
> dying to hear your explanation.
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
Because I found it irritates you -- and that pleases me.
===========================================================
> >Papa Jack replies:
> >I am in a good mood today, so I took it easy on you, boy.
===========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> What do you imagine you could possibly do to me if you were in a
> bad mood? Stop Jacking off in public. You'll embarrass yourself.
===========================================================
Papa Jack responds:
No, but this sort of reply is why I guessed you were 14 years old.
That would seem clever to a 14 year old, but just disgusting to a
mature person.
What can I do to you? I can encourage you to continue to express
your opinions in public. You do not understand that is a great
embarassment to you. I am goading you so you will show all our
readers what a pathetic little worm you really are. It's working.
What can you do to me? Stomp your little foot.
Have a nice day.
Papa Jack
> >>Robert Duniway wrote:
> >> Gee, it sure looks like Chris has a better grasp of the political
> >> realities of this issue than [Papa Jack]. Approximately 70% of
> >> registered voters report that they don't think it is appropriate
> >> to make legislation
> >> forcing everyone to refrain from choosing abortions. Many of the people
> >> who respond against legislating the abortion debate may be personally
> >> opposed to abortion, but unlike you they are able to understand that it is
> >> a morally complex issue, and don't feel the government should be
> >> legislating individual conscience on an issue where there is not an
> >> obvious right or wrong. You don't have to be pro-abortion to be
> >> pro-choice. You just have to recognize that your moral judgement is not
> >> so obviously superior to the moral judgemetn of your fellow citizens
> >> that you ought to take away their right to exercise that judgement on
> >> the grounds that you are saving babies. You are not saving babies, you
> >> are trying to prevent abortion, and it looks like most people in this
> >> country understand the difference, even if you don't. As long as those
> >> numbers hold, legislating this issue would not be an expression of
> >> democracy.
============================================================
> >Melanie
> >The 70% figure does not entirely ring true. I am not aware of polls of
> >registered voters nationwide on this issue, though there are a number of
> >polls on the issue nationwide (as opposed to registered or likely voters
> >only.) Still, I would probably be in the 70% the way you worded the
> >response. I am not opposed to outlawing abortion in the case of medical
> >necessity (which does not include economic status.) Still, I would be
> >considered adamantly prolife, and I go to the clinics to encourage women
> >to choose life. Most people give different responses on the topic of
> >abortion depending on how the survey is worded. Many would favor the
> >"status quo" but also misunderstand what the "status quo" is.
> >A lot of people are surprised to find out that second trimester
> >abortions are legal, for instance.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> You are right that polls on this topic are somewhat unreliable because of
> an unusually high sensitivity to wording.
============================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
What polls, Robert? Are you ever specific? Do you ever document
all these attempts at sweeping analysis? I guess not.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> That sensitivity seems to
> reflect the complexity with which most people think about this issue.
> There are hard core extremists at both ends, but most people recognize
> that the issue is not as simple as killing babie[sic], nor is it as
> simple as equating a fetus with a tumor.
============================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
When you are trying to sell lies, the explanations are almost always
complex. One way to determing which theory is most likely to be
correct is to say the simplest theory which explains all the points
at issue is most likely to be correct. I was taught that back in a
basic science class 45 years ago.
Robert continues to try to speak for "most people." He is wrong. Most
people do not think at all the way Robert says they do, but he believes
he is making points by spouting such drivel.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> However, the 70% figure I gave is based on several polls of registered
> or likely voters, conducted between 1980 and 1996, by both politicial
> parties.
============================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
What polls, Robert. You are fuzting it up because you don't have
any validation of your obviously exaggerated 70% figure. The only
way you can come anywhere close to 70% is to include those folks
-- LIKE ME -- who are willing to make exceptions for abortions in
cases of rape, incest, severe fetal deformity, or grave threats to
the mother's life. Show us a respectable poll that says 70% favor
UNLIMITED ABORTION.
I want you to give cites and examples of actual polls that say 70%
of voters from both parties support UNLIMITED abortions. Tell us
where we can check for ourselves. Were the polls published in a
book, a magazine, a newspaper? Give specific references so we can
check your accuracy.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> I prefer the party polls because their primary interest is not in
> providing propoganda for the issue, but in anticipating how the
> voters will respond to things like a pro-life plank in the party
> platform.
============================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
This is called "tap-dancing" in hopes that your reader won't notice
that you came up empty when challenged to document your phoney claims.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> The Republicans know that the issue is a loser for them in national
> politics, but you can't win primaries most places in
> that party without at least splitting the pro-life vote.
============================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
Which Republicans, Robert? There are millions of folks in the GOP.
The simple fact that they continue to put strong anti-abortion lan-
guage in their platforms clearly shows a majority of Republicans
are against abortion. There are a few on the left side of the GOP
who try to argue against an abortion plank, but they get shot down
in flames at each convention.
Do you have any Pro-Life supporters in the Democratic party? Yep,
you know you do. There are a number in Congress and at least one
governor I know of.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> This produces such absurdities as Bob Dole proclaiming that he
> hasn't read the party platform in order the sheild [sic] himself
> from charges of extremism.
============================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
Yep, that was one of the reasons so few Republicans bothered to vote
for Bob Dole. It was a major mistake on his part. The Democrates
allow Clinton to change his position daily on issues, but the GOP
has more character than the dim Dems.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> The consensus of opinion among Republic [sic] polsters [sic] is that
> while it might be beneficial to try to characterize an opponent as
> going to extremes in advocating for abortion on demand, it is a major
> loser to suggest that you would support the repeal of Roe vs. Wade or
> would advocate outlawing abortion.
============================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
Again, we have Robert speaking for people (in this case pollsters)
without any documentation that what he says accurately reflects the
views of those he claims to speak for.
Robert, please identify the Republican pollsters you are reading this
consensus from. Are there two, three, thirty -- how many? Can you
cite specific statements by the different Republican pollsters that
support your sweeping statement? Be sure and give complete references
so we can look up and validate what your are saying. Frankly, Robert,
I suspect you are making this up out of your own head. Please prove
my suspicions are wrong.
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <01bbdea1$fff27000$0100007f@localhost> "Gary VanderMolen"
<gary...@cris.com> writes:
<snippage>
>Unfortunately, "pro-choice" is indeed the average American's way, in
the same
>manner that the average American is preoccupied with the pre-eminence
of self
>and the acquisition of material goods.
If you don't like freedom, go and live in Iran.
--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia
Al Billings
Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
:
: Jessica, I was a resident of Holland (the Netherlands) during Hitler's regime.
: I witnessed many of the things I mentioned in my first post. I'm at a loss to
: understand where your "vulgar/uncouth" characterization is coming from.
: As I stated in a subsequent post, no analogy is perfect. However, I believe
: there are many valid parallels between the holocaust and the millions of children
: aborted in modern times. This is an issue that transcends mere medical
: concerns. Does your MD have an irrefutable definition of when human life begins?
: Unfortunately, "pro-choice" is indeed the average American's way, in the same
: manner that the average American is preoccupied with the pre-eminence of self
: and the acquisition of material goods.
Feel free to return to Holland if you don't like it here. As I recall
though, Abortion is legal there as well...
Robert Duniway
In article <32A04C...@express-news.net>,
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>Robert Duniway wrote:
>>
>> >> >Papa Jack wrote
>> >> >What he doesn't explain is why he is bothering to
>> >> >exchange messanges on talk.abortion if he doesn't want to
>> >> >hear or consider other points of view.
>
> ===========================================================
>> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> >> Err, check the header. Someone started cross posting this
>> >> thread to several x.general newgroups. Al probably read it in
>> >> Seattle.general, just as I have.
>
> ===========================================================
>> >Papa Jack replies:
>> >Does someone force you to read everything that shows up in
>> >seattle.gen.?
>
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> You have a really hard time admitting when you make mistakes,
>> don't you?
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack responds:
>No, not at all. I've made some lulus in my time. For example, I'm
>
> ==========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> First you assume Al is reading your nonsense in talk.abortion, and
>> then rather than acknowledge that you were mistaken (a pretty
>> trivial and innocent mistake, at that) you try to somehow suggest
>> that reading your posts when they show up in seattle.general
>> justifies your original incorrect assertion.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack responds:
>This is a great example of wasting time. You are so desperate to
>find fault with me that you pick and pick on what you yourself
>describe as a "trivial and innocent mistake." Do you know that I
>was mistaken? Up above you said: "Al PROBABLY read it in Seattle.
>general, just as I have." Now, you write as though you are so sure
>Al read it in Seattle.general that you are willing to accuse me of
>making a mistake.
Again, your mastery of irony is truly brilliant. You complain about my
being, "so desparate to find fault" and then you try to make some issue
out of my using the word probably, since I didn't know with certainty that
Al didn't read talk.abortion, I was only 95% sure. Well guess what, I was
right, as Al himself confirmed in another post that you should have seen
by now, so I stopped qualifying my statement. So if I'm desperately
picking at trivial and innocent mistakes, what are you up to?
>I agree it is a petty matter brought up by a petty little mind. Oh,
>excuse me, hope I didn't hurt your feelings.
You mean you don't love me? How will I go on living?
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> Those of us reading you in seattle.general are largely doing so
>> for entertainment, and you are providing plenty of it.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack responds:
>If I am entertaining you, you really ought to return the favor. I
>don't find you anything but obnoxious and egotistical -- with
>nothing to back up your arrogance.
How about an I.Q. of ~140, a Yale B.A. with honors, and a Ph.D. What
backs up your arrogance?
> ===========================================================
>> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> >> By the way, the cross posting probably explains why you've been in
>> >> over your head lately. You probably are more use to dealing with
>> >> the rants and trolling if you hide out in talk.abortion. Since it
>> >> was so widely cross posted, you are getting some comments from the
>> >> public at large, and are discovering that you're product just isn't
>> >> selling too well out here, and the people who aren't buying have
>> >> enough experience, education, and/or intelligence not to be sucked
>> >> in by your weak logic and smug patronizing asides about your years
>> >> of experience and massive debating prowess.
>
> ===========================================================
>> >Papa Jack replies:
>> >Why do I get a picture in my mind of you standing in front of a
>> >mirror and admiring your good looks?
>
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> Well, my wife says I look good, but I don't think so. What was
>> your point exactly?
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack responds:
>You are married? Are you sure you're old enough to be married? I
>had you pegged as a smart-alec 14 year old. See, I made another
>mistake.
Yes, I had already noticed that.
> ===========================================================
>> >Papa Jack replies:
>> >Your sophmoric attempts to put me on the defensive by such inane
>> >statements would be far more impressive if you actually backed
>> >them up with well thought out arguments supported with documen-
>> >tation. Not so. You just write the sort of drivel we see here
>> >were you strut around like a baby rooster -- crowing about how
>> >great you are.
>
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> Well, generally you don't get to be both a participant and a judge.
>> I'm sure I'm not convincing you of anything, but I hardly think
>> your evaluation of my ability to reason or muster relevant facts
>> is very objective.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack responds:
>Before I can evaluate your ability to reason or muster relevant
>facts you must do so. I have not seen you post a single argument
>which showed any evidence of reasoning. You have not, of course,
>mustered any documentation for your points of view. So, all I can
>judge is what you have shown me -- ZERO!!!
You see, this is why the participants don't get to judge. Sometimes in
the heat of the competition they can be a little unfair. You've seen
plenty of reasoning from me, and when you couldn't come up with an
intelligent reply, you dodged me and complained about my not reposting
every line of a many layer deep twenty screen long post. I made it clear
that I was willing to address any issue you felt I had neglected, but you
can't defend your inconsistent claims, and so you ran away. Perhaps if
you had stayed in the game you would have been forced to notice the
evidence of reasoning I had managed to muster, but you took the easy way
out and simply declared that running away equals victory. So you can
continue to think whatever you like of my ability to reason. You are
obviously not capable of making a fair evaluation, and I am not going to
be much cncerned with what you think of me. I am going to make it clear
that you are holding the minority opinion concerning my ability to reason,
and that your evaluation of your own brilliance is equally suspect.
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> As for strutting around crowing, guilty as charged, but I reserve
>> that behavior for taking on smug patronizing individuals like you
>> when their arguments don't hold together and they are never-the-less
>> declaring victory.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack responds:
>You see -- you simply don't understand how to present your arguments.
>You use "ad hominem" arguments by calling me names -- that doesn't
>convince anyone of anything. Then you say my arguments don't hold
>together -- but you don't even try to give an example to show why
>you say that. So, we can only assume it is just part of your mean-
>ingless name calling. Learn to present your arguments in a more
>mature mannner.
Try going beck in this thread and see who started the name calling.
Something about my bantum rooster strutting, I seem to recall. Again, you
really out to work on applying the same standards to your own posts that
you are so eager to apply to those who don't agree with you.
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> If you're a Christian (I don't know that you are, but
>> it seems likely given some of your posts) then you believe in a
>> religious system where this type of personal pride is out of bounds.
>> As a "Godless heathen" I'm free to be as arrogant as I feel like,
>> and you can comfort yourself with the irrational belief that your
>> God will punish me for it some day.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack responds:
>Previously, on this same string, you wrote:
>
> I also don't worry much about biblical warnings, and haven't for
> years. If you, on the other hand, take the good book seriously,
> you have same significant repenting to do.
>
>On Thursday, I replied:
>
> I am not a religious person. However, I have great respect for
> the beliefs of those who are religious persons.
I sent this post before reading your reply. Notice I didn't say I knew
that you were. As for the religion card, I thought that might be Gary's
reference when he warned us all those who don't vigerously oppose abortion
will answer for it some day. I still don't know whether or not that is
what he meant, since he hasn't responded to my question on the matter,
except to complain about my being arrogant.
>Why are you so desperate to play the "religion card?" Does your
>"heathen" behavior worry you subconsciously?
I'll answer that as soon as you justify the characterization, "so
desparate to play the 'religion card'" Desperate? Hardly. Why would I
be desparate when dealing with you?
>I would hazard a guess that your stereotype of a Pro-Lifer as a
>religious person is so strong that you just refuse to believe that
>I am not a religious person. Does that make you a religious bigot?
Are you man enough to retract this statement now that I've made it clear I
hadn't yet read you post stating that you were not religious?
> ===========================================================
>> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> >> If you want to avoid this comeuppance, try deleting the cross
>> >> posted newsgroups from the header. We ceratinly won't miss
>> >> hearig [sic] from you all that much.
>
> ===========================================================
>> >Papa Jack replies:
>> >Better idea -- you quit reading any articles I post.
>
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> That would ceratinly [sic] make life easier for you,
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack responds:
>Not at all. Number 1, I know I am irritating you by doing so --
>and there is some gratification in that. Number 2, I have the
>common sense to know that I have the option of answering your or
>ignoring you. I do what pleases me.
Fine, but then admit you were completely off target when you complained
about Al posting in talk.abortion a post which basically said get out of
my face.
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> and you might notice that I don't respond to the vast majority of
>> them, but I have this vendetta against people who cross post to
>> unrelated newsgroups and then complain when they meet with hostility.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack responds:
>That is a really stupid vendetta -- but, then, aren't most emotional
>vendettas pretty dumb?
No more stupid than continuing to cross post into seattle.general because
it gratifies you to irritate me. By the way, if you had been reading
seattle.general, you would know that I find it quite entertaining to hold
people like you accountable for what you post, so if you imagine that
these posts are in some way painful for me, you are deluding yourself.
>I didn't set up the header for this string. I simply copied it
>based on the assumption the original writer is in one of these
>cities or s/he wouldn't have used such addressing.
>
>Many n.g.s are cluttered with really obnoxious messages from the
>over-aggressive homosexuals and the fanatic flamers. Why don't you
>take on these groups -- I have a time or two.
I suppose you think you won, too.
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> Why do you feel that it is more reasonable for you to continue
>> posting to seattle.general (not to mention chicago.general, ca.
>> general, oregon.general, etc.), clogging up these newsgroups, and
>> expecting people to just delete these threads, than it is for you
>> to take an extra ten seconds and delete the inapproapriate news-
>> groups from the header before you post something? Go ahead, I'm
>> dying to hear your explanation.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack responds:
>Because I found it irritates you -- and that pleases me.
Oh good, you're finally abandoning your pretence at occupying the moral
high ground.
> ===========================================================
>> >Papa Jack replies:
>> >I am in a good mood today, so I took it easy on you, boy.
>
> ===========================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> What do you imagine you could possibly do to me if you were in a
>> bad mood? Stop Jacking off in public. You'll embarrass yourself.
>
> ===========================================================
>Papa Jack responds:
>No, but this sort of reply is why I guessed you were 14 years old.
>That would seem clever to a 14 year old, but just disgusting to a
>mature person.
>
>What can I do to you? I can encourage you to continue to express
>your opinions in public. You do not understand that is a great
>embarassment to you. I am goading you so you will show all our
>readers what a pathetic little worm you really are. It's working.
Again, you don't get to be a participant and a judge. I'm sure Gary
shares your opinion, but I doubt the reader reaction is as one sided as
you seem to think. I'm hardly witnessing a groundswell of support for
your recent attacks on my character.
>What can you do to me? Stomp your little foot.
Are you familiar with the psychological concept of projection? When did I
claim I could do anything to you? I've even acknowledged that I'm sure I
won't change your mind. I can, however, make sure that the record is
clear, and while you may think you've fooled everyone into dismissing me
as a "light-weight" who has never once posted a reasoned argument, I've
received several email messages to the contrary. We are in this pissing
match right now because you posted an attack on my character, and I've
simply responded by pointing out that while I make no claims to be
perfect, you are certainly in no position to judge me. I'm pleased that
you don't see things so clearly, because you keep digging yourself in
deeper in your attempts to maintain that you are superior to me. Give it
up Jack. It is a case you'll never make because it just isn't true.
Robert Duniway
In article <32A063...@express-news.net>,
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>Robert Duniway wrote:
>>
>> In article <329DCD...@ns.net>, Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>
> ============================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> You are right that polls on this topic are somewhat unreliable because of
>> an unusually high sensitivity to wording.
>
> ============================================================
>Papa Jack remarks:
>What polls, Robert? Are you ever specific? Do you ever document
>all these attempts at sweeping analysis? I guess not.
Well, once again look whose talking. Okay, pick up any issue of the
Gallup Poll Monthly (large library systems should have them) and take a
look for yourself. I also look at summaries of the annual General Social
Survey, but those are not so widely available and you might have a hard
time finding them unless you're an academic. If you want bibliographic
references, go look up the fall 1993 issue of Publius for a review of the
Alan Guttmacher Institute poll broken down by states. It was written by
Matthew Westein and Robert Albritton. I've seen many other references to
this result, but they were mostly A.P. wire stories concerning policitical
polls conducted either by the media or by polsters for the two major
parties, and I don't have references off the top of my head. I do,
however, look at national poll data on a regular basis, am trained to do
so, and have seen a remarkable stability in the results of GSS and Gallup
results on this issue over the last decade. That contrasts with media
polls, but it isn't suprising becasue the GSS and Gallup are careful to
maintain consistent wording. You could easily go look at many of the same
sources and will find that I am correct. As unhappy as it may make you,
somewhere near 70% of the public are consistently pro-choice to the extent
that they don't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned and they don't
think abortion should be illegal in all cases accept when the health of
the mother is at stake. You can get different results with different
lists of exceptions, but even then you don't get to a majority unless you
are listing all first trimester abortions as an exception. [1994 General
Social Survey data].
> ============================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> That sensitivity seems to
>> reflect the complexity with which most people think about this issue.
>> There are hard core extremists at both ends, but most people recognize
>> that the issue is not as simple as killing babie[sic], nor is it as
>> simple as equating a fetus with a tumor.
>
>
> ============================================================
>Papa Jack remarks:
>When you are trying to sell lies, the explanations are almost always
>complex. One way to determing which theory is most likely to be
>correct is to say the simplest theory which explains all the points
>at issue is most likely to be correct. I was taught that back in a
>basic science class 45 years ago.
Ahh yes, the parsimony principle. Two small problems, though. Social
issues aren't physics, so there is no reason to assume the parsimony
principle is relevant. Also, you haven't even come close to explaining
all points at issue with your simple theory. By the way, before you
bother to complain about my arguing by assertion with that last point,
stop to consider that I was responding to an argument by assertion.
>Robert continues to try to speak for "most people." He is wrong. Most
>people do not think at all the way Robert says they do, but he believes
>he is making points by spouting such drivel.
Robert reads the polls, and feels confident discussing survey research
since Robert spent five years in graduate school learning how to conduct
and interpret such research.
> ============================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> However, the 70% figure I gave is based on several polls of registered
>> or likely voters, conducted between 1980 and 1996, by both politicial
>> parties.
>
> ============================================================
>Papa Jack remarks:
>What polls, Robert. You are fuzting it up because you don't have
>any validation of your obviously exaggerated 70% figure. The only
>way you can come anywhere close to 70% is to include those folks
>-- LIKE ME -- who are willing to make exceptions for abortions in
>cases of rape, incest, severe fetal deformity, or grave threats to
>the mother's life. Show us a respectable poll that says 70% favor
>UNLIMITED ABORTION.
I never claimed that 70% favor unlimited abortions, did I?
As for references, see my comment above.
>I want you to give cites and examples of actual polls that say 70%
>of voters from both parties support UNLIMITED abortions. Tell us
>where we can check for ourselves. Were the polls published in a
>book, a magazine, a newspaper? Give specific references so we can
>check your accuracy.
I never claimed 70% support unlimited aboriton. I claimed 70% don't favor
overturning Roe v. Wade (see the article in Publius), and 70% do not feel
abortion should be made illegal. That is a very broad group, and of that
70%, many would favor certain restrictions (third trimester abortions,
abortions by minors without parental consent). I've never claimed
otherwise, and your attempt to shift the ground and have me trying to
defend a claim I never maid and don't believe is transparent. Nice try,
thanks for playing.
Papa Jack
>>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>>> and you might notice that I don't respond to the vast majority of
>>> them, but I have this vendetta against people who cross post to
>>> unrelated newsgroups and then complain when they meet with hostility.
===========================================================
>> Papa Jack responds:
>> That is a really stupid vendetta -- but, then, aren't most emotional
>> vendettas pretty dumb?
>> I didn't set up the header for this string. I simply copied it
>> based on the assumption the original writer is in one of these
>> cities or s/he wouldn't have used such addressing.
>> Many n.g.s are cluttered with really obnoxious messages from the
>> over-aggressive homosexuals and the fanatic flamers. Why don't you
>> take on these groups -- I have a time or two.
==========================================================
> Al Billings wrote:
> Why am I not surprised that Papa Jack has gone after "agressive [sic]z
> homosexuals" on Usenet before?
==========================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Why am I not surprised you would comment on that?
Do you have a problem with me asking the homosexuals to take their
obscene posts to their own n.g.s? If they want to talk filth, that
is fine -- I just prefer they do it somewhere else.
I have the same problem with the fanatical flame bunch. I partic-
ularly resent it when t.a. freezes because of overload from time to
time.
You write whatever your little heart desires, Al. That's the only
way we will be able to see which category of ______ you are.
Papa Jack
Robert Duniway wrote:
>
> In article <32A063...@express-news.net>,
> Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
> >Robert Duniway wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <329DCD...@ns.net>, Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
============================================================
> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
> >> You are right that polls on this topic are somewhat unreliable
> >> because of an unusually high sensitivity to wording.
============================================================
> >Papa Jack remarks:
> >What polls, Robert? Are you ever specific? Do you ever document
> >all these attempts at sweeping analysis? I guess not.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Well, once again look whose talking. Okay, pick up any issue of
> the Gallup Poll Monthly (large library systems should have them)
> and take a look for yourself. I also look at summaries of the
> annual General Social Survey, but those are not so widely available
> and you might have a hard time finding them unless you're an academic.
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
I figured you would give a half-assed answer like this, Robert. You
claim to be an academic, but you keep failing to provide a specific
reference to a particulare poll. You count on the fact that most folks
won't bother to run to the library and check out your non-specific
references. You don't even bother to show examples of the poll
results you are trying to discuss.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> If you want bibliographic references, go look up the fall 1993 issue
> of Publius for a review of the Alan Guttmacher Institute poll broken
> down by states. It was written by Matthew Westein and Robert
> Albritton.
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
On Thu, 28 Nov 1996, on this same string, I said:
Please cite the source and data for your stats. And, please, no
Planned Parenthood sponsored phoney polls.
It is well known that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is a Planned
Parenthood front organization -- and all of their poll data is
designed to support abortion. This casts great doubts on the
credibility of your other materials, Robert.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> I've seen many other references to this result, but they were mostly
> A.P. wire stories concerning policitical polls conducted either by
> the media or by polsters for the two major parties, and I don't have
> references off the top of my head. I do, however, look at national
> poll data on a regular basis, am trained to do so, and have seen a
> remarkable stability in the results of GSS and Gallup results on this
> issue over the last decade.
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
I think you're trying to say you don't feel it is necessary for you
to quote specific poll results. You are such an expert we should just
take your word for it. Doesn't work that way Robert.
Come in with a specific EXAMPLE from a reputable pollster (not a PP
shill). Include the specific questions asked and the dates.
You are avoiding that because it won't support the sweeping
generalities you are trying to palm off on us.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> That contrasts with media polls, but it isn't suprising [sic]
> becasue [sic] the GSS and Gallup are careful to maintain consistent
> wording. You could easily go look at many of the same sources and
> will find that I am correct.
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Now come clean, Robert. If you've read the same polls I have over
the last 10 years, they have consistently showed THREE basic groups.
First, those like you who support abortion on demand for any reason.
Your group is somewhere between 20% and 30% depending on the pollster
and how the questions are worded. Second, those who oppose any form
of abortion. That group also is around 20% to 25%. Finally, those
like me who oppose abortion except for rape, incest, severe fetal
abnormality, or grave threat to the mother's life. We make up 35% to
40% -- again depending on who conducted the poll and the specific
wording of the questions.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> As unhappy as it may make you, somewhere near 70% of the public are
> consistently pro-choice to the extent that they don't think Roe v.
> Wade should be overturned and they don't think abortion should be
> illegal in all cases accept when the health of the mother is at
> stake. You can get different results with different lists of
> exceptions, but even then you don't get to a majority unless you
> are listing all first trimester abortions as an exception. [1994
> General Social Survey data].
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
The only way you get anywhere near the 70% you are falsely claiming
is if you claim all those who would allow abortion -- but, with
specific limitations. Those who support UNLIMITED ABORTIONS have
never been anywhere near a majority, much less 70%. That is my
whole point. You are weasel-wording your comments to try to claim
a large majority on your Pro-Abortion Rights (PAR) side -- and that
is misleading.
============================================================
> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
> >> That sensitivity seems to reflect the complexity with which most
> >> people think about this issue. There are hard core
> >> extremists at both ends, but most people recognize that the issue
> >> is not as simple as killing babie[sic], nor is it as
> >> simple as equating a fetus with a tumor.
============================================================
> >Papa Jack remarks:
> >When you are trying to sell lies, the explanations are almost always
> >complex. One way to determing which theory is most likely to be
> >correct is to say the simplest theory which explains all the points
> >at issue is most likely to be correct. I was taught that back in a
> >basic science class 45 years ago.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Ahh yes, the parsimony principle. Two small problems, though.
> Social issues aren't physics, so there is no reason to assume the
> parsimony principle is relevant.
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Actually, we called it "Occam's Razor" It is not from physics but
rather from philosophy. FOLDOC (Free On-line Dictionary of Computing)
gives the following:
The English philosopher, William of Occam (1300-1349) propounded
Occam's Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."
(Latin for "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary").
That is, the fewer assumptions an explanation of a phenomenon
depends on, the better it is.
For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and also
caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - whereas
Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of
something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was
the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explan-
ation involves fewer entities.
The negation of Occam's Razor would suggest that an arbitrarily
complex explanation is just as good as the simplest one. (E.g.
God and his cat created a robot called Sparky who built the
universe from parts bought from a shop in another dimension).
http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=Occam%27s+Razor&action=Search
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Also, you haven't even come close to explaining all points at issue
> with your simple theory.
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
But, Robert, I've been explaining my theory for 6 months on talk.
abortion. At one time or another, I covered every issue of conse-
quence on this subject. Of course I do not attempt to do that in
every single post/string. Do you?
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> By the way, before you bother to complain about my arguing by
> assertion with that last point, stop to consider that I was respon-
> ding to an argument by assertion.
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
What specific argument by assertion were you responding to? Please
copy it right here.
I thought we both were discussing YOUR statement:
That sensitivity seems to reflect the complexity with which
most people think about this issue. There are hard core
extremists at both ends, but most people recognize that the
issue is not as simple as killing babie[sic], nor is it as
simple as equating a fetus with a tumor.
This, of course, is a bald assertion without support or documentation.
============================================================
> >Papa Jack remarks:
> >Robert continues to try to speak for "most people." He is wrong.
> >Most people do not think at all the way Robert says they do, but
> >he believes he is making points by spouting such drivel.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Robert reads the polls, and feels confident discussing survey
> research since Robert spent five years in graduate school learning
> how to conduct and interpret such research.
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
That's nice, but it takes more than that to impress me, Robert. You
may or may not be educated like you claim -- I simply have not seen
you demonstrate the sort of skills associated with such advanced
education. IOW, if ya got it why don't you show it.
============================================================
> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
> >> However, the 70% figure I gave is based on several polls of
> >> registered or likely voters, conducted between 1980 and 1996, by
> >> both politicial parties.
============================================================
> >Papa Jack remarks:
> >What polls, Robert. You are fuzting it up because you don't have
> >any validation of your obviously exaggerated 70% figure. The only
> >way you can come anywhere close to 70% is to include those folks
> >-- LIKE ME -- who are willing to make exceptions for abortions in
> >cases of rape, incest, severe fetal deformity, or grave threats to
> >the mother's life. Show us a respectable poll that says 70% favor
> >UNLIMITED ABORTION.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> I never claimed that 70% favor unlimited abortions, did I?
> As for references, see my comment above.
============================================================
> >Papa Jack remarks:
> >I want you to give cites and examples of actual polls that say 70%
> >of voters from both parties support UNLIMITED abortions. Tell us
> >where we can check for ourselves. Were the polls published in a
> >book, a magazine, a newspaper? Give specific references so we can
> >check your accuracy.
============================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> I never claimed 70% support unlimited aboriton. I claimed 70% don't
> favor overturning Roe v. Wade (see the article in Publius), and 70%
> do not feel abortion should be made illegal. That is a very broad
> group, and of that 70%, many would favor certain restrictions (third
> trimester abortions, abortions by minors without parental consent).
> I've never claimed otherwise, and your attempt to shift the ground
> and have me trying to defend a claim I never maid [sic] and don't
> believe is transparent. Nice try, thanks for playing.
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Now you backtrack to a barely tenableposition. As I discussed above,
you are trying to count folks like me as Pro-Choice. I am not Pro-
Choice and many of those who you would count in your 70% are not at
all Pro-Choice.
I didn't attempt to shift the ground -- I just insisted you quit using
misleading explanations of poll stats.
You're welcome.
Al Billings
Why am I not surprised that Papa Jack has gone after "agressive
Gwen Nelson
Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
: Robert Duniway <dun...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article <57neem$q...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
: > As a "Godless
: > heathen" I'm free to be as arrogant as I feel like, and you can comfort
: > yourself with the irrational belief that your God will punish me for it
: > some day.
: [...and...]
: > Stop Jacking off in public. You'll embarrass yourself.
: Somehow I never thought that good manners were contingent upon
: adherence to religion, but Robert is beginning to make me believe otherwise.
Gary,
I am curious.
Do you believe that Papa Jack's posts have evidenced civility and good
manners? Do you believe that your own have?
Bob's metaphore, while crude, seems to me quite accurate.
Gwen
--
"I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you.
Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation.
We have a biblical duty; we are called on by God to
conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We
don't want pluralism."
- Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue
Robert Duniway
In article <32A0E2...@express-news.net>,
Well congratulations. I suppose I could go track them down via Facts on
File and show you up again. I'm almost irritated enough to bother, so
please keep reminding me, and next time I'm on campus and have a free hour
I'll look them up.
> ============================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> If you want bibliographic references, go look up the fall 1993 issue
>> of Publius for a review of the Alan Guttmacher Institute poll broken
>> down by states. It was written by Matthew Westein and Robert
>> Albritton.
>
> ============================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>On Thu, 28 Nov 1996, on this same string, I said:
>
> Please cite the source and data for your stats. And, please, no
> Planned Parenthood sponsored phoney polls.
>
>It is well known that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is a Planned
>Parenthood front organization -- and all of their poll data is
>designed to support abortion. This casts great doubts on the
>credibility of your other materials, Robert.
You live in a fascinating world, Papa Jack. The Alan Guttmacher Institute
is interested in assessing the political support for abortion rights. It
is not in their best interests to present distorted poll numbers, since
that is likely to result in getting blind sided. They also have make
their methods and complete texts of their questions available, which makes
it possible to evaluate the reliability of their results, and to produce
independent analysis. If you bothered to read the reference you will see
what I mean, but of course you aren't interested in doing so. You are
only interested in trying to claim that any organizatino which doesn't
produce the results you want to see is a front for Planned Parenthood.
Well, I suppose your harmless as long as you stick to posting on usenet
and don't take up arms.
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> I've seen many other references to this result, but they were mostly
>> A.P. wire stories concerning policitical polls conducted either by
>> the media or by polsters for the two major parties, and I don't have
>> references off the top of my head. I do, however, look at national
>> poll data on a regular basis, am trained to do so, and have seen a
>> remarkable stability in the results of GSS and Gallup results on this
>> issue over the last decade.
>
> ============================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>I think you're trying to say you don't feel it is necessary for you
>to quote specific poll results. You are such an expert we should just
>take your word for it. Doesn't work that way Robert.
>
>Come in with a specific EXAMPLE from a reputable pollster (not a PP
>shill). Include the specific questions asked and the dates.
>
>You are avoiding that because it won't support the sweeping
>generalities you are trying to palm off on us.
Or maybe I don't feel like spending the time just to satisfy your request,
knowing that you won't change your position even if I bother. If you make
enough of an issue of it, I'll go look up the questions on the GSS and
Gallup polls (or do you think they are fronts for Planned Parenthood as
well), but this represents a significant investment in time, and I'll only
bother after you've really made enough of a stink that you will look
particularly foolish when I produce the goods. Want to play?
> ============================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> That contrasts with media polls, but it isn't suprising [sic]
>> becasue [sic] the GSS and Gallup are careful to maintain consistent
>> wording. You could easily go look at many of the same sources and
>> will find that I am correct.
By the way, how long have you been posting to usenet? I would think by
now you would have realized that when you include someone elses post, it
is obvious to all readers that you didn't type it in. So putting in these
little "[sic]" notes is superfluous. No one thinks you typed that in
yourself. Or could it be that you are trying to make some point?
> ============================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>Now come clean, Robert. If you've read the same polls I have over
>the last 10 years, they have consistently showed THREE basic groups.
>First, those like you who support abortion on demand for any reason.
>Your group is somewhere between 20% and 30% depending on the pollster
>and how the questions are worded.
Why do you assume that is my group? It isn't.
>Second, those who oppose any form
>of abortion. That group also is around 20% to 25%. Finally, those
>like me who oppose abortion except for rape, incest, severe fetal
>abnormality, or grave threat to the mother's life. We make up 35% to
>40% -- again depending on who conducted the poll and the specific
>wording of the questions.
Bull. People who have exactly your list of exceptions do not make up
35-40% of the population. People who have some qualifications to their
support of abortion might make up that percentage (and I would be included
in that grouping), but that is not the same thing at all as claiming that
this population endorses your viewpoint. Oh, and if you want to prove me
wrong, please give me a specific reference to all the polls you are
talking about.
> ============================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> As unhappy as it may make you, somewhere near 70% of the public are
>> consistently pro-choice to the extent that they don't think Roe v.
>> Wade should be overturned and they don't think abortion should be
>> illegal in all cases accept when the health of the mother is at
>> stake. You can get different results with different lists of
>> exceptions, but even then you don't get to a majority unless you
>> are listing all first trimester abortions as an exception. [1994
>> General Social Survey data].
>
> ============================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>The only way you get anywhere near the 70% you are falsely claiming
>is if you claim all those who would allow abortion -- but, with
>specific limitations. Those who support UNLIMITED ABORTIONS have
>never been anywhere near a majority, much less 70%. That is my
>whole point. You are weasel-wording your comments to try to claim
>a large majority on your Pro-Abortion Rights (PAR) side -- and that
>is misleading.
If that is your whole point, then you should go back and read my posts
again. You clearly missed my point entirely.
> [snip]
>
>http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=Occam%27s+Razor&action=Search
Occam's razor has some problems, but that would lead us way off topic. If
you want to start a new thread we can move to an appropriately
metaphysical group and spare both seattle.general and talk.abortion.
> ============================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> Also, you haven't even come close to explaining all points at issue
>> with your simple theory.
>
> ============================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>But, Robert, I've been explaining my theory for 6 months on talk.
>abortion. At one time or another, I covered every issue of conse-
>quence on this subject. Of course I do not attempt to do that in
>every single post/string. Do you?
Well, I don't, but then I think the issue is complex. You seem to think
it isn't, so why can't you cover your simple position on this simple issue
in a single post?
> ============================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> By the way, before you bother to complain about my arguing by
>> assertion with that last point, stop to consider that I was respon-
>> ding to an argument by assertion.
>
> ============================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>What specific argument by assertion were you responding to? Please
>copy it right here.
>> >Papa Jack remarks:
>> >When you are trying to sell lies, the explanations are almost always
>> >complex.
> I thought we both were discussing YOUR statement:
> That sensitivity seems to reflect the complexity with which
> most people think about this issue. There are hard core
> extremists at both ends, but most people recognize that the
> issue is not as simple as killing babie[sic], nor is it as
> simple as equating a fetus with a tumor.
> >This, of course, is abald assertion without support or documentation.
> >
============================================================ >>
>Papa Jack remarks:
>> >Robert continues to try to speak for "mostpeople." He is wrong.
>> >Most people do not think at all the way Robert says they do, but
>> >he believes he is making points by spouting such drivel. > >
============================================================
>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>> Robert reads the polls, and feels confident discussing survey
>> research since Robert spent five years in graduate school learning
>> how to conduct and interpret such research.
> >============================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>That's nice, but it takes more than that to impress me, Robert. You
>may or may not be educated like you claim -- I simply have not seen
>you demonstrate the sort of skills associated with such advanced
>education. IOW, if ya got it why don't you show it.
Why should I or anyone else care about impressing you? You've pretty well
demonstrated your ability to objectively evaluate posts you don't agree
with. Half the time you can't even correctly characterize my position.
How can you possibly be qualiied to evaluate it?
> >============================================================
>> >> RobertDuniway wrote:
>> >> However, the 70% figure I gave is based on severalpolls of
>> >> registered or likely voters, conducted between 1980 and1996, by
Sometime try reading what I wrote, and respond to that.
Oh, and quit deludng yourself into believeing that anyone who gives a
qualified answer concerning restrictions on abortion is getting counted as
pro-choice. Go back, look at teh claims I made about that 70%, and
realize that you wouldn't be included. You apparently don't know how to
read polls, and have concluded that since you must be in the majority,
you are in the "35-40%" (your figures, not mine, so don't ask me to
provide a reference) who express anything other than an unqualified
postion on the abortion debate. If this is an example of how you convince
yourself you win debates with pro-choice posters, I'm no longer surprised
that you make that claim. Amused, but not surprised.
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <32A0B6...@express-news.net> Papa Jack
<papa...@express-news.net> writes:
>
>>>> Robert Duniway wrote:
>>>> and you might notice that I don't respond to the vast majority of
>>>> them, but I have this vendetta against people who cross post to
>>>> unrelated newsgroups and then complain when they meet with
hostility.
>
> ===========================================================
>>> Papa Jack responds:
>>> That is a really stupid vendetta -- but, then, aren't most
emotional
>>> vendettas pretty dumb?
>
>>> I didn't set up the header for this string. I simply copied it
>>> based on the assumption the original writer is in one of these
>>> cities or s/he wouldn't have used such addressing.
>
>>> Many n.g.s are cluttered with really obnoxious messages from the
>>> over-aggressive homosexuals and the fanatic flamers. Why don't you
>>> take on these groups -- I have a time or two.
> ==========================================================
>> Al Billings wrote:
>> Why am I not surprised that Papa Jack has gone after "agressive
[sic]z
>> homosexuals" on Usenet before?
>
> ==========================================================
>Papa Jack wrote:
>Why am I not surprised you would comment on that?
>
>Do you have a problem with me asking the homosexuals to take their
>obscene posts to their own n.g.s? If they want to talk filth, that
>is fine -- I just prefer they do it somewhere else.
It's the aggressive homophobe bigots who start those threads and
cross-post them all over the net. Why don't you go after them, Papa
Jack? Or are you one of them?
>I have the same problem with the fanatical flame bunch. I partic-
>ularly resent it when t.a. freezes because of overload from time to
>time.
>
>You write whatever your little heart desires, Al. That's the only
>way we will be able to see which category of ______ you are.
>
>--
>{ Papa Jack
>{
>{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack
>
> "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
> men are created equal; that they are endowed by
> their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
> among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
--
Shea F. Kenny
During a routine traffic stop by the U.P.D., ("Gary VanderMolen"
<gary...@cris.com>), had an open container of the following goopinol:
Yeah! Why don't you guys boot him out of the union?
Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corporation, et al)
713-0782 Need a Taxi at Seatac Airport? 713-0782
4p.m. to 3a.m. 7-days.
Moonbear is a proud sponsor of this post.
Al Billings
Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
: Do you have a problem with me asking the homosexuals to take their
: obscene posts to their own n.g.s? If they want to talk filth, that
: is fine -- I just prefer they do it somewhere else.
If their posts (or anyone's) are obscene and in an inappropriate
newsgrop, I don't hve problems asking anyone to leave a newsgroup or
taking actions to that end. I don't see where the homosexual issue comes
in unless you think posts by homosexuals which mention the topic of
homosexuality in their context are somehow obscene by their very nature.
This is a silly attitude but it would be one you are likely to hold given
your other posts.
Shea F. Kenny
During a routine traffic stop by the U.P.D., (col...@aa.net (Gwen
Nelson)), had an open container of the following goopinol:
}Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
}: Robert Duniway <dun...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article <57neem$q...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
}: > heathen" I'm free to be as arrogant as I feel like, and you can comfort
}: > yourself with the irrational belief that your God will punish me for it
}: > some day.
}
}
}: > Stop Jacking off in public. You'll embarrass yourself.
}
}: Somehow I never thought that good manners were contingent upon
}: adherence to religion, but Robert is beginning to make me believe otherwise.
}
}Gary,
} I am curious.
} Do you believe that Papa Jack's posts have evidenced civility and good
}manners? Do you believe that your own have?
} Bob's metaphore, while crude, seems to me quite accurate.
}Gwen
Oh, I do. I'm quite familiar with another person in this group,
with quite the same reaction to Dr. Quackiway's vitriol, and thus find
Dad, unduly restrained. Perhaps he has a heart condition and is under
doctor's orders or something.
Shea F. Kenny
During a routine traffic stop by the U.P.D., (Papa Jack
<papa...@express-news.net>), had an open container of the following
goopinol:
}Robert Duniway wrote:
}>
}> >> >Papa Jack wrote
}> >> >What he doesn't explain is why he is bothering to
}> >> >exchange messanges on talk.abortion if he doesn't want to
}> >> >hear or consider other points of view.
}
} ===========================================================
}> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
}> >> Err, check the header. Someone started cross posting this
}> >> thread to several x.general newgroups. Al probably read it in
}> >> Seattle.general, just as I have.
}
} ===========================================================
}> >Papa Jack replies:
}> >Does someone force you to read everything that shows up in
}> >seattle.gen.?
}
} ===========================================================
}> Robert Duniway wrote:
}> You have a really hard time admitting when you make mistakes,
}> don't you?
}
} ===========================================================
}Papa Jack responds:
}No, not at all. I've made some lulus in my time. For example, I'm
}setting here wasting my valuable time writing to you.
Look Dad, with this guy "wasting your time " is an utterly
severe underestimate of the problem. You are wasting your life sir.
Your life. Please. Get help. I know what it's like. You're
untterly delusional to think you're going to get through to what
little mind he has after all that education.
}
} ===========================================================
}> Robert Duniway wrote:
}> First you assume Al is reading your nonsense in talk.abortion, and
}> then rather than acknowledge that you were mistaken (a pretty
}> trivial and innocent mistake, at that) you try to somehow suggest
}> that reading your posts when they show up in seattle.general
}> justifies your original incorrect assertion.
}
} ===========================================================
}Papa Jack responds:
}This is a great example of wasting time. You are so desperate to
}find fault with me that you pick and pick on what you yourself
}describe as a "trivial and innocent mistake." Do you know that I
}was mistaken? Up above you said: "Al PROBABLY read it in Seattle.
}general, just as I have." Now, you write as though you are so sure
}Al read it in Seattle.general that you are willing to accuse me of
}making a mistake.
}
}I agree it is a petty matter brought up by a petty little mind. Oh,
}excuse me, hope I didn't hurt your feelings.
I knew there was a referrence to Dr. Quackiway that was eluding
me. Nice job. Very thoughtful.
}
} ===========================================================
}> Robert Duniway wrote:
}> Those of us reading you in seattle.general are largely doing so
}> for entertainment, and you are providing plenty of it.
}
} ===========================================================
}Papa Jack responds:
}If I am entertaining you, you really ought to return the favor. I
}don't find you anything but obnoxious and egotistical -- with
}nothing to back up your arrogance.
Were you a sniper when you were in the military?
}
} ===========================================================
}> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
}> >> By the way, the cross posting probably explains why you've been in
}> >> over your head lately. You probably are more use to dealing with
}> >> the rants and trolling if you hide out in talk.abortion. Since it
}> >> was so widely cross posted, you are getting some comments from the
}> >> public at large, and are discovering that you're product just isn't
}> >> selling too well out here, and the people who aren't buying have
}> >> enough experience, education, and/or intelligence not to be sucked
}> >> in by your weak logic and smug patronizing asides about your years
}> >> of experience and massive debating prowess.
}
} ===========================================================
}> >Papa Jack replies:
}> >Why do I get a picture in my mind of you standing in front of a
}> >mirror and admiring your good looks?
}
} ===========================================================
}> Robert Duniway wrote:
}> Well, my wife says I look good, but I don't think so. What was
}> your point exactly?
}
} ===========================================================
}Papa Jack responds:
}You are married? Are you sure you're old enough to be married? I
}had you pegged as a smart-alec 14 year old. See, I made another
}mistake.
Another bullseye. I've tried pointing out his juvenlism. He
thinks comments like that are funny.
This REALLY cracked me up. From my second reply to him and every
couple of weeks or so, I point out his immaturity. He should respond
with his material assets which prove he's capable of something. Oh,
and he has a job too.
God I can't believe this. This is TOO funny. Ahhhh. I've
waited so long.
}
}I will go first, I'm 59 years old. I've been married to the same
}fantastic woman for 40+ years, and we have three grown sons, two
}daughters-in-law, and five perfect grandchildren. I completed and
}retired from two separate careers (military officer and civilian
}human resources director).
Gee. I wonder if we're hearing from someone with REAL
experience. Instead of some whiney academic? I knew there were
people like that out there. Hehehe. Hey, there's probably more
where he came from.
}
} ===========================================================
}> >> Robert Duniway wrote:
}> >> If you want to avoid this comeuppance, try deleting the cross
}> >> posted newsgroups from the header. We ceratinly won't miss
}> >> hearig [sic] from you all that much.
}
} ===========================================================
}> >Papa Jack replies:
}> >Better idea -- you quit reading any articles I post.
}
} ===========================================================
}> Robert Duniway wrote:
}> That would ceratinly [sic] make life easier for you,
}
} ===========================================================
}Papa Jack responds:
}Not at all. Number 1, I know I am irritating you by doing so --
}and there is some gratification in that. Number 2, I have the
}common sense to know that I have the option of answering your or
}ignoring you. I do what pleases me.
Look Dad. This guy claims to be a masters in psychology, a
Phd. in Sociology and some degree or another in Philosophy. In
short, your approach is PRECISELY correct. But, you knew that didn't
you?
Watch it Dad. He'll use this against you in a couple of weeks.
Thinking it's going to make you look bad, or something. He really
does.
}
} ===========================================================
}> >Papa Jack replies:
}> >I am in a good mood today, so I took it easy on you, boy.
}
} ===========================================================
}> Robert Duniway wrote:
}> What do you imagine you could possibly do to me if you were in a
}> bad mood? Stop Jacking off in public. You'll embarrass yourself.
}
} ===========================================================
}Papa Jack responds:
}No, but this sort of reply is why I guessed you were 14 years old.
}That would seem clever to a 14 year old, but just disgusting to a
}mature person.
I really hate to see what he comes up with for that one. You
might get accused of something perverse, or for not being perverse. I
don't know. It WILL be interesting.
}
}What can I do to you? I can encourage you to continue to express
}your opinions in public. You do not understand that is a great
}embarassment to you. I am goading you so you will show all our
}readers what a pathetic little worm you really are. It's working.
}
}What can you do to me? Stomp your little foot.
No, what they do is take turns insulting you. Bob will switch
off with someone else and they'll let you have it for a while. Or,
they'll all hammer you at once and expect you to answer everyone of
them and each point, or they win. I'd expect some e-mail from a guy
named Elf Sternberg, who thinks it's a courtesy to insult you in your
mailbox. Even when you tell him to stop. Even when you call his
provider and complain. Even, well never mind. You're in for a few
treats I'd say.
Shea F. Kenny
During a routine traffic stop by the U.P.D., (dun...@u.washington.edu
(Robert Duniway)), had an open container of the following goopinol:
}Oh, and quit deludng yourself into believeing that anyone who gives a
}qualified answer concerning restrictions on abortion is getting counted as
}pro-choice. Go back, look at teh claims I made about that 70%, and
}realize that you wouldn't be included. You apparently don't know how to
}read polls, and have concluded that since you must be in the majority,
}you are in the "35-40%" (your figures, not mine, so don't ask me to
}provide a reference) who express anything other than an unqualified
}postion on the abortion debate. If this is an example of how you convince
}yourself you win debates with pro-choice posters, I'm no longer surprised
}that you make that claim. Amused, but not surprised.
Well Bob, you've almost made it. You almost made it through an
entire post, without petty insults. You're still highly insulting
and inflammatory, however there does seem to be some improvement.
I'll make you a bet. The next post to Daddo, avoid any personal
pro-nouns in regards to him. My bet is, he'll do the same. Maybe we
can see a competent debate here, what?
Gary VanderMolen
Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article <57q38t$r...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
> Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
> :
> : manner that the average American is preoccupied with the pre-eminence of self
> : and the acquisition of material goods.
>
> Feel free to return to Holland if you don't like it here. As I recall
> though, Abortion is legal there as well...
Wow, if this is the best you can do in the way of a meaningful retort,
then I don't have much to worry about.
Gary VanderMolen
Gwen Nelson <col...@aa.net> wrote in article <57qhst$5...@Holly.aa.net>...
> Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
> : Robert Duniway <dun...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article <57neem$q...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
> : > heathen" I'm free to be as arrogant as I feel like, and you can comfort
> : > yourself with the irrational belief that your God will punish me for it
> : > some day.
>
>
> : > Stop Jacking off in public. You'll embarrass yourself.
>
> : Somehow I never thought that good manners were contingent upon
> : adherence to religion, but Robert is beginning to make me believe otherwise.
>
> Gary,
> I am curious.
> Do you believe that Papa Jack's posts have evidenced civility and good
> manners? Do you believe that your own have?
> Bob's metaphore, while crude, seems to me quite accurate.
> Gwen
Yes, and yes.
I'm not going to comment on the alleged "accuracy" of Bob's metaphor.
Gutter language is usually a sign of an uneducated mind.
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <57u30i$p...@eve.speakeasy.org> mi...@speakeasy.org (Al Billings)
writes:
>
>Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
>: Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article
<57q38t$r...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
>: > Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
>: > :
way, in the same
>: > : manner that the average American is preoccupied with the
pre-eminence of self
>: > : and the acquisition of material goods.
>: >
>: > Feel free to return to Holland if you don't like it here. As I
recall
>: > though, Abortion is legal there as well...
>:
>: Wow, if this is the best you can do in the way of a meaningful
retort,
>: then I don't have much to worry about.
>
as
>a reason for our opinions on abortion when the very country you come
from
>(along with the rest of Europe) allows abortions.
Quite so. If you don't like the Euro-American freedom way of life,
then go live in Iran.
>--
>===================================================================
>Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your
>ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
> -Howard Aiken
>
> Al Billings http://www.memoria.com/alb/
> mi...@memoria.com Iconoclast, Net.God, Dweeby Geek
>===================================================================
--
Al Billings
Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
: Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article <57q38t$r...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
: > Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
: > :
: > : Unfortunately, "pro-choice" is indeed the average American's way, in the same
: > : manner that the average American is preoccupied with the pre-eminence of self
: > : and the acquisition of material goods.
: >
: > Feel free to return to Holland if you don't like it here. As I recall
: > though, Abortion is legal there as well...
:
: Wow, if this is the best you can do in the way of a meaningful retort,
: then I don't have much to worry about.
I just find it amusing you whine about American attitudes and cite it as
a reason for our opinions on abortion when the very country you come from
(along with the rest of Europe) allows abortions.
--
Robert Duniway
In article <01bbe01b$d1fa4800$0100007f@localhost>,
Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
>Gwen Nelson <col...@aa.net> wrote in article <57qhst$5...@Holly.aa.net>...
>> Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
>> : Robert Duniway <dun...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article <57neem$q...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
>>
>>
>> : Somehow I never thought that good manners were contingent upon
>> : adherence to religion, but Robert is beginning to make me believe otherwise.
>>
>> Gary,
>> I am curious.
>> Do you believe that Papa Jack's posts have evidenced civility and good
>> manners? Do you believe that your own have?
>> Bob's metaphore, while crude, seems to me quite accurate.
>> Gwen
>
>Yes, and yes.
>I'm not going to comment on the alleged "accuracy" of Bob's metaphor.
>Gutter language is usually a sign of an uneducated mind.
So your big problem with my post is that "Jacking off" is gutter language,
which is usually a sign of an uneducated mind. If that is your point,
that you don't like it when I use BAD WORDS, then your comment about good
manners being contingent upon adherence to religion makes more sense. Of
course your belief that the use of words you consider "gutter language" is
a sign of an uneducated mind doesn't stack up with reality, but at least I
can now understand where you're coming from.
Papa Jack
> : Robert Duniway <dun...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article <57neem$q...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
> : > As a "Godless heathen" I'm free to be as arrogant as I
> : > feel like, and you can comfort yourself with the irrational
> : > belief that your God will punish me for it some day.
> : [...and...]
> : > Stop Jacking off in public. You'll embarrass yourself.
=========================================================
> : Gary VanderMolen wrote:
> : Somehow I never thought that good manners were contingent upon
> : adherence to religion, but Robert is beginning to make me believe
> : otherwise.
=========================================================
> Gwen Nelson wrote:
> Gary,
> I am curious.
> Do you believe that Papa Jack's posts have evidenced civility
> and good manners? Do you believe that your own have? Bob's
> metaphore, while crude, seems to me quite accurate.
=========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
I see you prefer the crude and obscene to the truth. I realize the
truth can be a bit uncomfortable for the "ME" "ME" "ME" "ME"
"ME" "ME" generation.
Let's see now, Gwen, whose posts should I read to learn to learn
civility and good manners? Obviously Bob's are too crude. Which
of these Pro-Abortion Righters (PARs) would you suggest:
Mark A. Cochran wrote: "You couldn't correct my 2nd graders
math paper, you pathetic wanker."
//////////////////////////////
Ray Fischer wrote: "Another example of Jackass's hypocrisy.
Gore makes insulting comments, lies, and runs away from all
challanges and Jackass attacks Cochran for responding in terms
Gore can understand.
//////////////////////////////
Amey"<ado...@3wave.com> wrote: hey, BUGSHIT would you rather
of had me drop oit iof college to rasie a baby with your
taxpaying dollars!
//////////////////////////////
James G. Keegan wrote: "here you ignore your own advice as
your remarks focus on something you call "God." unless you can
demonstrate your "God" has anything to do with abortion, i'll
expect to see your apology."
//////////////////////////////
Louis Cypher wrote: "...Infanticide? Go fuck yourself, Ron."
//////////////////////////////
M. Grey de Shirland(MINX) wrote: "I like "pro-lie," which applies
to a great many; "pro-birth" reflects the fact that they don't
care about what happens to these precious fetuses after birth;
or "fetalist."
//////////////////////////////
Mark A. Cochran: "I've performed abortions. I'm not condemed.
Deal with it, pink boy.
I wear gloves when I'm doing anything "icky" gore(sick fuck), but
the occasional mess cleans up quite well with good old soap and
water.
//////////////////////////////
Mpandru wrote: "Another big whoopie-fuck, and a lie. There is
only ONE reason for an abortion -- to terminate an unwanted
pregnancy....
//////////////////////////////
Would you prefer that I emulate these wonderful folks? ROTFLMA0!!
Have a nice day.
Papa Jack
Robert Duniway wrote:
>
> In article <01bbe01b$d1fa4800$0100007f@localhost>,
> Gary VanderMolen <gary...@cris.com> wrote:
> >Gwen Nelson <col...@aa.net> wrote in article <57qhst$5...@Holly.aa.net>...
> >> : Robert Duniway <dun...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article <57neem$q...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
> >> : > Robert Duniway wrote:
> >> : > Stop Jacking off in public. You'll embarrass yourself.
==========================================================
> >> : Gary VanderMolen wrote:
> >> : Somehow I never thought that good manners were contingent upon
> >> : adherence to religion, but Robert is beginning to make me
> >> : believe otherwise.
[...]
==========================================================
> >Gary VanderMolen wrote:
> >...I'm not going to comment on the alleged "accuracy" of Bob's
> >metaphor. Gutter language is usually a sign of an uneducated mind.
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> So your big problem with my post is that "Jacking off" is gutter
> language, which is usually a sign of an uneducated mind.
==========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Go listen to the little boys on the playground. They tell a lot of
"jackoff" jokes. However, most outgrow that somewhere around the
sophmore year in high school.
I know you claim to have all sorts of fancy education, but "you can't
make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." If you are still resorting
to little boy "jackoff" jokes, I am unimpressed with the cultivation
level of your mind.
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> If that is your point, that you don't like it when I use BAD WORDS,
> then your comment about good manners being contingent upon adherence
> to religion makes more sense.
==========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
I can't speak for Gary, but I have observed that very few truely
educated people feel the need to resort to such trashy language.
This has little to do with religion, but more to do with culture.
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> Of course your belief that the use of words you consider "gutter
> language" is a sign of an uneducated mind doesn't stack up with
> reality, but at least I can now understand where you're coming from.
==========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Your "reality" is grubby and small-minded, Bob. Sort of pathetic.
Ray Fischer
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>Robert Duniway wrote:
>> So your big problem with my post is that "Jacking off" is gutter
>> language, which is usually a sign of an uneducated mind.
>
>"jackoff" jokes. However, most outgrow that somewhere around the
>sophmore year in high school.
But then, the level of discussion we see from you seems also to be
about that level, so you can hardly complain when people try and talk
down to your level.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Robert Duniway
In article <32A35F...@express-news.net>,
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
[snip of all personal attacks unsubstantiated by facts or references]
Hmm, not too much left. That's what I meant by Jacking off in public.
I'll stand by it.
Gary VanderMolen
Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article <57u30i$p...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
> Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
> : Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article <57q38t$r...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
> : > Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
> : > :
> : > : Unfortunately, "pro-choice" is indeed the average American's way, in the same
> : > : manner that the average American is preoccupied with the pre-eminence of self
> : > : and the acquisition of material goods.
> : >
> : > Feel free to return to Holland if you don't like it here. As I recall
> : > though, Abortion is legal there as well...
> :
> : Wow, if this is the best you can do in the way of a meaningful retort,
> : then I don't have much to worry about.
>
> I just find it amusing you whine about American attitudes and cite it as
> a reason for our opinions on abortion when the very country you come from
> (along with the rest of Europe) allows abortions.
You are easily amused. Why should my country of origin dictate my opinions?
I'm a US Army veteran (Vietnam), and have been an American citizen for the
past 26 years. I think that entitles me to make comments on American life,
don't you?
Gary VanderMolen
Steven Malcolm Anderson <sm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article <57u46h$f...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> Quite so. If you don't like the Euro-American freedom way of life,
> then go live in Iran.
On the contrary, I like the First Amendment and the freedom it gives me to
debate the issues. I'm a US Army vet (Vietnam) and have been an American
citizen for the past 26 years. Had to pass a fairly tough civics test to get my citizenship.
I think I've earned my right to comment on issues affecting American life.
What did YOU do to earn your US citizenship?
Papa Jack
Robert Duniway wrote:
>
> In article <32A349...@express-news.net>,
> Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
> >Robert Duniway quoted Papa Jack:
> >Would you prefer that I emulate these wonderful folks? ROTFLMA0!!
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> ROTFLMAO? Translate that, and then tell me you are being any less
> crude than I was by saying your lame threat that if I wasn't careful
> you would stop taking it easy on me was Jacking off in public. I
> suppose you think typing BULLSH*T is more civil than typing BULLSHIT
> too?
==========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
The very fact that you see no difference in writing the commonly
used "ROTFLMAO" and writing about someone "jacking off" in public
shows how insensitive you really are.
I don't mean that as a prude, but rather as a "level of humor"
comment. Adults seldom find such comments amusing. Such humor
is generally for children.
==========================================================
> Robert Duniway wrote:
> By the way, I can't help but conclude from your strange insistence that
> using profanities is a sign of an uneducated mind that you haven't spent
> much time around lawyers or journalists. (Okay, I'm obviously trolling
> now, but Papa Jack amuses me so.)
==========================================================
Papa Jack laughs:
Okay! Okay! I'll bite, what makes you consider lawyers or journalists
educated people?
Actually, I led a somewhat sheltered life -- heading up various police
forces in the Air Force. You know how cops are, they hardly ever say
"Darn!"
Have a nice day.
Robert Duniway
In article <32A349...@express-news.net>,
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>
>Would you prefer that I emulate these wonderful folks? ROTFLMA0!!
ROTFLMAO? Translate that, and then tell me you are being any less crude
than I was by saying your lame threat that if I wasn't careful you would
stop taking it easy on me was Jacking off in public. I suppose you think
typing BULLSH*T is more civil than typing BULLSHIT too?
By the way, I can't help but conclude from your strange insistence that
using profanities is a sign of an uneducated mind that you haven't spent
much time around lawyers or journalists. (Okay, I'm obviously trolling
now, but Papa Jack amuses me so.)
--
Gwen Nelson
Organization: Alternate Access Inc. - Affordable, Reliable Internet Access
Distribution:
Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
: =========================================================
: > Gwen Nelson wrote:
: > Gary,
: > I am curious.
: > Do you believe that Papa Jack's posts have evidenced civility
: > and good manners? Do you believe that your own have? Bob's
: > metaphore, while crude, seems to me quite accurate.
: =========================================================
: Papa Jack comments:
: I see you prefer the crude and obscene to the truth. I realize the
: truth can be a bit uncomfortable for the "ME" "ME" "ME" "ME"
: "ME" "ME" generation.
Jack, I stopped thinking that men like you had any ability to see the
truth about 30 years ago and nothing has happened since then that might
cause me to change my mind.
: Let's see now, Gwen, whose posts should I read to learn to learn
: civility and good manners? Obviously Bob's are too crude. Which
: of these Pro-Abortion Righters (PARs) would you suggest:
<snip of hilarious archive>
: Would you prefer that I emulate these wonderful folks? ROTFLMA0!!
Actually what I was suggesting is that you are not yourself worthy of
emulation. Your apparent inability to post without gratuitous insult is
matched only by your remarkable ability to stereotype just about anyone
who finds you objectionable. The fact that the stereotypes are grotesquely
inaccurate is lost on you but not on your audience.
Al Billings
Robert Duniway (dun...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: In article <32A349...@express-news.net>,
: Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
: >
: >Would you prefer that I emulate these wonderful folks? ROTFLMA0!!
: ROTFLMAO?
Rolling On The Floor, Laughing My Ass Off.
Papa Jack can use profanities too, he just has to hide them.
Al Billings
Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
: Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article <57u30i$p...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
: > Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
: > : Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article <57q38t$r...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
: > : > Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : Unfortunately, "pro-choice" is indeed the average American's way, in the same
: > : > : manner that the average American is preoccupied with the pre-eminence of self
: > : > : and the acquisition of material goods.
: > : >
: > : > Feel free to return to Holland if you don't like it here. As I recall
: > : > though, Abortion is legal there as well...
: > :
: > : Wow, if this is the best you can do in the way of a meaningful retort,
: > : then I don't have much to worry about.
: >
: > I just find it amusing you whine about American attitudes and cite it as
: > a reason for our opinions on abortion when the very country you come from
: > (along with the rest of Europe) allows abortions.
:
: You are easily amused. Why should my country of origin dictate my opinions?
: past 26 years. I think that entitles me to make comments on American life,
: don't you?
No.
Papa Jack
Gary VanderMolen wrote:
>
> Steven Malcolm Anderson <sm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article <57u46h$f...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>: Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article
<57q38t$r...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
>: > :Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
>: > :Unfortunately, "pro-choice" is indeed the average American's
>: > :way, in the same manner that the average American is preoc-
>: > :cupied with the pre-eminence of self and the acquisition of
>: > :material goods.
======================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Actually, you're only partly right, Gary. Most Americans are
not Pro-Death like Al -- that's only among the "ME" "ME" "ME"
"ME" generation. They are spoiled brats, they take and take and
give nothing back.
======================================================
>: > Al Billings wrote:
>: > Feel free to return to Holland if you don't like it here. As
>: > I recall though, Abortion is legal there as well...
======================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Which klavern of the KKK do you belong to, AL. I see you don't
want anybody around who thinks differently than you. Do you
wear one of those pointy-headed hood thingys?
======================================================
>: Gary VanderMolen
>: Wow, if this is the best you can do in the way of a meaningful
>: retort, then I don't have much to worry about.
======================================================
> Al Billings wrote:
> I just find it amusing you whine about American attitudes and
> cite it as a reason for our opinions on abortion when the very
> country you come from (along with the rest of Europe) allows
> abortions.
======================================================
Papa Jack comments:
I was just noting again how often the Liberals like Al use the
"whine" word. It substitutes for logic and thought for them.
They learn that at that course they attend to become certified
radicals.
======================================================
> > Steven Malcolm Anderson
> > Quite so. If you don't like the Euro-American freedom way of
> > life, then go live in Iran.
======================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Look -- Steve belongs to the same klavern of the KKK as Al.
Neither one can stand folks with opposing opinions.
======================================================
> Gary VanderMolen wrote:
> On the contrary, I like the First Amendment and the freedom it
> gives me to debate the issues. I'm a US Army vet (Vietnam) and
> have been an American citizen for the past 26 years. Had to
> pass a fairly tough civics test to get my citizenship. I think
> I've earned my right to comment on issues affecting American
> life.
======================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Quite right, Gary. You've certainly EARNED your citizenship.
Wonder if Al or Steven ever did anything but complain and
demand more "Rights?"
======================================================
> Gary VanderMolen wrote:
> What did YOU do to earn your US citizenship?
======================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Bet both Al and Steven duck this question.
Papa Jack
> : Gary VanderMolen
> : You are easily amused. Why should my country of origin dictate
> : my opinions? I'm a US Army veteran (Vietnam), and have been an
> : American citizen for the past 26 years. I think that entitles
> : me to make comments on American life, don't you?
=========================================================
> Al Billings wrote:
> No.
=========================================================
Papa Jack commented:
What have YOU done to deserve YOUR citizenship Al?
Come on, tell us what a great war hero YOU are.
Tell us what you've ever done besides demand more "rights" for YOU.
Al Billings
Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
: > Gary VanderMolen wrote:
: > What did YOU do to earn your US citizenship?
:
: ======================================================
: Papa Jack comments:
: Bet both Al and Steven duck this question.
No need to duck it. I was BORN here. It's my country. My family, on both
sides, has been here more than 350 years. We lost family in the
Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I had family that fought in WWI,
WWII, and Vietnam.
And you know what? The laws that they fought to protect, along with the
people and the culture, say that Abortion is legal.
You whine about the "Me ME ME" generation like it means something. I'm
sorry but Abortion has been legal for the vast majority of my life. It's
time for old farts like yourself to realize that you aren't in touch with
the American people (if you ever were) anymore and look at what the
generations that came after you have to say about these issues.
Papa Jack
Al Billings wrote:
>
> : Gary VanderMolen (gary...@cris.com) wrote:
> : You are easily amused. Why should my country of origin dictate
> : my opinions?
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
I noticed Al failed to answer this very reasonable question. Wonder
why?
============================================================
> : Gary VanderMolen wrote:
> : I'm a US Army veteran (Vietnam), and have been an American
> : citizen for the past 26 years. I think that entitles me to make
> : comments on American life, don't you?
============================================================
> Al Billings wrote:
> No.
============================================================
Papa Jack comments:
In a previous post, I asked Al what he had done to EARN his American
citizenship. Then I noticed his home page code and went there for
a looksee. If you feel like WASTING a few minutes you might go there.
===================================================================
Al Billings http://www.memoria.com/alb/
mi...@memoria.com Iconoclast, Net.God, Dweeby Geek
===================================================================
If you don't have time, here's a brief summary:
He is a 25 year old computer nerd who works on Internet software
stuff.
He claims his politics follows some sort of revolutionary band
who issued a manifesto which includes the following:
...subvert the value system of the dominant culture; inject
media, music, and concepts from wide and diverse sources
directly into the heartland of the monoculture; taunt the
authority and credibility of mainstream representatives as
the lackeys that they are; construct new technologies and
instruments from the scrap of the industrial machine. We will
build the future world as the current world labors under the
assumption that it still exists.
We will rise from the ashes before the fire.
(I know, I know -- Karl Marx said it better 100 years ago)
A great deal of Al's home page deals with his following of
various pagan religions. He progressed from Wicca (witchcraft)
to Asatru (a form of Germanic paganism) and became a Godman
(Priest) in the Ring of Troth. Al currently is a Lokamadhr
(Loki's Man). He says:
In reality, we are serious about our worship of Loki though
our attitudes towards worship and him may differ than what
you would expect....We aim for the same and to bring out
those aspects of ourselves that society doesn't approve of
and which it sees as "subversive" or "undesirable" because
they don't adhere to the social order that others wish to
impose on us all.
A note to Gary VanderMolen: I think you can safely totally dis-
regard anything this flake has to say -- particularly about your
patriotism. He simply has no concept of loyalty or patriotism.
He is the sort you want to keep out of the military because they
sabotage their own side for the fun of it.
I strongly believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but
this is the downside -- we must tolerate such folks as Al in the
process. But, I wouldn't have it any other way.
Have a nice day.
Papa Jack
> : In article <32A349...@express-news.net>,
> : Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
> : >Would you prefer that I emulate these wonderful folks?
> : >ROTFLMA0!!
=========================================================
> : Robert Duniway wrote:
> : ROTFLMAO?
=========================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Do you always "feed" Al his straight lines, Bob? I learned what
ROTFLMAO meant the 2nd day I started commenting on the WWW.
=========================================================
> Al Billings wrote:
> Rolling On The Floor, Laughing My Ass Off.
> Papa Jack can use profanities too, he just has to hide them.
=========================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
I know all the words, Al. I can say shit, fuck, jack-off, and all
those other childish profanities. I simply don't chose to do so
unless I have a reason.
One day when you finish growing up you will understand cussing
doesn't prove your manhood. Rather, it proves you level of intel-
lectual functioning. You seem to be a bit retarded in this parti-
cular measure of maturity.
Papa Jack
Gwen Nelson wrote:
>
> Organization: Alternate Access Inc. - Affordable, Reliable Internet Access
> Distribution:
>
> Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
=========================================================
> : > Gwen Nelson wrote:
> : > Gary,
> : > I am curious.
> : > Do you believe that Papa Jack's posts have evidenced civility
> : > and good manners? Do you believe that your own have? Bob's
> : > metaphore, while crude, seems to me quite accurate.
=========================================================
> : Papa Jack comments:
> : I see you prefer the crude and obscene to the truth. I realize the
> : truth can be a bit uncomfortable for the "ME" "ME" "ME" "ME"
> : "ME" "ME" generation.
=========================================================
> Gwen Nelson wrote:
> Jack, I stopped thinking that men like you had any ability to see
> the truth about 30 years ago and nothing has happened since then
> that might cause me to change my mind.
=========================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
You mean you've been wandering around in the dark for 30 years just
because you are too stubborn to listen to anyone who disagrees with
you?
I enjoyed your use of "men like you." Men like what? You know
little about me except that I oppose unnecessary abortions. But,
you are quite willing to stereotype me -- and then to accuse me
(below) of stereotyping others. Are we dealing with a bit of
projection here, Gwen?
In reviewing your articles in DeJa News, I noticed you jump out
and attack those who are critical of Bob Duniway. For example:
Subject: Re: Making Duniway look stupid
From: col...@aa.net (Gwen Nelson)
Date: 1996/11/18
...I don't think you are evil, though I do think you're somewhat
unbalanced and deeply hypocritical. This slow slide you're in
towards the "religious'right seems entirely appropriate. Where
else are you to find a group of people as authoritarian and
fueled by hatred and ignorance?
I guess you and Bob have just had strong bonding experiences that
makes you feel protective. Are you perhaps part of his Loki Cult?
=========================================================
> : Papa Jack comments:
> : Let's see now, Gwen, whose posts should I read to learn to learn
> : civility and good manners? Obviously Bob's are too crude. Which
> : of these Pro-Abortion Righters (PARs) would you suggest:
> <snip of hilarious archive>
=========================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
So, why did you snip, but not reply to the point these "hilarious
archives" made -- that the PAR regulars are a mean-spirited, insulting,
and crude group of writers. The fact that you would criticize my
"civility and good manners" while supporting writers like these was
the point clearly shows you use a double-standard. This, in turn,
means that your opinion is worthless.
=========================================================
> : Papa Jack comments:
> : Would you prefer that I emulate these wonderful folks? ROTFLMA0!!
=========================================================
> Gwen Nelson wrote:
> Actually what I was suggesting is that you are not yourself worthy
> of emulation.
=========================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Oh, Gosh, Gwen, and I was so counting on you wanting to emulate me. ;>)
=========================================================
> Gwen Nelson wrote:
> Your apparent inability to post without gratuitous insult is
> matched only by your remarkable ability to stereotype just about
> anyone who finds you objectionable. The fact that the stereotypes
> are grotesquely inaccurate is lost on you but not on your audience.
=========================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
Let's see, stereotype. That's like we were discussing above where
you judged what I was like. Or, better, I found the following post
on DeJa News. It seems to be a perfect example of radical stereotyping.
POT.....KETTLE.....BLACK
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice and proud of it
From: col...@aa.net (Gwen Nelson)
Date: 1996/11/08
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-Dole,
us.politics.abortion,tx.politics,triangle.politics,talk.politics.theory,
talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.crypto,
talk.politics,seattle.politics,
scruz.
[BIT OF A SPAMER, HUH?]
...the Repub platform would deny women abortion under any circum-
stance and completely dismantle the already woefully inadequate
social safety net. And they are doing this at a time when there
are no jobs much less jobs that pay a living wage. Add to this
the sort of hatred and utter lack of compassion one hears directed
towards both women's issues and poverty issues by the right and
the incredible damage the Repubs have done to labor in these past
15 years and the emergence of the religious right into mainstream
politics and, you know the Repubs are, quite rightly, viewed as
pretty scary.
After reviewing your articles on DeJa News, Gwen, I want to say
thank you for not wanting to emulate me.
Papa Jack
Al Billings wrote:
>
> Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
>
======================================================
> Gary VanderMolen wrote:
> What did YOU do to earn your US citizenship?
======================================================
>> Papa Jack comments:
>> Bet both Al and Steven duck this question.
======================================================
> Al Billings wrote:
> No need to duck it. I was BORN here. It's my country. My family,
> on both sides, has been here more than 350 years. We lost family
> in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I had family that
> fought in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam.
======================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
But what have YOU done, boy, except be born?
You claim it's YOUR country when you exercise your "rights, but
you home page touts: "Through the introduction of foreign agents
into the healthy body of the Reich, the pillar of cultural infal-
libility is torn from the temple, and the structure weakens."
You see America as "...A shiny metal machine revered with such
fanaticism that to question its omnipotent destiny, its incipient
medical technologies, its weapons of genocide, its bureaucratic
inhumanity (or hyperhumanity) is to risk the heretics penalty of
death."
======================================================
> Al Billings wrote:
> And you know what? The laws that they fought to protect, along
> with the people and the culture, say that Abortion is legal.
======================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
Similar laws said slavery was legal. Others, forbid women equal
rights until recently. The Supreme Court made a terrible mistake
in Roe v. Wade, but the mistake will be rectified.
======================================================
> Al Billings wrote:
> You whine about the "Me ME ME" generation like it means something.
======================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
Yep, it does mean something. The very fact that you deny the
problem is proof of the problem.
======================================================
> Al Billings wrote:
> I'm sorry but Abortion has been legal for the vast majority of
> my life.
======================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
But you've only lived 25 years -- you're still a baby. You know
so very little.
======================================================
> Al Billings wrote:
> It's time for old farts like yourself to realize that you aren't
> in touch with the American people (if you ever were) anymore and
> look at what the generations that came after you have to say
> about these issues.
======================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
I was just laughing with my three grown sons at our Thanksgiving
dinner about when they said things like that 8 or 10 years ago.
They laughed with me, and said: "Dad, why didn't you kick our
stupid asses? We were so cocky, but stupid!"
I will overlook your stupid remarks because you are young. But,
you are married and a father. It is time you started getting a
more realistic and practical view of life. Don't you think?
Please understand clearly that I don't give a damn what you and
other inexperienced punks think. I hope you comprehend that.
Have a nice day.
Shea F. Kenny
During a routine traffic stop by the U.P.D., (dun...@u.washington.edu
(Robert Duniway)), had an open container of the following goopinol:
}an unusually high sensitivity to wording. That sensitivity seems to
}reflect the complexity with which most people think about this issue.
}There are hard core extremists at both ends, but most people recognize
}that the issue is not as simple as killing babie, nor is it as simple as
}equating a fetus with a tumor. However, the 70% figure I gave is based on
A certain university proffessor, equates the fetus with being as
socially relevant as a stem of broccoli. As I recall.
}several polls of registered or likely voters, conducted between 1980 and
}1996, by both politicial parties. I prefer the party polls because their
}primary interest is not in providing propoganda for the issue, but in
}anticipating how the voters will respond to things like a pro-life plank
}in the party platform. The Republicans know that the issue is a loser for
}them in national politics, but you can't win primaries most places in
}that party without at least splitting the pro-life vote. This produces
}such absurdities as Bob Dole proclaiming that he hasn't read the party
}platform in order the sheild himself from charges of extremism. The
}consensus of opinion among Republic polsters is that while it might be
}beneficial to try to characterize an opponent as going to extremes in
}advocating for abortion on demand, it is a major loser to suggest that you
}would support the repeal of Roe vs. Wade or would advocate outlawing
}abortion.
And why do they exibit this sublime hysteria? I hope you're
not foolish enough to think it's because they go into tremors over
losing their precious rights. Radical feminists or simple neurotics
no doubt do. However, I would guess the real culprit to be something
quite different.
}
}Naturally, everyone at the University of Washington endorses all of
}my opinions. Please feel free to hold them accountable.
Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corporation, et al)
Bob Tiernan
On 3 Dec 1996, Al Billings wrote:
> And you know what? The laws that they fought to protect, along with the
> people and the culture, say that Abortion is legal.
Let's just say that they fought for rights, rather than "laws".
Bob T.
Al Billings
Well, I see Papa Jack finally learned to use a web browser...
Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
: In a previous post, I asked Al what he had done to EARN his American
: citizenship. Then I noticed his home page code and went there for
: a looksee. If you feel like WASTING a few minutes you might go there.
[ snip ]
:
: If you don't have time, here's a brief summary:
:
[ snip ]
: He claims his politics follows some sort of revolutionary band
: who issued a manifesto which includes the following:
Actually, this is incorrect. What I said (before I posted their
manifesto) was:
"I'm going to have some of my political thoughts here in the next few
days. Until I can add more information on my beliefs and opinions
concerning the world and how it functions, I thought I would begin with
something from the ĄTchKunG! web page. This is a local Seattle band
that is quite cool. They also happen to have their heads screwed on pretty
fuckin' straight."
Not quite the same as what you said, Jack.
: A great deal of Al's home page deals with his following of
: various pagan religions. He progressed from Wicca (witchcraft)
: to Asatru (a form of Germanic paganism) and became a Godman
: (Priest) in the Ring of Troth. Al currently is a Lokamadhr
: (Loki's Man).
At least you got this somewhat correct. You left out the seven year
period of this progression but that's ok.
He says:
:
: In reality, we are serious about our worship of Loki though
: our attitudes towards worship and him may differ than what
: you would expect....We aim for the same and to bring out
: those aspects of ourselves that society doesn't approve of
: and which it sees as "subversive" or "undesirable" because
: they don't adhere to the social order that others wish to
: impose on us all.
:
: A note to Gary VanderMolen: I think you can safely totally dis-
: regard anything this flake has to say -- particularly about your
: patriotism. He simply has no concept of loyalty or patriotism.
I have plenty of loyalty, to my friends and family. I don't have any to
the political institutions that I had no say in creating. Those are my
politics. I suppose one has to support the status quo to exist in your
world, Jack.
: He is the sort you want to keep out of the military because they
: sabotage their own side for the fun of it.
Perhaps they would keep me out because I don't believe in killing people
just because some asshole at the Pentagon says we should because "our
country demands it" or some crap like that?
--
===================================================================
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your
ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-Howard Aiken
Al Billings http://www.memoria.com/alb/
Robert Duniway
In article <32A4A1...@express-news.net>,
>
>Papa Jack comments:
>Actually, you're only partly right, Gary. Most Americans are
>not Pro-Death like Al -- that's only among the "ME" "ME" "ME"
>"ME" generation. They are spoiled brats, they take and take and
>give nothing back.
Al's pro-death? Gee, his daughter will be surprised to hear that.
--
Bob Duniway dun...@u.washington.edu (206)547-7000
Naturally, everyone at the University of Washington endorses all of
Robert Duniway
In article <32A4BA...@express-news.net>,
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>Al Billings wrote:
>>
>> Robert Duniway (dun...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>
>> : In article <32A349...@express-news.net>,
>> : Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>> : >ROTFLMA0!!
>
> =========================================================
>> : ROTFLMAO?
>
> =========================================================
>Papa Jack laughed:
>Do you always "feed" Al his straight lines, Bob? I learned what
>ROTFLMAO meant the 2nd day I started commenting on the WWW.
You must be very proud. I assumed you knew what it meant. That was part
of the point. Oh, and of course I consult Al before posting, and we work
out our comedy routine.
> =========================================================
>> Al Billings wrote:
>> Rolling On The Floor, Laughing My Ass Off.
>
>> Papa Jack can use profanities too, he just has to hide them.
>
> =========================================================
>Papa Jack remarked:
>I know all the words, Al. I can say shit, fuck, jack-off, and all
>those other childish profanities. I simply don't chose to do so
>unless I have a reason.
Neither do I. I said you were Jacking off in public because it was the
most appropriate metaphore for what you were doing. I still stand by
that.
>One day when you finish growing up you will understand cussing
>doesn't prove your manhood. Rather, it proves you [sic] level of intel-
>lectual functioning. You seem to be a bit retarded in this parti-
>cular measure of maturity.
Well, considering you probably know as much about Al as you do about me,
and we've all seen how little that is, your opinion of his maturity is
little more than another straight line. I thought I was the one who got
to feed Al straight lines.
>Have a nice day.
Oh Jack, how could we possibly have a nice day knowing that you think
we're immature?
Robert Duniway
In article <581gh5$b...@Holly.aa.net>, Gwen Nelson <col...@aa.net> wrote:
>Organization: Alternate Access Inc. - Affordable, Reliable Internet Access
>Distribution:
>
>Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
>
>: =========================================================
>: > Gwen Nelson wrote:
>: > Gary,
>: > I am curious.
>: > Do you believe that Papa Jack's posts have evidenced civility
>: > and good manners? Do you believe that your own have? Bob's
>: > metaphore, while crude, seems to me quite accurate.
>
>: =========================================================
>: Papa Jack comments:
>: I see you prefer the crude and obscene to the truth. I realize the
>: "ME" "ME" generation.
Jack, you seem to assume that is a dichotomy. What about crude and/or
obscene expressions of the truth? For example, when I said you were
Jacking off in public because you pumped yourself up and warned me that
you might not "go easy" on me next time, it was the truth. You were
stroking yourself in public, and you got called for it.
>
>: Let's see now, Gwen, whose posts should I read to learn to learn
>: civility and good manners? Obviously Bob's are too crude. Which
>: of these Pro-Abortion Righters (PARs) would you suggest:
Gwen didn't say you should emulate anyone. She said you were not an
example of civility and good manners. You aren't, and you know it.
You're also getting pretty pathetic with your attempts to dismiss me. You
would much rather try to dismiss me than debate me, which is
understandable, but pretty obvious to thoses lurkers you thought you were
convincing.
>: Would you prefer that I emulate these wonderful folks? ROTFLMA0!!
>
>Actually what I was suggesting is that you are not yourself worthy of
>emulation. Your apparent inability to post without gratuitous insult is
>matched only by your remarkable ability to stereotype just about anyone
>who finds you objectionable. The fact that the stereotypes are grotesquely
>inaccurate is lost on you but not on your audience.
>
>Gwen
Gwen, don't you think it is also matched by his equally remarkable
abilities to miss the point of other peoples posts, and to post
hilariously ironic bits of self parady while apparently missing the joke?
You are selling him short, IMO.
>"I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you.
>Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation.
>We have a biblical duty; we are called on by God to
>conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We
>don't want pluralism."
> - Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue
Do you have the source for this quote? I'd love to have that on file.
Al Billings
Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
: What have YOU done to deserve YOUR citizenship Al?
: Come on, tell us what a great war hero YOU are.
I haven't done anything to deserve my citizenship and you know what? I
don't have to. I was born here. In the long run, governments come and go.
I don't have to be some naive soldier boy to have a right to live where I
was born.
You military types are so predictable (as least the self rightous ones).
I have family that served in the military and that was there choice. They
have theirs and I have mine. You need a severe reality check if you think
the only people who have the right to live here or speak out are those
that become part of the military. Besides, the military serves those that
run it, not the people. Try to tell me that my uncle really needed to be
in Vietnam or that Korea was something that the US should have bothered
with. The American people deserve better than what the assholes in DC
decide we deserve.
Gary VanderMolen
Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article <582avt$l...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
> Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
>
> : > Gary VanderMolen wrote:
> : > What did YOU do to earn your US citizenship?
> :
> : ======================================================
> : Papa Jack comments:
> : Bet both Al and Steven duck this question.
>
> sides, has been here more than 350 years. We lost family in the
> Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I had family that fought in WWI,
> WWII, and Vietnam.
As I suspected, you personally did NOTHING to earn your citizenship.
You have no right to question my devotion to this country.
Gary VanderMolen
> sorry but Abortion has been legal for the vast majority of my life. It's
> time for old farts like yourself to realize that you aren't in touch with
> the American people (if you ever were) anymore and look at what the
> generations that came after you have to say about these issues.
I see from your web page that you are barely 25 years old.
That explains the immaturity I've seen in your posts.
Wisdom comes with maturity. In another 15-20 years you'll realize that
people in my age group are really wise after all!
Shaun Patrick Darragh
Hey Jack,
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
<snip>
> =========================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>What have YOU done to deserve YOUR citizenship Al?
Last time I looked at the Constitution, Al doesn't need to do more
than be born in this country to deserve HIS citizenship. Is this
really tough for you to grasp?
>Come on, tell us what a great war hero YOU are.
Must one be a war hero in order to be a citizen? I'm against war and
killing other human beings, Jack. IMHO there is no such thing as a
war "hero." Such a title connotes glory...war is *never* glorious....
Does this mean that I can't be a citizen? What a silly and morally
reprehensible position you've staked out for yourself here. Are you
sure you really wish to continue holding this position?
BTW, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would consider
participation in the Vietnam War to confer automatic heroism. I guess
burning kids and women in My Lai was pretty damned heroic...
>Tell us what you've ever done besides demand more "rights" for YOU.
We don't need to demand rights, in the main. Those rights are already
recognized for most folks. Some groups like gays are still waiting
for a full franchise, but that's coming inexorably. Those full rights
can't come soon enough, IMHO. If existing rights are not respected,
then demanding their respect is fully consistent with American
political philosophy...at least as envisioned by Jefferson...
>--
>{ Papa Jack
>{
>{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack
> "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
> men are created equal; that they are endowed by
> their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
> among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
Please stop misquoting Mr. Jefferson. If you are going to attribute
words to Jefferson, at least use the words he wrote, not those heavily
edited by the Continental Congress...
Shaun
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
If Bill Clinton were to walk across the Potomac tomorrow, right wingers would
accuse him of refusing to bathe.....
"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eyes of Reason."
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard 1758
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <582avt$l...@eve.speakeasy.org> mi...@speakeasy.org (Al Billings)
writes:
>Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
>
>: > Gary VanderMolen wrote:
>: > What did YOU do to earn your US citizenship?
>:
>: ======================================================
>: Papa Jack comments:
>: Bet both Al and Steven duck this question.
>
> No need to duck it. I was BORN here. It's my country. My family, on
both
>sides, has been here more than 350 years. We lost family in the
>Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I had family that fought in WWI,
>WWII, and Vietnam.
And I can say the same of myself and my family. I work hard, pay my
taxes to support financially this government you support so servilely,
and vote against pro-lifers like you and others who attack my
hard-earned freedoms.
--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia
Patrick L. Humphrey
In article <01bbe1a4$a3941e20$0100007f@localhost> "Gary VanderMolen" <gary...@cris.com> writes:
#Al Billings <mi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article <582avt$l...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
#> Papa Jack (papa...@express-news.net) wrote:
#>
#> : > Gary VanderMolen wrote:
#> : > What did YOU do to earn your US citizenship?
#> :
#> : ======================================================
#> : Papa Jack comments:
#> : Bet both Al and Steven duck this question.
#>
#> No need to duck it. I was BORN here. It's my country. My family, on both
#> sides, has been here more than 350 years. We lost family in the
#> Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I had family that fought in WWI,
#> WWII, and Vietnam.
#As I suspected, you personally did NOTHING to earn your citizenship.
He did something...he was BORN here. Whether you like it or not, that's all
that's required. If you don't like it, tough.
#You have no right to question my devotion to this country.
He's got exactly as much right to do that as you do to question his
citizenship. So what are YOU whining about?
--PLH, I'm from Texas...what country are YOU from?