Planned Parenthood director quits after ultrasound, talks about PP emphasis on abortions
pnyikos
the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
In her own words, in a TV interview with O'Reilly:
But I did actually get to see an ultrasound-guided procedure, and what
I saw on the screen was a 13-week baby fighting for its life.
O'REILLY: And instantly, you said, "This is wrong. I shouldn't be at
Planned Parenthood. I should be pro-life"? Did that happen instantly?
JOHNSON: Well, what I saw was this baby fighting, and I had flashes in
my head of my own daughter. I remembered having an ultrasound at 12
weeks with my own daughter. And I just was thinking, "What am I
doing?" I was thinking, "I've never seen this before." And Planned
Parenthood really tries to instill in their employees and the women
that are coming in for abortions that this is not a baby, that this is
just a mass of cells. You know, don't say "baby" in the clinic. Don't
say "baby" to the women coming in for an abortion. And so you begin to
believe that. You begin to believe that it's not a life.
I'll be posting from the rest of the interview later; the whole
interview can be found at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2c2933%2c574666%2c00.html
Transcript accurate except for some hesitations and where
O'Reilly and campaign director Shawn Carney were speaking
simultaneously. You can see the video here:
http://video.foxnews.com/11532026/change-of-heart
Spartakus
> Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
Disgruntled former clinic director discovers she can make serious coin
by lying about her former employers. I've seen this movie before.
Btw, isn't it ironic that this woman is *still* making money on
abortion?
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
> Disgruntled former clinic director
Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
That was what made her quit at the time she did.
>discovers she can make serious coin
Why, do you think O'Reily gives big bucks for interviews? How much do
you estimate? 1 million? :-)
She could have amassed at least that much in 10 years, judging from
the fact that the national director of this "nonprofit" organization
made over $300,000 per year already 15 years ago. This made her the
highest paid person in a "nonprofit" organization, anywhere.
> by lying about her former employers. I've seen this movie before.
...and never able to prove a lie ever, eh, Lyman-clone?
> Btw, isn't it ironic that this woman is *still* making money on
> abortion?
Where?
By the way, are you making money off abortion? Is that why you are
afraid to tell us what your line of work is?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit
I think it is most fitting that the adjacent College Station, Texas is
the birthplace of 40 Days for Life. I posted on it last year and got
the usual false accusations about the way pro-lifers behave at these
peaceful vigils. In my experience, that kind of behavior only took
place at one anti-abortion event, a "rescue" back in 1992 long before
40 Days for Life was ever thought of.
Judging from the way the national director of 40 Days for Life, Shawn
Carney, looks in the video of the interview with O'Reilly, he was
probably in his early teens back then.
Here are some more excerpts from the transcript:
O'REILLY: Mr. Carney, the court case that temporarily prevented Ms.
Johnson from speaking about Planned Parenthood was pretty intense.
They went after Abby pretty hard, did they not?
SHAWN CARNEY, NATIONAL CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, 40 DAYS FOR LIFE: They did,
Bill. And it shows that this organization refuses to accept,
particularly from one of their own, that somebody can have a change of
heart on this issue. And the judge threw it out because they presented
no evidence that she had a breach of contract. She simply saw a baby
fight for its life, only to obviously lose that fight before her eyes,
and she changed her position. And she came to 40 Days for Life and
knew that we would be accepting of her. We hold vigils across the
country for people, obviously, having abortions, but also the people
who work in this industry. And she trusted that. She was confident in
it. And Planned Parenthood refuses to accept that.
O'REILLY: Well, obviously, it's a very emotional issue. Now, in your
experience, do you demonize women who have abortions, Mr. Carney? Do
you guys do that kind of stuff? Because that really makes Americans
uncomfortable.
CARNEY: Right. And this is a peaceful effort. This is why we're there,
obviously, for the women who are going into the clinics for abortions.
And we're also there for women who work in this industry. Abby is
actually the 26th abortion clinic worker who has approached us after
her clinic was the site of one of our vigils. They left that industry.
Abby is the only Planned Parenthood director who had a conversion and
left her job. But we are there for these workers…
O'REILLY: But it's a soft persuasion?
CARNEY: ...can't leave, and the pro-lifers have to be there to support
them and not judge them and not be radical.
O'REILLY: It's a soft persuasion.
CARNEY: Absolutely. This is a peaceful effort. It's not violent. It's
approachable. And Abby's case proves that because she felt the warmth
of the people out there, and that's why she left that industry and had
somewhere to go.
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > > the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> > > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
> Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
> > Disgruntled former clinic director
> Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
> That was what made her quit at the time she did.
Right. And the Easter Bunny launched its egg-hiding enterprise on
advice from the underwear gnomes. Pull the other one, whoever you
are.
> >discovers she can make serious coin
> Why, do you think O'Reily gives big bucks for interviews? How much do
> you estimate? 1 million? :-)
The anti-choice speaking tour can be quite lucrative.
> She could have amassed at least that much in 10 years, judging from
> the fact that the national director of this "nonprofit" organization
> made over $300,000 per year already 15 years ago. This made her the
> highest paid person in a "nonprofit" organization, anywhere.
Document or retract.
> > by lying about her former employers. I've seen this movie before.
> ...and never able to prove a lie ever, eh, Lyman-clone?
Caught YOU lying about IAAH's alleged "religious bigotry", Nyikos-
clone.
> > Btw, isn't it ironic that this woman is *still* making money on
> > abortion?
> Where?
The anti-choice speaking tour can be quite lucrative.
> By the way, are you making money off abortion?
Nope.
> Is that why you are afraid to tell us what your line of work is?
I've mentioned my line of work a number of times. But you don't
actually *read* the abortion newsgroups.
pnyikos
> On Nov 24, 10:56 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit
...and here is the start of an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Unresolved problem" segment tonight:
There was an intense debate over whether public money should pay for
abortions in the Obamacare legislation. The issue is still not
defined, but there is no question abortion remains very controversial
in this country.
Enter Abby Johnson, the former director of Planned Parenthood in
Bryan, Texas. Ms. Johnson had a conversion and now believes abortion
is wrong, so she's speaking out against Planned Parenthood, which is
trying to stop her. And yesterday, a judge lifted a temporary gag
order on Ms. Johnson, who joins us now from Houston, along with Shawn
Carney, national campaign director for 40 Days for Life, an anti-
abortion group.
Ms. Johnson, what — what does Planned Parenthood not want you to say
and what do they fear?
ABBY JOHNSON, FORMER DIRECTOR, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, BRYAN, TEXAS: I
think that they're nervous that I am going to continue to speak out
and tell people that their business model has changed, and that, you
know, this prevention that they preach about maybe is not really what
Planned Parenthood is all about, and that, with the downward economy,
they are really trying to increase their abortion numbers, because
that is the most lucrative part of their business.
========== end of excerpt from transcript
The whole transcript of the interview can be found at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2c2933%2c574666%2c00.html
In the preamble, one can read:
"This is a RUSH transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," November 11,
2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated."
I haven't seen any updates, but I watched the video and this
transcript is accurate except for some hesitations and where O'Reilly
and campaign director Shawn Carney were speaking simultaneously. You
can see the video here:
http://video.foxnews.com/11532026/change-of-heart
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<e355759b-97d5-4cb7...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 12:44 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 10:56 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > > the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit
>
> ...and here is the start of an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
why would anything that lying fruitcake says be relevant. there are at
least two web sites devoted specifically to his lies.
it would appear that you can't make a point without quoting a known liar.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > > > the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> > > > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
> > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
> > > Disgruntled former clinic director
> > Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
> > That was what made her quit at the time she did.
Of course, these conversions don't happen in a vacuum. She was
disillusioned by Planned Parenthood already, but the ultrasound was
what precipitated the decision--Spartakus ignores my words "at the
time she did" in order to attempt some more muckraking:
> Right. And the Easter Bunny launched its egg-hiding enterprise on
> advice from the underwear gnomes.
Such cynicism can only come from someone who is utterly ignorant of
the relative wealth of Planned Parenthood and other abortion-rights
organizations vs that of pro-life organizations--or someone like
Spartakus who loves to SIMULATE ignorance.
Read the whole transcript, readers, and you will see just how cynical
Spartakus is. He had to delete Abby Johnson's words already in the
first follow-up to sound convincing.
Here are those words again:
"But I did actually get to see an ultrasound-guided procedure, and
what
I saw on the screen was a 13-week baby fighting for its life."
The interview continued:
O'REILLY: And instantly, you said, "This is wrong. I shouldn't be at
Planned Parenthood. I should be pro-life"? Did that happen instantly?
JOHNSON: Well, what I saw was this baby fighting, and I had flashes in
my head of my own daughter. I remembered having an ultrasound at 12
weeks with my own daughter. And I just was thinking, "What am I
doing?" I was thinking, "I've never seen this before." And Planned
Parenthood really tries to instill in their employees and the women
that are coming in for abortions that this is not a baby, that this is
just a mass of cells. You know, don't say "baby" in the clinic. Don't
say "baby" to the women coming in for an abortion. And so you begin to
believe that. You begin to believe that it's not a life.
========= end of excerpt
Here is what she said on another occasion:
'When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice,"
Johnson told FoxNews.com. But after seeing the internal workings of
the procedure for the first time on an ultrasound monitor, "I would
say there was a definite conversion in my heart ... a spiritual
conversion."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2c2933%2c571215%2c00.html
>Pull the other one, whoever you are.
Projecting your own cowardly anonymity onto me isn't making your
cynical act any more convincing.
> > >discovers she can make serious coin
> > Why, do you think O'Reily gives big bucks for interviews? How much do
> > you estimate? 1 million? :-)
Spartakus ducks the question:
> The anti-choice speaking tour can be quite lucrative.
For people like Terry Randall, maybe. He is the darling of the
mainstream media because they can point to his extremism and pretend
that he is typical of pro-lifers. But I doubt that you'll ever find
the networks besides Fox news publicizing Abby Johnson.
> > She could have amassed at least that much in 10 years, judging from
> > the fact that the national director of this "nonprofit" organization
> > made over $300,000 per year already 15 years ago. This made her the
> > highest paid person in a "nonprofit" organization, anywhere.
>
> Document or retract.
I'm invoking Koltanowski Sanction on this one. Documentation will be
provided after my next long posting break is over.
Anyway, it's been public knowledge ever since I posted on it about 15
years ago.
What is YOUR estimate on what the PP director makes TODAY? Want to
lay any bets on whether it is over half a million now?
> > > by lying about her former employers. I've seen this movie before.
> > ...and never able to prove a lie ever, eh, Lyman-clone?
Spartakus attempts to confuse the issue: the theme was former clinic
workers allegedly lying about their former employers. Watch him
rewrite Usenet history as a substitute for confronting my challenge:
> Caught YOU lying about IAAH's alleged "religious bigotry", Nyikos-
Like hell you did. So far, I've aleady given two amplifications of my
reasoning--and that's already two amplifications more than what I get
when people like your loyal friend Fischer call ME a bigot.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
>the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
>an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
I wonder if she's seen any women dying in agony from childbirth gone bad.
Or seen the bodies of women who bled to death from trying to
self-abort.
You pro-lie fascists really don't care about people's lives. ll you
care about is your religious dictatorship.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
> On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
>> > the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
>> > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
Jesus Christ on Quaaludes, Phony...is that the best you can do?
>> Disgruntled former clinic director
>
> Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life. That
> was what made her quit at the time she did.
Just a coincidence she started whining and attracting the local media idiots
(who, in Brazos County, are fortunately few).
>>discovers she can make serious coin
>
> Why, do you think O'Reily gives big bucks for interviews? How much do
> you estimate? 1 million? :-)
>
> She could have amassed at least that much in 10 years, judging from
> the fact that the national director of this "nonprofit" organization
> made over $300,000 per year already 15 years ago. This made her the
> highest paid person in a "nonprofit" organization, anywhere.
Have you ever bothered to confirm that?
>> by lying about her former employers. I've seen this movie before.
>
> ...and never able to prove a lie ever, eh, Lyman-clone?
You seem to have a problem with who you think you're whining at, Phony.
>> Btw, isn't it ironic that this woman is *still* making money on
>> abortion?
>
> Where?
>
> By the way, are you making money off abortion? Is that why you are
> afraid to tell us what your line of work is?
>
> Peter Nyikos
It's none of your fucking business, Phony. (Apropos of nothing, in your
case, Dale and I have never been to that clinic, though we've been just
under a mile southwest of it when we came back from Dublin and went through
B/CS on Texas 6, three and a half years ago.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 2, Houston 1 (OT, November 22)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 25 at Hamilton, 6:05
pnyikos
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:33:08 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> >> > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>
> Jesus Christ on Quaaludes, Phony...is that the best you can do?
No, I can do a lot better. Here's some more juicy excerpts from the
two websites.
O'REILLY: Now, do you believe that, based upon what you saw in Bryan,
Texas, do you believe that Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill
trying to profit off that?
JOHNSON: Yes. I mean, I absolutely believe that. I mean, I saw them
trying to increase their abortion numbers. I saw them increase their
abortion numbers.
O'REILLY: Well, how do they do that? How do you increase an abortion
number?
JOHNSON: Well, they increase their accessibility to abortion for
women. So, for instance, the clinic that I worked at, usually we only
did abortions every other Saturday. And they said, "You know what?
That's not really enough. We really need to be able to open this up to
allowing women to have abortions almost every day during the week.”
=========== end of excerpt from O'Reilly interview
And now from the other article from which I was quoting:
Johnson said she became disillusioned with her job after her bosses
pressured her for months to increase profits by performing more and
more abortions, which cost patients between $505 and $695.
"Every meeting that we had was, 'We don't have enough money, we don't
have enough money — we've got to keep these abortions coming,'"
Johnson told FoxNews.com. "It's a very lucrative business and that's
why they want to increase numbers."
A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood told FoxNews.com that it offers a
range of services at it 850 health centers nationwide, providing
pregnancy tests, vaccinations and women's health services, "including
wellness exams, breast and cervical cancer screenings, contraception,
and STD testing and treatment."
"Planned Parenthood's focus is on prevention," wrote Diane Quest, the
group's National Media Director. "Nationwide, more than 90% of the
health care Planned Parenthood affiliates provide is preventive in
nature," explaining that a "core component the organization's mission
is to help women plan healthy pregnancies and prevent unintended
pregnancies."
But Johnson said her bosses told her to change her "priorities" and
focus on abortions, which she said made money for the office at a time
when the recession has left them hurting.
"For them there's not a lot of money in education," she said. "There's
as not as much money in family planning as there is abortion."
Without a doctor in residence, she said, her clinic offered abortions
only two days a month, but the doctor could perform 30 to 40
procedures on each day he was there. Johnson estimated that each
abortion could net the branch about $350, adding up to more than
$10,000 a month.
--------------------- end of second excerpt, back to Spartakus:
> >> by lying about her former employers. I've seen this movie before.
>
> > ...and never able to prove a lie ever, eh, Lyman-clone?
I see you can't prove a lie either, Chief Idiot. No surprise there--
your abortion-related output is less than 1% of Spartakus's these
days.
> You seem to have a problem with who you think you're whining at, Phony.
You seem to have me confused with "elizabeth" does, who keeps calling
me "Oopsey".
Notice, I didn't call him "Lyman", I called him a Lyman-clone:
everything he does is perfectly in character with the behavior Lyman
exhibited (if you assume Lyman would have gotten out of ELCA by now)
and NOBODY in these newsgroups can do a Lyman imitation even 1% as
well as he can.
> > By the way, are you making money off abortion? Is that why you are
> > afraid to tell us what your line of work is?
> It's none of your fucking business, Phony.
+++++++++++++++ Spartakus posting mode on
Humphrey utters some trivia about having passed close to the PP place
3 1/2 years ago. The universe yawns.
+++++++++++++++ Spartakus posting mode off
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> In article
> <e355759b-97d5-4cb7-83bb-a21785bfc...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 12:44 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 24, 10:56 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
>
> > ...and here is the start of an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
Keegan:
> why would anything that lying fruitcake says be relevant. there are at
> least two web sites devoted specifically to his lies.
Which of the questions he asked Abby and Shawn were lies in The World
According to Keegan?
> it would appear that you can't make a point without quoting a known liar.
I quoted you just now, and my point right now is that YOU are a
proven liar, and here's proof, in posts 7 and 9 of the following
website:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/browse_frm/thread/7080f944f432159f/7fcf71bc10c57632?tvc=1&q=group%3Atalk.abortion+insubject%3ASimulation#
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> >an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> I wonder if she's seen any women dying in agony from childbirth gone bad.
The odds against it are tremendous. She seems to have been born after
RvW.
The odds against you having seen them are also tremendous, not because
of your age, but because otherwise you wouldn't have said the things
to Osprey that you did in that infamous post where you said you
didn't give a shit about women. He's documented quite a few
statements of yours along similar lines recently.
> Or seen the bodies of women who bled to death from trying to
> self-abort.
How many cases have there been since RvW? And how many tries after
the 10th week LMP? All the evidence indicates that the number of
deaths from LEGAL abortion here in he US are many times greater since
RvW than the number of cases you describe.
Can you document a single one?
Anyway, we have no way of knowing how pro-life Abby is right now.
That baby was just beginning the second trimester, and she may at this
stage be sort of like the doctor who did the "Silent Scream" abortion
and decided never to do a 2nd trimester abortion "the most horrible
thing" he called it. Maybe she is pro-choice to the end of the 10th
week LMP like I am.
> You pro-lie
No, YOU are pro-lie, as the following website, in which you lied your
ass off as documented in posts 4-7, shows beyond a reasonable doubt.
You lied in support of Spartakus's lie, not just once but repeatedly,
making you as pro-lie as they come.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<1b6df20f-cb41-446e...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
thanks for posting the link which refuted both of your claims above.
has bobby been helping you, whoever you are?
james g. keegan jr.
<d4e4d29d-8727-4d67...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 1:06 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e355759b-97d5-4cb7-83bb-a21785bfc...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 24, 12:44 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 24, 10:56 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > > > > the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit
> >
> > > ...and here is the start of an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
>
> Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
> Keegan:
as is my practice i cut your posts at the first lie.
The Chief Instigator
> On Nov 24, 5:13 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:33:08 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
>> >> > the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
>> >> > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>>
>> > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>>
>> Jesus Christ on Quaaludes, Phony...is that the best you can do?
>
> No, I can do a lot better. Here's some more juicy excerpts from the
> two websites.
>
> O'REILLY: Now, do you believe that, based upon what you saw in Bryan,
> Texas, do you believe that Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill
> trying to profit off that?
>
> JOHNSON: Yes. I mean, I absolutely believe that. I mean, I saw them
> trying to increase their abortion numbers. I saw them increase their
> abortion numbers.
>
> O'REILLY: Well, how do they do that? How do you increase an abortion
> number?
>
> JOHNSON: Well, they increase their accessibility to abortion for
> women. So, for instance, the clinic that I worked at, usually we only
> did abortions every other Saturday. And they said, "You know what?
> That's not really enough. We really need to be able to open this up to
>
>=========== end of excerpt from O'Reilly interview
>
> And now from the other article from which I was quoting:
>
> Johnson said she became disillusioned with her job after her bosses
> pressured her for months to increase profits by performing more and
> more abortions, which cost patients between $505 and $695.
>
> "Every meeting that we had was, 'We don't have enough money, we don't
No one cares about your bizarre mental dropouts.
>> > By the way, are you making money off abortion? Is that why you are
>> > afraid to tell us what your line of work is?
>
>> It's none of your fucking business, Phony.
>
> +++++++++++++++ Spartakus posting mode on
>
> Humphrey utters some trivia about having passed close to the PP place
> 3 1/2 years ago. The universe yawns.
Unlike you, I'm truthful, Sorry Excuse of a "Professor". We came back that
way, and I'll bet your sanity on that.
Keep on making yourself irrelevant.
james g. keegan jr.
> On Nov 24, 5:13 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:33:08 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director o
> f
>>>>> the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
>>>>> an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>>
>>> Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>>
>> Jesus Christ on Quaaludes, Phony...is that the best you can do?
>
> No, I can do a lot better.
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/03/09/scarborough-oreilly-lies-goes-off-the-deep-end/
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/23/oreilly-ambush/
http://mediamatters.org/research/200407120006
--
"You know, I've seen some incredible pussies post to t.a over the
years, but after seeing his webboard shennannigans, I have to say that
Heishman is the pussiest of them all." Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.com>
Message-ID: m2oeso5...@seesig.com
pnyikos
<jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1b6df20f-cb41-446e-a16e-5e774a986...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 1:48 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> > No, YOU are pro-lie,
As is Keegan, as seen in post 7 of the following url, which Keegan
mangled in his post to which I am following up:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/browse_frm/thread/7080f944f432159f/7fcf71bc10c57632?tvc=1&q=group%3Atalk.abortion+insubject%3ASimulation#
>>as the following website, in which you lied your
> > ass off as documented in posts 4-7, shows beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/browse_frm/thread/708...
> > 159f/7fcf71bc10c57632?tvc=1&q=group%3Atalk.abortion+insubject%3ASimulation#
>
> > You lied in support of Spartakus's lie, not just once but repeatedly,
> > making you as pro-lie as they come.
Now Keegan shows us he is still trapped in the same hell about which I
wrote in the 10th post. See repost below.
> thanks for posting the link which refuted both of your claims above.
As anyone looking at the posts can tell, Keegan is lying through his
teeth.
> has bobby been helping you,
No, this project was mine from beginning to end. That includes the
following post, of course.
Subject: Re: Below-40-IQ Simulation of the Month (Jan. 2009)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:30:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <7e71ad0c-05d3-4e71-
a6f0-594...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
the three symbols before the @ are 6f9
References:
<c8d0dc31-0278-4344...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>
<5c841c8c-aa55-44bc...@v13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
<e65f8299-fa05-425e...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
<344d0d33-8f60-494c...@g3g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
<ffa6b104-ba50-4780...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
<25c6397c-de86-4ebd...@o40g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
<13034a00-486a-42d5...@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
<5f53092c-44e8-4bb5...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
<jgkeegan-704AD7...@news.individual.net>
The last three symbols before the @ in that last message id, which is
the one for the Keegan postt where he lied are 009
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.252.12.169
On Feb 10, 2:19 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <5f53092c-44e8-4bb5-a630-9c96f44e9...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > In our everyday lives, when we come across an amazing back-and-forth
> > like the one you saw in the final post of the 7-post cascade, a
> > natural tendency is to assume that there is something extra that all
> > the participants know about, and that this something extra makes the
> > decision of who is telling the truth and who is lying a lot less
> > clear-cut, or else confirms what the three people arguing with the one
> > are saying.
>
> > In this case, however, that natural idea is wrong. If one looks at
> > the whole context in which Osprey's words, the ones that supposedly
> > confirm what Spartakus is saying, one see that the context does not
> > exonerate Spartakus, Fischer and Keegan; in fact it does not even
> > ameliorate the dishonesty of what they are saying.
>
> whatever gave you the idea that the lies you have posted and been
> chastised for become any more believable when you reassert those same
> lies?
I suspect Keegan plagiarized these lines from an opponent who got fed
up with his covering lies with other lies, *ad infinitum*, and is now
utilizing his opponent's words to continue the same cycle wrt the lies
by Spartakus and Fischer documented in posts 2-6 of this thread, along
with the lies by Keegan himself that I documented in post 7.
When I did my first follow-up to Keegan, I omitted the simplest
explanation of all as to why he continued his low-IQ simulation. The
simplest explanation is that Keegan is trapped in a hell of his own
making, having lied so much that:
(1) he cannot apologize for a single lie, because that would set a
precedent for having to make thousands of apologies and
(2) the only way he can keep from looking like a totally irresponsible
person in the wake of documented lies is to cover them up with new
ones.
It's too deep a hole for anyone but the Savior in whom Christians
believe to pull him out of.
> [...]
I'll say one thing for him, though. He actually had the guts to MARK
his deletion.
Peter Nyikos
----------end of included post
pnyikos
<jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <d4e4d29d-8727-4d67-a471-12088c900...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 1:06 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <e355759b-97d5-4cb7-83bb-a21785bfc...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 24, 12:44 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 24, 10:56 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > > > > > the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit
>
> > > > ...and here is the start of an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
>
> > Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
> > Keegan:
>
> as is my practice i cut your posts at the first lie.
If you think readers who know your posting behavior actually BELIEVE
what you are saying here, you are even more in need of psychiatric
help than I suspected.
Anyone with a college education, who takes the trouble to look up the
term "ad hominem fallacy," knows that I was telling the truth.
================== begin repost of text deleted by Keegan
> why would anything that lying fruitcake says be relevant. there are at
> least two web sites devoted specifically to his lies.
Which of the questions he asked Abby and Shawn were lies in The World
According to Keegan?
> it would appear that you can't make a point without quoting a known liar.
I quoted you just now, and my point right now is that YOU are a
proven liar, and here's proof, in posts 7 and 9 of the following
website:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/browse_frm/thread/7080f944f432159f/7fcf71bc10c57632?tvc=1&q=group%3Atalk.abortion+insubject%3ASimulation#
============================ end of repost
I reposted my follow-up to that obviously dishonest Post 9 in my
preceding follow-up to Keegan.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 24, 1:06 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ...and here is the start of an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
>
>Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
>Keegan:
It's not an ad hominem, idiot. O'Reilly does have a known bias, is
frequently dishonest, and has shown no regard for objective fact.
>> it would appear that you can't make a point without quoting a known liar.
>
>I quoted you just now, and my point right now is that YOU are a
>proven liar, and here's proof, in posts 7 and 9 of the following
>website:
This proves that you're a stupid asshole who makes up stories and then
convinces yourself that they're real.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 24, 1:48 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
>> >the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
>> >an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>>
>> I wonder if she's seen any women dying in agony from childbirth gone bad.
>
>The odds against it are tremendous.
You really are a sleazy asshole.
STUDY REPORTS RISE IN CHILDBIRTH DEATHS
San Jose Mercury News (SJ) - Tuesday, June 11, 1996
By: New York Times
UNITED NATIONS In the first comprehensive survey in a decade to look at
maternal deaths worldwide, UNICEF reported Monday that about 585,000 women die
each year during pregnancy and childbirth, many needlessly.
Millions more, perhaps as many as 18 million women, suffer debilitating
illnesses or injuries that often disable them.
The figures are nearly one-fifth higher than previous estimates of about
500,000 deaths, according to the report by UNICEF, the United Nations Childrens
Fund, which compiled the new data with the World Health Organization and Johns
Hopkins University.
Much of the tragedy is preventable, the study says.
"For the most part, these are the deaths not of the ill, or the very old,
or the very young, but of healthy women in the prime of their lives," says the
report, the Progress of Nations 1996.
Data from the report indicate that one in 13 women in sub-Saharan Africa
and one in 35 in South Asia dies of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth,
according to UNICEF officials, compared with one in 3,200 in Europe, one in
3,300 in the United States, and one in 7,300 in Canada.
The survey faults the shortage of obstetric care in many nations. It calls
for the proper medical training of more midwives who would be better qualified
than traditional birth attendants to assist mothers before, during and after
delivery.
About 75,000 women die annually of botched abortions and another 75,000 of
brain and kidney damage in eclampsia, a disorder that can cause high blood
pressure and convulsions late in pregnancy. At least 100,000 die of blood
poisoning and 40,000 of obstructed labor.
The report on maternal risks, prepared under UNICEF's director, Carol
Bellamy, a former New York City Council president and director of the Peace
Corps who took over the agency last year, is notably stronger in its language
and imagery than many U.N. publications.
The new figures produced in the UNICEF report raised some questions among
experts, who say that getting accurate information on maternal mortality is
notoriously difficult. At Harvard University, Lincoln Chen, professor of
international health and head of the Center for Population and Development
Studies, said that the difference between 500,000 maternal deaths, the
previously accepted figure, and 585,000 or 600,000 may fall within a margin of
error, since all such numbers were "insecure."
More information at http://www.unicef.org/pon96/contents.htm
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
The Chief Idiot knows this is true, hence the absence of a retort.
> >> You seem to have a problem with who you think you're whining at, Phony.
>
> > You seem to have me confused with "elizabeth"
> > who keeps calling me "Oopsey".
The Chief Idiot had nothing to say to this, being a staunch ally of
"elizabeth".
> > Notice, I didn't call him "Lyman", I called him a Lyman-clone:
> > everything he does is perfectly in character with the behavior Lyman
> > exhibited (if you assume Lyman would have gotten out of ELCA by now)
> > and NOBODY in these newsgroups can do a Lyman imitation even 1% as
> > well as he can.
>
> No one cares about your bizarre mental dropouts.
How unresponsive can you get?
> >> > By the way, are you making money off abortion? Is that why you are
> >> > afraid to tell us what your line of work is?
>
> >> It's none of your fucking business, Phony.
>
> > +++++++++++++++ Spartakus posting mode on
>
> > Humphrey utters some trivia about having passed close to the PP place
> > 3 1/2 years ago. The universe yawns.
>
> Unlike you, I'm truthful,
The opposite is true, and you are just diluting this thread with your
lies, along with your buddy Keegan. Both of you can't handle the on-
topic discussion, so you both do what you are best at: idiocy, lies,
hypocrisy, insincerity.
> Sorry Excuse of a "Professor".
The first time you said that (though perhaps with slightly different
words) was when you saw how I had caught Spartakus red-handed lying
shamelessly, in service of the falsehood that stalking was NOT a
factor in your firing. Your topsy-turvy moral code made my catching
him out to be a thoroughly reprehensible act.
Well...topsy-turvy may not be the best term; perhaps it is simply an
insanely expanded form of self-righteousness, that damns those who
expose the evil of you and your friends, and blesses anyone who never
speaks ill of y'all.
> We came back that
> way,
From where to where?
> and I'll bet your sanity on that.
It isn't for sale--much as you might like to buy it to shore up your
pathetic intellect.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 24, 7:41�pm, proven liar "james g. keegan jr."
><jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <d4e4d29d-8727-4d67-a471-12088c900...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> �pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Nov 24, 1:06 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > In article
>> > > <e355759b-97d5-4cb7-83bb-a21785bfc...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > > �pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > > On Nov 24, 12:44 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > > > On Nov 24, 10:56 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
>> > > > > > the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit
>>
>> > > > ...and here is the start of an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
>>
>> > Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
>> > Keegan:
>>
>> as is my practice i cut your posts at the first lie.
>
>If you think readers who know your posting behavior actually BELIEVE
>what you are saying here, you are even more in need of psychiatric
And there's the first lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
james g. keegan jr.
<50504b96-c9fb-47f3...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, the
proven liar posting as peter nyikos
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
> > > Keegan:
> >
> > as is my practice i cut your posts at the first lie.
>
> If you think readers who know your posting behavior actually BELIEVE
> what you are saying here, you are even more in need of psychiatric
> help than I suspected.
since you've already had others comment on the same lie i commented on,
i take it that you are too upset to think clearly.
pnyikos
> On 2009-11-24 19:12:12 -0500, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> said:
>
> > On Nov 24, 5:13 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:33:08 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
> >>> On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director o
> > f
> >>>>> the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> >>>>> an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> >>> Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>
> >> Jesus Christ on Quaaludes, Phony...is that the best you can do?
>
> > No, I can do a lot better.
Irrelevant urls, aimed at O'Reilly instead of the young woman being
discussed, deleted here.
> "You know, I've seen some incredible pussies post to t.a over the
> years, but after seeing his webboard shennannigans, I have to say that
> Heishman is the pussiest of them all." Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.com>
> Message-ID: m2oeso5...@seesig.com
All this illustrates is the adage,
Hang around long enough, and you'll find anyone saying anything about
anyone in Usenet.
Now for a little change of pace for a nightcap.
What would a mathematician say comes next in the following sequence?
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
And what would an Apollo ground control employee of NASA say?
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<301e8920-61bf-4a2e...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > thanks for posting the link which refuted both of your claims above.
>
> As anyone looking at the posts can tell, Keegan is lying through his
> teeth.
as is my practice, i cut your post at your first lie.
james g. keegan jr.
<4a8046e3-bfa0-48b3...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, the
proven liar posting as peter nyikos,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 8:25�pm, james g. keegan jr. <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2009-11-24 19:12:12 -0500, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> said:
> >
> > > On Nov 24, 5:13 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:33:08 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
> > > �wrote:
> > >>> On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >>>>> Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director o
> > > f
> > >>>>> the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> > >>>>> an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
> >
> > >>> Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
> >
> > >> Jesus Christ on Quaaludes, Phony...is that the best you can do?
> >
> > > No, I can do a lot better.
>
> Irrelevant urls
as is my practice, i cut your post at your first lie.
*you* quotes o'reilly, not me.
and now you while that several separate websites which have focused on
his lies are irrelevant.
who do you think you;re kidding, whoever you are?
The Chief Instigator
> On Nov 24, 7:46?pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:12:12 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Nov 24, 5:13 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:33:08 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
>> >> >> > the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
>> >> >> > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>>
>> >> > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>>
>> >> Jesus Christ on Quaaludes, Phony...is that the best you can do?
>>
>>
>> >> > ...and never able to prove a lie ever, eh, Lyman-clone?
>>
>> > abortion-related output is less than 1% of Spartakus's these days.
>
> The Chief Idiot knows this is true, hence the absence of a retort.
>
>> >> You seem to have a problem with who you think you're whining at, Phony.
>>
>> > You seem to have me confused with "elizabeth"
>> > who keeps calling me "Oopsey".
>
> The Chief Idiot had nothing to say to this, being a staunch ally of
> "elizabeth".
Not at all, Malicious and Terminally Senile...we agree on some things, and
don't on others. They are not your self-serving concern.
>> > Notice, I didn't call him "Lyman", I called him a Lyman-clone:
>> > everything he does is perfectly in character with the behavior Lyman
>> > exhibited (if you assume Lyman would have gotten out of ELCA by now)
>> > and NOBODY in these newsgroups can do a Lyman imitation even 1% as
>> > well as he can.
>>
>> No one cares about your bizarre mental dropouts.
>
> How unresponsive can you get?
I'm not required to faithfully answer assholes like you, Phony. Be thankful
you're getting noticed at all.
>> >> > By the way, are you making money off abortion? ?Is that why you are
>> >> > afraid to tell us what your line of work is?
>>
>> >> It's none of your fucking business, Phony.
>>
>> > +++++++++++++++ Spartakus posting mode on
>>
>> > Humphrey utters some trivia about having passed close to ?the PP place
>> > 3 1/2 years ago. ?The universe yawns.
>>
>> Unlike you, I'm truthful,
>
> The opposite is true, and you are just diluting this thread with your
> lies, along with your buddy Keegan. Both of you can't handle the on-
> topic discussion, so you both do what you are best at: idiocy, lies,
> hypocrisy, insincerity.
You get no respect from me. You deserve to be slapped silly for your
impersonation of a former professor.
>> Sorry Excuse of a "Professor".
>
> The first time you said that (though perhaps with slightly different
> words) was when you saw how I had caught Spartakus red-handed lying
> shamelessly, in service of the falsehood that stalking was NOT a factor in
> your firing. Your topsy-turvy moral code made my catching him out to be a
> thoroughly reprehensible act.
Wreck it some more, Phony. It was a factor, but not as much as you
fantasize it was, and as you are not a party to that situation, you are not
entitled to bully your way to get to the involved parties.
> Well...topsy-turvy may not be the best term; perhaps it is simply an
> insanely expanded form of self-righteousness, that damns those who
> expose the evil of you and your friends, and blesses anyone who never
> speaks ill of y'all.
>
>>?We came back that
>> way,
>
> From where to where?
You can't figure out what's left of your mind, Fraud Phony. Nice of you to
just delete my explanation of how we went through Bryan and College Station,
after having returned from Dublin via Hico, Meridian, Valley Mills, Marlin,
and Hearne. After College Station, we went through Navasota and Hempstead
to get on the 290 freeway back into Houston. It was only three years and
eight months ago.
>> and I'll bet your sanity on that.
>
> It isn't for sale--much as you might like to buy it to shore up your
> pathetic intellect.
I'm not the circus professor who can't decide who he is on any given post.
The wife and I will defend our household, and you're not invited.
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 24, 8:25�pm, james g. keegan jr. <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-11-24 19:12:12 -0500, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> said:
>>
>> > On Nov 24, 5:13 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:33:08 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
>> > �wrote:
>> >>> On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director o
>> > f
>> >>>>> the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
>> >>>>> an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>>
>> >>> Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>>
>> >> Jesus Christ on Quaaludes, Phony...is that the best you can do?
>>
>> > No, I can do a lot better.
>
>Irrelevant urls, aimed at O'Reilly instead of the young woman being
>discussed, deleted here.
Translation: RUN AWAY!
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Lefty
> On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>
>
> Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
> That was what made her quit at the time she did.
If that's what she "saw", she was kidding herself. A 13 week fetus
doesn't have the ability to consciously fight to survive. Her reaction
proves nothing but that she's overemotional and not well informed.
> >discovers she can make serious coin
>
> Why, do you think O'Reily gives big bucks for interviews? How much do
> you estimate? 1 million? :-)
>
> She could have amassed at least that much in 10 years, judging from
> the fact that the national director of this "nonprofit" organization
> made over $300,000 per year already 15 years ago. This made her the
> highest paid person in a "nonprofit" organization, anywhere.
>
> > by lying about her former employers. I've seen this movie before.
>
> ...and never able to prove a lie ever, eh, Lyman-clone?
>
> > Btw, isn't it ironic that this woman is *still* making money on
> > abortion?
>
> Where?
>
> By the way, are you making money off abortion? Is that why you are
> afraid to tell us what your line of work is?
>
> Peter Nyikos
Lefty
If that's true, and sadly, I rather doubt that it is, given the
source, I applaud them. The more abortions, the better for the planet
and for society. The more access to abortion, the more freedom for
women, and for men who don't want to be fathers, too. Who could object
to that?
<snip feud-related commentary>
james g. keegan jr.
<5bf2f402-baf9-46e1...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Lefty <lefty...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 12:33�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > > > the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> > > > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
> >
> > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
> >
> > > Disgruntled former clinic director
> >
> > Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
> > That was what made her quit at the time she did.
>
> If that's what she "saw", she was kidding herself. A 13 week fetus
> doesn't have the ability to consciously fight to survive. Her reaction
> proves nothing but that she's overemotional and not well informed.
it is not uncommon for the person posting as peter nyikos to cite such
sources. the real peter nyikos, as a math phd from a decent university,
knows all about sources.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 24, 1:06 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > ...and here is the start of an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
>
> >Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
> >Keegan:
>
> It's not an ad hominem, idiot. O'Reilly does have a known bias, is
> frequently dishonest, and has shown no regard for objective fact.
Are you willing to be held to the same standard when YOU use the term?
Regardless of your answer, you are lying when you call me an idiot,
and (like Keegan) you probably know it, because (like Keegan) you
deleted the thing my accusation of *ad hominem* was directed against.
================== repost of text deleted by Keegan and Fischer
> why would anything that lying fruitcake says be relevant. there are at
> least two web sites devoted specifically to his lies.
Which of the questions he asked Abby and Shawn were lies in The World
According to Keegan?
> it would appear that you can't make a point without quoting a known liar.
I quoted you just now, and my point right now is that YOU are a
proven liar, and here's proof, in posts 7 and 9 of the following
website:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/browse_frm/thread/708...
============================ end of repost
I turned Keegan's slur against him, but the point of my ad hominem
accusation is that I wasn't banking on any assertions by O'Reilly, and
he was indulging in guilt by association against Abby Johnson and
Shawn Carney.
> >> it would appear that you can't make a point without quoting a known liar.
>
> >I quoted you just now, and my point right now is that YOU are a
> >proven liar, and here's proof, in posts 7 and 9 of the following
> >website:
The evidence against Fischer is even more massive, and may be followed
closely in posts 4 through 6. Some additional dishonesty can be found
in post 7, though Keegan's words are the ones that leap out at you in
Google. A click on - Show quoted text - reveals all of the lies of
Spartakus (one) and Fischer (several) that Keegan preserved, along
with a whole raft of statements that Osprey said earlier on, in
defiance of Keegan's own alleged policy of cutting posts at the first
lie. [Ironically, he alleged this right in this thread on the former
Planned Parenthood director.]
Now Fischer follows in Keegan's footsteps by lying through his teeth
about the contents of those ten posts:
> This proves that you're a stupid asshole who makes up stories and then
> convinces yourself that they're real.
Like Keegan, Fischer is trapped in the hell of Keegan's making, which
he voluntarily entered ca. 1996 and of which I wrote in the tenth post
to that thread up there:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/0cca5cf0473658c6?dmode=source
Message ID 7e71ad0c-05d3-4e71-
a6f0-594...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
The three symbols before the @ are 6f9
I reposted that post in this thread in response to Keegan yesterday,
and here I content myself with documenting it.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 24, 1:48 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> >> >the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> >> >an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> >> I wonder if she's seen any women dying in agony from childbirth gone bad.
>
> >The odds against it are tremendous.
>
> You really are a sleazy asshole.
It is you who are the sleazy asshole, indulging in scare tactics
against childbirth yet not only refusing to suggest to Humphrey that
he should pass the information on to his pregnant stepdaughter, but
actually indulging in a massive pretense that I WANTED you to do it.
You know damn well that I only said what I did to expose the hypocrisy
of sleazoids like yourself, who really don't believe in the rhetoric
they spew.
By the way, these events took place a mere two years before the study
you cite below:
> STUDY REPORTS RISE IN CHILDBIRTH DEATHS
> San Jose Mercury News (SJ) - Tuesday, June 11, 1996
> By: New York Times
>
> UNITED NATIONS In the first comprehensive survey in a decade to look at
> maternal deaths worldwide,
I doubt that Abby did such extensive and intensive traveling worldwide
as to bring her in contact with one of those deaths. So your insult
was totally uncalled-for.
>UNICEF reported Monday that about 585,000 women die
> each year during pregnancy and childbirth, many needlessly.
I've posted before on the bogus accuracy of those statistics. Also,
have a look at some far more recent bits of information, even on a far
more ballpark-style estimate:
Recent WHO Report Presents Skewed Data to Advance Abortion Agenda
By Elizabeth Walsh
A 2005 WHO Bulletin admitted that relatively very few countries
provide reliable and complete data on mortality or cause of death. In
fact, of the 46 African countries, which supposedly account for about
50% of maternal deaths, only one country had complete data available.
Even so, WHO routinely asserts that about half a million women die
every year from “maternal causes” in developing nations, regardless of
the fact that the data available from developing nations on this
subject is unreliable, with “high uncertainty margins.” The UN
Population Division, the official UN statistics office, refuses to use
the 500,000 number precisely because it is not verifiable.
===excerpt from http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1269/pub_detail.asp
Compare that to what you posted below, asshole:
> The figures are nearly one-fifth higher than previous estimates of about
> 500,000 deaths, according to the report by UNICEF, the United Nations Childrens
> Fund, which compiled the new data with the World Health Organization and Johns
> Hopkins University.
[...]
> Data from the report indicate that one in 13 women in sub-Saharan Africa
> and one in 35 in South Asia dies of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth,
Note the term "related to" in contrast to the very stringent
requirements for a death due to legal abortion to be classified as
such.
> according to UNICEF officials, compared with one in 3,200 in Europe, one in
> 3,300 in the United States, and one in 7,300 in Canada.
>
> The survey faults the shortage of obstetric care in many nations. It calls
> for the proper medical training of more midwives who would be better qualified
> than traditional birth attendants to assist mothers before, during and after
> delivery.
>
> About 75,000 women die annually of botched abortions
No distinction made between legal and illegal. Nor is there any
comparison between the total number of childbirths and the total
number of abortions. That does not surprise me: look at the following
excerpt from the above website:
"In its recently released annual report on the state of global health,
the World Health Organization (WHO) presents statistics that
misleadingly appear to place maternal mortality on par with other
global killers like malaria and HIV/ AIDS. This new approach
contradicts other WHO reports where maternal mortality does not even
make the top ten of global killers, ranking somewhere lower than car
accident fatalities."
The confusion first arises in the second table of the new report,
which provides data about mortality due to maternal causes, HIV/AIDS,
malaria, tuberculosis, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and injuries.
All of these causes of death, except maternal mortality, are among the
top ten causes of death globally; yet maternal mortality is shown in
the same statistics table, as if it were comparable to the others.
Even more confusing to the casual reader is that the statistics
in the table for maternal mortality actually appear to be a greater
cause of death than the others. The table shows that maternal
mortality has a “mortality rate” of 400 while coronary heart disease,
considered the number one killer in the world, has a mortality rate of
301. While the WHO itself says maternal mortality kills 536,000 per
year and coronary heart disease kills 7.2 million, this seeming parity
is achieved by showing maternal mortality numbers as a function of
total live births while the others are shown as a function of total
population – a mixing of apples and oranges.
Critics charge that the report is part of the ongoing campaign by
United Nations (UN) agencies and the WHO of exaggerating the actual
incidence of maternal mortality for the purposes of promoting
abortion."
======== end of excerpt
Peter Nyikos
and another 75,000 of
> brain and kidney damage in eclampsia, a disorder that can cause high blood
> pressure and convulsions late in pregnancy. At least 100,000 die of blood
> poisoning and 40,000 of obstructed labor.
>
> The report on maternal risks, prepared under UNICEF's director, Carol
> Bellamy, a former New York City Council president and director of the Peace
> Corps who took over the agency last year, is notably stronger in its language
> and imagery than many U.N. publications.
>
> The new figures produced in the UNICEF report raised some questions among
> experts, who say that getting accurate information on maternal mortality is
> notoriously difficult. At Harvard University, Lincoln Chen, professor of
> international health and head of the Center for Population and Development
> Studies, said that the difference between 500,000 maternal deaths, the
> previously accepted figure, and 585,000 or 600,000 may fall within a margin of
> error, since all such numbers were "insecure."
>
> More information athttp://www.unicef.org/pon96/contents.htm
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 24, 7:41 pm, proven liar "james g. keegan jr."
> ><jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <d4e4d29d-8727-4d67-a471-12088c900...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 24, 1:06 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > In article
> >> > > <e355759b-97d5-4cb7-83bb-a21785bfc...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > > > On Nov 24, 12:44 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > > > > On Nov 24, 10:56 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> >> > > > > > the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit
>
> >> > > > ...and here is the start of an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
>
> >> > Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
> >> > Keegan:
>
> >> as is my practice i cut your posts at the first lie.
>
> >If you think readers who know your posting behavior actually BELIEVE
> >what you are saying here, you are even more in need of psychiatric
>
> And there's the first lie.
Wrong. See my earlier reply to you about this ad hominem bit, you
Usenet Treadmill Salesman.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> proven liar posting as peter nyikos
>
> > > > Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
> > > > Keegan:
>
> > > as is my practice i cut your posts at the first lie.
>
> > If you think readers who know your posting behavior actually BELIEVE
> > what you are saying here, you are even more in need of psychiatric
> > help than I suspected.
>
"others" being your staunch ally Fischer, scratching your back in
return for all the times you scratched his back, like you did in post
7 of the following webpage.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/browse_frm/thread/7080f944f432159f/7fcf71bc10c57632?tvc=1&q=group%3Atalk.abortion+insubject%3ASimulation#
> i take it that you are too upset to think clearly.
Earth to Keegan, earth to keegan, you are off in la-la land.
[I used lower case the second time just in case Keegan doesn't
recognize his name when capitalized. :-) ] :-)
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
<jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <301e8920-61bf-4a2e-b9fc-3d772c3c2...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, [...]
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
In his zeal to conceal what in hell "both of your claims above" refers
to, Keegan (probably accidentally) cut the attribution line to the
following statement:
> > > thanks for posting the link which refuted both of your claims above.
>
> > As anyone looking at the posts can tell, Keegan is lying through his
> > teeth.
> as is my practice, i cut your post at your first lie.
If you expect ANYONE not a toady of yours to believe you when you also
make selective deletia earlier in the post which wipe out what you are
talking about, you have serious delusions of grandeur.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> In article
> <4a8046e3-bfa0-48b3-839a-94f5aea59...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, the
> proven liar posting as peter nyikos,
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 8:25 pm, james g. keegan jr. <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2009-11-24 19:12:12 -0500, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> said:
>
> > > > On Nov 24, 5:13 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:33:08 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>> On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director o
> > > > f
> > > >>>>> the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> > > >>>>> an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> > > >>> Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>
> > > >> Jesus Christ on Quaaludes, Phony...is that the best you can do?
>
> > > > No, I can do a lot better.
>
> > Irrelevant urls
> as is my practice, i cut your post at your first lie.
I'm calling your bluff. See my challenge below.
> *you* quotes o'reilly, not me.
And none of what he said was relevant to the issue which centered on
Abby Johnson and, to a far lesser extent, on Shawn Johnson. It
consisted of questions, nothing more, and a completely general
preamble.
CHALLENGE: Let's see you label ANYTHING that O'Reilly said (as opposed
to asked) in the interview as a lie.
>and now you while that several separate websites which have focused on
>his lies are irrelevant.
I do while away the time with it, yes, when I'd rather be discussing
Abby and Shawn. And they ARE irrelevant unless you meet my challenge
squarely.
>who do you think you;re kidding, whoever you are?
You took the words out of my mouth. :-)
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:38:30 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 7:46?pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:12:12 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 24, 5:13 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
> >> > --------------------- end of second excerpt, back to Spartakus:
> >> >> >> by lying about her former employers. ?I've seen this movie before.
[Nyikos:]
> >> >> > ...and never able to prove a lie ever, eh, Lyman-clone?
[Nyikos, in later post:]
> >> > I see you can't prove a lie either, Chief Idiot. ?No surprise there-- your
> >> > abortion-related output is less than 1% of Spartakus's these days.
>
> > The Chief Idiot knows this is true, hence the absence of a retort.
Still no retort, but at the next such challenge, he does make an
idiotic stand.
> >> >> You seem to have a problem with who you think you're whining at, Phony.
>
> >> > You seem to have me confused with "elizabeth"
> >> > who keeps calling me "Oopsey".
>
> > The Chief Idiot had nothing to say to this, being a staunch ally of
> > "elizabeth".
>
> Not at all,
I'm sure Hitler and Musollini disagreed on some things, but that
didn't stop them from being staunch allies.
> Malicious and Terminally Senile
You can dish it out, but you can't take it: repeatedly you've whined
that I ought to exercise my right to ignore your posts. What makes
you think I'd even consider doing you such an enormous favor?
>...we agree on some things, and
> don't on others.
Churchill and Roosevelt argeed on some things, and not on others, but
that did not stop them from being even stauncher allies than Hitler
and Mussolini.
The case of Hitler and Franco is even more instructive...but enough of
this for now.
> They are not your self-serving concern.
When you insincerely claim that I have trouble telling whom I'm
talking to, it does become my concern.
> >> > Notice, I didn't call him "Lyman", I called him a Lyman-clone:
> >> > everything he does is perfectly in character with the behavior Lyman
> >> > exhibited (if you assume Lyman would have gotten out of ELCA by now)
> >> > and NOBODY in these newsgroups can do a Lyman imitation even 1% as
> >> > well as he can.
>
> >> No one cares about your bizarre mental dropouts.
>
> > How unresponsive can you get?
>
> I'm not required to faithfully answer assholes like you, Phony. Be thankful
> you're getting noticed at all.
Does it ever occur to YOU to exercise your right to ignore me--
especially when I am arguing with someone else, buttinsky?
Believe me, I'd love it if you stopped noticing me.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:38:30 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 7:46?pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:12:12 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > +++++++++++++++ Spartakus posting mode on
>
> >> > Humphrey utters some trivia about having passed close to ?the PP place
> >> > 3 1/2 years ago. ?The universe yawns.
>
> >> Unlike you, I'm truthful,
>
> > The opposite is true, and you are just diluting this thread with your
> > lies, along with your buddy Keegan. Both of you can't handle the on-
> > topic discussion, so you both do what you are best at: idiocy, lies,
> > hypocrisy, insincerity.
>
> You get no respect from me.
Seeing how rotten your idea of right and wrong is, I'd seriously start
worrying if I did get the kind of respect from you that you give
Spartakus.
> >> Sorry Excuse of a "Professor".
>
> > The first time you said that (though perhaps with slightly different
> > words) was when you saw how I had caught Spartakus red-handed lying
> > shamelessly, in service of the falsehood that stalking was NOT a factor in
> > your firing. Your topsy-turvy moral code made my catching him out to be a
> > thoroughly reprehensible act.
>
> Wreck it some more, Phony. It was a factor, but not as much as you
> fantasize it was,
Stop pretending to know what I fantasize about. Spartakus lied, and
you know it, because ALL Osprey said at that point was that it was a
factor. Nothing less, nothing more.
Repeat after me: Spartakus lied.
> and as you are not a party to that situation,
Non sequitur, as your buddy Spartakus loves to say--only he never said
it so truly as I am saying it now, in my experience.
>you are not
> entitled to bully your way to get to the involved parties.
Another non sequitur.
My favorite expression is Phantom Error Correction Scam, and you are
indulging in the same IDENTICAL one that I exposed in the following
thread:
Were you warned away from that thread, lest it cramp your style?
Whatever the reason, you never participated in it, not even long after
it started and the topic had totally changed.
> > Well...topsy-turvy may not be the best term; perhaps it is simply an
> > insanely expanded form of self-righteousness, that damns those who
> > expose the evil of you and your friends, and blesses anyone who never
> > speaks ill of y'all.
>
> >>?We came back that
> >> way,
>
> > From where to where?
>
> You can't figure out what's left of your mind, Fraud Phony. Nice of you to
> just delete my explanation of how we went through Bryan and College Station,
I *thought* that was what you were referring to, but then this next
comment of yours was such a total non sequitur, I wanted to be sure:
> >> and I'll bet your sanity on that.
>
> > It isn't for sale--much as you might like to buy it to shore up your
> > pathetic intellect.
>
> I'm not the circus professor who can't decide who he is on any given post.
Nor am I. I know who I am and you've never seen me pretend to be
someone else.
> The wife and I will defend our household, and you're not invited.
What's that got to do with you having passed thru College Station, and
talking about betting my sanity on that? If I were Spartakus and you
were me, I'd be having a field day showering insults on you for such
idiotic *non sequiturs*.
As it is, I've got bigger fish to fry.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Nov 24, 12:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > > > the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> > > > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>
> > > Disgruntled former clinic director
>
> > Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
> > That was what made her quit at the time she did.
>
> If that's what she "saw", she was kidding herself. A 13 week fetus
> doesn't have the ability to consciously fight to survive.
"struggling for life" does not mean fighting; it means having clear
avoidance reactions, and there are plenty of those documented.
"By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels
of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus. Thus,
at that point, the fetal orgainc response to pain is more than a
reflexive response. It is an integrated physiological attempt to
avert the noxious stimuli."
--Wm. Matviuw, M.D., Diplomate, Amer. College of OB & GYN,
quoted by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, _Abortion Questions and
Answers_, 1990 edition, p. 68.
> Her reaction
> proves nothing but that she's overemotional and not well informed.
Maybe she wasn't exposed to the un-named source of "information" that
you are relying on. What is it?
By the way, it's amusing how my questions below still haven't been
answered.
> > >discovers she can make serious coin
>
> > Why, do you think O'Reily gives big bucks for interviews? How much do
> > you estimate? 1 million? :-)
>
> > She could have amassed at least that much in 10 years, judging from
> > the fact that the national director of this "nonprofit" organization
> > made over $300,000 per year already 15 years ago. This made her the
> > highest paid person in a "nonprofit" organization, anywhere.
>
> > > by lying about her former employers. I've seen this movie before.
>
> > ...and never able to prove a lie ever, eh, Lyman-clone?
>
> > > Btw, isn't it ironic that this woman is *still* making money on
> > > abortion?
>
> > Where?
Peter Nyikos
IAAH
What's amusing is that you can say that, given
that you level libellous accusations and never
respond to the rebuttal, troll.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
james g. keegan jr.
<97d83391-481d-4ef8...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, the
> Still no retort
are you referring to the dozens of unanswered challenges to your lies?
james g. keegan jr.
<2421d5ba-0809-4fc2...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, the
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 8:38�am, Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
[...]
> By the way, it's amusing how my questions below still haven't been
> answered.
readers are probably awaiting your responses to the dozens of lies you
have posted which have been challenged and remain unanswered.
james g. keegan jr.
<de97b5a4-1bbf-43cc...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, the
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
> Repeat after me: Spartakus lied.
why do you think repeating one of your many lies is relevant?
james g. keegan jr.
<b37630a1-7a7a-43ba...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, the
oh? are you planning on responding to the several challenges i have
posted to your lies, and which remain unanswwered?
james g. keegan jr.
<2b21f2b1-71f7-4d4a...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, the
proven liar posting as peter nyikos,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 10:44 pm, the Energizer Bunny, "james g. keegan jr."
> <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <301e8920-61bf-4a2e-b9fc-3d772c3c2...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, [...]
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> In his zeal to conceal what in hell "both of your claims above" refers
> to, Keegan (probably accidentally) cut the attribution line to the
> following statement:
as is my practice, i am cutting your post at your first lie.
james g. keegan jr.
<1f4ba630-6b45-4593...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
proven liar posting as peter nyikos,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 10:43�pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <50504b96-c9fb-47f3-a091-c9d521fa7...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, the
> > proven liar posting as peter nyikos
> >
> > �pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
> > > > > Keegan:
> >
> > > > as is my practice i cut your posts at the first lie.
> >
> > > If you think readers who know your posting behavior actually BELIEVE
> > > what you are saying here, you are even more in need of psychiatric
> > > help than I suspected.
> >
> > since you've already had others comment on the same [...] i commented on,
>
> "others" being your staunch ally Fischer
james g. keegan jr.
<b7cbbe34-dadd-483a...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the
as is my practice, i am curring your post at your first lie.
james g. keegan jr.
<01de3e1e-3a0e-44b0...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, the
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 10:32�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >On Nov 24, 1:06 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > ...and here is the start of an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
> >
> > >Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
> > >Keegan:
> >
> > It's not an ad hominem, idiot. �O'Reilly does have a known bias, is
> > frequently dishonest, and has shown no regard for objective fact.
>
> Are you willing to be held to the same standard when YOU use the term?
>
> Regardless of your answer, you are lying when you call me an idiot
as is my practice, i am cutting your post at your first lie.
The Chief Instigator
Quit babbling at yourself, Fraud Nyikos.
The Chief Instigator
> On Nov 25, 12:02?am, The Chief Idiot <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:38:30 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Nov 24, 7:46?pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:12:12 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> >> > +++++++++++++++ Spartakus posting mode on
>>
>> >> > Humphrey utters some trivia about having passed close to ?the PP place
>> >> > 3 1/2 years ago. ?The universe yawns.
>>
>> >> Unlike you, I'm truthful,
>>
>> > The opposite is true, and you are just diluting this thread with your
>> > lies, along with your buddy Keegan. Both of you can't handle the on-
>> > topic discussion, so you both do what you are best at: idiocy, lies,
>> > hypocrisy, insincerity.
>>
>> You get no respect from me.
>
> Seeing how rotten your idea of right and wrong is, I'd seriously start
> worrying if I did get the kind of respect from you that you give
> Spartakus.
You're one egostistical asshole, Fake Professor. He's getting a good laugh
at you if you believe that. (He's earned his respect, unlike you.)
>> >> Sorry Excuse of a "Professor".
>>
>> > The first time you said that (though perhaps with slightly different
>> > words) was when you saw how I had caught Spartakus red-handed lying
>> > shamelessly, in service of the falsehood that stalking was NOT a factor in
>> > your firing. Your topsy-turvy moral code made my catching him out to be a
>> > thoroughly reprehensible act.
>>
>> Wreck it some more, Phony. It was a factor, but not as much as you
>> fantasize it was,
>
> Stop pretending to know what I fantasize about. Spartakus lied, and
> you know it, because ALL Osprey said at that point was that it was a
> factor. Nothing less, nothing more.
>
> Repeat after me: Spartakus lied.
Take it up with him, Wacko. I'm not his spokesman. He is. (Don't have a
stroke trying to riddle that out.)
>> and as you are not a party to that situation,
>
> Non sequitur, as your buddy Spartakus loves to say--only he never said it
> so truly as I am saying it now, in my experience.
Your bitching is divorced from everything except your attempts to try and
justify your whining.
>> you are not entitled to bully your way to get to the involved parties.
>
> Another non sequitur.
>
> My favorite expression is Phantom Error Correction Scam, and you are
> indulging in the same IDENTICAL one that I exposed in the following
> thread:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/browse_thread/thread/d3c4856859414f78/c1ada9687fadaba1?q=insubject%3ADirty+insubject%3ADebating+author%3Apnyikos&lnk=ol&
You're one obsessive fuck-up, Phony. No one cares about all the supposed
insults you had to endure all those years ago.
> Were you warned away from that thread, lest it cramp your style?
> Whatever the reason, you never participated in it, not even long after
> it started and the topic had totally changed.
I don't bother with your Google Groups hideout, you sorry excuse of a
bastard.
>> > Well...topsy-turvy may not be the best term; perhaps it is simply an
>> > insanely expanded form of self-righteousness, that damns those who
>> > expose the evil of you and your friends, and blesses anyone who never
>> > speaks ill of y'all.
>>
>> >>?We came back that way,
>>
>> > From where to where?
>>
>> You can't figure out what's left of your mind, Fraud Phony. Nice of you to
>> just delete my explanation of how we went through Bryan and College Station,
>
> I *thought* that was what you were referring to, but then this next
> comment of yours was such a total non sequitur, I wanted to be sure:
On a good day, you might be able to distinguish between up and down. The
day you posted the butt-nugget I'm replying to obviously wasn't good for
you.
>> >> and I'll bet your sanity on that.
>>
>> > It isn't for sale--much as you might like to buy it to shore up your
>> > pathetic intellect.
>>
>> I'm not the circus professor who can't decide who he is on any given post.
>
> Nor am I. I know who I am and you've never seen me pretend to be
> someone else.
>
>> The wife and I will defend our household, and you're not invited.
>
> What's that got to do with you having passed thru College Station, and
> talking about betting my sanity on that? If I were Spartakus and you
> were me, I'd be having a field day showering insults on you for such
> idiotic *non sequiturs*.
>
> As it is, I've got bigger fish to fry.
You'll fry yourself, and don't complain when no one cares about your
self-immolation. It's good riddance to bad rubbish.
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 25, 12:02�am, The Chief Idiot <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:38:30 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Nov 24, 7:46?pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:12:12 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> >> > +++++++++++++++ Spartakus posting mode on
>>
>> >> > Humphrey utters some trivia about having passed close to ?the PP place
>> >> > 3 1/2 years ago. ?The universe yawns.
>>
>> >> Unlike you, I'm truthful,
>>
>> > The opposite is true, and you are just diluting this thread with your
>> > lies, along with your buddy Keegan. Both of you can't handle the on-
>> > topic discussion, so you both do what you are best at: idiocy, lies,
>> > hypocrisy, insincerity.
>>
>> You get no respect from me.
>
>Seeing how rotten your idea of right and wrong is,
And there is more of the "christian" hatred that we've come to expect
from zealots.
>> > The first time you said that (though perhaps with slightly different
>> > words) was when you saw how I had caught Spartakus red-handed lying
>> > shamelessly, in service of the falsehood that stalking was NOT a factor in
>> > your firing. Your topsy-turvy moral code made my catching him out to be a
>> > thoroughly reprehensible act.
>>
>> Wreck it some more, Phony. It was a factor, but not as much as you
>> fantasize it was,
>
>Stop pretending to know what I fantasize about.
Sotp pretending to know the facts of the case, phoney.
> Spartakus lied,
That would be meaningful if you had credibility.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 25, 8:38�am, Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 12:33�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
>> > > > the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
>> > > > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>>
>> > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>>
>> > > Disgruntled former clinic director
>>
>> > Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
Fiction. Propaganda.
>> > That was what made her quit at the time she did.
>>
>> If that's what she "saw", she was kidding herself. A 13 week fetus
>> doesn't have the ability to consciously fight to survive.
>
>"struggling for life" does not mean fighting; it means having clear
>avoidance reactions, and there are plenty of those documented.
There are not, pro-liar.
>"By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels
>of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus.
Machines can have such reactions. Single-celled organisms have such
reactions. It means nothing.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
The show us your credentials to make such a diagnosis.
> See my earlier
Run away, pro-liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 24, 10:32�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Nov 24, 1:06 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > ...and here is the start of an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
>>
>> >Now comes a textbook example of an *ad hominem* fallacy, courtesy of
>> >Keegan:
>>
>> It's not an ad hominem, idiot. �O'Reilly does have a known bias, is
>> frequently dishonest, and has shown no regard for objective fact.
>
>Are you willing to be held to the same standard when YOU use the term?
Yes. But you won't see me pretending to be right on my mere say so
like you idolize O'Reilly's farts.
>Regardless of your answer, you are lying when you call me an idiot,
You're an idiot AND a lying asshole. It's not an ad hominem because
O'Reilly is KNOWN to be biased and KNOWN to be dishonest, and relying
upon his unsupported say so is stupid and an appeal to authority
fallacy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 24, 10:44 pm, the Energizer Bunny, "james g. keegan jr."
><jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <301e8920-61bf-4a2e-b9fc-3d772c3c2...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, [...]
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>In his zeal to conceal
You're lying again, asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 24, 10:32�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Nov 24, 1:48 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
>> >> >the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
>> >> >an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>>
>> >> I wonder if she's seen any women dying in agony from childbirth gone bad.
>>
>> >The odds against it are tremendous.
>>
>> You really are a sleazy asshole.
>
>It is you who are the sleazy asshole, indulging in scare tactics
Pro-liars think that the truth is a "scare tactic".
STUDY REPORTS RISE IN CHILDBIRTH DEATHS
San Jose Mercury News (SJ) - Tuesday, June 11, 1996
By: New York Times
UNITED NATIONS In the first comprehensive survey in a decade to look at
maternal deaths worldwide, UNICEF reported Monday that about 585,000 women die
each year during pregnancy and childbirth, many needlessly.
Millions more, perhaps as many as 18 million women, suffer debilitating
illnesses or injuries that often disable them.
The figures are nearly one-fifth higher than previous estimates of about
500,000 deaths, according to the report by UNICEF, the United Nations Childrens
Fund, which compiled the new data with the World Health Organization and Johns
Hopkins University.
Much of the tragedy is preventable, the study says.
"For the most part, these are the deaths not of the ill, or the very old,
or the very young, but of healthy women in the prime of their lives," says the
report, the Progress of Nations 1996.
Data from the report indicate that one in 13 women in sub-Saharan Africa
and one in 35 in South Asia dies of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth,
according to UNICEF officials, compared with one in 3,200 in Europe, one in
3,300 in the United States, and one in 7,300 in Canada.
The survey faults the shortage of obstetric care in many nations. It calls
for the proper medical training of more midwives who would be better qualified
than traditional birth attendants to assist mothers before, during and after
delivery.
About 75,000 women die annually of botched abortions and another 75,000 of
brain and kidney damage in eclampsia, a disorder that can cause high blood
pressure and convulsions late in pregnancy. At least 100,000 die of blood
poisoning and 40,000 of obstructed labor.
The report on maternal risks, prepared under UNICEF's director, Carol
Bellamy, a former New York City Council president and director of the Peace
Corps who took over the agency last year, is notably stronger in its language
and imagery than many U.N. publications.
The new figures produced in the UNICEF report raised some questions among
experts, who say that getting accurate information on maternal mortality is
notoriously difficult. At Harvard University, Lincoln Chen, professor of
international health and head of the Center for Population and Development
Studies, said that the difference between 500,000 maternal deaths, the
previously accepted figure, and 585,000 or 600,000 may fall within a margin of
error, since all such numbers were "insecure."
More information at http://www.unicef.org/pon96/contents.htm
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Lefty
> On Nov 25, 8:38 am, Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 12:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > > > > the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> > > > > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> > > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>
> > > > Disgruntled former clinic director
>
> > > Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
> > > That was what made her quit at the time she did.
>
> > If that's what she "saw", she was kidding herself. A 13 week fetus
> > doesn't have the ability to consciously fight to survive.
>
> "struggling for life" does not mean fighting; it means having clear
> avoidance reactions, and there are plenty of those documented.
The word struggle would seem to imply a conscious effort. Why would
she be so horrified, if she didn't think they were?
The avoidance reactions of which you speak are not conscious.
> "By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels
> of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus. Thus,
> at that point, the fetal orgainc response to pain is more than a
> reflexive response. It is an integrated physiological attempt to
> avert the noxious stimuli."
> --Wm. Matviuw, M.D., Diplomate, Amer. College of OB & GYN,
> quoted by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, _Abortion Questions and
> Answers_, 1990 edition, p. 68.
Repeat; not a conscious effort. It is, as the doctor admits, entirely
physiological. Plants will avoid negative stimuli, as well, but
nobody's suggesting they do so consciously.
> > Her reaction
> > proves nothing but that she's overemotional and not well informed.
>
> Maybe she wasn't exposed to the un-named source of "information" that
> you are relying on. What is it?
You shouldn't need it, being a PHD and all. Surely you're not claiming
a 13 week fetus has physical, intellectual and emotional awareness of
negative stimuli and is capable of deliberately initiating evasive
action. If you are indeed making that claim, I'm going to have to
concur with your flamers who express doubt that you have a PHD.
If you truly seek information on the subject, I can certainly provide
it, but as a professor, your access is greater than mine. Given your
interest in the subject, you must have read up on this, yes? Surely
you can do better than a mass market paperback written by a rabidly
pro-life physician and touted by pro-life organizations. Where are the
unbiased, peer reviewed research papers to which you must have access?
> By the way, it's amusing how my questions below still haven't been
> answered.
I didn't answer them because I have no opinion on the matter. Hardly
amusing.
What I find amusing is how you obviously thought me so gullible that I
wouldn't check into your bogus source.
"Dr. Willke is the president of the nationwide, educational Life
Issues Institute. He has served for ten years as president of the U.S.
National Right to Life Committee. He helped found the International
Right to Life Federation in 1984 and remains its president."
http://www.lifeissues.org/willke.html
On Willke's source, Dr. Matviuw, has published no research that I can
find. The quote you cited was simply his unsupported opinion.
Now, do you want me to post some legit sources or can you access them
through the university?
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > > > > the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> > > > > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
> > > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
> > > > Disgruntled former clinic director
> > > Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
> > > That was what made her quit at the time she did.
>
> Of course, these conversions don't happen in a vacuum. She was
> disillusioned by Planned Parenthood already, but the ultrasound was
> what precipitated the decision--Spartakus ignores my words "at the
> time she did" in order to attempt some more muckraking:
Johnson's description of what she claims to have seen on that
ultrasound is right out of the Silent Scream screenplay. A big, fat
lie, in other words.
> > Right. And the Easter Bunny launched its egg-hiding enterprise on
> > advice from the underwear gnomes.
>
> Such cynicism can only come from someone who is utterly ignorant
> of the relative wealth of Planned Parenthood and other abortion-rights
> organizations vs that of pro-life organizations--or someone like
> Spartakus who loves to SIMULATE ignorance.
Complete non sequitur. And a batshit-crazy one, at that.
> Read the whole transcript, readers, and you will see just how cynical
> Spartakus is. He had to delete Abby Johnson's words already in the
> first follow-up to sound convincing.
> Here are those words again:
>
> "But I did actually get to see an ultrasound-guided procedure, and
> what I saw on the screen was a 13-week baby fighting for its life."
She either saw what she wanted to see, or she saw what she was *told*
she would see by right-to-liars.
She sure as hell did not see a fetus at 13 weeks gestation "fighting
for its life".
Are you really this ignorant or are you PRETENDING to be this
ignorant?
[...]
> > > She could have amassed at least that much in 10 years, judging from
> > > the fact that the national director of this "nonprofit" organization
> > > made over $300,000 per year already 15 years ago. This made her
> > > the highest paid person in a "nonprofit" organization, anywhere.
> > Document or retract.
> I'm invoking Koltanowski Sanction on this one. Documentation will be
> provided after my next long posting break is over.
The Koltanowski Sanction? That's in honor of a chess grandmaster
behaving like an asshole. How appropriate!
Spartakus
> Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
> > > That was what made her quit at the time she did.
> > If that's what she "saw", she was kidding herself. A 13 week fetus
> > doesn't have the ability to consciously fight to survive.
> "struggling for life" does not mean fighting; it means having clear
> avoidance reactions, and there are plenty of those documented.
>
> "By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels
> of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus. Thus,
> at that point, the fetal orgainc response to pain is more than a
> reflexive response. It is an integrated physiological attempt to
> avert the noxious stimuli."
> --Wm. Matviuw, M.D., Diplomate, Amer. College of OB & GYN,
> quoted by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, _Abortion Questions and
> Answers_, 1990 edition, p. 68
As the typo indicates, the person posting as Peter Nyikos did not copy
and paste the above quotation from an anti-abortion web site. He
transcribed it from a hard copy of Willke's book. There is are on-
line editions available, and interestingly enough, the quotation
attributed to William Matviuw does not appear in the ones I checked!
Did Matviuw object to having his views (or possibly his words)
misrepresented? And what is the actual source of this quotation,
anyway?
Well, since Willke apparently no longer cites Matviuw, we have to look
elsewhere. I found a reference at American Life League's web site, in
another screed about fetal pain. The following appears in the
footnotes:
V. J. Collins, Principles of Anesthesiology 1976, pp. 922-923.
Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Fabiger.
Do the words attributed to Matviuw actually appear in this medical
textbook? Given Willke's less than admirable record wrt accurate
quotations and references, it's NOT a safe bet. What's more, medical
research has not stood still since 1976, and we now understand much
more about neural development in fetuses.
Finally, I am quite surprised that someone who claims to be Peter
Nyikos would be taken in by the shoddy scholarship displayed by
Willke. Shouldn't someone with a PhD know something about primary and
secondary sources?
pnyikos
> On Nov 24, 7:12 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 5:13 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >> > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > > >> > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> > > > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>
>
> > two websites.
>
> > O'REILLY: Now, do you believe that, based upon what you saw in Bryan,
> > Texas, do you believe thatPlannedParenthood is an abortion mill
> > trying to profit off that?
>
> > JOHNSON: Yes. I mean, I absolutely believe that. I mean, I saw them
> > trying to increase their abortion numbers. I saw them increase their
> > abortion numbers.
>
> > O'REILLY: Well, how do they do that? How do you increase an abortion
> > number?
>
> > JOHNSON: Well, they increase their accessibility to abortion for
> > women. So, for instance, the clinic that I worked at, usually we only
> > did abortions every other Saturday. And they said, "You know what?
> > That's not really enough. We really need to be able to open this up to
> > allowing women to have abortions almost every day during the week.”
>
> If that's true, and sadly, I rather doubt that it is, given the
> source, I applaud them. The more abortions, the better for the planet
> and for society.
That is highly debatable.
>The more access to abortion, the more freedom for
> women,
Only for some women--the ones who either want abortions or can resist
pressure--sometimes intense pressure--to do them. Are you familiar
with _Real Choices_, by Frederica Mathewes-Greene? I suspect not.
>and for men who don't want to be fathers, too. Who could object
> to that?
Women who want to be mothers, but whose significant others are
pressuring them to have abortions; men who want to be fathers, and
have no say-so in whether their gestating offspring gets aborted.
There were at least two men posting to talk.abortion in 1992 who
related personal experiences. They offered to adopt their children
and raise them, absolving the mother of all obligations, but the
mothers went through with the abortion anyway. Will Steeves was one,
and I can look up the name of the other if you are interested.
Interestingly, both were pro-choice but had hoped that they could sway
the choice of their partners.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
>
>
> Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 12:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> > > > > the Bryan, TexasPlannedParenthood abortion clinic quit after seeing
> > > > > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> > > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>
>
> > > Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
> > > That was what made her quit at the time she did.
>
> > If that's what she "saw", she was kidding herself.
Not really. See my reply to Lefty's post.
> >Her reaction
> > proves nothing but that she's overemotional and not well informed.
Wrong.
> it is not uncommon for the person posting as peter nyikos to cite such
> sources.
And other sources as well, like the one I cited for Lefty in my reply
to the same post Keegan is replying to here.
>the real peter nyikos, as a math phd from a decent university,
> knows all about sources.
Since I am the real Peter Nyikos, that stands to reason.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<7e26917c-927a-4fd6...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 9:42 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > it is not uncommon for the person posting as peter nyikos to cite such
> > sources.
>
> And other sources as well
if that were true, you would have responded to some of the very many
challenges to your (false) claims with some sort of documentation. you
didn't and, while your claims were pretty obviously lies, it's unlikely
that many will take you seriously until you somehow dispose of your old
lies.
[...]
pnyikos
> On 11/25/09 3:04 PM, * pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 8:38 am, Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 24, 12:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> >>>>> an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
> >>> Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
> >>>> Disgruntled former clinic director
> >>> Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
> >>> That was what made her quit at the time she did.
> >> If that's what she "saw", she was kidding herself. A 13 week fetus
> >> doesn't have the ability to consciously fight to survive.
>
> > "struggling for life" does not mean fighting; it means having clear
> > avoidance reactions, and there are plenty of those documented.
>
> > "By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels
> > of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus. Thus,
> > at that point, the fetal orgainc response to pain is more than a
> > reflexive response. It is an integrated physiological attempt to
> > avert the noxious stimuli."
> > --Wm. Matviuw, M.D., Diplomate, Amer. College of OB & GYN,
> > quoted by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, _Abortion Questions and
> > Answers_, 1990 edition, p. 68.
>
> >> Her reaction
> >> proves nothing but that she's overemotional and not well informed.
>
> > Maybe she wasn't exposed to the un-named source of "information" that
> > you are relying on. What is it?
>
> > By the way, it's amusing how my questions below still haven't been
> > answered.
Now IAAH gives away the fact that he has decided to battle me in post
after post:
> What's amusing is that you can say that, given
> that you level libellous accusations
What the hell are you talking about? Just what accusations do you
have in mind?
It can't be the accusation that you are an anti-Catholic bigot,
because there never was a rebuttal to that, only misrepresentations of
the context by people you decided to ally yourself with against me,
such as Spartakus.
>and never
> respond to the rebuttal,
I responded to Spartakus on that bigot issue, because he gave the
illusion of a rebuttal and I don't recall you going even that far at
that point. And you trolled that I was afraid to respond to you
directly. But I responded a second time when my first response was
deemed insufficient by one of you, and ever since then you and he have
been alleging that my accusation was a lie without even reposting your
response (if any) to my second rationale for my accusation.
So tell me, what WERE you referring to?
[unsupportable insult by IAAH deleted here]
> "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
> is no God.
I recall only a few things that you have even pretended to be able to
prove, and my having lied or libeled anyone is not among them AFAIK.
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> >The more access to abortion, the more freedom for
> > women,
> Only for some women--the ones who either want abortions or can
> resist pressure--sometimes intense pressure--to do them. Are you
> familiar with _Real Choices_, by Frederica Mathewes-Greene?
> I suspect not.
Shorter "Real Choices": "Be reasonable. Do it my way."
You sure can pick 'em, whoever you are. Mathewes-Greene authored
possibly the most misogynistic statement ever to come from an anti-
abortion writer:
"No woman wants an abortion like she wants a Porsche
or an ice cream; rather, she wants it like an animal caught
in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg."
Let's deconstruct that. An amputation is a controlled maiming of a
patient's body for the sake of the patient's survival. An abortion
restores a woman's body to her previous un-pregnant condition, AND
LEAVES HER BODY WHOLE. Assuming all goes well (a safe assumption,
since abortion is the safest outpatient surgery extant), it does not
maim her.
However, Mathewes-Greene did not talk about amputation, did she? She
equated a women wanting an abortion with a wild animal gnawing its leg
off.
A wild animal. I've seen a lot of misogyny from anti-choicers, but
this one just might take the cake.
Spartakus
> IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> > * pnyikos wrote:
> > > By the way, it's amusing how my questions below still haven't been
> > > answered.
> > What's amusing is that you can say that, given
> > that you level libellous accusations
> What the hell are you talking about? Just what accusations do you
> have in mind?
>
> It can't be the accusation that you are an anti-Catholic bigot,
> because there never was a rebuttal to that,
Snipped at the first lie.
"IAAH's comment was about Bill Donohue. Not Christians.
Not Catholics."
-- YrFthfulSrvnt, in Message-ID: <74c9735f-957c-4467-97b8-
b3fa4f...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
A post, btw, that you did not respond to. Whoever you are, you made a
knee-jerk reaction to a perfectly un-bigoted, though snarky, comment.
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 25, 8:44 am, Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> If that's true, and sadly, I rather doubt that it is, given the
>> source, I applaud them. The more abortions, the better for the planet
>> and for society.
>
>That is highly debatable.
A billion people do not get enough to eat each day.
>>The more access to abortion, the more freedom for
>> women,
>
>Only for some women--the ones who either want abortions or can resist
>pressure-
No duh? Being able to do what you want kind of is the whole idea of
freedom.
But I can understand why you might not understand that idea.
>--sometimes intense pressure--to do them.
For a pro-liar like you to complain about pressure is the height of
hypocrisy give that you demand that women be pressured to give birth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Spartakus
> There were at least two men posting to talk.abortion in 1992 who
> related personal experiences. They offered to adopt their children
> and raise them, absolving the mother of all obligations, but the
> mothers went through with the abortion anyway. Will Steeves
> was one, and I can look up the name of the other if you are
> interested.
This Will Steeves?
"And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say
that in my own situation, if the woman had *not* been so
respecting as to tell me before, but in fact had not only told
me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!) or more, I
probably would have snapped right there and killed her
where she stood."
-- Message-ID: <1992Sep3.0...@zooid.guild.org>
Christ on a bike, FauxNy!
Lefty
I suspected it might be just another pro-life fraud. Thanks.
It is indeed suspicious that a supposed PHD would use such a poor
source.
Lefty
Then feel free to debate it.
> >The more access to abortion, the more freedom for
> > women,
>
> Only for some women--the ones who either want abortions or can resist
> pressure--sometimes intense pressure--to do them. Are you familiar
> with _Real Choices_, by Frederica Mathewes-Greene? I suspect not.
All women benefit from reproductive freedom, even if it's an indirect
benefit, such as the ability to relax during sex because they don't
have to worry as much about pregnancy. Even if a woman never wants to
abort, she knows the option is available. It frees her, whether she's
conscious of it or not.
No, I'm not familiar with the publication you mention. How is it
relevant?
> >and for men who don't want to be fathers, too. Who could object
> > to that?
>
> Women who want to be mothers, but whose significant others are
> pressuring them to have abortions; men who want to be fathers, and
> have no say-so in whether their gestating offspring gets aborted.
So you're saying the answer to men supposedly pressuring their
partners to abort is to give women no choices? How hypocritical can
you possibly be? If you really gave a damn about women being
pressured, you sure as hell wouldn't want them to be forced.
Why would women who want to be mothers object to other women having
choices? It doesn't after their ability to have a child.
Regarding fathers who have no say, they are more than compensated by
the fact that they will never have to endure pregnancy and birth. It
is not reasonable for men to expect to be able to force women to
gestate just so they can have to option of raising the child. If they
want it that badly, they should find a willing partner and have a
baby.
The objections of unreasonable people do not concern me.
> There were at least two men posting to talk.abortion in 1992 who
> related personal experiences. They offered to adopt their children
> and raise them, absolving the mother of all obligations, but the
> mothers went through with the abortion anyway. Will Steeves was one,
> and I can look up the name of the other if you are interested.
Don't bother. I know such men exist. What you don't seem to understand
is that pregnancy and birth themselves are obligations that some women
don't want. There is a risk to both health and life inherent in every
pregnancy, and it always disrupts a woman's life and changes her body
permanently. Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable to abort even if
one has no obligation to raise the child.
> Interestingly, both were pro-choice but had hoped that they could sway
> the choice of their partners.
It would appear that you admit you have no problem with men pressuring
their partners ~against~ aborting, where you previously decried
pressure ~to~ abort. Once again, your hypocrisy is showing.
Lefty
>
> Christ on a bike, FauxNy!
Predictable. Naturally, any man who would want to force a woman into
giving birth for him is an abusive asshole.
elizabeth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Women who want to breed with men who don't want to be daddies are
stupid cunts who should be spayed for the good of the gene pool. Men
who don't want to breed should simply get vasectomies, with a tax cut
if they haven't bred. You can store sperm, of course. Women who
"oops" men should be spayed and sold into slavery, because using a
child to "get" a man or to get social benefits (including welfare) is
as selfish and abusive as a breeder can get.
elizabeth
What a fucking tool you are, fauxcuNt.
> A wild animal. I've seen a lot of misogyny from anti-choicers, but
> this one just might take the cake.
Actually, we treat wild animals more kindly than we do women, in
general. Using women as breeding animals is more like cattle, though,
or maybe you'd prefer sheep .. . . since you can't get pregnant, you
have no idea how horrible it is to be trapped by an unwanted
pregnancy. May you be reincarnated as the last woman infibulated and
die in prolonged, agonizing labor.
elizabeth
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, they are the worst sort of rapist.
SkyEyes
> Let's deconstruct that. An amputation is a controlled maiming of a
> patient's body for the sake of the patient's survival. An abortion
> restores a woman's body to her previous un-pregnant condition, AND
> LEAVES HER BODY WHOLE. Assuming all goes well (a safe assumption,
> since abortion is the safest outpatient surgery extant), it does not
> maim her.
>
> However, Mathewes-Greene did not talk about amputation, did she? She
> equated a women wanting an abortion with a wild animal gnawing its leg
> off.
>
> A wild animal. I've seen a lot of misogyny from anti-choicers, but
> this one just might take the cake.
I'm not so sure about that. I remember being pregnant: I was in a
blind, black, choking panic to *get rid of the foreign thing inside
me*. If I had not had the chance to go to the U.K. for a safe TAB
soon after I was diagnosed, I might have carved the embryo out of
myself with a rusty grapefruit spoon. You can't *believe* the degree
of relief I felt when the thing was over. I would have *swam* to
England, if necessary, to get my TAB. Or, if chained up, I would
indeed have chewed my own leg off.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
elizabeth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Prove that only some women benefit from access to abortion. As for
your claim that there were men in a ng who claimed that in the past
they were willing to take care of their offspring . . .. well, that
sort of claim is very easy to make. No way to prove it. One would
think that a real math prof would care about being able to make
provable claims!
elizabeth
> On Nov 30, 8:39 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's deconstruct that. An amputation is a controlled maiming of a
> > patient's body for the sake of the patient's survival. An abortion
> > restores a woman's body to her previous un-pregnant condition, AND
> > LEAVES HER BODY WHOLE. Assuming all goes well (a safe assumption,
> > since abortion is the safest outpatient surgery extant), it does not
> > maim her.
>
> > However, Mathewes-Greene did not talk about amputation, did she? She
> > equated a women wanting an abortion with a wild animal gnawing its leg
> > off.
>
> > A wild animal. I've seen a lot of misogyny from anti-choicers, but
> > this one just might take the cake.
Don't you just love the male concept that they know what it's like for
women . .. esp when it comes to sexual abuse and pregnancy . ..
> I'm not so sure about that. I remember being pregnant: I was in a
> blind, black, choking panic to *get rid of the foreign thing inside
> me*.
Testify! That's exactly how I felt!
> If I had not had the chance to go to the U.K. for a safe TAB
> soon after I was diagnosed, I might have carved the embryo out of
> myself with a rusty grapefruit spoon. You can't *believe* the degree
> of relief I felt when the thing was over. I would have *swam* to
> England, if necessary, to get my TAB. Or, if chained up, I would
> indeed have chewed my own leg off.
I'd've been swilling down all sorts of herbs and taking pennyroyal NOT
THE EXTRACT in all its forms . ...
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 25, 8:38 am, Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 24, 12:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > > > Near the end of the latest 40 Days for Life campaign, the director of
> >> > > > an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.
>
> >> > Now comes a Lyman-clone piece of muckraking by "Spartakus":
>
> >> > > Disgruntled former clinic director
>
> >> > Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
>
> Fiction. Propaganda.
>
> >> > That was what made her quit at the time she did.
>
> >> If that's what she "saw", she was kidding herself. A 13 week fetus
> >> doesn't have the ability to consciously fight to survive.
>
> >"struggling for life" does not mean fighting; it means having clear
> >avoidance reactions, and there are plenty of those documented.
>
> There are not, pro-liar.
You and Spartakus and Keegan are the only pro-liars in this thread
that I am aware of. Here is the usual proof that you and Keegan lied
in support of a lie by Spartakus, in posts 4-7:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/browse_frm/thread/7080f944f432159f/7fcf71bc10c57632?tvc=1&q=group%3Atalk.abortion+insubject%3ASimulation#
and I can show you some places where he lied in support of a lie by
you.
> >"By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels
> >of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus.
>
> Machines can have such reactions.
Sophisticated machines can be programmed to have such reactions. But
there is no reason to suspect that they feel pain, whereas a
functioning brainstem and thalamus do suggest being able to feel
pain. The cerebral cortex does not have to be functioning for pain,
and IIRC Matheson said that there is a good chance that it ameliorates
pain rather than intensifying it.
>Single-celled organisms have such
> reactions.
Not the kind you deleted, pro-liar.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<1e0cae9a-edf2-4fe7...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
not only is this a silly lie, even for you, whoever you are. you lied
and then referenced data that proved you lied.
wow.
Ray Fischer
>> >> If that's what she "saw", she was kidding herself. A 13 week fetus
>> >> doesn't have the ability to consciously fight to survive.
>>
>> >"struggling for life" does not mean fighting; it means having clear
>> >avoidance reactions, and there are plenty of those documented.
>>
>> There are not, pro-liar.
>
>You and Spartakus and Keegan are the only pro-liars in this thread
You're a liar, asshole. You spew the usual pro-lie sleaze and run
away when challenged.
>> >"By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels
>> >of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus.
>>
>> Machines can have such reactions.
>
>Sophisticated machines can be programmed to have such reactions.
So do plants. Bacteria. Even chemicals. But you pro-liars really
don't care abouot the truth. All you care about is getting peopel to
obey your corrupt cult.
> But
>there is no reason to suspect that they feel pain, whereas a
>functioning brainstem and thalamus do suggest being able to feel
>pain.
No they do not, pro-liar.
> The cerebral cortex does not have to be functioning for pain,
Yes it does, pro-liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> > There were at least two men posting to talk.abortion in 1992 who
> > related personal experiences. They offered to adopt their children
> > and raise them, absolving the mother of all obligations, but the
> > mothers went through with the abortion anyway. Will Steeves
> > was one, and I can look up the name of the other if you are
> > interested.
>
> This Will Steeves?
No, the Will Steeves who repented of having once been so mixed up and
off his rocker that he could easily have done the following things:
> "And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say
> that in my own situation, if the woman had *not* been so
> respecting as to tell me before, but in fact had not only told
> me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!) or more, I
> probably would have snapped right there and killed her
> where she stood."
> -- Message-ID: <1992Sep3.025255.4...@zooid.guild.org>
That was Will describing what a terrible state his mind had been in
back then. He passed through this hell on earth and came out a much
better man than any of the Seven Musketeers, especially you, are.
Peter Nyikos
elizabeth
> On Nov 30, 11:59 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > There were at least two men posting to talk.abortion in 1992 who
> > > related personal experiences. They offered to adopt their children
> > > and raise them, absolving the mother of all obligations, but the
> > > mothers went through with the abortion anyway. Will Steeves
> > > was one, and I can look up the name of the other if you are
> > > interested.
>
> > This Will Steeves?
>
> No, the Will Steeves who repented of having once been so mixed up and
> off his rocker that he could easily have done the following things:
>
> > "And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say
>
> > that in my own situation, if the woman had *not* been so
> > respecting as to tell me before, but in fact had not only told
> > me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!) or more, I
> > probably would have snapped right there and killed her
> > where she stood."
> > -- Message-ID: <1992Sep3.025255.4...@zooid.guild.org>
Oopsey, Oopsey, Oopsey . ...
> That was Will describing what a terrible state his mind had been in
> back then.
Yes, we are aware that you think you are telepathic and clairvoyant.
> He passed through this hell on earth and came out a much
> better man than any of the Seven Musketeers, especially you, are.
Well, I'm sure I'm a much better *woman* than he'll ever be . . .
> Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Nov 27, 3:22 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > Disgruntled by what she saw--an unborn child struggling for life.
> > > > > That was what made her quit at the time she did.
> > > > If that's what she "saw", she was kidding herself. A 13 week fetus
> > > > doesn't have the ability to consciously fight to survive.
> > > "struggling for life" does not mean fighting; it means having clear
> > > avoidance reactions, and there are plenty of those documented.
>
> > > "By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels
> > > of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus. Thus,
> > > at that point, the fetal orgainc response to pain is more than a
> > > reflexive response. It is an integrated physiological attempt to
> > > avert the noxious stimuli."
> > > --Wm. Matviuw, M.D., Diplomate, Amer. College of OB & GYN,
> > > quoted by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, _Abortion Questions and
> > > Answers_, 1990 edition, p. 68
>
> > As the typo indicates, the person posting as Peter Nyikos did not copy
> > and paste the above quotation from an anti-abortion web site. He
> > transcribed it from a hard copy of Willke's book. There is are on-
> > line editions available,
Fascinating. I had no idea.
> >and interestingly enough, the quotation
> > attributed to William Matviuw does not appear in the ones I checked!
> > Did Matviuw object to having his views (or possibly his words)
> > misrepresented? And what is the actual source of this quotation,
> > anyway?
I can ask Willke. We've corresponded before, and we had a good
agreement over the "apples and oranges" comparison of rapes reported
to authorities and the phone interviews of women who felt they had
been raped, which Spartakus used to try and discredit all the
information one can find in Willke's book about the frequency of
pregnancies due to rape.
Can you say "Willie Smith"?
> > Well, since Willke apparently no longer cites Matviuw,
How late was the latest edition that you looked at?
> >we have to look
> > elsewhere. I found a reference at American Life League's web site, in
> > another screed about fetal pain.
The quote above nowhere mentions pain. But Spartakus was never one
to let anything get in the way of a juicy conflating of disparate
things [see above].
The following appears in the
> > footnotes:
>
> > V. J. Collins, Principles of Anesthesiology 1976, pp. 922-923.
> > Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Fabiger.
>
> > Do the words attributed to Matviuw actually appear in this medical
> > textbook? Given Willke's less than admirable record wrt accurate
> > quotations and references, it's NOT a safe bet. What's more, medical
> > research has not stood still since 1976, and we now understand much
> > more about neural development in fetuses.
Yes, and I'd be most surprised if any of the above were superseded.
> > Finally, I am quite surprised that someone who claims to be Peter
> > Nyikos would be taken in by the shoddy scholarship displayed by
> > Willke.
I saw REALLY shoddy scholarship by pro-life propagandists in the
journal _Issues In Science and Technology_, and I had a long letter
about it published there even before I learned about Usenet. Just
what is shoddy about the above?
> > Shouldn't someone with a PhD know something about primary and
> > secondary sources?
Sure, and I also know that secondary sources are much easier to put
one's hands on when one is as busy as I am.
> I suspected it might be just another pro-life fraud. Thanks.
> It is indeed suspicious that a supposed PHD would use such a poor
> source.
The 1990 edition is the latest one I own. To look up a more recent
one, not knowing that some (all?) of it is available on line, would
have required a trip to the Citizens for Life Office.
By the way, did you notice how Sparakus cited a 1999 reference to
"refute" TIME SENSITIVE 2009 data on the relative frequencies of
maternal deaths in various countries around the world? This is in
contrast to embryological information (which develops sporadically
and unevenly) about the essentially unchanging nature of human
development from generation to generation.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
Ph.D. Carnegie-Mellon University, 1971
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > There were at least two men posting to talk.abortion in 1992 who
> > > related personal experiences. They offered to adopt their children
> > > and raise them, absolving the mother of all obligations, but the
> > > mothers went through with the abortion anyway. Will Steeves
> > > was one, and I can look up the name of the other if you are
> > > interested.
> > This Will Steeves?
> >
> > "And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say
> > that in my own situation, if the woman had *not* been so
> > respecting as to tell me before, but in fact had not only told
> > me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!) or more, I
> > probably would have snapped right there and killed her
> > where she stood."
> > -- Message-ID: <1992Sep3.025255.4...@zooid.guild.org>
> That was Will describing what a terrible state his mind had been in
> back then. He passed through this hell on earth and came out a much
> better man than any of the Seven Musketeers, especially you, are.
You're just making that up. Pathetic, just pathetic.
james g. keegan jr.
<2bf85f8e-e758-421b...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
it would appear that the person posting as peter nyikos, or one of them
anyway, has become insane.
Spartakus
You should get out more.
> > > and interestingly enough, the quotation attributed to William Matviuw
> > > does not appear in the ones I checked! Did Matviuw object to having
> > > his views (or possibly his words) misrepresented? And what is the
> > > actual source of this quotation, anyway?
> I can ask Willke. We've corresponded before,
Aren't you ashamed of being punk'd by such a charlatan?
> and we had a good agreement over the "apples and oranges"
> comparison of rapes reported to authorities and the phone
> interviews of women who felt they had been raped, which
> Spartakus used to try and discredit all the information
> one can find in Willke's book about the frequency of
> pregnancies due to rape.
What transparent innuendo! You're such a liar, whoever you are.
> Can you say "Willie Smith"?
Can you say "the person posting as Peter Nyikos is a big fat liar"?
> > > Well, since Willke apparently no longer cites Matviuw,
> How late was the latest edition that you looked at?
There are at least two web sites that have on-line editions of
Willke's book. Since the World Wide Web was not widely used until
1995, these would have been much later versions than your 1990
edition.
> > > we have to look elsewhere. I found a reference at American
> > > Life League's web site, in another screed about fetal pain.
> The quote above nowhere mentions pain. But Spartakus was
> never on to let anything get in the way of a juicy conflating of
> disparate things [see above].
"Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise."
> > > The following appears in the footnotes:
> > >
> > > V. J. Collins, Principles of Anesthesiology 1976, pp. 922-923.
> > > Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Fabiger.
> > >
> > > Do the words attributed to Matviuw actually appear in this medical
> > > textbook? Given Willke's less than admirable record wrt accurate
> > > quotations and references, it's NOT a safe bet. What's more, medical
> > > research has not stood still since 1976, and we now understand much
> > > more about neural development in fetuses.
> Yes, and I'd be most surprised if any of the above were superseded.
Surprise! "Principles" has gone through at least two subsequent
editions.
> > > Finally, I am quite surprised that someone who claims to be Peter
> > > Nyikos would be taken in by the shoddy scholarship displayed by
> > > Willke.
> I saw REALLY shoddy scholarship by pro-life propagandists in the
> journal _Issues In Science and Technology_, and I had a long letter
> about it published there even before I learned about Usenet. Just
> what is shoddy about the above?
Fer beginnerz, let's observe that you did not cite the original source
of the quotation attributed to Matviuw. Did Willke? At any rate,
Willke edited the quotation attributed to Matviuw out of the on-line
edition of his book, and probably subsequent editions of the book
itself. I had to find the reference by chasing it down to an
unrelated article at ALL's web site. Is "shoddy" the wrong word to
describe what you and Willke did here? Were you all distracted
because a dingo ate your baby?
> > > Shouldn't someone with a PhD know something about primary and
> > > secondary source?
> Sure, and I also know that secondary sources are much easier to put
> one's hands on when one is as busy as I am.
But not too busy to indulge in endless flame wars. Priorities.
> > I suspected it might be just another pro-life fraud. Thanks.
> > It is indeed suspicious that a supposed PHD would use such
> > a poor source.
> The 1990 edition is the latest one I own. To look up a more recent
> one, not knowing that some (all?) of it is available on line, would
> have required a trip to the Citizens for Life Office.
>
> By the way, did you notice how Sparakus cited a 1999 reference to
> "refute" TIME SENSITIVE 2009 data on the relative frequencies of
> maternal deaths in various countries around the world? This is in
> contrast to embryological information (which develops sporadically
> and unevenly) about the essentially unchanging nature of human
> development from generation to generation.
You're talking about the C-Fam thing, right? Ha ha! What has changed
wrt maternal mortality rates in the last 10 years? What new facts
supersede what I posted? I'm still waiting to see that purported
World Economic Forum article, 'cause it looks to me like C-Fam
suckered you.
Dr. Michael Mancini
james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-9BC7DB...@news.individual.net...
Just like the person posting as James G. Keegan, Jr.?
--Dr. Michael Mancini
elizabeth
wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:jgkeegan-9BC7DB...@news.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <2bf85f8e-e758-421b-97bb-664842232...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Po' widdle fattycakes Oopsey . ... just kill yourself already!
The Chief Instigator
> On Dec 29, 7:35?am, "Dr. Michael Mancini" <don...@windstream.net>
> wrote:
>> james g. keegan jr. <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:jgkeegan-9BC7DB...@news.individual.net...
>>
>> > In article
>> > <2bf85f8e-e758-421b-97bb-664842232...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > There were at least two men posting to talk.abortion in 1992 who
>> > > > > > related personal experiences. They offered to adopt their children
>> > > > > > and raise them, absolving the mother of all obligations, but the
>> > > > > > mothers went through with the abortion anyway. Will Steeves
>> > > > > > was one, and I can look up the name of the other if you are
>> > > > > > interested.
>>
>> > > > > This Will Steeves?
>>
>> > > > > that in my own situation, if the woman had *not* been so
>> > > > > respecting as to tell me before, but in fact had not only told
>> > > > > me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!) or more, I
>> > > > > probably would have snapped right there and killed her
>> > > > > where she stood."
>> > > > > -- Message-ID: <1992Sep3.025255.4...@zooid.guild.org>
>>
>> > > > That was Will describing what a terrible state his mind had been in
>> > > > back then. He passed through this hell on earth and came out a much
>> > > > better man than any of the Seven Musketeers, especially you, are.
>>
>>
>> > it would appear that the person posting as peter nyikos, or one of them
>> > anyway, has become insane.
>>
>> Just like the person posting as James G. Keegan, Jr.?
>>
>> --Dr. Michael Mancini- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Po' widdle fattycakes Oopsey . ... just kill yourself already!
Not likely he's "Mancini", considering Heishman's been a lifelong
borderline illiterate.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Syracuse 4 (OT, December 28)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, December 30 at Chicago, 7:05
Dr. Michael Mancini
The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhjks72....@eris.io.com...
Just like a member of the Houston Aeros. After all, you don't need to read
to play hockey, especially for a non-NHL team.
--Dr. Michael Mancini
elizabeth
> www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
> LAST GAME: Houston 5, Syracuse 4 (OT, December 28)
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think he's getting 'help' from others. Wonder how much he has to
pay for it?
The Chief Instigator
Well, Bobby, I'm not a member of said Aeros, as I never played hockey at
all, much less at the pro level. I'm in my 16th season of season tickets,
and that includes the original Aeros in the WHA, who were here from 1972-73
through 1977-78. I got to see four seasons of Gordie Howe and his two sons,
one of whom (Mark) was born eight days after me. You'll manage to muck that
up into another illustration of your attitude.
The Chief Instigator
>> ? ? ?www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php?(TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? LAST GAME: Houston 5, Syracuse 4 (OT, December 28)
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? NEXT GAME: Wednesday, December 30 at Chicago, 7:05- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I think he's getting 'help' from others. Wonder how much he has to
> pay for it?
I won't complain if it's large enough to rival the national debt. '-)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
Dr. Michael Mancini
But the current incarnation of the Houston Aeros still aren't a professional
NHL team.