It seems your Claims of Overwhelming support are gravely mistaken

Truth

unread,

Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00

to

43% For Abortion
57% AGAINST

I guess facts are rarely posted in this mindless group of baby-killers and
masochists. Here you go Craig, hate women even more with this poll.

POLL-U.S. Support for Legalized Abortion Declines
June 18, 2000 6:50 am EST

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - U.S. public support for the landmark Supreme Court
ruling that legalized abortion has fallen in recent years, and a majority of
Americans believe abortion is murder, according to a Los Angeles Times poll
published on Sunday.

The Times said many of the poll's findings appeared contradictory, but
quoted a researcher as saying that while Americans personally disliked the
idea of abortion, they believed in allowing people to make their own
individual choices.

The poll found that 43 percent of respondents expressed support for the more
than quarter-century-old Roe vs. Wade ruling, compared to 56 percent who
supported the ruling in a similar poll in 1991, the Times reported. The poll
found that more than half of those questioned said abortion should be
illegal in all circumstances or legal only in cases of rape, incest or when
a woman's life is in danger, the Times added.

But the survey found that more than two-thirds of respondents said that
regardless of their person view on the matter, the decision to terminate a
pregnancy should be left to a woman and her doctor, the Times said.

It also found that while 57 percent of respondents said they considered
abortion to be murder, more than half of that group agreed that a woman
should have a right to choose to have an abortion. The poll also found
continued opposition to a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

The Times said that one reason cited for the softening of U.S. public
support for legalized abortions is that a proportionately smaller number of
Americans remembers the days when abortions were outlawed.

The poll involved interviews with 2,071 Americans conducted from June 8-13
and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points, the Times
said.

Craig Chilton

unread,

Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00

to

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:30:17 -0400,
Anonymous Coward "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I guess facts are rarely posted in this mindless group of baby-killers
> and masochists.

Facts are CONSTANTLY posted in this group. If you're too obtuse
or ignorant to see that, that's YOUR problem. You're so dumb, you
don't even know that this group has NOTHING to do with babies (much
less killing them) or masochism. No wonder you post anonymously, thus
proving you don't actually have the courage of your convictions. If
they saw your posts, even your friends (what few of them you may have)
would probably laugh at you.

> Here you go Craig, hate women even more with this poll.

YOU keep on hating them, as you so admirably prove that you do.
*I*, on the other hand, will continue to SUPPORT and DEFEND them from
control freaks such as you.

And boy, are you about to wish you hadn't posted THIS poll!
ROTFL!!!

> POLL-U.S. Support for Legalized Abortion Declines
> June 18, 2000 6:50 am EST

<snip>

Let's cut to the chase. What is IMPORTANT isn't so much the
"feelings" of some people about abortion. It's the degree to which
people are FAIR-MINDED, vs. being willing to be control freaks...

> But the survey found that more than two-thirds of respondents said that
> regardless of their person view on the matter, the decision to terminate a
> pregnancy should be left to a woman and her doctor, the Times said.

THERE is the significant 2-1 support for abortion RIGHTS that I've
been citing for years. By a 2/3 majority, there is NO willingness on
the part of the American people to INTERFERE with women's right to
make this choice.

> It also found that while 57 percent of respondents said they considered
> abortion to be murder, more than half of that group agreed that a woman
> should have a right to choose to have an abortion.

Obviously, over HALF of that 57% cited above does NOT *really*
regard abortion to be murder, since virtually no Americans condone
actual murders of people who have been born. (What's surprising is
that ANY person would regard the termination of a non-sentient z/e/f
-- which the the equivalent of sperm and ova -- to be wrong to ANY
degree. Just proves that ignorance still abounds to SOME degree, with
a small percentage of people. But we already knew that. If it
weren't true, there would be NO Anti-Choicers. Being Anti-Choice
requires the DENIAL of all relevant facts.)

> The poll also found continued opposition to a constitutional
> amendment to ban abortion.

Very heartening that a MAJORITY of Americans feel THAT way, since
it requires a TWO-THIRDS majority (i.e., in the OTHER direction!) to
pass such an amendment. As long as Americans remain decently-
educated, and keep being fair-minded, the USA will NEVER face the
threat of such a heinous amendment.

> The Times said that one reason cited for the softening of U.S. public
> support for legalized abortions is that a proportionately smaller number of
> Americans remembers the days when abortions were outlawed.

THIS tells us something very valuable: That Pro-Choicers and
Pro-Choice activists need to REMIND the American people of JUST what
the Bad Old Days prior to Roe vs. Wade really were like. This is a
VERY helpful wake-up call for us freedom-fighters! Just as we must
never allow the world to forget the Holocaust, lest it someday could
be repeated, we ALSO need to remind people of the repression of that
dark era, when women were FORCED to give birth against their will --
or flee to a freer country for abortion (when wealthy enough) -- or
risk their lives with back-alley providers armed with coat-hangers.
Or pay through the nose to a safe doctor willing to do it, by going
through a clandestine "underground railway"-like system, fearing
gestapo-like detection every step of the way.

> The poll involved interviews with 2,071 Americans conducted from
> June 8-13 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage
> points, the Times said.

Sounds like an accurate poll. And as we see above... in it's most
important aspects... quite VALUABLE to the fair-minded people of
America who are Pro-Choice! AND quite supportive!

-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"It is generally true that posters who are willing to
use their own names and have e-mail addresses which
can reach them tend to post less drivel than those who
obviously recognise their own failings and therefore
refuse to post under their own names."

--Moira de Swardt, 1/28/2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Alexander Jamison

unread,

Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00

to

In article <8iibff$98m$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, "Truth"
<nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I guess facts are rarely posted in this mindless group of baby-killers

> and masochists. Here you go Craig, hate women even more with this poll.

> 43% For Abortion
> 57% AGAINST
>

You canąt even tell the facts while claiming people (other than you)
donąt tell the facts! Is this what the poll said? 43% were FOR
abortion? Or did you make that up? Wasnąt the poll about choice?
Did they ask łare you FOR abortion?˛

Stop bitching about how facts arenąt posted. From what Iąve seen.
Pro-choice advocates post facts and their opinions. Pro-lifers post
articles theyąve cut from questionable sources on the Internet and
offer distortions and lies. Kind of like you did here by claiming
43% are for abortion. I believe the reason they cut this material is
simply that they havenąt really thought about the issues (they donąt
REALLY care, they just want to force women to give birth against
their will), and cutting from pro-life propaganda is easy and
mindless, which really appeals to pro-lifers.

nobody

unread,

Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00

to

That poll only shows that 43%/57% of PEOPLE POLLED felt that way.

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8iibff$98m$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...

> 43% For Abortion
> 57% AGAINST
>
> I guess facts are rarely posted in this mindless group of baby-killers and
> masochists. Here you go Craig, hate women even more with this poll.
>
>
>

> POLL-U.S. Support for Legalized Abortion Declines
> June 18, 2000 6:50 am EST
>
>

> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - U.S. public support for the landmark Supreme Court
> ruling that legalized abortion has fallen in recent years, and a majority
of
> Americans believe abortion is murder, according to a Los Angeles Times
poll
> published on Sunday.
>
> The Times said many of the poll's findings appeared contradictory, but
> quoted a researcher as saying that while Americans personally disliked the
> idea of abortion, they believed in allowing people to make their own
> individual choices.
>
> The poll found that 43 percent of respondents expressed support for the
more
> than quarter-century-old Roe vs. Wade ruling, compared to 56 percent who
> supported the ruling in a similar poll in 1991, the Times reported. The
poll
> found that more than half of those questioned said abortion should be
> illegal in all circumstances or legal only in cases of rape, incest or
when
> a woman's life is in danger, the Times added.
>

> But the survey found that more than two-thirds of respondents said that
> regardless of their person view on the matter, the decision to terminate a
> pregnancy should be left to a woman and her doctor, the Times said.
>

> It also found that while 57 percent of respondents said they considered
> abortion to be murder, more than half of that group agreed that a woman

> should have a right to choose to have an abortion. The poll also found

> continued opposition to a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
>

> The Times said that one reason cited for the softening of U.S. public
> support for legalized abortions is that a proportionately smaller number
of
> Americans remembers the days when abortions were outlawed.
>

Christopher Kerrissey

unread,

Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00

to

who are you to assert you should or anyone should have the "choice
" to savagely butcher another innocent human ?
"Alexander Jamison" <aja...@sterling.com> wrote in message
news:ajamis-23F0CF....@news.visi.com...

> In article <8iibff$98m$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, "Truth"
> <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>

> > I guess facts are rarely posted in this mindless group of baby-killers
> > and masochists. Here you go Craig, hate women even more with this poll.
>
> > 43% For Abortion
> > 57% AGAINST
> >
>

John Rennie

unread,

Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8iibff$98m$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...

> 43% For Abortion
> 57% AGAINST
>
> I guess facts are rarely posted in this mindless group of baby-killers and
> masochists. Here you go Craig, hate women even more with this poll.
>
>
>

I appears from the above that the results of the Poll are not
fully stated:

They should be:

43% For Abortion
57% AGAINST

67% PRO-CHOICE

I repeat the salient paragraph:

Truth

unread,

Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00

to

As I expected, No facts, just childish mindless insults and practiced rants.
Typical babykiller response.

"Craig Chilton" <xana...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3960d106.262581109@news...

> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:30:17 -0400,
> Anonymous Coward "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>

My name is Mason Parker. I will not accept spam but you babykillers love to
get porno/bestiality spam.

Try putting some facts in there and increase your IQ about 100 points so we
don't have to use a Gorilla to interpret your grunts.

Alexander Jamison

unread,

Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00

to

In article <skq9i7s...@corp.supernews.com>, "Christopher
Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:

> who are you to assert you should or anyone should have the
> "choice
> " to savagely butcher another innocent human ?

Who are you to say that abortion is savagely butchering an innocent
human? The courts donšt say it. The citizens of the United States
of America donšt say it. Who are you to say that because your
thinking on the issue is in error, the rest of the country should
follow?

Alexander Jamison

unread,

Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00

to

In article <8ijob5$anm$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, "Truth"
<nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> As I expected, No facts, just childish mindless insults and practiced
> rants.
> Typical babykiller response.

Why? Because we didnšt go out and cut and paste someone elses
opinion and take credit for it?

Here are your facts - Now go away...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/surveys/2000/topline000113/q14t15.asp

Craig Chilton

unread,

Jun 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/19/00

to

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:11:50 -0400,
Mason Parker wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@home.com> wrote:

>> Mason Parker -- FORMERLY Anonymous Coward "Truth" -- wrote:

>>> I guess facts are rarely posted in this mindless group of baby-killers
>>> and masochists.

>> Facts are CONSTANTLY posted in this group. If you're too obtuse

>> or ignorant to see that, that's YOUR problem. You're so dumb, you
>> don't even know that this group has NOTHING to do with babies (much
>> less killing them) or masochism. No wonder you post anonymously, thus
>> proving you don't actually have the courage of your convictions. If
>> they saw your posts, even your friends (what few of them you may have)
>> would probably laugh at you.

>>> Here you go Craig, hate women even more with this poll.

>> YOU keep on hating them, as you so admirably prove that you do.

>> *I*, on the other hand, will continue to SUPPORT and DEFEND them from
>> control freaks such as you.
>>
>> And boy, are you about to wish you hadn't posted THIS poll!
>> ROTFL!!!

>>> POLL-U.S. Support for Legalized Abortion Declines

>>> June 18, 2000 6:50 am EST

>><snip>

>> Let's cut to the chase. What is IMPORTANT isn't so much the
>> "feelings" of some people about abortion. It's the degree to which
>> people are FAIR-MINDED, vs. being willing to be control freaks...

>>> But the survey found that more than two-thirds of respondents said that

>>> regardless of their person view on the matter, the decision to terminate a
>>> pregnancy should be left to a woman and her doctor, the Times said.

>> THERE is the significant 2-1 support for abortion RIGHTS that I've

>> been citing for years. By a 2/3 majority, there is NO willingness on
>> the part of the American people to INTERFERE with women's right to
>> make this choice.

>>> It also found that while 57 percent of respondents said they considered

>>> abortion to be murder, more than half of that group agreed that a woman
>>> should have a right to choose to have an abortion.

>> Obviously, over HALF of that 57% cited above does NOT *really*

>> regard abortion to be murder, since virtually no Americans condone
>> actual murders of people who have been born. (What's surprising is
>> that ANY person would regard the termination of a non-sentient z/e/f
>> -- which the the equivalent of sperm and ova -- to be wrong to ANY
>> degree. Just proves that ignorance still abounds to SOME degree, with
>> a small percentage of people. But we already knew that. If it
>> weren't true, there would be NO Anti-Choicers. Being Anti-Choice
>> requires the DENIAL of all relevant facts.)

>>> The poll also found continued opposition to a constitutional
>>> amendment to ban abortion.

>> Very heartening that a MAJORITY of Americans feel THAT way, since

>> it requires a TWO-THIRDS majority (i.e., in the OTHER direction!) to
>> pass such an amendment. As long as Americans remain decently-
>> educated, and keep being fair-minded, the USA will NEVER face the
>> threat of such a heinous amendment.

>>> The Times said that one reason cited for the softening of U.S. public

>>> support for legalized abortions is that a proportionately smaller number of
>>> Americans remembers the days when abortions were outlawed.

>> THIS tells us something very valuable: That Pro-Choicers and

>> Pro-Choice activists need to REMIND the American people of JUST
>> what the Bad Old Days prior to Roe vs. Wade really were like. This is
>> a VERY helpful wake-up call for us freedom-fighters! Just as we must
>> never allow the world to forget the Holocaust, lest it someday could
>> be repeated, we ALSO need to remind people of the repression of that
>> dark era, when women were FORCED to give birth against their will --
>> or flee to a freer country for abortion (when wealthy enough) -- or
>> risk their lives with back-alley providers armed with coat-hangers.
>> Or pay through the nose to a safe doctor willing to do it, by going
>> through a clandestine "underground railway"-like system, fearing
>> gestapo-like detection every step of the way.

>>> The poll involved interviews with 2,071 Americans conducted from

>>> June 8-13 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage
>>> points, the Times said.

>> Sounds like an accurate poll. And as we see above... in it's most

>> important aspects... quite VALUABLE to the fair-minded people of
>> America who are Pro-Choice! AND quite supportive!

> As I expected, No facts, just childish mindless insults and practiced rants.
> Typical babykiller response.

You stupidly OMITTED my entire response from our last post --
above -- from THIS post. NOT very bright of you. Because I restored
it, above, so that everyone can see what a LIAR you are. (And talk
about "childish" -- calling people "babykillers" when this topic has
NOTHING to do with babies is as childish -- or downright ignorant --
as it gets. Take your pick.)

> My name is Mason Parker.

To give you credit where it's due, you would have boosted your
credibility significantly -- at least in terms of not being regarded a
coward, if nothing else -- by putting your name behind your words.
(I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's your real
name, and not just a pseudonym, until and unless proven otherwise.
Since you're prone to lying, the readers will have to keep the
possibility that you faked your name in mind.)

Too bad you had to do yourself more DAMAGE, though, by making the
totally INANE and LYING statement below...

> I will not accept spam but you [Pro-Choicers] love to get
> porno/bestiality spam.

Such a statement as that is SO asinine, I'm tempted to question
your sanity. Where did you ever get to idiotic a notion?

> Try putting some facts in there and increase your IQ about 100 points
> so we don't have to use a Gorilla to interpret your grunts.

I DID, moron. All RESTORED, above, proving what a blatant LIAR
you are.

By the way, I LOVED that poll you posted. It blew up so
spectacularly right in your Anti-Choice face. Got any MORE of 'em?

-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Do you suppose that you're the first whiner to resort to stupid
lies when you ran out of credible arguments?"

-- Ray Fischer, 3/22/2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Ron Nicholson

unread,

unread,

Jun 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/20/00

to

i am who i am and i say it

"Alexander Jamison" <aja...@sterling.com> wrote in message

news:ajamis-507E10....@news.visi.com...

> In article <skq9i7s...@corp.supernews.com>, "Christopher

> Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
>
> > who are you to assert you should or anyone should have the
> > "choice
> > " to savagely butcher another innocent human ?
>

Christopher Kerrissey

unread,

Jun 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/20/00

to

thankfully for any potential babies you are not able to carry
one .

"Ron Nicholson" <ba...@home.com> wrote in message
news:394E20B3...@home.com...
>
>

> Christopher Kerrissey wrote:
>
> > who are you to assert you should or anyone should have the
"choice
> > " to savagely butcher another innocent human ?
>

Christopher Kerrissey

unread,

Jun 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/20/00

to

prove it
<mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:js1tks0lftqeg1lol...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:17:22 -0400, "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> in
> <8ilv3v$5f8$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> wrote:
>
> >"Ron Nicholson" <ba...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:394E20B3...@home.com...

> >> A human being.
> >>
> >> Who, like it or not, will defend my body when it is being used without
my
> >> express and ongoing consent -- without or without lethal force.
> >>
> >
> >

> >I think we have a winner for the quote for use on a "Looney Abortion
Loving
> >Nut" Poster. You are a lunatic, I think they made a movie about you
didn't
> >they? Something about "A crazy lunatic is in my house and he says the
crazed
> >chocolate covered elephants are chasing him back in time to the year
1979".
> >Goodness, how are you people allowed to walk the streets?
> >
>

> Because they are in the majority.

Christopher Kerrissey

unread,

Jun 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/20/00

to

who speaks for the developing life?

<mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:7t3rks4vh50ci895a...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:30:17 -0400, "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> in
> <8iibff$98m$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net> wrote:
>
> >43% For Abortion
> >57% AGAINST
>

> This is a clear example of how raw numbers are useless. Thy are
> contradicted by the additional information posted.

>
> >
> >I guess facts are rarely posted in this mindless group of baby-killers
and

> >masochists. Here you go Craig, hate women even more with this poll.

> >
> >
> >
> >POLL-U.S. Support for Legalized Abortion Declines
> >June 18, 2000 6:50 am EST
> >
> >

> >LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - U.S. public support for the landmark Supreme
Court
> >ruling that legalized abortion has fallen in recent years, and a majority
of
> >Americans believe abortion is murder, according to a Los Angeles Times
poll
> >published on Sunday.
> >
> >The Times said many of the poll's findings appeared contradictory, but
> >quoted a researcher as saying that while Americans personally disliked
the
> >idea of abortion, they believed in allowing people to make their own
> >individual choices.
>

> That sounds familiar. The part about letting people make their own

> choices.
>
> >
> >The poll found that 43 percent of respondents expressed support for the
more
> >than quarter-century-old Roe vs. Wade ruling, compared to 56 percent who
> >supported the ruling in a similar poll in 1991, the Times reported. The
poll
> >found that more than half of those questioned said abortion should be
> >illegal in all circumstances or legal only in cases of rape, incest or
when
> >a woman's life is in danger, the Times added.
> >

> >But the survey found that more than two-thirds of respondents said that
> >regardless of their person view on the matter, the decision to terminate
a
> >pregnancy should be left to a woman and her doctor, the Times said.
>

> That sounds reasonable. If you prefer one course or the other then
> take that course. What's wrong with that?

>
> >
> >It also found that while 57 percent of respondents said they considered
> >abortion to be murder, more than half of that group agreed that a woman

> >should have a right to choose to have an abortion. The poll also found

> >continued opposition to a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
>

> That seems to show the lack of dictionary access.

>
> >
> >The Times said that one reason cited for the softening of U.S. public
> >support for legalized abortions is that a proportionately smaller number
of
> >Americans remembers the days when abortions were outlawed.
>

> Try to take away that right and see what happens to the numbers.

>
> >
> >The poll involved interviews with 2,071 Americans conducted from June
8-13
> >and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points, the Times
> >said.
>

> It didn't mention that every attempt to restrict the freedom of choice
> at the voting booth has failed.

Truth

unread,

Jun 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/20/00

to

"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr99s...@fnord.io.com...

> No, least of all the lobotomy patient calling himself "Truth"...

You'd think this sick weirdo would have had enough abortion talk for a
lifetime. He's been posting here for at least 10 years. I still remember
kicking his behind debating him when I still used a BBS to access
newsgroups. He's a loser and idiot. He declares victory after he is proven
wrong and dances around patting himself on the back and somewhere else as he
envision millions of dead babies as his fever rises until he bursts into a
frenzy of babykiller orgasm dreams. C'mon PLH, post another 10000 hate
filled messages this year! LOL! What a lifeless loser!

Truth

unread,

Jun 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/20/00

to

"Alexander Jamison" <aja...@sterling.com> wrote in message

news:ajamis-9B2C85....@news.visi.com...

> In article <8ilv3v$5f8$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Truth"
> <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>

> > I think we have a winner for the quote for use on a "Looney Abortion
> > Loving
> > Nut" Poster. You are a lunatic, I think they made a movie about you
> > didn't
> > they? Something about "A crazy lunatic is in my house and he says the
> > crazed
> > chocolate covered elephants are chasing him back in time to the year
> > 1979".
> > Goodness, how are you people allowed to walk the streets?
>

> Does anyone know what he means by this?

If you do not see what Ron posted as the writings of a disturbed mind,
you'll never understand it.

Ron Nicholson

unread,

Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00

to

Christopher Kerrissey wrote:

> thankfully for any potential babies you are not able to carry
> one .

Oh, go away before someone drops a house on you.

Ron Nicholson

unread,

Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00

to

Truth wrote:

Careful. I vote.

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00

to

"Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> writes:

>"Alexander Jamison" <aja...@sterling.com> wrote in message

>news:ajamis-507E10....@news.visi.com...
>> In article <skq9i7s...@corp.supernews.com>, "Christopher

>> Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:

>> > who are you to assert you should or anyone should have the
>> > "choice
>> > " to savagely butcher another innocent human ?

>> Who are you to say that abortion is savagely butchering an innocent

>> human? The courts donšt say it. The citizens of the United States
>> of America donšt say it. Who are you to say that because your
>> thinking on the issue is in error, the rest of the country should
>> follow?

>i am who i am and i say it

You're a clueless feeb, and I say that.

--PLH, spot the difference

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szkr99s...@fnord.io.com...
>> No, least of all the lobotomy patient calling himself "Truth"...

>You'd think this sick weirdo would have had enough abortion talk for a
>lifetime. He's been posting here for at least 10 years.

You can count that high? (You're close -- I've been here since 1989,
which is eleven years by most people's math.)

>I still remember kicking his behind debating him when I still used a
>BBS to access newsgroups.

Funny, I don't remember you, but then the more virulent anti-abort loons
tend to act alike anyway...and some of you tend to remember a lot of
things that never happened in this universe.

>He's a loser and idiot.

Yeah, the nerve of me, being a pro-choice parent and grandparent -- and
not hiding behind some third-grade alias like a brave anti-abort
lunatic. What's the world coming to?

>He declares victory after he is proven wrong and dances around patting
>himself on the back and somewhere else as he envision millions of dead
>babies as his fever rises until he bursts into a frenzy of babykiller
>orgasm dreams. C'mon PLH, post another 10000 hate filled messages this
>year! LOL! What a lifeless loser!

Yeah, I'm such a lifeless loser I'm heading up to see the in-laws in
South Dakota next week, and I'll be updating the gallery pages at
http://is.rice.edu/~patrick/newgallery.html when I get back with some
new pictures of the grandchildren (and probably a couple of me and
Dale). I'm such a loser I can put my real name on what I post while
laughing at nut-hatch escapees like you, who don't even believe your own
bullshit enough to put your real name on the garbage you post. I'm such
a loser I hide from you schmucks...in plain sight.

--PLH, livin' la vida buena

Truth

unread,

Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00

to

"Ron Nicholson" <ba...@home.com> wrote in message

news:39509EAD...@home.com...
> Careful. I vote.
>

How else could Clinton have ever been elected?

Truth

unread,

Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00

to

"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message

news:szkya3z...@fnord.io.com...
> "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:
<snip[>

> Yeah, I'm such a lifeless loser I'm heading up to see the in-laws in
> South Dakota next week, and I'll be updating the gallery pages at
> http://is.rice.edu/~patrick/newgallery.html when I get back with some
> new pictures of the grandchildren (and probably a couple of me and
> Dale). I'm such a loser I can put my real name on what I post while
> laughing at nut-hatch escapees like you, who don't even believe your own
> bullshit enough to put your real name on the garbage you post. I'm such
> a loser I hide from you schmucks...in plain sight.
>
> --PLH, livin' la vida buena

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! LOSER!!!!

How else can you explain spending so much time each day in this newsgroup
posting the SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER FOR 11
YEARS!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOSER!!

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

Well, there are two pro-choice voters in this household -- neither of
whom have ever voted for Clinton or Gore.

--PLH, so much for that stupid generalization, eh?

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szkya3z...@fnord.io.com...
>> "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

><snip[>

>> Yeah, I'm such a lifeless loser I'm heading up to see the in-laws in
>> South Dakota next week, and I'll be updating the gallery pages at
>> http://is.rice.edu/~patrick/newgallery.html when I get back with some
>> new pictures of the grandchildren (and probably a couple of me and
>> Dale). I'm such a loser I can put my real name on what I post while
>> laughing at nut-hatch escapees like you, who don't even believe your own
>> bullshit enough to put your real name on the garbage you post. I'm such
>> a loser I hide from you schmucks...in plain sight.
>>
>> --PLH, livin' la vida buena

>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! LOSER!!!!

Wow. That really refutes everything I've ever typed.

>How else can you explain spending so much time each day in this newsgroup
>posting the SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER FOR 11
>YEARS!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOSER!!

Even in the unlikely event there was any truth to that fairy tale of
yours, what would that say about you -- since you'd have had to have
been watching me all that time, no?

You know, there _are_ respectable pro-lifers out there -- and I doubt
they'd appreciate someone with the emotional development of a
five-year-old speaking for them, as you're doing your damnedest to do.

--PLH, me, I just get to sit back and watch you machine-gun yourself in
the foot...have fun, Hopalong!

unread,

Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00

to

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:44:59 -0400,
"Truth" <Cluele...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>> "Truth" <Cluele...@mindspring.com> wrote:

><snip>

>>> After reviewing the Texas Voter Write-ins, Let me
>>> guess......................................."The Cookie Monster"?

>> Sorry, little schmuck...no write-ins. We voted for a candidate who was
>> on the ballot in Texas (and 49 other states). I doubt you'd know the
>> identity of voters casting write-ins, anyway...it doesn't work that way
>> here.
>>
>> --PLH, not expecting much from a moron like "Truth" who thinks he's
>> accomplishing something with 115 lines of "HAHAHAHAHA" -- actually he
>> is, but not anything close to what he thinks he's accomplishing

> hehe! What a loser to actually count the lines!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"COUNT" them? What a loser YOU are, not to even know
the most basic aspects of how newsreaders all work.

Talk about being CLUELESS!

-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

PRO-Choice vis-a-vis Education & Success:
DIRECTLY Proportional !!

It's been well documented that there's a very STRONG positive
correlation between acceptance of abortion, and level of education
achieved. ALSO, between level of income and acceptance of abortion.
This has been borne out by many polls, but one of the more recent is
one conducted in 1998 by The Detroit News:

http://www.detnews.com/1998/metrox/roevwade2/2polls/2polls.htm

Comparison is made between two extremes, for these two variables:
Those who believe that (1) "abortion should be legal only to save the
life of the mother," and (2) "abortion should be legal for any reason
in the first three months."

INCOME: (1) (2)

Under $15k/yr. 25% 25%
$15-45k/yr. 24% 28%
$45-60k/yr. 11% 35%
$60k & over/yr. 17% 44%

EDUCATION: (1) (2)

No Diploma 43.6% 20.5%
High School Grad. 21.2% 26.9%
College Graduates 17.7% 41.5%

It is very interesting that -- consistently, in reliable polls --
we see that the better people are educated, or the more successful
they are, the more accepting of virtually-unrestricted abortion they
become.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Ron Nicholson

unread,

Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00

to

"Patrick L. Humphrey" wrote:

> "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >"Ron Nicholson" <ba...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:39509EAD...@home.com...
> >> Careful. I vote.
>
> >How else could Clinton have ever been elected?
>
> Well, there are two pro-choice voters in this household -- neither of
> whom have ever voted for Clinton or Gore.

Like either had anything to do with Roe, or subsequent decisions.

A little boy and girl were playing one day. The little girl suggest that
they take off their clothes and play doctor. The boy thought a moment
and then said "why don't you spit out your gum and we can play Mr.
President."

Sorry, I thought it was cute.

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szkhfam...@fnord.io.com...
>> "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

><snip>> >After reviewing the Texas Voter Write-ins, Let me
>> >guess......................................."The Cookie Monster"?

>> Sorry, little schmuck...no write-ins. We voted for a candidate who was
>> on the ballot in Texas (and 49 other states). I doubt you'd know the
>> identity of voters casting write-ins, anyway...it doesn't work that way
>> here.

>> --PLH, not expecting much from a moron like "Truth" who thinks he's
>> accomplishing something with 115 lines of "HAHAHAHAHA" -- actually he
>> is, but not anything close to what he thinks he's accomplishing

>hehe! What a loser to actually count the lines!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Speaking of losers, are you seriously claiming that you can't even
figure out *that* much of a newsreader? (Your latest cognitive
dissonance took up 20 lines -- maybe you should look at those article
headers once in a while.)

Keep up the good work, Mason -- with kooks like you bellowing, people
don't need to look too closely to see the advantages of being
pro-choice.

--PLH, not the least of which is an annual cruise on the pro-choice
aircraft carrier :)

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00

to

"nobody" <ver...@hotmail.com> writes:

>"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:8ir9qe$qnn$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...

>[snipped the stupid HAHAHA shit]

>That was some *truly* pathetic spam.

You'll have to forgive Mason -- that was unusually coherent for him.

>You've been watching PLH for 11 years now? So how old are you? I get the
>feeling you are an example of mentality not matching age.. I thought we were
>supposed to be discussing abortion in this ng, not your lack of maturity.

You know that. I know that. But Mason...he's a little slow. (Of
course, if he _has_ been watching me as long as I've had Usenet access,
just think -- I've got something better than Deja News! :-)

--PLH, who'd have thought it?

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00

to

Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> writes:

>"Patrick L. Humphrey" wrote:

>> "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>> >"Ron Nicholson" <ba...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:39509EAD...@home.com...
>> >> Careful. I vote.

>> >How else could Clinton have ever been elected?

>> Well, there are two pro-choice voters in this household -- neither of
>> whom have ever voted for Clinton or Gore.

>Like either had anything to do with Roe, or subsequent decisions.

Well, given the "abilities" Mason's shown us so far, is it any surprise
he still can't get a grasp on that tricky relationship between cause and
effect?

>A little boy and girl were playing one day. The little girl suggest that
>they take off their clothes and play doctor. The boy thought a moment
>and then said "why don't you spit out your gum and we can play Mr.
>President."

>Sorry, I thought it was cute.

;-)

--PLH, what can I say? Bubba earned it

Alexander Jamison

unread,

Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00

to

In article <8ir27u$48u$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, "Truth"
<nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> How else could Clinton have ever been elected?

Yeah. What a terrible president. How much prosperity can this
country take? Besides, President Clinton is far to intelligent for
the Neanderthals in the conservative Christian Right. What we need
is someone who has had nothing to do all his life but party.

It would be far better to have a president like George W. Bush, Jr.,
who was unknown until a couple of years ago but his claim to fame is
that he is the son of a mediocre, one term president, was drunk until
he was 40, was known to repeatedly use cocaine, has no problem
executing 22 people without a second thought, and seems to be totally
ignorant of the issues.

Truth

unread,

Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00

to

"Alexander Jamison" <aja...@sterling.com> wrote in message

news:ajamis-F2BC2A....@news.visi.com...

> In article <8irjjm$lq0$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Truth"
> <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>

> > hehe! What a loser to actually count the lines!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>

> What a twit. Learn to use your computer. Your ignorance is showing.
>
> (Your last post had 20 lines in it, and NO, I didnšt count them.)

It depends on the newsreader, like you using Agent will get the lines but
Outlook and many others do not list it. I've seen idiot boy(PLH) go to even
farther extremes than counting lines to prove his loserdome. Good old loser
boy PLH, a sucker if there ever was one. Can you imagine posting the same 5
posts over and over for 11 years! He hasn't changed a bit, just gotten older
and dumber using the same practiced pro-abortion dribble. He spends at least
2-3 hours a day, every day, writing hate-filled propaganda. Definition Loser
: Pronoun - PLH(See Patrick L Humphrey)

Truth

unread,

Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00

to

"Brainless Woman Hater" <xana...@home.com> wrote in message
news:399bb510.583151777@news...
<snip>> Talk about being CLUELESS!
>
> -- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net

Finally something to agree on. You are clueless!

Truth

unread,

Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00

to

"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message

news:szksnu5...@fnord.io.com...
<snip>>

> Speaking of losers, are you seriously claiming that you can't even
> figure out *that* much of a newsreader? (Your latest cognitive
> dissonance took up 20 lines -- maybe you should look at those article
> headers once in a while.)
>
> Keep up the good work, Mason -- with kooks like you bellowing, people
> don't need to look too closely to see the advantages of being
> pro-choice.
>
> --PLH, not the least of which is an annual cruise on the pro-choice
> aircraft carrier :)

Sorry moron, I forgot that losers like you still use Mac newsreaders. You
are still a ignorant fool.

Alexander Jamison

unread,

Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00

to

In article <8iu3vs$4t6$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, "Truth"
<nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> "Alexander Jamison" <aja...@sterling.com> wrote in message
> news:ajamis-F2BC2A....@news.visi.com...
> > In article <8irjjm$lq0$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Truth"
> > <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > hehe! What a loser to actually count the lines!!
> > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> >
> > What a twit. Learn to use your computer. Your ignorance is
> > showing.
> >

> > (Your last post had 20 lines in it, and NO, I didnąt count them.)

>
> It depends on the newsreader, like you using Agent will get the lines
> but
> Outlook and many others do not list it. I've seen idiot boy(PLH) go to
> even
> farther extremes than counting lines to prove his loserdome. Good old
> loser
> boy PLH, a sucker if there ever was one. Can you imagine posting the
> same 5
> posts over and over for 11 years! He hasn't changed a bit, just gotten
> older
> and dumber using the same practiced pro-abortion dribble. He spends at
> least
> 2-3 hours a day, every day, writing hate-filled propaganda. Definition
> Loser
> : Pronoun - PLH(See Patrick L Humphrey)
>
>

Well, I guess your definition of loser is different than mine. I
believe that when someone comes on a newsgroup with a group of people
and constantly uses terms like łidiot boył, łloserdomeł, łloserboy˛,
and łsucker˛, he shows that he is very immature, doesnąt want to
discuss the issues, and obsessed with making personal attacks in
order to make himself feel good through some sick neuroses, this is a
pretty good definition of your term łloser.ł

Truth

unread,

Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00

to

"Alexander Jamison" <aja...@sterling.com> wrote in message

news:ajamis-4D1BBB....@news.visi.com...

> Well, I guess your definition of loser is different than mine. I
> believe that when someone comes on a newsgroup with a group of people
> and constantly uses terms like łidiot boył, łloserdomeł, łloserboy˛,
> and łsucker˛, he shows that he is very immature, doesnąt want to
> discuss the issues, and obsessed with making personal attacks in
> order to make himself feel good through some sick neuroses, this is a
> pretty good definition of your term łloser.ł

Well to each his own. It doesn't matter what argument is put forth, Craig
and PLH will declare victory no matter how badly they are defeated. They
post the same garbage over and over and when proven wrong, they simply
declare victory and attack whoever defeated them. I think Craig has only
been here about a year or two but PLH is a mainstay. Good old Patty, loves
the dead babies. yeah, I check back and once in a while and see the poor
saps that post relevant debates against abortion and Patty posts the same
post in response that has no relevance to the argument but in his mind, he
has "shown that fool". Then prochoice@killspam and Craig and ru486 all gang
attack the poor person with the same tired practiced rhetoric. And then the
loonies like Ron come along and talk about babies actually being parasites
and must be killed. The only real regulars against abortion in here are the
crazed preachers that advocate killing abortion doctors. Everyone else is
run off by the whack pack.

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"Alexander Jamison" <aja...@sterling.com> wrote in message

>news:ajamis-F2BC2A....@news.visi.com...
>> In article <8irjjm$lq0$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Truth"
>> <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> > hehe! What a loser to actually count the lines!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

>> What a twit. Learn to use your computer. Your ignorance is showing.

>> (Your last post had 20 lines in it, and NO, I didnšt count them.)

>It depends on the newsreader, like you using Agent will get the lines but
>Outlook and many others do not list it.

Oh, well...so there are newsreaders that have been out here for _years_
that can do that much, like rn and Gnus. Whose fault is it that you're
using something that's so simple only you can understand it?

>I've seen idiot boy(PLH) go to even farther extremes than counting
>lines to prove his loserdome.

I'm sure you think you have.

>Good old loser boy PLH, a sucker if there ever was one. Can you imagine
>posting the same 5 posts over and over for 11 years!

You obviously can imagine it. I can't, but then maybe that's because I
haven't been doing that.

>He hasn't changed a bit, just gotten older and dumber using the same
>practiced pro-abortion dribble.

...while you apparently haven't changed a bit, since you seem to have
nothing else to do but obsess over what you think I do. (Funny how I
can post using my real name, though, and you're too much of a coward to
do even that much, isn't it?)

>He spends at least 2-3 hours a day, every day, writing hate-filled propaganda.

I may occupy your daydreams that much, but I should tell you I've got a
few more important things to do than posting just to give you something
to whine about. What _will_ you do next week when I'm gone for eight days?

>Definition Loser: Pronoun - PLH(See Patrick L Humphrey)

Oh, all right, I confess.

I killed Kenny.

--PLH, you bastards!

Craig Chilton

unread,

Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00

to

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:04:04 -0400,
"Truth" <mind...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Alexander Jamison <aja...@sterling.com> wrote:

>> Well, I guess your definition of loser is different than mine. I
>> I believe that when someone comes on a newsgroup with a group
>> of people and constantly uses terms like łidiot boył, łloserdomeł,
>> łloserboy˛, and łsucker˛, he shows that he is very immature, doesnąt
>> want to discuss the issues, and obsessed with making personal
>> attacks in order to make himself feel good through some sick
>> neuroses, this is a pretty good definition of your term łloser.ł

> Well to each his own. It doesn't matter what argument is put forth, Craig
> and PLH will declare victory no matter how badly they are defeated. They
> post the same garbage over and over and when proven wrong, they simply
> declare victory and attack whoever defeated them.

LOL!!! America is filled with SENSIBLE people, 2-1, who are
Pro-Choice, and that's well-documented. So keep walking down your
Yellow Brick Road in your quest for a brain from the Wizard. Maybe if
he gives you one, you'll have the capability to see Anti-Choice for
what it IS: America's laughingstock (and probably its primary pool of
losers).

> I think Craig has only been here about a year or two...

Going on FIVE now, dingbat. Shows how much YOU know.

> ...but PLH is a mainstay.

The only TRUE thing you've said so far. (But then, even a
stopped clock is right twice a day.)

> [Outright LIE snipped.] Yeah, I check back and once in a while
> and see the poor saps that post relevant debates against abortion...

Sheesh!! Right AGAIN!! Hard to believe! Yep. That's what
Anti-Choicers ARE, all right: "Poor saps."

> ...and [Patrick] posts the same post in response that has no relevance

> to the argument but in his mind, he has "shown that fool".

Patrick's observations are QUITE astute and relevant. Which
probably explains why you can't comprehend them.

> Then prochoice@killspam and Craig and ru486 all gang attack the
> poor person with the same tired practiced rhetoric.

Which translates to: "Truth," and "Facts," for NORMAL people.

> And then the loonies like Ron come along and talk about babies actually
> being parasites and must be killed.

ANOTHER bald-faced lie. I've never seen him say ANYTHING
detrimental about babies. In fact, abortion has NOTHING to do with
babies, since ALL of those have been BORN. But there is nothing wrong
with a woman choosing to regard an UNWANTED z/e/f inside her body to
be a parasite, until she can be rid of it.

> The only real regulars against abortion in here are the crazed preachers
> that advocate killing abortion doctors. Everyone else is run off by the whack
> pack.

Translation: ...by those who have the FACTS on their side.

BTW -- YOU are Anti-Choice, and you haven't been "run off."
Guess that makes you one of those crazed preachers that
advocate killing abortion doctors, right?

Well.... that's OK. You never had any credibility in
the first place.

-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net

~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~

"Psychologists discovered long ago that losers having
dismal lives tend to band together and commiserate
with each other in failed causes -- such as Anti-Choice --
hoping desperately to put some purpose into their
wretched lives."

~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~

Truth

unread,

Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00

to

<mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:grp6ls8oms7ugcnec...@4ax.com...
<snip> Then prochoice@killspam and Craig and ru486 all gang

> >attack the poor person with the same tired practiced rhetoric.
>

> 'Tired practiced rhetoric' when translated means 'The same set of
> facts that have not been negated'.
>

No, 'Tired Practiced Rhetoric' when translated means ' The same wrong set of
Abortion loving claims that have been refuted over and over but yet cannot
be understood by the feeble minds of the baby killers in question.'

Craig Chilton

unread,

Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00

to

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:09:53 -0400,
"Truth" <Anonymo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> No, 'Tired Practiced Rhetoric' when translated means 'The same
> wrong set of Abortion loving claims that have been refuted over and
> over but yet cannot be understood by the feeble minds of the baby
> killers in question.'

And HERE we see a STERLING example of an Anti-Choicer who
hasn't a ghost of a chance of EVER coming up with one single FACT
that supports his failed agenda, NOR one of producing a fact that
could even come close to refuting any of the more than a dozen
solid facts that support the PRO-Choice stance. This is a classic
example of a loser who's living in denial. In this case, denial of
the clear-cut facts that show that the predominant attitude of
Americans is that people who believe as he does are laugingstocks,
and that the nonsensical cause they espouse is DOA in the 21st
century.

In short, produce so much as ONE solid fact that refutes
Pro-Choice, or one such fact that supports Anti-Choice, or be
prepared to be laughed at, long and loud.

Only FACTS count.

Anti-Choice has NONE.

(BTW -- just for the record, pathetic loser -- abortion
has NOTHING to do with babies... and abortion is ONLY
a valuable REMEDY for an unwanted medical condition.)

-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net

~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~
On Those Who Post ANONYMOUSLY...

"As for posting anonymously, it makes no difference
whether a FAIR-MINDED person who is opposed to a hateful
agenda (Anti-Choice) posts anonymously or not, since
he/she has NOTHING to be ASHAMED of in the first place,
when putting up such posts. The only anonymous COWARDS
are those who spew shameful hate and repression, while
hiding behind an alias in the process... just like a
Ku Klux Klansman who cravenly hides his face under a hood."
~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~

Truth

unread,

Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00

to

"Stupidass" xana...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39b7ecd4.728521701@news...
<snip>

>
> > Well to each his own. It doesn't matter what argument is put forth,
Craig
> > and PLH will declare victory no matter how badly they are defeated. They
> > post the same garbage over and over and when proven wrong, they simply
> > declare victory and attack whoever defeated them.
>
> LOL!!! America is filled with SENSIBLE people, 2-1, who are
> Pro-Choice, and that's well-documented. So keep walking down your
> Yellow Brick Road in your quest for a brain from the Wizard. Maybe if
> he gives you one, you'll have the capability to see Anti-Choice for
> what it IS: America's laughingstock (and probably its primary pool of
> losers).
>

That little poll shoed your massive prochoice majority to be les than 50%.
Thanks for proving my point. You have no argument so you simply insult and
in the same practiced sad manner too. You people have such limited
intellects.

> > I think Craig has only been here about a year or two...
>
> Going on FIVE now, dingbat. Shows how much YOU know.

Really? I can't find any record of your name anywhere in dejanews before
1999. What email address did you use? OR ARE YOU JUST A LIAR!

>
> > ...but PLH is a mainstay.
>
> The only TRUE thing you've said so far. (But then, even a
> stopped clock is right twice a day.)
>
> > [Outright LIE snipped.] Yeah, I check back and once in a while
> > and see the poor saps that post relevant debates against abortion...
>
> Sheesh!! Right AGAIN!! Hard to believe! Yep. That's what
> Anti-Choicers ARE, all right: "Poor saps."

No, goodhearted people come in here and post their opinion and you jaded
practiced baby killers pounce on them. You attack their religion, education,
life experience and finally leave them defenseless and weak by way of you
ganging up on them and outnumbering them. Why? My bet is that NONE of you
have ever known love, so you lash out and one of your outlets is your
obsession with killing babies. Before you whine, defend your reasons for
posting over 1400 posts in this newsgroup over the last year and less than
200 in others. How about Patties 15K posts?OVER 15,000 HATE FILLED BABY
KILLER POSTS!!!! Forward his posting history to Rice University and they'll
call the padded wagon for him.

>
> > ...and [Patrick] posts the same post in response that has no relevance
> > to the argument but in his mind, he has "shown that fool".
>
> Patrick's observations are QUITE astute and relevant. Which
> probably explains why you can't comprehend them.

Did that feel good? Did you clean his entire butt or do you need a little
more time to tongue kiss it?

>
> > Then prochoice@killspam and Craig and ru486 all gang attack the
> > poor person with the same tired practiced rhetoric.
>

> Which translates to: "Truth," and "Facts," for NORMAL people.

In your terms 'Normal' translates to: 'People with no life and limited brain
capacity that spend all day wishing they could kill a baby and posting
hate-filled messages on newsgroups'

>
> > And then the loonies like Ron come along and talk about babies
actually
> > being parasites and must be killed.
>
> ANOTHER bald-faced lie. I've never seen him say ANYTHING

> detrimental about babies. In fact, abortion has NOTHING to do with
> babies

Tell that to the dismembered baby in the garbage can.

>, since ALL of those have been BORN. But there is nothing wrong
> with a woman choosing to regard an UNWANTED z/e/f inside her body to
> be a parasite, until she can be rid of it.
>
> > The only real regulars against abortion in here are the crazed
preachers
> > that advocate killing abortion doctors. Everyone else is run off by the
whack
> > pack.
>
> Translation: ...by those who have the FACTS on their side.
>
> BTW -- YOU are Anti-Choice, and you haven't been "run off."
> Guess that makes you one of those crazed preachers that
> advocate killing abortion doctors, right?

No, I have been run off. I know that arguing with morons(like you and Patty)
is a moot point and that even if technology made it to where the z/e/f could
be removed and placed into a willing mother, you people would still be in
here gritting your teeth and still wanting them dead.

>
> Well.... that's OK. You never had any credibility in
> the first place.
>
> -- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net

Change your address moron. How long do you have to have that cable modem
before you figure out how to change your signature?

>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~
>
> "Psychologists discovered long ago that losers having
> dismal lives tend to band together and commiserate

> with each other in failed causes -- such as Pro Choice--

Craig Chilton

unread,

Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00

to

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:47:16 -0400,
"Truth" <Mindle...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@home.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

>>> Well to each his own. It doesn't matter what argument is put forth,
>>> Craig and PLH will declare victory no matter how badly they are defeated.
>>> They post the same garbage over and over and when proven wrong, they
>>> simply declare victory and attack whoever defeated them.

>> LOL!!! America is filled with SENSIBLE people, 2-1, who are
>> Pro-Choice, and that's well-documented. So keep walking down your
>> Yellow Brick Road in your quest for a brain from the Wizard. Maybe if
>> he gives you one, you'll have the capability to see Anti-Choice for
>> what it IS: America's laughingstock (and probably its primary pool of
>> losers).

> That little poll showed your massive prochoice majority to be les than 50%.

> Thanks for proving my point. You have no argument so you simply insult and
> in the same practiced sad manner too. You people have such limited
> intellects.

Pro-Choice, 2-1. People who support abortion under ANY
circumstances (even if only for one or two reasons) are Pro-Choice.
But YOUR intellect is probably pretty limited or you'd KNOW that.
Even BETTER evidence of that is the fact that you even ARE an
Anti-Choicer. NOT something that intelligent people usually associate
with. (As for our having "no argument," is THAT why you IGNORE my
post, "The FACTS About ABORTION," rather than challenge it. It's
FILLED with facts and valid Pro-choice arguments. YOU are filled with
bluster and malcontentedness... but you have NO FACTS.)

>>> I think Craig has only been here about a year or two...

>> Going on FIVE now, dingbat. Shows how much YOU know.

> Really? I can't find any record of your name anywhere in dejanews
> before 1999. What email address did you use?

Try xan...@sbt.net and see what you get. Or xan...@ibm.net.
Or xan...@ibm.net. Or any of several others. (But if you were smart,
and not so USED ro being an ANONYMOUS coward, you might just figure
out that I use my REAL name in my posts. You could find my posts in
Deja News simply by inputting my NAME.)

> OR ARE YOU JUST A LIAR!

Nope. Sorry. Lying is YOUR domain, as you prove over and over
again, ADMIRABLY, in THIS post alone.

>>> ...but PLH is a mainstay.

>> The only TRUE thing you've said so far. (But then, even a
>> stopped clock is right twice a day.)

>> [Outright LIE snipped.]

>>> Yeah, I check back and once in a while and see the poor saps
>>> that post relevant debates against abortion...

>> Sheesh!! Right AGAIN!! Hard to believe! Yep. That's what
>> Anti-Choicers ARE, all right: "Poor saps."

> No, goodhearted people come in here and post their opinion and you
> jaded practiced baby killers pounce on them.

Doubtlessly because (1) Anti-Choicers are NOT, by ANY stretch
of the imagination, "goodhearted' people. They are inherently
selfish, busybodyish, malevolent, malicious, control-freakish people
who most assuredly WOULD, if they could, impose IMMENSE hardship
upon tens of millions of women by FORCING childbirth upon them against
their will (a very REAL form of rape!), and thus DENY them their
rights, RUIN their well-being, PREVENT them from being able to put
their lives back on track, and DESTROY countless of the potential
opportunities that they would have had. And (2) because those of
them who are as bone-IGNORANT as YOU are regard Pro-Choicers to be
"baby-killers." CLUE: Probably about 99.9999% of Pro-Choicers are
NOT abortion providers. And those who ARE have NOTHING to do with
babies -- ALL of whom have been BORN.

SO MUCH for your latest blatant LIE.

> You attack their religion, ...

We attack their MISUSE of religion, and the fact that so many of
them have become brainwashed by false teachers spewing phony,
unbiblical dogma.

> education, ...

We deplore the likelihood that LACK of a good education appears
to make a person more susceptible/gullible when it comes to accepting
the LYING propaganda of Anti-Choice. It has been proven by MANY
studies that the better-educated a person is, the LESS likely he is to
want to have anything to do with being Anti-Choice.

> life experience...

Such as???

> ...and finally leave them defenseless and weak by way of [your]

> ganging up on them and outnumbering them.

It has nothing to do with their being outnumbered by us (even
thought they are). It has EVERYTHING to do with their being
CLUELESS, and then finding out that they're clueless. Anti-Choice
has NO supporting facts going for it. At all. And PRO-Choice has
more than a dozen facts that solidly support it. To the extent of
rendering the Anti-Choice stance to be utter nonsense.

> Why? My bet is that NONE of you have ever known love,

ROTFL!!!! From my own personal experience, I can tell you that
you are dead wrong about THAT!

> so you lash out...

As ALL freedom-fighters have a tendency to do, when people are
threatened by tyranny and injustice. We lashed out at the bigoted
segregationists during the Civil Rights movement, and we lash out at
the bigoted Anti-Choicers in THIS human rights issue, so that women
will never, EVER again be reduced to 2nd-class-citizen status by the
selfish, the mindless, and the intolerant.

> and one of your outlets is your obsession with killing babies.

ANOTHER bald-faced LIE! You Anti-Choicers are ADEPT at that,
aren't you? But since ALL you have in your bigoted arsenal are lies,
emotionalism, and deceptive semantic word-games -- in the total
ABSENCE of FACTS -- I guess that leaves you with just two choices:
Use your cream-puffs-at-60-years "weapons," and continue to be a
laughingstock -- or grow a brain and become pro-choice.

ONLY mere z/e/fs -- not babies -- are affected by abortion. And
there are NO facts to indicate that z/e/fs have ONE WHIT more value
than do sperm and ova, all of which ALSO are human, unique, and alive.

As for our ACTUAL "obsession" -- with DEFENDING the rights and
well-being of all women from Anti-Choice tyranny... well... I guess
those people who fought for America in WW II were "obsessed" too --
for reasons equally worthy.

>>> ...and [Patrick] posts the same post in response that has no relevance
>>> to the argument but in his mind, he has "shown that fool".

>> Patrick's observations are QUITE astute and relevant. Which
>> probably explains why you can't comprehend them.

> Did that feel good? Did you clean his entire butt or do you need a little
> more time to tongue kiss it?

BESIDES being a MINDLESS Anti-Choicer, you have just proven
yourself ALSO to be a DISGUSTING one. That's GOOD, since it helps
America to see just HOW idiotic and vicious Anti-Choicers often are.

>>> Then "prochoice" and Craig and "ru486" all gang attack the

>>> poor person with the same tired practiced rhetoric.

>> Which translates to: "Truth," and "Facts," for NORMAL people.

> In your terms 'Normal' translates to: 'People with no life and limited brain
> capacity that spend all day wishing they could kill a baby and posting
> hate-filled messages on newsgroups'

LOL!!!! Please DO keep this up! You're probably losing two
potential supporters out of every two who read your vicious lies.

If ANY people in these debates "have no lives," it is demonstrably
the Anti-Choicers. Mean-spiritedness (which they have in common)
and having no life go together. And ALL of the hate in here has been
spewed by people of YOUR ilk. PRO-Choicers are compassionate,
caring people. As for "limited brain capacity...?" Well, maybe.
Because people with a modicum of intelligence are found only in SMALL
numbers within Anti-Choice. It TAKES low-grade intelligence to REJECT
all of the relevant facts, the way they do. (Or, inexplicably, a dose
of gullibility that sometimes afflicts some who ARE intelligent.)

>>> And then the loonies like Ron come along and talk about babies
>>> actually being parasites and must be killed.

>> ANOTHER bald-faced lie. I've never seen him say ANYTHING
>> detrimental about babies. In fact, abortion has NOTHING to do with

>> babies...

> Tell that to the dismembered baby in the garbage can.

Any babies in THAT situation have had nothing to do with
abortion. Abortion deals ONLY with z/e/fs. (So you've just LIED
again.)

>> ...since ALL of those have been BORN. But there is nothing wrong

>> with a woman choosing to regard an UNWANTED z/e/f inside her
>> body to be a parasite, until she can be rid of it.

>>> The only real regulars against abortion in here are the crazed
>>> preachers that advocate killing abortion doctors. Everyone else is run
>>> off by the whack pack.

>> Translation: ...by those who have the FACTS on their side.
>>
>> BTW -- YOU are Anti-Choice, and you haven't been "run off."
>> Guess that makes you one of those crazed preachers that
>> advocate killing abortion doctors, right?

> No, I have been run off. I know that arguing with morons

> (like you and [Patrick]) is a moot point...

Sure is, since neither of us are morons, and you are rapidly
PROVING yourself to be one.

> ...and that even if technology made it to where the z/e/f could

> be removed and placed into a willing mother, you people would still
> be in here gritting your teeth and still wanting them dead.

Hey! LOSER! You can't seem to get it through your granite-thick
head that Pro-Choice means Pro-CHOICE, can you? That means that we
support a woman's RIGHT to to WHATEVER SHE WANTS in the event of
an unwanted pregnancy. INCLUDING carrying-to-term, as long as that is
HER choice, and HER choice ONLY.

>> Well.... that's OK. You never had any credibility in
>> the first place.

>> -- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net

> Change your address moron. How long do you have to have that cable
> modem before you figure out how to change your signature?

WHAT a loser you are!! Can't even put two and two together
enough to realize that the owner of a book publishing company
just might have more than one ISP! (We have three of them.
The above- cited address, xan...@sbt.net is still active, too!)

-- Craig Chilton

xana...@home.com -- xan...@sbt.net -- api...@ibm.net

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"Stupidass" xana...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:39b7ecd4.728521701@news...

Yeah, that's REAL maturity you're showing there, Nutless Anonymous
Wonder...you don't even have the balls to type "Craig Chilton".

><snip>

>> > Well to each his own. It doesn't matter what argument is put forth, Craig
>> > and PLH will declare victory no matter how badly they are defeated. They
>> > post the same garbage over and over and when proven wrong, they simply
>> > declare victory and attack whoever defeated them.

>> LOL!!! America is filled with SENSIBLE people, 2-1, who are
>> Pro-Choice, and that's well-documented. So keep walking down your
>> Yellow Brick Road in your quest for a brain from the Wizard. Maybe if
>> he gives you one, you'll have the capability to see Anti-Choice for
>> what it IS: America's laughingstock (and probably its primary pool of
>> losers).

>That little poll shoed your massive prochoice majority to be les than 50%.

>Thanks for proving my point. You have no argument so you simply insult and
>in the same practiced sad manner too. You people have such limited
>intellects.

Projection, they name is supposedly Mason Parker.

>> > I think Craig has only been here about a year or two...

>> Going on FIVE now, dingbat. Shows how much YOU know.

>Really? I can't find any record of your name anywhere in dejanews before

>1999. What email address did you use? OR ARE YOU JUST A LIAR!

No, Mason, you're just a damned idiot. (Maybe if you paid attention,
you might notice that you can't find ANYONE's record using Deja News if
you want archives from farther back than 1999 -- but by your laughable
excuse for logic, I guess that means none of us have been here that
long, eh?)

>> > ...but PLH is a mainstay.

>> The only TRUE thing you've said so far. (But then, even a
>> stopped clock is right twice a day.)

>> > [Outright LIE snipped.] Yeah, I check back and once in a while
>> > and see the poor saps that post relevant debates against abortion...

>> Sheesh!! Right AGAIN!! Hard to believe! Yep. That's what
>> Anti-Choicers ARE, all right: "Poor saps."

>No, goodhearted people come in here and post their opinion and you jaded
>practiced baby killers pounce on them.

So tell me, Dickless Tracy, how many babies have *I* killed? The local
police know the answer to that question -- it's a number even a
certifiable idiot like you could guess.

>You attack their religion, education, life experience and finally leave
>them defenseless and weak by way of you ganging up on them and
>outnumbering them.

If they're so thin-skinned that they can't take any criticism of their
ideas, maybe they should try something more their speed...like watching
grass grow.

>Why? My bet is that NONE of you have ever known love,

*R*O*T*F*L*!

I have a few hundred too many witnesses to the contrary to try and
truthfully claim _that_! (Our tenth anniversary is coming up six weeks
from yesterday -- we'll do something in your memory, like help defend
the local Planned Parenthood.)

>so you lash out and one of your outlets is your obsession with killing
>babies.

You know, when you're setting out to read minds, Mason, shouldn't you
HAVE a mind of your own first? (I'm so obsessed with killing babies
that I'm a parent and a grandparent? O-kay.)

>Before you whine, defend your reasons for posting over 1400 posts in
>this newsgroup over the last year and less than 200 in others.

What business is it of a caricature of a person like you? You're no
authority on anything.

>How about Patties 15K posts?OVER 15,000 HATE FILLED BABY KILLER
>POSTS!!!! Forward his posting history to Rice University and they'll
>call the padded wagon for him.

You really enjoy being an idiot, don't you, Mason? Why would the
University care about my posts from io.com? Why are you implying that
I've posted 15,000 articles in ONE year? That'd be around 40 a day, and
I've never been that prolific -- today's been a busy one for me, and
this one is about my 16th. (Another free clue for you, lord knows you
need one: I work at Rice. I think they know more about me than a
reject of a troller like you ever will. They evidently like my work
enough to have kept me there since 1989. Choke on that fact.)

>> > ...and [Patrick] posts the same post in response that has no relevance
>> > to the argument but in his mind, he has "shown that fool".

>> Patrick's observations are QUITE astute and relevant. Which
>> probably explains why you can't comprehend them.

>Did that feel good? Did you clean his entire butt or do you need a little
>more time to tongue kiss it?

You'll have to get your satisfaction from somewhere else, Mason --
neither one of us that you're obsessed with is anything but
heterosexual. (At least you won't be at tonight's Gay Pride parade
here, so at least our streets will be a little safer for it.)

>> > Then prochoice@killspam and Craig and ru486 all gang attack the

>> > poor person with the same tired practiced rhetoric.

>> Which translates to: "Truth," and "Facts," for NORMAL people.

>In your terms 'Normal' translates to: 'People with no life and limited brain
>capacity that spend all day wishing they could kill a baby and posting
>hate-filled messages on newsgroups'

That's YOUR definition, Mason. No one else has to share it with you.

>> > And then the loonies like Ron come along and talk about babies actually
>> > being parasites and must be killed.

>> ANOTHER bald-faced lie. I've never seen him say ANYTHING
>> detrimental about babies. In fact, abortion has NOTHING to do with
>> babies

>Tell that to the dismembered baby in the garbage can.

I'm not in the habit of speaking to fantasies that exist in that
diseased mind of yours, boy.

>>, since ALL of those have been BORN. But there is nothing wrong

>> with a woman choosing to regard an UNWANTED z/e/f inside her body to
>> be a parasite, until she can be rid of it.

>>>The only real regulars against abortion in here are the crazed preachers
>>>that advocate killing abortion doctors. Everyone else is run off by
>>>the whack pack.

>> Translation: ...by those who have the FACTS on their side.

>> BTW -- YOU are Anti-Choice, and you haven't been "run off."
>> Guess that makes you one of those crazed preachers that
>> advocate killing abortion doctors, right?

>No, I have been run off. I know that arguing with morons(like you and Patty)
>is a moot point and that even if technology made it to where the z/e/f could

>be removed and placed into a willing mother, you people would still be in
>here gritting your teeth and still wanting them dead.

...according to one certifiable schmuck who says his name is Mason
Parker, anyway.

>> Well.... that's OK. You never had any credibility in
>> the first place.

>Change your address moron. How long do you have to have that cable modem

>before you figure out how to change your signature?

How many ISPs have to boot you for forging quotes from others before you
figure out that maybe you should leave others' words intact?

No one has to pay you any respect, Mason...and you definitely won't get
any, the way you're acting. Thursday night, the state of Texas disposed
of someone who had your kind of attitude problem. Is that what you
aspire to?

--PLH, then get it over with, and don't drag anyone else into it -- no
one else is responsible for your damn problems

Truth

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"LYING LOSER" <xana...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39e20987.801415467@news...

> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:47:16 -0400,
> "Truth" <thetruthregardles...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Craig Chilton <xana...@home.com> wrote:

<snip>> >>> I think Craig has only been here about a year or two...

>
> >> Going on FIVE now, dingbat. Shows how much YOU know.
>
> > Really? I can't find any record of your name anywhere in dejanews
> > before 1999. What email address did you use?
>
> Try xan...@sbt.net and see what you get. Or xan...@ibm.net.
> Or xan...@ibm.net. Or any of several others. (But if you were smart,
> and not so USED ro being an ANONYMOUS coward, you might just figure
> out that I use my REAL name in my posts. You could find my posts in
> Deja News simply by inputting my NAME.)

yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No Craig
Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!

Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time. You have
not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!

Again you claim that I am a coward because I do not post by my real name.
What difference does that make? If you were in a room with me face to face,
you wouldn't talk to me the way you type behind your keyboard sheild. You
would be cowering in the corner suckling your thumb grasping for a relevant
response that can't be classified as smartassed. You are a coward. ALL OF
YOU!

> ...and that even if technology made it to where the z/e/f could
> > be removed and placed into a willing mother, you people would still
> > be in here gritting your teeth and still wanting them dead.
>
> Hey! LOSER! You can't seem to get it through your granite-thick
> head that Pro-Choice means Pro-CHOICE, can you? That means that we
> support a woman's RIGHT to to WHATEVER SHE WANTS in the event of
> an unwanted pregnancy. INCLUDING carrying-to-term, as long as that is
> HER choice, and HER choice ONLY.

A woman has full rights to do whatever she wants to. Is that your point? She
can do whatever she wants to with no repercussions or responsibility. She
can take a knife and slice your mother from ear to toe and nothing should
happen to her because she chose to do that. It's her right, she already had
the knife and your mother walked into her kitchen. Your mother wouldn't
leave, she has full right to kill her. It doesn't matter if your mother was
invited by her or someone shoved your mother into the kitchen. It doesn't
matter that your mother fell in the kitchen and can't leave on her own. That
woman has full rights to kill your mother. All she has to do is state the
precedence of Roe V Wade.

Again Craig, you proved yourself a liar, a loser and a moron. Just how long
did you spend on this response? Oh well, only 10 more to go today and you
can spend that wonderful time you spend living that wonderful life you have.
Just how do you do it? Spend a day working and then 5 hours each day in here
talking about hate and killing babies. Since you also live that wonderful
life with love from your family and friends(snicker), just when do you
sleep? LOL! Loser!

Truth

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message

news:szkya3u...@fnord.io.com...

> "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >"Stupidass" xana...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:39b7ecd4.728521701@news...
>
> Yeah, that's REAL maturity you're showing there, Nutless Anonymous
> Wonder...you don't even have the balls to type "Craig Chilton".
>

HEY CRAIG, I THINK YOUR HERO IS TALKING TO YOU!! LOL!!!!
Check Craig's replies to me. He started it from the very first post. hehe!

> ><snip>

>
> >Really? I can't find any record of your name anywhere in dejanews before
> >1999. What email address did you use? OR ARE YOU JUST A LIAR!
>
> No, Mason, you're just a damned idiot. (Maybe if you paid attention,
> you might notice that you can't find ANYONE's record using Deja News if
> you want archives from farther back than 1999 -- but by your laughable
> excuse for logic, I guess that means none of us have been here that
> long, eh?)

Check again moron. I can find MY records from 5 years ago. Learn how to use
the search engine.

<snip>

> >No, goodhearted people come in here and post their opinion and you jaded
> >practiced baby killers pounce on them.
>
> So tell me, Dickless Tracy, how many babies have *I* killed? The local
> police know the answer to that question -- it's a number even a
> certifiable idiot like you could guess.

Real mature. Why don't you ask your wife if I am dickless. I mean if you can
clear her line of "Customers" and get one out of her mouth long enough to
talk

You are guilty of accessory to the crime of killing babies because you
advocate the procedure.

> You'll have to get your satisfaction from somewhere else, Mason --
> neither one of us that you're obsessed with is anything but
> heterosexual. (At least you won't be at tonight's Gay Pride parade
> here, so at least our streets will be a little safer for it.)

You are a homophobe. I hope your gay buddies read this and see you for who
you really are.

> >Change your address moron. How long do you have to have that cable modem
> >before you figure out how to change your signature?
>
> How many ISPs have to boot you for forging quotes from others before you
> figure out that maybe you should leave others' words intact?

ZERO. And what the hell are you talking about? I doubt it if I will ever be
booted from a ISP but I bet you can be :)

>
> No one has to pay you any respect, Mason...and you definitely won't get
> any, the way you're acting. Thursday night, the state of Texas disposed
> of someone who had your kind of attitude problem. Is that what you
> aspire to?
>
> --PLH, then get it over with, and don't drag anyone else into it -- no
> one else is responsible for your damn problems

Are you like the King of Losers? Is that why Craig loves you? You know he
has that picture from your website printed out and pasted to his pillow,
don't you? BTW, have you updated that page lately? I haven't checked it for
about a year. Have you gotten any uglier? Eeeesh! Could you getting more
ugly be possible? I surely hope not.

Truth

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

<mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:gbb1lsspv5p73jo9s...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:26:32 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl06bnt...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> > who speaks for the developing life?
>
> Are humans an endangered species? Why should anyone speak for
> 'developing life'? Who speaks for sperm or eggs?
>

Sperm will not develop into a human without combining with a egg. Likewise
an egg will not develop either without being fertilized by the sperm. Didn't
you get past 10th grade biology or do you just ignore fact and logic because
all you know is your tired, practiced babykilling rhetoric?

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 01:43:22 -0400, "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>non-Truth wrote:
>yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No Craig
>Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!

Odd. When I used the Deja search engine and typed Craig+Chilton,
I got 11,000 messages with his name on them.

>
>Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time. You have
>not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!

How long would it take to type 11,000 messages? I would think a few
years for sure!

Actually, those 11,000 are not _all_ of what Craig wrote. Some of
those messages were responses to his.

>
>Again you claim that I am a coward because I do not post by my real name.
>What difference does that make? If you were in a room with me face to face,
>you wouldn't talk to me the way you type behind your keyboard sheild. You
>would be cowering in the corner suckling your thumb grasping for a relevant
>response that can't be classified as smartassed. You are a coward. ALL OF
>YOU!

LOL. I actually met Craig. And I'm quite sure if you were
face-to-face with him, he'd talk exactly the same way he writes!

...and, yes, you are a coward!

(snipped rest of "un-truth's" drivel.)

Heidi

Truth

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Heidi Graw" <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:3955a9fd...@news.uniserve.com...
> >non-Truth wrote:

Methinks some tomfoolery is afoot. I wonder who else plays with response
names??? You wouldn't be loserboy Craig using another name would you?

> >yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No
Craig
> >Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!
>
> Odd. When I used the Deja search engine and typed Craig+Chilton,
> I got 11,000 messages with his name on them.

Not from 5 years ago and not from alt.abortion

>
>
> >
> >Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time. You
have
> >not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!
>
> How long would it take to type 11,000 messages? I would think a few
> years for sure!
>
> Actually, those 11,000 are not _all_ of what Craig wrote. Some of
> those messages were responses to his.
>

I'd bet on a lot of them being his. He has a exciting wonderful life and yet
time to spend hours a day repeating the same tired, old, incorrect
babykiller posts over and over and over......

>
> >
> >Again you claim that I am a coward because I do not post by my real name.
> >What difference does that make? If you were in a room with me face to
face,
> >you wouldn't talk to me the way you type behind your keyboard sheild. You
> >would be cowering in the corner suckling your thumb grasping for a
relevant
> >response that can't be classified as smartassed. You are a coward. ALL OF
> >YOU!
>
> LOL. I actually met Craig. And I'm quite sure if you were
> face-to-face with him, he'd talk exactly the same way he writes!

Then I hope he likes the taste of carpet, because his face would spend a lot
of time mashed against it. No one speaks to me with disrespect, especially
when they are losing a debate. he wouldn't be able to win his arguments(in
his birdbrain) without his childish insults.

Gee you write just like Craig. Could you be Craig trying to justify his
studly "full of life" non-loser image??

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

>On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:39:55 -0400, "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>> >"Heidi Graw" <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3955a9fd...@news.uniserve.com...
>> >non-Truth wrote:

>non-Truth wrote:
>Methinks some tomfoolery is afoot. I wonder who else plays with response
>names??? You wouldn't be loserboy Craig using another name would you?

LOL! Craig's nowhere near cowardly enough to use an alias. And he
certainly doesn't need to imitate or hide behind a female!

>> >non-Truth wrote:
>> >yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No
>> >Craig
>> >Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!

>> Heidi wrote:
>> Odd. When I used the Deja search engine and typed Craig+Chilton,
>> I got 11,000 messages with his name on them.

>non-Truth wrote:
>Not from 5 years ago and not from alt.abortion

He posts into _talk.abortion_. You claimed you couldn't bring
up his name at all in Deja. Well, he's there. Why not try again so
you can see for yourself?

(snip)

>non-Truth wrote:
>I'd bet on a lot of them being his. He has a exciting wonderful life and yet
>time to spend hours a day repeating the same tired, old, incorrect
>babykiller posts over and over and over......

Uhuh....and what about all the lies you women-killers post over and
over and over again?

(snip)

>> Heidi wrote:
>> LOL. I actually met Craig. And I'm quite sure if you were
>> face-to-face with him, he'd talk exactly the same way he writes!

>non-Truth wrote:
>Then I hope he likes the taste of carpet, because his face would spend a lot
>of time mashed against it.

ROTFL! I'm quite sure Craig could very easily twist your scrawny
neck into a pretzel if he chose to do so.

(snip)

>non-Truth wrote:
>Gee you write just like Craig.

Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment because Craig is indeed a
published author. Have _you_ written any books?

>Could you be Craig trying to justify his
>studly "full of life" non-loser image??

LOL! Non-Truth, you really are a nut. Take some meds for those
delusions of yours. Not only do you seem to suffer from
halucinations, but that paranoia must really be getting to you.

Heidi

Tom Scalf

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:39:55 -0400, "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>
>"Heidi Graw" <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>news:3955a9fd...@news.uniserve.com...
>> >non-Truth wrote:
>
>Methinks some tomfoolery is afoot. I wonder who else plays with response
>names??? You wouldn't be loserboy Craig using another name would you?
>

>> >yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No
>Craig
>> >Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!
>>

>> Odd. When I used the Deja search engine and typed Craig+Chilton,
>> I got 11,000 messages with his name on them.
>

>Not from 5 years ago and not from alt.abortion
>

Then you haven't been reading anything that was posted here for at
least the past 3 years. If you had and if your brain was strong
enough to retain a memory for more than 24 hours, you would know that
there are usually 2 or 3 posts here from Craig everyday.

>> >
>> >Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time. You
>have
>> >not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!
>>
>> How long would it take to type 11,000 messages? I would think a few
>> years for sure!
>>
>> Actually, those 11,000 are not _all_ of what Craig wrote. Some of
>> those messages were responses to his.
>>
>

>I'd bet on a lot of them being his. He has a exciting wonderful life and yet
>time to spend hours a day repeating the same tired, old, incorrect
>babykiller posts over and over and over......
>

How would you know?? actually it takes less than an hour a day to
read and respond to all of the relevant posts here and in
alt.abortion.inequity and talk.abortion. That is, it takes those of
us with average or above intelligence that long. I'd imagine it would
take half the night for an ass-wipe like you to just read the titles.

>>
>> >
>> >Again you claim that I am a coward because I do not post by my real name.
>> >What difference does that make? If you were in a room with me face to
>face,
>> >you wouldn't talk to me the way you type behind your keyboard sheild. You
>> >would be cowering in the corner suckling your thumb grasping for a
>relevant
>> >response that can't be classified as smartassed. You are a coward. ALL OF
>> >YOU!
>>

>> LOL. I actually met Craig. And I'm quite sure if you were
>> face-to-face with him, he'd talk exactly the same way he writes!
>

>Then I hope he likes the taste of carpet, because his face would spend a lot
>of time mashed against it.

Be careful, asswipe. Your mouth is writing a check your pimple fat
ass won't be able to cover.

> No one speaks to me with disrespect, especially
>when they are losing a debate.

Respect is earned, not demanded. You have done nothing to earn any
respect.

> he wouldn't be able to win his arguments(in
>his birdbrain) without his childish insults.
>

If the "insults" were childish, it was because he was writing on a
level the intended recipient ( you ) would understand. He obviously
overestimated your intelligence

>Gee you write just like Craig. Could you be Craig trying to justify his

>studly "full of life" non-loser image??
>

HAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! You really are a
worthless, ignorant pro-lie loser, aren't you.

Tom - and I am neither Heidi nor Craig

Truth

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Craig" <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:3955f44f...@news.uniserve.com...

> >On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:39:55 -0400, "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >> >"Heidi Graw" <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3955a9fd...@news.uniserve.com...
> >> >non-Truth wrote:
>
> >non-Truth wrote:
> >Methinks some tomfoolery is afoot. I wonder who else plays with response
> >names??? You wouldn't be loserboy Craig using another name would you?
>

> LOL! Craig's nowhere near cowardly enough to use an alias. And he
> certainly doesn't need to imitate or hide behind a female!
>
> >> >non-Truth wrote:

> >> >yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No
> >> >Craig
> >> >Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!
>

> >> Heidi wrote:
> >> Odd. When I used the Deja search engine and typed Craig+Chilton,
> >> I got 11,000 messages with his name on them.
>

> >non-Truth wrote:
> >Not from 5 years ago and not from alt.abortion
>

> He posts into _talk.abortion_. >

It's called crossposting, look into it. Craig loves to crosspost so he can
get his troll across to as many newsgroups as possible.

>You claimed you couldn't bring
> up his name at all in Deja. Well, he's there. Why not try again so
> you can see for yourself?

Listen here Brainiac. Go back and read the post again. I stated that there
is no mention at all of Craig Chilton 5 YEARS AGO. He lied and claimed to
have been posting in alt.abortion over 5 years ago. Typical Pro-Abortion
fanatic, you cannot read and understand, you take out of context and then
declare victory.

>
> (snip)

>
> >non-Truth wrote:
> >I'd bet on a lot of them being his. He has a exciting wonderful life and
yet
> >time to spend hours a day repeating the same tired, old, incorrect
> >babykiller posts over and over and over......
>

> Uhuh....and what about all the lies you women-killers post over and
> over and over again?

Nothing I advocate or have done has led to the purposeful death of any
woman. Isn't it odd that you claim that people trying to save babies are
really killing women? Are you trying the "Women with Coathangers" ploy or
the "Mexico Scenario"?
Anyway, if you got pregnant, you consent to it. You cannot kill the baby
just because it's inconvenient.

>
> (snip)

>
> >> Heidi wrote:
> >> LOL. I actually met Craig. And I'm quite sure if you were
> >> face-to-face with him, he'd talk exactly the same way he writes!
>

> >non-Truth wrote:
> >Then I hope he likes the taste of carpet, because his face would spend a
lot
> >of time mashed against it.
>

> ROTFL! I'm quite sure Craig could very easily twist your scrawny
> neck into a pretzel if he chose to do so.

>
> (snip)

>
> >non-Truth wrote:
> >Gee you write just like Craig.
>

> Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment because Craig is indeed a
> published author. Have _you_ written any books?
>

> >Could you be Craig trying to justify his
> >studly "full of life" non-loser image??

Hitler wrote a book. Do you admire him? You should, he was definately
pro-choice.

>
> LOL! Non-Truth, you really are a nut. Take some meds for those
> delusions of yours. Not only do you seem to suffer from
> halucinations, but that paranoia must really be getting to you.
>
> Heidi
>

Again with the idiotic insults. Grow up people!

Craig Chilton

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:39:55 -0400,

Anonymous Coward"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Heidi Graw <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote.
>>>non-Truth wrote:

> Methinks some tomfoolery is afoot.

That's OK. The REST of us know what's going on, and you're just a
pitiful loser. No surprise there.

> I wonder who else plays with response names???

Response names in headers are frequently altered by many people,
to give a more ACCURATE and HONEST description of the person
involved. Just as I have done. You wouldn't know the truth if it
jumped 8 inches off the floor and bit you in the butt. You're such an
IGNORANT clod that you don't even know the difference between
already-born babies, and mere z/e/fs. And you ARE an anonymous
loser/coward -- take your pick. So I've just added some honesty to
the header that had previously been absent. I note that you made
similar changes regarding my name, but with one important difference.
I told the truth, and you lied.

> You wouldn't be loserboy Craig using another name would you?

She's 2,000 miles from me, in Canada, nitwit.

>>> yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No
>>> Craig Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!

One thing that I've told you Anti-Choice losers over and over is
that I don't lie. It's what makes it so easy to refute the nonsensical
and ludicrous arguments of Anti-Choice. I don't lie, people know
that, can depend on it, and I live up to it. And a sniveling weasel
like you can lie about me to your heart's content, but you'll only
shred your own image in the process. What's left of it. If anything.

>> Odd. When I used the Deja search engine and typed Craig+Chilton,
>> I got 11,000 messages with his name on them.

> Not from 5 years ago and not from alt.abortion

Earlier, I said "almost" 5 years ago. 4-1/2 would be pretty
close. I've posted to alt.abortion and talk.abortion, off and on, but
with great frequency, throughout most of that time.

Patrick thought Deja News went back only through 1998, but
apparently Heidi accessed it differently. I've always thought that
Deja News saved everything since its inception. So if Heidi found
11,000 posts associated with me, (from me and to me), I'd guess that
those earlier years (1996-98) must have been included.

>>> Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time.
>>> You have not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!

How many people are coming to celebrate your 3rd birthday? (Those
terrible twos are a bitch, ain't they?)

>> How long would it take to type 11,000 messages? I would think
>> a few years for sure!
>>
>> Actually, those 11,000 are not _all_ of what Craig wrote. Some of
>> those messages were responses to his.

> I'd bet on a lot of them being his. He has a exciting wonderful life

> and yet time to spend hours a day repeating the same tired, old, incorrect
> babykiller posts over and over and over......

I do have a VERY exciting and wonderful life. (Nine TV and radio
appearance in four major cities coming up this week, alone. It's fun!
Sells a lot of books, and I get to meet a lot of really nice people.
Although we'd known each other for years in these groups, I got to
meet Heidi and her family in British Columbia on my way to such a
show, earlier this year.) AND -- because I own my own company, and
have a very competent staff, my time is my own, and I schedule it as I
please -- including MANY hours dedicated, in Usenet, to showing folks
just how ASININE and vicious the Anti-Choice agenda really is.

And I see you STILL are ignorant about what a baby is.

>>> Again you claim that I am a coward because I do not post by my
>>> real name. What difference does that make?

IF you weren't a coward, you'd have sufficient courage of your
convictions to put your name to your writings. You don't. So you
are. And thus have ZILCH credibility.

>>> If you were in a room with me face to face, you wouldn't talk to me
>>> the way you type behind your keyboard sheild.

ROTFL!!! YOU are the one with the "keyboard shield." Keyboards
aren't a shield if a person IDENTIFIES himself, as I do.

>>> You would be cowering in the corner suckling your thumb grasping
>>> for a relevant response that can't be classified as smartassed. You are
>>> a coward. ALL OF YOU!

>>> "All" of me? Is that a variation of one person in the South saying to
>>> another individual (i.e., one person), "Y'all come to my 3rd birthday
>>> party, now!" (?)

>> LOL. I actually met Craig. And I'm quite sure if you were
>> face-to-face with him, he'd talk exactly the same way he writes!

Thanks, Heidi. Even though he probably won't believe you. This
clown belives ONLY what he WANTS to believe, and facts are totally
lost on him, as he constantly proves so admirably and consistently.

> Then I hope he likes the taste of carpet, because his face would spend a lot

> of time mashed against it. No one speaks to me with disrespect, especially
> when they are losing a debate. he wouldn't be able to win his arguments (in

> his birdbrain) without his childish insults.

So I guess we can add "person with a serious inferiority complex"
and "immature" to that list of accurate descriptors of you...

And I haven't seen you refuting any of the 14 facts in my post,
"The FACTS About ABORTION," either. So apparently insults and
childishness is ALL you're good for.

> Gee you write just like Craig. Could you be Craig trying to justify his

> studly "full of life" non-loser image??

Keep right on thinking that, loser. Just MORE proof that you
have NO interest in facts.

-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Do you suppose that you're the first whiner to resort to stupid
lies when you ran out of credible arguments?"

-- Ray Fischer, 3/22/2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Craig Chilton

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 02:03:14 -0400,
Anonymous Coward "Truth" <clue...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:

>> Anonymous Loser "Truth" <clue...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>"Stupidass" xana...@home.com> wrote in message
>>>news:39b7ecd4.728521701@news...

>> Yeah, that's REAL maturity you're showing there, Nutless Anonymous
>> Wonder...you don't even have the balls to type "Craig Chilton".

> HEY CRAIG, I THINK YOUR HERO IS TALKING TO YOU!! LOL!!!!

> Check Craig's replies to me. He started it from the very first post. hehe!

Nope. You signed it "Truth." Which I did NOT change, any more
than I would have changed your name. (Even though you represent and
spew the diametric OPPOSITE of truth.) I merely added an appropriate
and truthful DESCRIPTOR.

-- Craig Chilton xana...@home.com

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ANONYMOUS POSTING...

"Truth" (LOL!!!!!) said of Patrick L. Humphrey:

"He's a loser and idiot."

To which Patrick sensibly replied:

"Yeah, the nerve of me, being a pro-choice parent and
grandparent -- and not hiding behind some third-grade alias like a
brave anti-abort lunatic. What's the world coming to?

"I'm such a loser I can put my real name on what I post while
laughing at nut-hatch escapees like you, who don't even believe
your own bullshit enough to put your real name on the garbage you
post. I'm such a loser I hide from you schmucks...in plain sight."

-- June 21, 2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"LYING LOSER" <xana...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:39e20987.801415467@news...

>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:47:16 -0400,
>> "Truth" <thetruthregardles...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > Craig Chilton <xana...@home.com> wrote:

><snip>> >>> I think Craig has only been here about a year or two...

>> >> Going on FIVE now, dingbat. Shows how much YOU know.

>> > Really? I can't find any record of your name anywhere in dejanews
>> > before 1999. What email address did you use?

>> Try xan...@sbt.net and see what you get. Or xan...@ibm.net.
>> Or xan...@ibm.net. Or any of several others. (But if you were smart,
>> and not so USED ro being an ANONYMOUS coward, you might just figure
>> out that I use my REAL name in my posts. You could find my posts in
>> Deja News simply by inputting my NAME.)

>yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No Craig

>Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!

You're still a blithering idiot, Mason. Others have found what you can't.

>Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time. You have
>not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!

You apparently haven't been here very long, either -- you can't be more
than about five years old, the way you're acting.

>Again you claim that I am a coward because I do not post by my real name.

...and you go out of your way to support Craig's opinion with your responses.

>What difference does that make? If you were in a room with me face to face,
>you wouldn't talk to me the way you type behind your keyboard sheild. You

>would be cowering in the corner suckling your thumb grasping for a relevant
>response that can't be classified as smartassed. You are a coward. ALL OF
>YOU!

Really, Mason? In the event I was unlucky enough to have to tolerate
the presence of a moron like you, I'd tell you right to your ugly,
slack-jawed little face what I thought of you -- and you'd have no
option but to take it and back off. You wanna bet on that?

><snip proof of Craig's loserness>

> > ...and that even if technology made it to where the z/e/f could
>> > be removed and placed into a willing mother, you people would still
>> > be in here gritting your teeth and still wanting them dead.

>> Hey! LOSER! You can't seem to get it through your granite-thick
>> head that Pro-Choice means Pro-CHOICE, can you? That means that we
>> support a woman's RIGHT to to WHATEVER SHE WANTS in the event of
>> an unwanted pregnancy. INCLUDING carrying-to-term, as long as that is
>> HER choice, and HER choice ONLY.

>A woman has full rights to do whatever she wants to. Is that your point? She

>can do whatever she wants to with no repercussions or responsibility. She
>can take a knife and slice your mother from ear to toe and nothing should
>happen to her because she chose to do that. It's her right, she already had
>the knife and your mother walked into her kitchen. Your mother wouldn't
>leave, she has full right to kill her. It doesn't matter if your mother was
>invited by her or someone shoved your mother into the kitchen. It doesn't
>matter that your mother fell in the kitchen and can't leave on her own. That
>woman has full rights to kill your mother. All she has to do is state the
>precedence of Roe V Wade.

You don't even believe the own bullshit you blather, Mason, let alone
anyone else believes you.

><snip the rest of Craig's BS>

...that's SO brave of you.

>Again Craig, you proved yourself a liar, a loser and a moron. Just how long
>did you spend on this response? Oh well, only 10 more to go today and you
>can spend that wonderful time you spend living that wonderful life you have.
>Just how do you do it? Spend a day working and then 5 hours each day in here
>talking about hate and killing babies. Since you also live that wonderful
>life with love from your family and friends(snicker), just when do you
>sleep? LOL! Loser!

He sleeps a lot better than stupid trolls like you do, Mason...and he's
likely laughing at your continued ability to destroy your own arguments.
People like you are good at serving as clay pigeons, and not much else.
(I'll tell you that to your uncomprehending face, too, if ever it comes
to that.)

--PLH, it's been a long time since I've encountered another anonymous
wonder who's so stupid, he could throw himself at the ground and
miss...but I think Mason's ended that drought.

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"Heidi Graw" <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>news:3955a9fd...@news.uniserve.com...

>> >non-Truth wrote:

>Methinks some tomfoolery is afoot. I wonder who else plays with response
>names??? You wouldn't be loserboy Craig using another name would you?

Keep on showing us how stupid you are, Mason...never mind that Craig's
about 2000 miles away from where Heidi lives, and I'm better than 2000
from her and almost a thousand from him, myself. I guess we're ALL the
same to you, eh?

>> >yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No
>Craig
>> >Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!

>> Odd. When I used the Deja search engine and typed Craig+Chilton,

>> I got 11,000 messages with his name on them.

>Not from 5 years ago and not from alt.abortion

What do you do when she shows you to be lying as usual?

>> >Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time. You
>have
>> >not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!

>> How long would it take to type 11,000 messages? I would think a few
>> years for sure!

>> Actually, those 11,000 are not _all_ of what Craig wrote. Some of
>> those messages were responses to his.

>I'd bet on a lot of them being his. He has a exciting wonderful life and yet
>time to spend hours a day repeating the same tired, old, incorrect
>babykiller posts over and over and over......

Funny how the only one repeating himself is you, Mason -- making claims
that I suspect even you know are false.

>> >Again you claim that I am a coward because I do not post by my real name.

>> >What difference does that make? If you were in a room with me face to
>face,
>> >you wouldn't talk to me the way you type behind your keyboard sheild. You
>> >would be cowering in the corner suckling your thumb grasping for a
>relevant
>> >response that can't be classified as smartassed. You are a coward. ALL OF
>> >YOU!

>> LOL. I actually met Craig. And I'm quite sure if you were

>> face-to-face with him, he'd talk exactly the same way he writes!

>Then I hope he likes the taste of carpet, because his face would spend a lot

>of time mashed against it. No one speaks to me with disrespect, especially
>when they are losing a debate. he wouldn't be able to win his arguments(in
>his birdbrain) without his childish insults.

Really, Mason? Your ISP just might be notified of _that_ dream of
yours, in that case. That's your way of dealing with people who
question your blatant idiocy? I guess it'll make you a lot easier to
scope out by looking up your criminal record.

>Gee you write just like Craig. Could you be Craig trying to justify his
>studly "full of life" non-loser image??

Could you really believe the nonsense you're trying to peddle as fact?

--PLH, I doubt it

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"Craig" <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>news:3955f44f...@news.uniserve.com...
>> >On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:39:55 -0400, "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:

>> >> >"Heidi Graw" <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3955a9fd...@news.uniserve.com...
>> >> >non-Truth wrote:

>> >non-Truth wrote:
>> >Methinks some tomfoolery is afoot. I wonder who else plays with response
>> >names??? You wouldn't be loserboy Craig using another name would you?

>> LOL! Craig's nowhere near cowardly enough to use an alias. And he

>> certainly doesn't need to imitate or hide behind a female!

>> >> >non-Truth wrote:
>> >> >yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No
>> >> >Craig
>> >> >Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!

>> >> Heidi wrote:
>> >> Odd. When I used the Deja search engine and typed Craig+Chilton,
>> >> I got 11,000 messages with his name on them.

>> >non-Truth wrote:
>> >Not from 5 years ago and not from alt.abortion

>> He posts into _talk.abortion_. >

>It's called crossposting, look into it. Craig loves to crosspost so he can
>get his troll across to as many newsgroups as possible.

Keep that idiocy flowing, Mason! I guess that's why YOU crosspost your
bullshit to alt.bible and alt.christnet, as well? You might want to
read the headers in your articles -- despite what you think, they mean
something, even if there's no way you'll ever understand them.

>>You claimed you couldn't bring
>> up his name at all in Deja. Well, he's there. Why not try again so
>> you can see for yourself?

>Listen here Brainiac. Go back and read the post again. I stated that there
>is no mention at all of Craig Chilton 5 YEARS AGO. He lied and claimed to
>have been posting in alt.abortion over 5 years ago. Typical Pro-Abortion
>fanatic, you cannot read and understand, you take out of context and then
>declare victory.

You have yet to illustrate precisely where anyone has done that to you,
Mason...and now you're already backpedaling like the gutless asshole you
are. (Remind me to singe your ears a little more, should I veer have to
put up with you in person.)

>> (snip)

>> >non-Truth wrote:
>> >I'd bet on a lot of them being his. He has a exciting wonderful life and
>yet
>> >time to spend hours a day repeating the same tired, old, incorrect
>> >babykiller posts over and over and over......

>> Uhuh....and what about all the lies you women-killers post over and
>> over and over again?

>Nothing I advocate or have done has led to the purposeful death of any
>woman. Isn't it odd that you claim that people trying to save babies are
>really killing women? Are you trying the "Women with Coathangers" ploy or
>the "Mexico Scenario"?

Hey, remember one of your heros, Nicolae Ceausescu? He felt pretty much
the same way about abortion as you did, and he shoved his views down the
throats of a few million Romanians for 23 years. See what happened to
him in 1989? Acute lead poisoning.

>Anyway, if you got pregnant, you consent to it. You cannot kill the baby
>just because it's inconvenient.

Your opinion and a dollar will get you flattened in the Southwest
Freeway transitway. No woman has to listen to hateful little morons
like you. (Not surprisingly, very few do. Choke on that fact.)

>> (snip)

>> >> Heidi wrote:
>> >> LOL. I actually met Craig. And I'm quite sure if you were
>> >> face-to-face with him, he'd talk exactly the same way he writes!

>> >non-Truth wrote:
>> >Then I hope he likes the taste of carpet, because his face would spend a
>lot
>> >of time mashed against it.

>> ROTFL! I'm quite sure Craig could very easily twist your scrawny

>> neck into a pretzel if he chose to do so.

><giggle>

I know you're too stupid to figure out the tricky relationship between
cause and effect.

>> (snip)

>> >non-Truth wrote:
>> >Gee you write just like Craig.

>> Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment because Craig is indeed a

>> published author. Have _you_ written any books?

>> >Could you be Craig trying to justify his

>> >studly "full of life" non-loser image??

>Hitler wrote a book. Do you admire him? You should, he was definately
>pro-choice.

Really? So you're ignorant of history, as well. That's hardly a surprise.

>> LOL! Non-Truth, you really are a nut. Take some meds for those
>> delusions of yours. Not only do you seem to suffer from
>> halucinations, but that paranoia must really be getting to you.

>Again with the idiotic insults. Grow up people!

You're the schmuck who waxes poetic about what you'd do to us if we ever
met in person and dared disagree with your stupidity, and you're telling
*us* to grow up? Oh, well, your mother will bring you your bottle
sooner or later, I guess -- assuming she didn't abandon you already.

--PLH, just wait until I'm back from my vacation...Mason's going to
implode

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"LYING LOSER" <xana...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:39e20987.801415467@news...

>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:47:16 -0400,
>> "Truth" <thetruthregardles...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > Craig Chilton <xana...@home.com> wrote:

><snip>> >>> I think Craig has only been here about a year or two...

>> >> Going on FIVE now, dingbat. Shows how much YOU know.

>> > Really? I can't find any record of your name anywhere in dejanews
>> > before 1999. What email address did you use?

>> Try xan...@sbt.net and see what you get. Or xan...@ibm.net.
>> Or xan...@ibm.net. Or any of several others. (But if you were smart,
>> and not so USED ro being an ANONYMOUS coward, you might just figure
>> out that I use my REAL name in my posts. You could find my posts in
>> Deja News simply by inputting my NAME.)

>yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No Craig

>Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!

You're still a blithering idiot, Mason. Others have found what you can't.

>Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time. You have

>not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!

You apparently haven't been here very long, either -- you can't be more

than about five years old, the way you're acting.

>Again you claim that I am a coward because I do not post by my real name.

...and you go out of your way to support Craig's opinion with your responses.

>What difference does that make? If you were in a room with me face to face,

>you wouldn't talk to me the way you type behind your keyboard sheild. You
>would be cowering in the corner suckling your thumb grasping for a relevant
>response that can't be classified as smartassed. You are a coward. ALL OF
>YOU!

Really, Mason? In the event I was unlucky enough to have to tolerate

the presence of a moron like you, I'd tell you right to your ugly,
slack-jawed little face what I thought of you -- and you'd have no
option but to take it and back off. You wanna bet on that?

><snip proof of Craig's loserness>

> > ...and that even if technology made it to where the z/e/f could
>> > be removed and placed into a willing mother, you people would still
>> > be in here gritting your teeth and still wanting them dead.

>> Hey! LOSER! You can't seem to get it through your granite-thick
>> head that Pro-Choice means Pro-CHOICE, can you? That means that we
>> support a woman's RIGHT to to WHATEVER SHE WANTS in the event of
>> an unwanted pregnancy. INCLUDING carrying-to-term, as long as that is
>> HER choice, and HER choice ONLY.

>A woman has full rights to do whatever she wants to. Is that your point? She

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"LYING LOSER" <xana...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:39e20987.801415467@news...

>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:47:16 -0400,
>> "Truth" <thetruthregardles...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > Craig Chilton <xana...@home.com> wrote:

><snip>> >>> I think Craig has only been here about a year or two...

>> >> Going on FIVE now, dingbat. Shows how much YOU know.

>> > Really? I can't find any record of your name anywhere in dejanews
>> > before 1999. What email address did you use?

>> Try xan...@sbt.net and see what you get. Or xan...@ibm.net.
>> Or xan...@ibm.net. Or any of several others. (But if you were smart,
>> and not so USED ro being an ANONYMOUS coward, you might just figure
>> out that I use my REAL name in my posts. You could find my posts in
>> Deja News simply by inputting my NAME.)

>yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No Craig

>Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!

You're still a blithering idiot, Mason. Others have found what you can't.

>Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time. You have
>not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!

You apparently haven't been here very long, either -- you can't be more
than about five years old, the way you're acting.

>Again you claim that I am a coward because I do not post by my real name.

...and you go out of your way to support Craig's opinion with your responses.

>What difference does that make? If you were in a room with me face to face,
>you wouldn't talk to me the way you type behind your keyboard sheild. You
>would be cowering in the corner suckling your thumb grasping for a relevant
>response that can't be classified as smartassed. You are a coward. ALL OF
>YOU!

Really, Mason? In the event I was unlucky enough to have to tolerate
the presence of a moron like you, I'd tell you right to your ugly,
slack-jawed little face what I thought of you -- and you'd have no
option but to take it and back off. You wanna bet on that?

><snip proof of Craig's loserness>

> > ...and that even if technology made it to where the z/e/f could
>> > be removed and placed into a willing mother, you people would still
>> > be in here gritting your teeth and still wanting them dead.

>> Hey! LOSER! You can't seem to get it through your granite-thick
>> head that Pro-Choice means Pro-CHOICE, can you? That means that we
>> support a woman's RIGHT to to WHATEVER SHE WANTS in the event of
>> an unwanted pregnancy. INCLUDING carrying-to-term, as long as that is
>> HER choice, and HER choice ONLY.

>A woman has full rights to do whatever she wants to. Is that your point? She

Samuel Waters

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

In article <39f103ad.865463282@news>, xana...@home.com (Craig Chilton)
writes:

> One thing that I've told you Anti-Choice losers over and over is
>that I don't lie.

You've told us time and again. And you keep telling us.

Truth

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Tom Scalf" <tsca...@dc.net> wrote in message
news:vnvblsgsulgr3bt0i...@4ax.com...
<snip>> >Not from 5 years ago and not from alt.abortion

> >
>
> Then you haven't been reading anything that was posted here for at
> least the past 3 years. If you had and if your brain was strong
> enough to retain a memory for more than 24 hours, you would know that
> there are usually 2 or 3 posts here from Craig everyday.

2 or 3????? In alt.abortion he posts at least 10 times a day.

>
> >> >
> >> >Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time.
You
> >have
> >> >not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!
> >>

> >> How long would it take to type 11,000 messages? I would think a few
> >> years for sure!
> >>
> >> Actually, those 11,000 are not _all_ of what Craig wrote. Some of
> >> those messages were responses to his.
> >>
> >

> >I'd bet on a lot of them being his. He has a exciting wonderful life and
yet
> >time to spend hours a day repeating the same tired, old, incorrect
> >babykiller posts over and over and over......
> >
>

> How would you know?? actually it takes less than an hour a day to
> read and respond to all of the relevant posts here and in
> alt.abortion.inequity and talk.abortion. That is, it takes those of
> us with average or above intelligence that long. I'd imagine it would
> take half the night for an ass-wipe like you to just read the titles.

Ok for your 3 posts plus reading time, it takes about an hour. Well Craig
does 3 times that. DOes that mean that he spends 3 hours a day posting the
same thing over and over? I guess you are right, he's no loser. He's insane.

Truth

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szku2eh...@fnord.io.com...
<snip>

> >It's called crossposting, look into it. Craig loves to crosspost so he
can
> >get his troll across to as many newsgroups as possible.
>
> Keep that idiocy flowing, Mason! I guess that's why YOU crosspost your
> bullshit to alt.bible and alt.christnet, as well? You might want to
> read the headers in your articles -- despite what you think, they mean
> something, even if there's no way you'll ever understand them.

Wasn't me. If you have the massive intelligence you claim, youi can simply
look back and see who is crossposting to what newsgroup. AGAIN! HEY CRAIG!!!
PATTY IS SCOLDING YOU AGAIN!! tsk tsk tsk....

<snip>>

> You have yet to illustrate precisely where anyone has done that to you,
> Mason...and now you're already backpedaling like the gutless asshole you
> are. (Remind me to singe your ears a little more, should I veer have to
> put up with you in person.)

Hell Patty, even you haven't came to his defense. He's lying and just wont
admit it. He's willing to protect his lie no matter what the cost. Sad.

<snip

> ><giggle>
>
> I know you're too stupid to figure out the tricky relationship between
> cause and effect.

Craig Chilton,
A Liar and a moron.

I wonder why Patty didn't respond?????

abortion_...@my-deja.com

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

In article <szkwvjd...@fnord.io.com>,

pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:
>

> >"LYING LOSER" <xana...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:39e20987.801415467@news...

> >> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:47:16 -0400,
> >> "Truth" <thetruthregardles...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> > Craig Chilton <xana...@home.com> wrote:

> ><snip>> >>> I think Craig has only been here about a year or

two...
>
> >> >> Going on FIVE now, dingbat. Shows how much YOU know.
>
> >> > Really? I can't find any record of your name anywhere in
dejanews
> >> > before 1999. What email address did you use?
>
> >> Try xan...@sbt.net and see what you get. Or xan...@ibm.net.
> >> Or xan...@ibm.net. Or any of several others. (But if you were
smart,
> >> and not so USED ro being an ANONYMOUS coward, you might just figure
> >> out that I use my REAL name in my posts. You could find my posts
in
> >> Deja News simply by inputting my NAME.)
>

> >yep, you are truly LYING!!!!!! I spent another 2 minutes at deja. No
Craig
> >Chilton, No xan...@sbt.net YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!
>
> You're still a blithering idiot, Mason. Others have found what you
can't.
>

> >Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time.
You have
> >not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!
>

> You apparently haven't been here very long, either -- you can't be
more
> than about five years old, the way you're acting.
>
> >Again you claim that I am a coward because I do not post by my real
name.
>
> ...and you go out of your way to support Craig's opinion with your
responses.
>
> >What difference does that make? If you were in a room with me face
to face,
> >you wouldn't talk to me the way you type behind your keyboard
sheild. You
> >would be cowering in the corner suckling your thumb grasping for a
relevant
> >response that can't be classified as smartassed. You are a coward.
ALL OF
> >YOU!
>
> Really, Mason? In the event I was unlucky enough to have to tolerate
> the presence of a moron like you, I'd tell you right to your ugly,
> slack-jawed little face what I thought of you -- and you'd have no
> option but to take it and back off. You wanna bet on that?
>
> ><snip proof of Craig's loserness>

> > > ...and that even if technology made it to where the z/e/f could
> >> > be removed and placed into a willing mother, you people would
still
> >> > be in here gritting your teeth and still wanting them dead.
>
> >> Hey! LOSER! You can't seem to get it through your granite-
thick
> >> head that Pro-Choice means Pro-CHOICE, can you? That means that we
> >> support a woman's RIGHT to to WHATEVER SHE WANTS in the event of
> >> an unwanted pregnancy. INCLUDING carrying-to-term, as long as
that is
> >> HER choice, and HER choice ONLY.
>

Humpy my little man and dear friend. Do you remember when you were
going to use me as a clay pigeon. Tell me dear fellow, how well did
that work out??? ROFL Oh yesssss it really is me again. Same name,
same addy, same everything. Old friend (may I call you hockey puck)it
is good to see your words of "wisdom" again. LOL

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Tom Scalf

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:51:51 -0400, "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>
>"Tom Scalf" <tsca...@dc.net> wrote in message
>news:vnvblsgsulgr3bt0i...@4ax.com...
><snip>> >Not from 5 years ago and not from alt.abortion
>> >

<snip>

>>
>> How would you know?? actually it takes less than an hour a day to
>> read and respond to all of the relevant posts here and in
>> alt.abortion.inequity and talk.abortion. That is, it takes those of
>> us with average or above intelligence that long. I'd imagine it would
>> take half the night for an ass-wipe like you to just read the titles.
>
>
>
>Ok for your 3 posts plus reading time, it takes about an hour. Well Craig
>does 3 times that. DOes that mean that he spends 3 hours a day posting the
>same thing over and over?

Here's a free clue from the clue fairy.... Use it wisely and often,
because you only get one free one... -I only made one post!! It got
posted to several groups, because they were listed in the headers when
I replied......That is called cross-posting.... Most people have
their newsreaders set to filter out cross posts....

BTW, your memory and reading comprehension are even lower than I gave
you credit for, if it took you an hour to read the little bit that I
wrote. Even if you did read it 3 times without realizing what you had
done.........

TOm

Truth

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Tom Scalf" <tsca...@dc.net> wrote in message

news:jcscls40kmo33dfjn...@4ax.com...
> <snip>

> >Ok for your 3 posts plus reading time, it takes about an hour. Well Craig
> >does 3 times that. DOes that mean that he spends 3 hours a day posting
the
> >same thing over and over?
>
>
> Here's a free clue from the clue fairy.... Use it wisely and often,
> because you only get one free one... -I only made one post!! It got
> posted to several groups, because they were listed in the headers when
> I replied......That is called cross-posting.... Most people have
> their newsreaders set to filter out cross posts....
>
> BTW, your memory and reading comprehension are even lower than I gave
> you credit for, if it took you an hour to read the little bit that I
> wrote. Even if you did read it 3 times without realizing what you had
> done.........
>
>
> TOm

GOOD GOD ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a waste of time coming
back in here and trying to get anything through your tiny minds!

I did not say that he takes the post and retypes it into each individual
newsgroup. I pointed out to you that YOU SAID that it takes about an hour
to post 3 POSTS and READ the messages. I POINTED OUT that he posts at least
10 long posts containing the same incorrect, masochist, moronic,
hate-filled, misrepresented posts a day.THAT WILL TAKE THREE TIMES AS LONG,
DO YOU GET THAT? OR DO I NEED TO DRAW YOU A PICTURE? MAN YOU PEOPLE ARE DUMB
AS HELL!!!!!!

Say Copernicus, just what newsgroup are you reading this in? You see, MORON
crossposted it to all these other newsgroups so he could expand his troll to
other groups and pick up geniuses like you to assist him in his campaign of
trolling moronatude.

What else do I have to explain to you in terms that even a child can
understand. I wish you morons would let a few kids live so they can explain
things to you.

After reading a few of your posts, I can see where a few of you maybe should
have been aborted. Damn, you people are brainless.

Truth

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

<mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:mdoblsoki0bnueccm...@4ax.com...

> I am well aware of the mechanics. How about an answer to my other
> questions?

What other questions? Share them with us instead of the voices in your head.

Craig Chilton

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:04:56 -0400,
Anonymous Coward "Truth" <mind...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:

><snip>
>
> The third times the charm. It still wasn't relevant and just an example of
> you wasting your time. loser!

Let's see. It's YOU who is supporting a vicious, malevolent,
selfish, and LOST cause that NO sensible person wants anything to
do with, and that MOST people laugh at (Anti-Choice)... and WE are
the ones supporting the FAIR, compassionate, and WINNING cause
(Pro-Choice)... and you call US "losers?"

ROTFLMAO!!!!

The only people wasting their time in here are losers like you.
We Pro-Choicers are just hanging around for as long as any of
you are left, to catch you publicly in your lies, lest anyone be
gullible enough to fall for such tripe.

-- Craig Chilton xana...@home.com

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"When you can produce some actual, tangible proof that you
have any authority to try shoving your stupidity down anyone else's
throat, you may be deserving of being given the time of day. Until
then, you're just another nutless who doesn't believe his own bullshit
enough to put his name behind it."

-- Patrick L. Humphrey, 6/14/2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szku2eh...@fnord.io.com...
><snip>
>> >It's called crossposting, look into it. Craig loves to crosspost so he can
>> >get his troll across to as many newsgroups as possible.

>> Keep that idiocy flowing, Mason! I guess that's why YOU crosspost your
>> bullshit to alt.bible and alt.christnet, as well? You might want to
>> read the headers in your articles -- despite what you think, they mean
>> something, even if there's no way you'll ever understand them.

>Wasn't me. If you have the massive intelligence you claim, youi can simply
>look back and see who is crossposting to what newsgroup. AGAIN! HEY CRAIG!!!
>PATTY IS SCOLDING YOU AGAIN!! tsk tsk tsk....

Pathetic as usual, Mason...are you confessing to being too stupid to
notice that YOU posted your crap to six different newsgroups? Are you
too bloody stupid to figure out how to edit the Newsgroups: line, if
you're so allegedly offended by his crossposting? That would seem to be
the case, based on the evidence you've provided.

><snip>>
>> You have yet to illustrate precisely where anyone has done that to you,
>> Mason...and now you're already backpedaling like the gutless asshole you

>> are. (Remind me to singe your ears a little more, should I ever have to

>> put up with you in person.)

>Hell Patty, even you haven't came to his defense. He's lying and just wont
>admit it. He's willing to protect his lie no matter what the cost. Sad.

I guess that's why you snipped what he said so the rest of us won't see
what a fool Craig has made out of you. (I wonder what happens when
people can use deja.com to see what you deleted in an attempt to hide
your latest fuck-up?)

><snip
>> ><giggle>

>> I know you're too stupid to figure out the tricky relationship between
>> cause and effect.

>Yes, it's precisely why he'll stay behind his keyboard sheild.

Keep hanging yourself, Mason -- he's not hiding from anything, that I
can see. Looks to me like he's having fun with a certifiable moron like you.

>> >> (snip)

>> >> >non-Truth wrote:
>> >> >Gee you write just like Craig.

>> >> Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment because Craig is indeed a
>> >> published author. Have _you_ written any books?

>> >> >Could you be Craig trying to justify his
>> >> >studly "full of life" non-loser image??

>> >Hitler wrote a book. Do you admire him? You should, he was definately
>> >pro-choice.

>> Really? So you're ignorant of history, as well. That's hardly a
>> surprise.

>Ask one of your fellow professors in the history department. I mean if you
>haven't alienated ALL of them.

Way to GO, Brainiac! Since when am I a faculty member? So, Hitler was
pro-choice? Funny how history tells a different tale...

><snip>
>> sooner or later, I guess -- assuming she didn't abandon you already.
>>
>> --PLH, just wait until I'm back from my vacation...Mason's going to
>> implode

>I bet you'll escape any real life to come here and post about death and
>dismembering babies.

Whatever you bet, you'll lose -- I'm going to be gone for a week or so,
because Dale and I are going to South Dakota. (Thanks to your juvenile
temper tantrum, I'm tempted to see if Craig's going to be home the early
part of next week, so we can meet him in person...I can already predict
your reaction to that development, and it'll be highly amusing.)

--PLH, so pay up, Mason...no one likes welshing bums

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message

><snip>

>Not even worthy of a response.

You're a coward, Mason...can't deal with having your little wet dream
about Craig and Heidi being the same person shot down?

You can't imagine the job you're doing for anti-abort PR.

--PLH, actually, end that last sentence after the first three words, and
you have Mason Parker described succinctly

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message

>news:szkr99l...@fnord.io.com...
><snip>

>The third times the charm. It still wasn't relevant and just an example of
>you wasting your time. loser!

If you're spending time ranting at it, that's time you can't spend
terrorizing abortion clinics or women. (Sorry about the repeats -- the
news software here is flaky. Don't believe it? Tough. Ask any admin
at io.com.)

--PLH, hoping Mason likes spending long periods of time with his face
glued to the carpet

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

abortion_...@my-deja.com writes:

>In article <szkwvjd...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:

[...]

>> --PLH, it's been a long time since I've encountered another anonymous
>> wonder who's so stupid, he could throw himself at the ground and
>> miss...but I think Mason's ended that drought.

>Humpy my little man and dear friend. Do you remember when you were
>going to use me as a clay pigeon. Tell me dear fellow, how well did
>that work out??? ROFL Oh yesssss it really is me again. Same name,
>same addy, same everything. Old friend (may I call you hockey puck)it
>is good to see your words of "wisdom" again. LOL

*yawn*

You're still five cents short of a nickel, Ted, and you shoot yourself.
I just get to watch. (Do you really think you're impressing anyone with
putting your juvenile whining in the Newsgroups line? You probably are,
just not quite the way you think you are.)

-PLH, I guess Ted's getting tired of getting run over at Ft. Hood

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message

>news:szkya3u...@fnord.io.com...
>> "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>> >"Stupidass" xana...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:39b7ecd4.728521701@news...

>> Yeah, that's REAL maturity you're showing there, Nutless Anonymous
>> Wonder...you don't even have the balls to type "Craig Chilton".

>HEY CRAIG, I THINK YOUR HERO IS TALKING TO YOU!! LOL!!!!

You don't think, Mason. You've spared no effort to drive THAT point home.

>Check Craig's replies to me. He started it from the very first post. hehe!

Why can't you fix your Newsgroups line?

>> ><snip>

>> >Really? I can't find any record of your name anywhere in dejanews before

>> >1999. What email address did you use? OR ARE YOU JUST A LIAR!

>> No, Mason, you're just a damned idiot. (Maybe if you paid attention,
>> you might notice that you can't find ANYONE's record using Deja News if
>> you want archives from farther back than 1999 -- but by your laughable
>> excuse for logic, I guess that means none of us have been here that
>> long, eh?)

>Check again moron. I can find MY records from 5 years ago. Learn how to use
>the search engine.

My mistake -- I was understanding deja.com's reworking of their site to
mean that for the time being, they'd have no archives available beyond
last year. Obviously, there are ways around that, as I've seen.

><snip>
>> >No, goodhearted people come in here and post their opinion and you jaded
>> >practiced baby killers pounce on them.

>> So tell me, Dickless Tracy, how many babies have *I* killed? The local
>> police know the answer to that question -- it's a number even a
>> certifiable idiot like you could guess.

>Real mature. Why don't you ask your wife if I am dickless. I mean if you can
>clear her line of "Customers" and get one out of her mouth long enough to
>talk

I'm dealing with you on a level you're better able to understand, son.
Thanks for admitting that you still have no idea of what you're foaming
at the mouth about.

>You are guilty of accessory to the crime of killing babies because you
>advocate the procedure.

You're still an idiot, Mason. Abortion is legal, so there's no crime
involved, and you won't live to see the Constitution repealed so
assholes like you can get your way. (Check that little mention of "ex
post facto" laws -- and note that I *will* defend my country from kooks
like you.)

><snip more crap>
>> You'll have to get your satisfaction from somewhere else, Mason --
>> neither one of us that you're obsessed with is anything but
>> heterosexual. (At least you won't be at tonight's Gay Pride parade
>> here, so at least our streets will be a little safer for it.)

>You are a homophobe. I hope your gay buddies read this and see you for who
>you really are.

*laugh*

Sorry, little loon, there are about a hundred thousand witnesses to the
contrary -- we're straight, but not narrow. (We just might join PFLAG
before we head up to South Dakota.)

><snip same tired bullcrap>
>> >Change your address moron. How long do you have to have that cable modem
>> >before you figure out how to change your signature?

>> How many ISPs have to boot you for forging quotes from others before you
>> figure out that maybe you should leave others' words intact?

>ZERO. And what the hell are you talking about? I doubt it if I will ever be
>booted from a ISP but I bet you can be :)

Not by anything you say, I can't.

>> No one has to pay you any respect, Mason...and you definitely won't get
>> any, the way you're acting. Thursday night, the state of Texas disposed
>> of someone who had your kind of attitude problem. Is that what you
>> aspire to?
>>
>> --PLH, then get it over with, and don't drag anyone else into it -- no
>> one else is responsible for your damn problems

>Are you like the King of Losers? Is that why Craig loves you? You know he
>has that picture from your website printed out and pasted to his pillow,
>don't you? BTW, have you updated that page lately? I haven't checked it for
>about a year. Have you gotten any uglier? Eeeesh! Could you getting more
>ugly be possible? I surely hope not.

I'll update it with some new gallery pictures when I get back...and
maybe I should start putting some scripts into some sections to let me
know where my visitors are coming from. Wouldn't it be curious if
someone from *your* MindSpring dial-up block was grabbing my graphics?

--PLH, looking forward to having a lot of fun with someone as clueless
as Mason...it's going to be a long hot summer

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

xana...@home.com (Craig Chilton) writes:

>On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 02:03:14 -0400,
>Anonymous Coward "Truth" <clue...@mindspring.com> wrote:

"Truthless" would be a bit more accurate.

>> Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>> Anonymous Loser "Truth" <clue...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>>>>"Stupidass" xana...@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:39b7ecd4.728521701@news...

>>> Yeah, that's REAL maturity you're showing there, Nutless Anonymous
>>> Wonder...you don't even have the balls to type "Craig Chilton".

>> HEY CRAIG, I THINK YOUR HERO IS TALKING TO YOU!! LOL!!!!

>> Check Craig's replies to me. He started it from the very first post. hehe!

> Nope. You signed it "Truth." Which I did NOT change, any more

>than I would have changed your name. (Even though you represent and
>spew the diametric OPPOSITE of truth.) I merely added an appropriate
>and truthful DESCRIPTOR.

...and Mason demonstrates that he can dish it out, but he sure can't
take it!

> ANONYMOUS POSTING...
>
>"Truth" (LOL!!!!!) said of Patrick L. Humphrey:
>
> "He's a loser and idiot."
>
>To which Patrick sensibly replied:
>
> "Yeah, the nerve of me, being a pro-choice parent and
>grandparent -- and not hiding behind some third-grade alias like a
>brave anti-abort lunatic. What's the world coming to?
>
> "I'm such a loser I can put my real name on what I post while
>laughing at nut-hatch escapees like you, who don't even believe
>your own bullshit enough to put your real name on the garbage you
>post. I'm such a loser I hide from you schmucks...in plain sight."
>
> -- June 21, 2000

I just call 'em as I see 'em. (No, I'm NOT an on-ice official in the
IHL, dammit! :-)

Are you going to be around the home twenty the early part of next week?
Dale and I will be somewhere down around Sioux Falls, more than likely,
and I wouldn't mind getting a chance to make the four-hour drive on over
your way so we can relly get the paranoid loons like "Truthless" in a
twitter...

--PLH, available at the usual phone numbers until Wednesday afternoon

Craig Chilton

unread,

Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00

to

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:51:51 -0400,
Anonymous Coward "Truth" <wr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Tom Scalf <tsca...@dc.net> wrote:

><snip>> >Not from 5 years ago and not from alt.abortion

>> Then you haven't been reading anything that was posted here

>> for at least the past 3 years. If you had and if your brain was strong
>> enough to retain a memory for more than 24 hours, you would know
>> that there are usually 2 or 3 posts here from Craig everyday.

> 2 or 3????? In alt.abortion he posts at least 10 times a day.

He may be taking the overall average. There are many times when I'm
away on my talk-show circuits. During those trips, I'm off the 'net.

>>>>> Like I said moron, I have been here on and off for quite some time.

>>> You have not been here long. Liar Liar Liar!!!!!!

How many people are coming to celebrate your 3rd birthday? (Those
terrible twos are a bitch, ain't they?)

I started posting to these groups early in 1996. February of
that year, if i recall correctly. That's almost 4-1/2 years ago.

>>>> How long would it take to type 11,000 messages? I would think
>>>> a few years for sure!
>>>>
>>>> Actually, those 11,000 are not _all_ of what Craig wrote. Some of
>>>> those messages were responses to his.

>>> I'd bet on a lot of them being his. He has a exciting wonderful life and
>>> yet time to spend hours a day repeating the same tired, old, incorrect
>> >babykiller posts over and over and over......

>> How would you know?? actually it takes less than an hour a day to

>> read and respond to all of the relevant posts here and in
>> alt.abortion.inequity and talk.abortion. That is, it takes those of
>> us with average or above intelligence that long. I'd imagine it would
>> take half the night for an ass-wipe like you to just read the titles.

> Ok for your 3 posts plus reading time, it takes about an hour. Well Craig

> does 3 times that. DOes that mean that he spends 3 hours a day posting

> the same thing over and over? I guess you are right, he's no loser. He's
> insane.

Not any more than a person who pursues any other hobby is insane.
And the time I choose to spend on THIS hobby varies widely from one
day to the next, and on days I'm away, it's nonexistent..

The way I see it, I could have a hobby like collecting stamps, and
thus benefit NO one but myself. OR, I can do something like this,
which stands a decent chance of publicly neutralizing many of the
lies and disinformational efforts of the Anti-Choice, thus potentially
benefitting millions of women, by helping them to forever RETAIN their
abortion rights. Thus, THIS becomes a FAR more productive and
socially-responsible hobby to pursue. (And, I guarantee you that I
enjoy it at least as much as I would enjoy stamp collecting. And
probably EXPONENTIALLY more.)

Now a question for YOU:

WHY would YOU even GIVE a rat's ass how much I post?

Craig Chilton

unread,

Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00

to

On 25 Jun 2000 18:16:53 -0500,

pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:

> Craig Chilton <xana...@home.com> wrote:
>> Anonymous Coward "Truth" <clue...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> "Truthless" would be a bit more accurate.

>>> Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>>> Anonymous Loser "Truth" <clue...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Stupidass" xana...@home.com> wrote

>>>> Yeah, that's REAL maturity you're showing there, Nutless Anonymous

>>>> Wonder...you don't even have the balls to type "Craig Chilton".

>>> HEY CRAIG, I THINK YOUR HERO IS TALKING TO YOU!! LOL!!!!
>>> Check Craig's replies to me. He started it from the very first post. hehe!

>> Nope. You signed it "Truth." Which I did NOT change, any more
>> than I would have changed your name. (Even though you represent and
>> spew the diametric OPPOSITE of truth.) I merely added an appropriate
>> and truthful DESCRIPTOR.

> ...and Mason demonstrates that he can dish it out, but he sure can't
> take it!

>> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

>> ANONYMOUS POSTING...
>>
>> "Truth" (LOL!!!!!) said of Patrick L. Humphrey:
>>
>> "He's a loser and idiot."
>>
>> To which Patrick sensibly replied:
>>
>> "Yeah, the nerve of me, being a pro-choice parent and
>> grandparent -- and not hiding behind some third-grade alias like a
>> brave anti-abort lunatic. What's the world coming to?
>>
>> "I'm such a loser I can put my real name on what I post while
>> laughing at nut-hatch escapees like you, who don't even believe
>> your own bullshit enough to put your real name on the garbage you
>> post. I'm such a loser I hide from you schmucks...in plain sight."
>>
>> -- June 21, 2000

>> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

> I just call 'em as I see 'em. (No, I'm NOT an on-ice official in the
> IHL, dammit! :-)
>
> Are you going to be around the home twenty the early part of next week?
> Dale and I will be somewhere down around Sioux Falls, more than likely,
> and I wouldn't mind getting a chance to make the four-hour drive on over
> your way so we can relly get the paranoid loons like "Truthless" in a
> twitter...
>
> --PLH, available at the usual phone numbers until Wednesday afternoon

Patrick -- Please check your e-mail, regarding the above. Thanks!

--Craig

abortion_...@my-deja.com

unread,

Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00

to

In article <szkvgyx...@fnord.io.com>,

pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:

> abortion_...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >In article <szkwvjd...@fnord.io.com>,

> > pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>

> [...]
>
> >> --PLH, it's been a long time since I've encountered another
anonymous
> >> wonder who's so stupid, he could throw himself at the ground and
> >> miss...but I think Mason's ended that drought.
>
> >Humpy my little man and dear friend. Do you remember when you were
> >going to use me as a clay pigeon. Tell me dear fellow, how well did
> >that work out??? ROFL Oh yesssss it really is me again. Same name,
> >same addy, same everything. Old friend (may I call you hockey puck)it
> >is good to see your words of "wisdom" again. LOL
>
> *yawn*
>
> You're still five cents short of a nickel, Ted, and you shoot
yourself.
> I just get to watch. (Do you really think you're impressing anyone
with
> putting your juvenile whining in the Newsgroups line? You probably
are,
> just not quite the way you think you are.)
>
> -PLH, I guess Ted's getting tired of getting run over at Ft. Hood
>

Aw my little egghead. It's starting to feel like home again. First the
old "I know where you are". :)And ofcoarse the terrible "Killfile". :))
We can't forget the "I am passing by that way soon". :))) Hey lets
not over look the "Wait for the knock on the door". :)))) Oh I almost
overlooked the "I will use you for a clay pigeon". :))))) ROTFLMBO

Matt Pillsbury

unread,

Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

> "Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:szku2eh...@fnord.io.com...

["Truth" anihilated further attributions.]

[...]

> > >Hitler wrote a book. Do you admire him? You should, he was definately
> > >pro-choice.

> > Really? So you're ignorant of history, as well. That's hardly a
> > surprise.

> Ask one of your fellow professors in the history department. I mean
> if you haven't alienated ALL of them.

The cowardly little bint is unable to support his latest claim.

Who's surprised?
[...]
--
Matt Pillsbury -- pillsy [at] brown [dot] edu
"don't open your eyes, you won't like what you see,
the devils of truth steal the souls of the free."--nin

Truth

unread,

Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00

to

"Matt Pillsbury" <pil...@seesig.edu> wrote in message
news:86r99lr...@straylight.NONE...

Look Ma, another .edu smartass that thinks he knows sumthin'.

So Hitler wasn't Pro-Choice? Didn't he do the exact same thing? Decide who
lives and who dies. Who procreates and who doesn't?
What do you think they did with the mistakes in search of the master race?
Let them be born and adopted? No, they were murdered or in your terms
aborted.

Dispute any of that.

Now comes the "WERE WRONG SO WE'LL INSULT AND THEN DECLARE VICTORY" posts.

Matt Pillsbury

unread,

Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00

to

"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

> "Matt Pillsbury" <pil...@seesig.edu> wrote in message
> news:86r99lr...@straylight.NONE...

> > "Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

> > > "Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
> > > news:szku2eh...@fnord.io.com...

> > ["Truth" anihilated further attributions.]

> > [...]
> > > > >Hitler wrote a book. Do you admire him? You should, he was definately
> > > > >pro-choice.

> > > > Really? So you're ignorant of history, as well. That's hardly a
> > > > surprise.

> > > Ask one of your fellow professors in the history department. I mean
> > > if you haven't alienated ALL of them.

> > The cowardly little bint is unable to support his latest claim.

> > Who's surprised?

> Look Ma, another .edu smartass that thinks he knows sumthin'.

> So Hitler wasn't Pro-Choice? Didn't he do the exact same thing?

No. Hitler used the *power of the state* to determine whether any
given pregnancy would go to term.

> Decide who lives and who dies. Who procreates and who doesn't?

They did this, in part, by prohibiting abortion for "Aryan" women...

> What do you think they did with the mistakes in search of the master
> race? Let them be born and adopted? No, they were murdered or in
> your terms aborted.

...and imposing abortions on women who didn't satisfy Nazi standards for
racial purity.

> Dispute any of that.

The Nazi policies were diametrically opposed to 'pro-choice' be-
liefs. We wish to insure that *individual women* choose what to do
with *their own* pregnancies, free from state interference.

> Now comes the "WERE WRONG SO WE'LL INSULT AND THEN DECLARE VICTORY"
> posts.

Indeed. I certainly don't expect you to graciously retract your
claim. Instead, you'll probably make up a lot of goofy shit, and then
threaten me with a rug or something.

Patrick L Humphrey

unread,

Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00

to

In <86r99lr...@straylight.NONE>, Matt Pillsbury (pil...@seesig.edu) writes:
>"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:

>> "Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>> news:szku2eh...@fnord.io.com...

>["Truth" anihilated further attributions.]

What else would you expect from Truthless? He almost acts like he's
trying to hide something.

>> > >Hitler wrote a book. Do you admire him? You should, he was definately
>> > >pro-choice.

>> > Really? So you're ignorant of history, as well. That's hardly a
>> > surprise.

>> Ask one of your fellow professors in the history department. I mean
>> if you haven't alienated ALL of them.

>The cowardly little bint is unable to support his latest claim.

No film at 10, though.

>Who's surprised?

Well, I *could* say I am, but I'd have a hard time saying it and keeping
a straight face...but I think he's making it clear that he's trolling.
(After all, he's claiming to have visited my web pages, and even as
moronic as he acts at times, he couldn't have failed to notice that I'm
not exactly reticent about my job at the University.) In that case, why
should anyone take him seriously?

--PLH, besides using him as the prototypical clay pigeon, of course

The Chief Instigator

unread,

Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00

to

In article <3a029d77.904839811@news>,

xana...@home.com wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2000 18:16:53 -0500,

> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:

> > I just call 'em as I see 'em. (No, I'm NOT an on-ice official
in the
> > IHL, dammit! :-)
> >
> > Are you going to be around the home twenty the early part of
next week?
> > Dale and I will be somewhere down around Sioux Falls, more than
likely,
> > and I wouldn't mind getting a chance to make the four-hour drive on
over
> > your way so we can relly get the paranoid loons like "Truthless" in
a
> > twitter...
> >
> > --PLH, available at the usual phone numbers until Wednesday
afternoon

> Patrick -- Please check your e-mail, regarding the above. Thanks!

No problem -- got it, and updated you on that situation. (Let Mason
wonder -- it's fun watching him consistently guess, and guess wrong.)

--Patrick L. "the plot thickens" Humphrey

patrick_...@my-deja.com

unread,

Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00

to

In article <laywvjc...@wolf.is.rice.edu>,

Paddy Hump; back to the old clay pigeon tactic I see. LOL

Matt Pillsbury

unread,

Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00

to

Patrick L Humphrey <pat...@wolf.is.rice.edu> writes:

> In <86r99lr...@straylight.NONE>, Matt Pillsbury
> (pil...@seesig.edu) writes:

> >"Truth" <nos...@mindspring.com> writes:
[...]

> >> Ask one of your fellow professors in the history department. I mean
> >> if you haven't alienated ALL of them.
>
> >The cowardly little bint is unable to support his latest claim.
>
> No film at 10, though.
>
> >Who's surprised?

> Well, I *could* say I am, but I'd have a hard time saying it and
> keeping a straight face...but I think he's making it clear that he's
> trolling.

That was one of those reh... ret... rhi... you know, those questions-
type thingummies that you don't need to answer.

> (After all, he's claiming to have visited my web pages, and even as
> moronic as he acts at times, he couldn't have failed to notice that
> I'm not exactly reticent about my job at the University.)

I've been following his follies. You can't *buy* laughs like that!

> In that case, why should anyone take him seriously?

Extravagant generosity, I s'pose.

> --PLH, besides using him as the prototypical clay pigeon, of course

--MTP, I've never met a clay pigeon that dumb

Craig Chilton

unread,

Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00

to

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:47:16 GMT, The Chief Instigator
<aer...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>> Patrick -- Please check your e-mail, regarding the above. Thanks!

> No problem -- got it, and updated you on that situation. (Let Mason
> wonder -- it's fun watching him consistently guess, and guess wrong.)

<<chuckle!>> He's DEFINITELY not the brightest light in the lamp shop!

I've received your e-mail, now, and anwered it. Thanks, Patrick!

>--Patrick L. "the plot thickens" Humphrey

-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net

~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~

"Psychologists discovered long ago that losers having
dismal lives tend to band together and commiserate
with each other in failed causes -- such as Anti-Choice --
hoping desperately to put some purpose into their
wretched lives."

~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~

Patrick L. Humphrey

unread,

Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00

to

xana...@home.com (Craig Chilton) writes:

>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:47:16 GMT, The Chief Instigator
><aer...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>>> Patrick -- Please check your e-mail, regarding the above. Thanks!

>> No problem -- got it, and updated you on that situation. (Let Mason
>> wonder -- it's fun watching him consistently guess, and guess wrong.)

><<chuckle!>> He's DEFINITELY not the brightest light in the lamp shop!

Let me put it this way: with Mason, the wheel's spinning; the hamster is
dead.

> I've received your e-mail, now, and anwered it. Thanks, Patrick!

Got it, and haven't answered it yet, but further developments just may make
it possible to *really* ruin Mason's day. Set those hubcap decoder rings.

--PLH, we're from Texas...what country are y'all from? ;_)