=> 17 Catholic High School Sluts in Pregnancy Pact <= Christian Family Values !
Reality_CheckŠ
At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
By KATIE ZEZIMA
New York Times News Service
Published on: 06/19/08
BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town of
Gloucester, Mass., are expecting babies, and a Time magazine report says
nearly half became pregnant after making a pact to do so and raise the
children together.
Local officials reached Thursday would not confirm the existence of such a
pact but acknowledged that many of the 17 pregnancies - a total four times
as many as last school year at the 1,200-student school - had been
intentional.
"I've heard some of them were not accidents; some of them were pleased when
they got the results," said Greg Verga, a member of the Gloucester School
Committee. "I did hear that there were cases where a teen went in several
times for pregnancy tests and seemed depressed when it was negative."
Joseph Sullivan, the principal of the school, Gloucester High, could not be
reached for comment. But Time quoted him as saying that of the pregnant
students, almost half, none older than 16, had engaged in the pact.
Reached on Thursday, Mayor Carolyn Kirk said the existence of such an
agreement was "believable, in the sense that it would explain this spike" in
teenage pregnancies.
Kirk, a member of the school committee, also said that some of those who
impregnated the students were men in their mid-20s.
Gloucester is a fishing town of 30,000 that is encountering hardships with
the decline of the fishing industry.
"This is a city in transition going through a hard economic time," Kirk
said. "There are cuts in economic programs, cuts in services, cuts in
after-school programs, and they're all impacting the social climate. We
really let these kids down."
"It's the social environment these girls are coming from," she added. "They
think that a baby can give them love or give them status or fill an empty
space in their life, and these girls are very, very young. And I think if
you talk to any teenage mother who is caring for an infant, the road is not
easy."
The surge in teenage pregnancy has brought a heated debate over
contraception and education in Gloucester, which is heavily Roman Catholic.
The school clinic's medical director and its chief nurse practitioner both
resigned in May after the hospital that administers grants for the clinic
opposed making contraceptives available to students.
The clinic does not distribute contraceptives, and Gloucester High School's
health curriculum has been cut for budget reasons, meaning there is no sex
education, Kirk said.
Meanwhile, in addition to the 17 girls known to be pregnant, others continue
to arrive at the clinic asking for pregnancy tests.
The school committee is now considering educational programs on teenage
pregnancy and weighing whether the clinic should distribute contraceptives.
Kirk has instructed her health director to compile information about the
issue from the state, other agencies and independent experts. She said the
committee hoped to have a policy regarding education, contraception and
related services in place by the start of the next school year.
"It's very complicated," she said. "There are many layers, and I am
insisting on a process where the school committee can explore all of the
layers, get good information, find out what works in other communities and
come to a good decision on behalf of our children."
GeekBoy
> More racist, anti-white drivel
richard
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
>At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>
>By KATIE ZEZIMA
>New York Times News Service
>Published on: 06/19/08
>
>BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town of
>Gloucester, Mass., are expecting babies, and a Time magazine report says
>nearly half became pregnant after making a pact to do so and raise the
>children together.
I wonder how many daddies are involved here?
17? or maybe only 1 or 2?
Basketball or football team?
asilentskeptic
> In article <6c0rg1F3eb3s...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> "Reality_Check©" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
> > Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
> > At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>
> > By KATIE ZEZIMA
> > New York Times News Service
> > Published on: 06/19/08
>
> > BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town of
> > Gloucester, Mass., are expecting babies, and a Time magazine report says
> > nearly half became pregnant after making a pact to do so and raise the
> > children together.
>
> first sentence.
You are absolutely correct. It was a public school, but if you think
that there weren't religious views and motivations being held, you are
mistaken.
Quote:
"The school clinic's medical director and its chief nurse practitioner
both resigned in May after the hospital that administers grants for
the clinic opposed making contraceptives available to students.
The clinic does not distribute contraceptives, and Gloucester High
School's health curriculum has been cut for budget reasons, meaning
there is no sex education"
So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic),
these students remain ignorant of the issues and dangers involved with
sex and pregnancy, and wouldn't have easy access to protective
measures even if they were well informed.
Your SMratŽ
"asilentskeptic" <asilent...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bebf43ee-a74a-4cc3...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> You are absolutely correct. It was a public school, but if you think
> that there weren't religious views and motivations being held, you are
> mistaken.
> So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic),
> these students remain ignorant of the issues and dangers involved with
> sex and pregnancy, and wouldn't have easy access to protective
> measures even if they were well informed.
So your theory is that the girls who "[made] a pact to get pregnant and
raise their babies together" would not have done so had they not been denied
access to condoms for "religious, political and economic" reasons. They were
smart enough to figure out how to get pregnant, but due to the nefarious
machinations of the religious, they weren't smart enough to figure out how
not to get pregnant, which they did on purpose anyway. I have a theory too:
it's that you're a fucking ignoramous.
default
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:05:20 -0400, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <6c0rg1F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
>> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>>
>> By KATIE ZEZIMA
>> New York Times News Service
>> Published on: 06/19/08
>>
>> BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town of
>> Gloucester, Mass., are expecting babies, and a Time magazine report says
>> nearly half became pregnant after making a pact to do so and raise the
>> children together.
>
>This is a public high school, moron. It says so right there in the
>first sentence.
You are right the article doesn't go into religious affiliation. We
should wait for more information before coming to conclusions.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/girls-pact-produces-pregnancy-bump-in-school/2008/06/20/1213770924658.html
The school forbids the distribution of condoms and other contraception
without parental consent - a rule that prompted the school's doctor
and nurse to resign in protest in May.
"But even if we had contraceptives, that pact shows that if they want
to get pregnant, they will get pregnant.
"Whether we distribute contraceptives is irrelevant," Greg Verga,
chairman of the Gloucester School Committee, said.
--
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
default
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:05:20 -0400, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <6c0rg1F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
>> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>>
>> By KATIE ZEZIMA
>> New York Times News Service
>> Published on: 06/19/08
>>
>> BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town of
>> Gloucester, Mass., are expecting babies, and a Time magazine report says
>> nearly half became pregnant after making a pact to do so and raise the
>> children together.
>
>This is a public high school, moron. It says so right there in the
>first sentence.
Wait until the stats are in - you may have to eat your words.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/20pregnant.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The surge in teenage pregnancy has brought a heated debate over
contraception and education in Gloucester, which is heavily Roman
Catholic. The school clinic’s medical director and its chief nurse
practitioner both resigned in May after the hospital that administers
grants for the clinic opposed making contraceptives available to
students.
The clinic does not distribute contraceptives, and Gloucester High
School’s health curriculum has been cut for budget reasons, meaning
there is no sex education, Ms. Kirk said.
Meanwhile, in addition to the 17 girls known to be pregnant, others
continue to arrive at the clinic asking for pregnancy tests.
The school committee is now considering educational programs on
teenage pregnancy and weighing whether the clinic should distribute
contraceptives. Mayor Kirk has instructed her health director to
compile information about the issue from the state, other agencies and
independent experts. She said the committee hoped to have a policy
regarding education, contraception and related services in place by
the start of the next school year.
--
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:54:23 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
BBC's reports that some of them may be in their 20s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7464925.stm
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Billary/2008
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <1213975947_9078@isp.n>, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:05:20 -0400, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6c0rg1F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> >
>> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
>> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>> >>
>> >> By KATIE ZEZIMA
>> >> New York Times News Service
>> >> Published on: 06/19/08
>> >>
>> >> BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town
>> >> of
>> >> Gloucester, Mass., are expecting babies, and a Time magazine report says
>> >> nearly half became pregnant after making a pact to do so and raise the
>> >> children together.
>> >
>> >This is a public high school, moron. It says so right there in the
>> >first sentence.
>>
>> Wait until the stats are in - you may have to eat your words.
>
>
>Whether it gives out contraceptives or not, and whether the town is
>predominantly comprised of members of one religion or another, doesn't
>matter.
Depends on how you parse the subject line; it could be that all 17
of the girls are Catholic.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3gp24$7...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>wrote:
>
>It's just your bigoted friend Jonez injecting an anti-religious comment
>into a story that has nothing to do with religion. And, on schedule,
>here you are to back him up and make excuses for him.
>
>Why can't you just admit the article says nothing about religion, so
>there is no rational basis for Jonez to claim that either it is a
>Catholic school or that the girls are Catholic?
From another article: "'Gloucester is a very, very proud community,'
she said of the heavily Roman Catholic and insular town that is
accessible only by a bridge from the mainland."
And from yet another:
"The disclosure of the pact, and reports that one of the fathers is a
24-year-old homeless man, has sparked a spirited debate in Gloucester about
teenaged sex. In May the medical director and nurse at the school clinic
resigned in protest at the refusal of the local hospital that controls their
funds to allow them to distribute contraceptives to pupils without parental
consent.
"The hospital authorities made it clear they were anxious about the public
impact of handing out contraception from the strongly Catholic local community.
In the absence of provision by the clinic, students must travel 20 miles to the
nearest women's health clinic."
And you insist that this story has nothing to do with religion?
>Can't you just once call him out on something? Once?
Do you really need me to affirm the obvious - that "Reality_Check"
sometimes makes assumptions about religion? Is your ego really that
weak?
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3gp24$7...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>wrote:
>
The article doesn't say they're all sluts either, but I don't see you
getting all up in arms over that.
Jens Müller
> So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic),
> these students remain ignorant of the issues and dangers involved with
> sex and pregnancy, and wouldn't have easy access to protective
> measures even if they were well informed.
Well, they could go to a shop and buy condoms? Easy enough?
Jens Müller
>>> Wait until the stats are in - you may have to eat your words.
>> There are no stats to wait for - it is a public school.
>>
>> Whether it gives out contraceptives or not, and whether the town is
>> predominantly comprised of members of one religion or another, doesn't
>> matter.
>
> Depends on how you parse the subject line; it could be that all 17
> of the girls are Catholic.
Is the state allowed to gather statistics about that? I thought the
state shall not recognize an establishment of religion ...
Cary Kittrell
The article makes it pretty clear that the pregnancies were
intentional.
--- cary
richard
>In article <1213975947_9078@isp.n>, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:05:20 -0400, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6c0rg1F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> > "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
>> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>> >>
>> >> By KATIE ZEZIMA
>> >> New York Times News Service
>> >> Published on: 06/19/08
>> >>
>> >> BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town
>> >> of
>> >> Gloucester, Mass., are expecting babies, and a Time magazine report says
>> >> nearly half became pregnant after making a pact to do so and raise the
>> >> children together.
>> >
>> >This is a public high school, moron. It says so right there in the
>> >first sentence.
>>
>> Wait until the stats are in - you may have to eat your words.
>
>There are no stats to wait for - it is a public school.
>
>Whether it gives out contraceptives or not, and whether the town is
>predominantly comprised of members of one religion or another, doesn't
>matter.
The word "public" does not make records or other contents of the
school accessible by the general public. It only designates the school
as a place to be educated in by any one who lives in the district.
Your office is "public" by default. Can I walk in any time I want and
have access to anything I want?
I don't think so.
richard
They can. But not restrict education based on that information.
asilentskeptic
> "asilentskeptic" <asilentskep...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Not at all. I think they may not have done so if they really realized
what being pregnant (and the responsibilities that it entails) meant.
They are not mature enough to be making those sorts of decisions.
But, if you want to call me a "fucking ignoramous", I won't be
bothered too much. Maybe I could use some education. I don't mind it
much.
I was hoping for more civil discussion though. If I am wrong, then I
am wrong, and am quite open to changing my mind! Those specific girls
purposefully got pregnant, and no matter how many condoms you would
have handed them, they would probably not have used them. The problem
comes when you do not educate a whole group of kids as to the risks
and dangers involved.
Would better education have helped? I think so. Do some girls still
make the same decisions these girls made despite education? Of course.
It doesn't make not having the education any better.
asilentskeptic
> In article <6c2a9vF3ei3m...@mid.individual.net> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= <usenet-11-2...@tessarakt.de> writes:
>
> > asilentskeptic schrieb:
> > > So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic),
> > > these students remain ignorant of the issues and dangers involved with
> > > sex and pregnancy, and wouldn't have easy access to protective
> > > measures even if they were well informed.
>
> > Well, they could go to a shop and buy condoms? Easy enough?
>
> The article makes it pretty clear that the pregnancies were
> intentional.
>
> --- cary
It does. I am worried about the problem with the lack of an education
which may (or may not) have helped. It is far better to have even
partially educated kids then it is to have none at all. You would
probably have fewer young teenage girls purposefully getting pregnant.
.
Cary Kittrell
I would hope so. But to be effective in this situation, I'd guess,
the education would have to go beyond sex education or lecturing
the girls on how hard single teenage motherhood can be -- it would
have to be the sort of education that opens up other opportunities
for the girls to find fulfillment in something besides motherhood.
-- cary
default
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:45:53 -0400, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <1213975947_9078@isp.n>, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:05:20 -0400, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6c0rg1F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> > "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
>> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>> >>
>> >> By KATIE ZEZIMA
>> >> New York Times News Service
>> >> Published on: 06/19/08
>> >>
>> >> BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town
>> >> of
>> >> Gloucester, Mass., are expecting babies, and a Time magazine report says
>> >> nearly half became pregnant after making a pact to do so and raise the
>> >> children together.
>> >
>> >This is a public high school, moron. It says so right there in the
>> >first sentence.
>>
>> Wait until the stats are in - you may have to eat your words.
>
>There are no stats to wait for - it is a public school.
>
>Whether it gives out contraceptives or not, and whether the town is
>predominantly comprised of members of one religion or another, doesn't
>matter.
Religion, or religious beliefs, are one of the problems. No sex
education, no contraceptive information, no frank discussion, a policy
of snitching, all because idiot politicians want to appease the
religious idiots.
They may not be all Catholic idiots, but they are probably all
Christian idiots.
default
Bearing in mind that the sex education - which should have included
some of the financial and life altering consequences of early
pregnancies, was lacking due to religious/political pressure.
An unintended consequence of assuming you know how things will turn
out when one acts to achieve a political end . . .
panam...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Hey asshole. Where's the part about them being "Christian"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/20pregnant.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
"The surge in teenage pregnancy has brought a heated debate over
contraception and education in Gloucester, which is heavily Roman
Catholic. The school clinic’s medical director and its chief nurse
practitioner both resigned in May after the hospital that administers
grants for the clinic opposed making contraceptives available to
students."
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
>At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>
>By KATIE ZEZIMA
>New York Times News Service
>Published on: 06/19/08
>
>BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town of
A **PUBLIC** high school.
Another of your lies is exposed. You claim in the subject
"Catholic High School" and the first sentence states it's a public
school.
Why are you unable to be honest?
Jonezie:
>> Or you could discuss the holocaust of Native Americans by
>> the invading White Man ...
>
Deadrat:
> Sure. I for Indian or N for Native?
Jonezie:
S for Savage.
Prof. Jonez expressing his racial HATE for Native Americans.
Message-ID: <6b3i56F...@mid.individual.net>
default
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:12:52 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:54:23 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
><Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>>Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
>>At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>>
>>By KATIE ZEZIMA
>>New York Times News Service
>>Published on: 06/19/08
>>
>>BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town of
>
> A **PUBLIC** high school.
> Another of your lies is exposed. You claim in the subject
>"Catholic High School" and the first sentence states it's a public
>school.
> Why are you unable to be honest?
>
His statement doesn't necessarily say it was a Catholic school -
that's what you read.
"Catholic High School Sluts" can mean High School age women who are
Catholic.
That part of the country is predominately Catholic or very Catholic -
So the girls may be raised Catholic.
In any event, religious doctrine played a role in the school's
inability to teach sex education and likely as not, the consequences
of parenthood at a young age. Sex Love Biology Financial and Moral
responsibility, when taught together, make a greater impact on young
people.
The religious "right" tend to think in simplistic terms. Remove the
teaching and the deed (somehow) becomes impossible - to their thinking
or opinion. Ignore it and perhaps it will go away. Pray instead of
taking steps to educate. Sex is dirty and shouldn't be talked about
openly. Etc.
Your SMratŽ
"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
news:1213995088_9090@isp.n...
>
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:14:31 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu
> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>
>>In article <6c2a9vF...@mid.individual.net>
>>=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= <usenet-...@tessarakt.de> writes:
>>> asilentskeptic schrieb:
>>> > So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic),
>>> > these students remain ignorant of the issues and dangers involved with
>>> > sex and pregnancy, and wouldn't have easy access to protective
>>> > measures even if they were well informed.
>>>
>>> Well, they could go to a shop and buy condoms? Easy enough?
>>
>>The article makes it pretty clear that the pregnancies were
>>intentional.
>>
>>
>>--- cary
>
> Bearing in mind that the sex education - which should have included
> some of the financial and life altering consequences of early
> pregnancies, was lacking due to religious/political pressure.
>
> An unintended consequence of assuming you know how things will turn
> out when one acts to achieve a political end . . .
How amusing. Schools have been teaching children how to have sex for 50
years now and have done an excellent job. Teen sexual activity, teen sexual
diseases, teen pregnancies, have all skyrocketed since the introducion of
sex education and the ready availability of contraception and abortion. But
it's not the fault of secular progessives that these things have happened.
It's not the fault of a society that glorifies sex without responsibility.
It's not the fault of a curriculum that teaches kids how and where to fuck,
that it's prefectly natural to be curious about licking some other guy's
sphincter, and that sucking a dick's a safe alternative to vaginal
intercourse. No, it's the unimtended consequences from the actions of mean
old right wing religious cranks who've brought nebulous "pressure" that has
thwarted information about the "financial ... consequences" of early
pregnancy from reaching these kids, because that's what would have convinced
them that their behavior was a tad reckless. My god, how breathtakingly
stupid you are.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:12:52 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:54:23 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
>><Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>>>Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
>>>At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>>>
>>>By KATIE ZEZIMA
>>>New York Times News Service
>>>Published on: 06/19/08
>>>
>>>BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town of
>>
>> A **PUBLIC** high school.
>> Another of your lies is exposed. You claim in the subject
>>"Catholic High School" and the first sentence states it's a public
>>school.
>> Why are you unable to be honest?
>>
>His statement doesn't necessarily say it was a Catholic school -
>that's what you read.
>
>"Catholic High School Sluts" can mean High School age women who are
>Catholic.
Fair enough.
Can you cite in the original post where the religious views of the
girls is mentioned?
>
>That part of the country is predominately Catholic or very Catholic -
>So the girls may be raised Catholic.
They may have been. They may not. For all we know at this point,
the girls could be fiercely atheist.
The article does point out the heavy Catholic influence of the
area, but it doesn't state the girls are Catholic.
>
>In any event, religious doctrine played a role in the school's
>inability to teach sex education and likely as not, the consequences
>of parenthood at a young age.
There's nothing in the article about the school not being able to
teach due to religion.
>Sex Love Biology Financial and Moral
>responsibility, when taught together, make a greater impact on young
>people.
Agreed.
>
>The religious "right" tend to think in simplistic terms. Remove the
>teaching and the deed (somehow) becomes impossible - to their thinking
>or opinion. Ignore it and perhaps it will go away. Pray instead of
>taking steps to educate. Sex is dirty and shouldn't be talked about
>openly. Etc.
I've yet to meet anyone who thinks along those lines.
--
"Are you my mummy?"
-- The Doctor
default
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:58:29 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
No I can't.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/20pregnant.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The surge in teenage pregnancy has brought a heated debate over
contraception and education in Gloucester, which is heavily Roman
Catholic.
>>
>>That part of the country is predominately Catholic or very Catholic -
>>So the girls may be raised Catholic.
>
> They may have been. They may not. For all we know at this point,
>the girls could be fiercely atheist.
I would hope they are fiercely uncommitted to any religion as long as
they are young enough to make bad decisions - implies to me that they
are not quite fully cooked - or below the age of reason, certainly
below the age of wisdom.
> The article does point out the heavy Catholic influence of the
>area, but it doesn't state the girls are Catholic.
Right again. It is not realistic to say they are Catholic just
because the area is.
When you think about it, what makes Muslim Children or Christian
Children or Jewish Children or Atheist Children? - the particular
bend of the parents . . .
More realistic to say the innocent children than "Catholic Sluts."
Their parents and their politicians failed them. The parents should
blame themselves first.
>
>>
>>In any event, religious doctrine played a role in the school's
>>inability to teach sex education and likely as not, the consequences
>>of parenthood at a young age.
>
> There's nothing in the article about the school not being able to
>teach due to religion.
>
There's a ton of information and commentary about this particular
incident already and there are religiously motivated political
decisions it seems.
Pro- and Con are using this for their own agendas now, but the
politicians who bent to the will of the RR are now waffling and trying
to distance themselves from either camp it seems.
They're just waiting to see which side to come down on after the
carnage is over.
>>Sex Love Biology Financial and Moral
>>responsibility, when taught together, make a greater impact on young
>>people.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>>The religious "right" tend to think in simplistic terms. Remove the
>>teaching and the deed (somehow) becomes impossible - to their thinking
>>or opinion. Ignore it and perhaps it will go away. Pray instead of
>>taking steps to educate. Sex is dirty and shouldn't be talked about
>>openly. Etc.
>
> I've yet to meet anyone who thinks along those lines.
You haven't met my Mom? Seriously. But you just need to look at
some old Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson on TV. Seen the documentary
on "Jesus Camp?" prepubescent kids rolling around on the ground
crying and carrying on because of their evangelical Christian
programming. They are Pentecostal, my Mom is Catholic and could teach
them some more radical beliefs.
Programmed to die for their faith . . . scary stuff. Not unlike the
Catholic programming the nuns were dishing out - the Christians dying
for their faith were going straight to heaven. Not unlike the Muslim
Jihads.
I still want to know what's in it for the 76 virgins? I do like their
idea of paradise better - but do think virgins are over rated, unless,
of course, one's own performance isn't up to par, and with 76 you're
bound to get a screamer or two.
default
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:34:21 GMT, "Your SMratŽ" <jls...@lskjglsd.com>
wrote:
No, the blame lies squarely with the parents - the rest of it is just
the usual political smoke screen, and religion is certainly a factor.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3grud$8...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>with someone just to get pregnant, without having strong feelings for
>the person, is a slut, if one was so inclined.
Does it say in the article that none of the girls had strong feelings
for the persons who impregnated them? Seems to me you're letting your
own bigotry/carelessness with the facts reported show.
>One could not conclude anything about their religious affiliation from
>this. Actually, if anything, the logical conclusion is that they're
>_not_ Catholic, since a devout Catholic would be abstinent until
>marriage.
By your "logic," there are a couple of orders of magnitude more Catholics
than there are devout Catholics. Then again, the subject line doesn't
say anything about devout.
One could argue that devout Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Moslems,
and Buddhists would be abstinent until marriage, yet by most polls
over 90% of Americans have sex before marriage.
What do you logically conclude from that, Larry?
Kent Wills
[...]
>>> >Whether it gives out contraceptives or not, and whether the town is
>>> >predominantly comprised of members of one religion or another, doesn't
>>> >matter.
>>>
>>> Depends on how you parse the subject line; it could be that all 17
>>> of the girls are Catholic.
>>
>>It could be, but the article doesn't say they're all Catholic.
>
>The article doesn't say they're all sluts either, but I don't see you
>getting all up in arms over that.
So Jonezie lied about that as well.
Thank you for pointing out another of Jonezie's many lies.
--
Vegetarian: Indian word for lousy hunter.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3j9hv$6...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>
>But fine, have it your way. Jonez jumped to multiple unsupported
>conclusions about these girls - one about them being Catholic, one about
>them being sluts.
A post back you implied that this was a reasonable conclusion.
What changed your mind?
>Rather than criticizing him for them, you attack me
>for only calling him out on one of the irrational and unsupported
>conclusions he drew.
>
>Your blind support of him leads you to put forth some truly absurd
>arguments.
Not supporting him, just disabusing you of the delusion that you are
better than him.
>> >One could not conclude anything about their religious affiliation from
>> >this. Actually, if anything, the logical conclusion is that they're
>> >_not_ Catholic, since a devout Catholic would be abstinent until
>> >marriage.
>>
>> By your "logic," there are a couple of orders of magnitude more Catholics
>> than there are devout Catholics.
>
>I'd think most of them would agree with you that they're Catholic, but
>not devoutly so. Do you have a point, or are you arguing with me for
>the sake of it, as usual?
I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic. Do you think you should be immune
from that?
>> Then again, the subject line doesn't
>> say anything about devout.
Point being that you are doing exactly what you accuse the OP of doing.
>> One could argue that devout Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Moslems,
>> and Buddhists would be abstinent until marriage, yet by most polls
>> over 90% of Americans have sex before marriage.
>>
>> What do you logically conclude from that, Larry?
>
>That you go to ridiculously laughable lengths to be the only one who
>defends Jonez and his bigoted absurd statements.
See thread "Larry Gets His Bluff Called, Then Shows He's a Chicken!"
nobody
wrote:
>
>On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:12:52 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:54:23 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
>><Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>>>Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
>>>At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>>>
>>>By KATIE ZEZIMA
>>>New York Times News Service
>>>Published on: 06/19/08
>>>
>>>BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town of
>>
>> A **PUBLIC** high school.
>> Another of your lies is exposed. You claim in the subject
>>"Catholic High School" and the first sentence states it's a public
>>school.
>> Why are you unable to be honest?
>>
>His statement doesn't necessarily say it was a Catholic school -
>that's what you read.
>
>"Catholic High School Sluts" can mean High School age women who are
>Catholic.
>
>That part of the country is predominately Catholic or very Catholic -
>So the girls may be raised Catholic.
There's no direct evidence that *any* of the girls were Catholic. Thus
it would be incorrect to title the thread as it was.
>
>In any event, religious doctrine played a role in the school's
>inability to teach sex education and likely as not, the consequences
>of parenthood at a young age. Sex Love Biology Financial and Moral
>responsibility, when taught together, make a greater impact on young
>people.
Ridiculous. Sex education would have done nothing to stop this nor
would handing them birth controls. These dopey girls thought it would
be great to get pregnant so they deliberately went out and did so.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>Jonez admitted to being a bigot
Cite? Message ID? URL?
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3ksua$f...@rac2.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>wrote:
>(to you)"Have you ever heard Jonze make a racist and bigoted statement
>or not?" he responded "You mean like when I've called you and your ilk
>pig-ignorant white-trash scumbags?"
After all your months of innuendo, the best you can come up with is
that Jonez (who I suspect is also white) called you "white trash?"
Here is your original challenge to me:
[Larry wrote]
1) Do you admit that Jonez has authored posts which include hateful
comments based on others' religion, race, perceived sexual orientation,
and the like, in which he has called for death and/or serious injuries
to befall those people?
I gave you a very direct answer: "No."
I then asked you this:
"Do you assert that Jonez has authored posts which include hateful
comments based on others' religion, race, perceived sexual orientation,
and the like, in which he has called for death and/or serious injuries
to befall those people?
Just how gutless are you, that a month and a half has gone by and you have
yet to give a direct answer?
tjab
>cooked to death in ovens and gas chambers as well.
Really?
How about a direct quote?
Was this the same thread in which you suggested that our goal in
Iraq is to "crush the Sunnis and the Shiites" (well over 95% of
Iraq's population)?
Reality_CheckŠ
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bup54p2661mj9v1f...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:31:21 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:12:52 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:54:23 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
>>><Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact?
>>>>At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting
>>>>
>>>>By KATIE ZEZIMA
>>>>New York Times News Service
>>>>Published on: 06/19/08
>>>>
>>>>BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town
>>>>of
>>>
>>> A **PUBLIC** high school.
>>> Another of your lies is exposed. You claim in the subject
>>>"Catholic High School" and the first sentence states it's a public
>>>school.
>>> Why are you unable to be honest?
>>>
>>His statement doesn't necessarily say it was a Catholic school -
>>that's what you read.
>>
>>"Catholic High School Sluts" can mean High School age women who are
>>Catholic.
>
> Fair enough.
Kent the lyin' Polack Wills admits he's a lying Polack.
Reality_CheckŠ
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-3FB358.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <6c92kiF...@mid.individual.net>,
You really are dumber than a 5th grader, aren't you lyin' Larry?
> when its not, or the girls Catholic, when there's no evidence to support
> that claim,
You're lying again, lyin' Larry.
Why do you habitually lie?
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <6c9mdlF...@mid.individual.net>,
Your admission of your habitual lying is a good first step lyin' Larry.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>> Can you cite in the original post where the religious views of the
>>girls is mentioned?
>
>Kent the lyin' Polack Wills admits he's a lying Polack.
>
>
You most recent proof of your bigotry aside, how does my proving
you to be the liar you are make me a liar?
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>news:x-3FB358.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <6c92kiF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>>> "Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4bup54p2661mj9v1f...@4ax.com...
>>> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:31:21 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:12:52 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>>> >>wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:54:23 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
Point out where in the article any religious view was given for any
of the girls.
If you prefer, you may admit it was another of your MANY lies.
Rebecca
Everyone is potentially making some valid points (no one really knows
exactly what happened). Is it possible to continue the discussion
with that in mind and quit it with the name calling?
Lord Vetinari
news:65f8c1e1-4d7e-42df...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I thumb my nose at you.
Really now, didn't you know that name calling is the whole point of usenet
these days?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
> news:1213995088_9090@isp.n...
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:14:31 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu
>> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <6c2a9vF...@mid.individual.net>
>>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= <usenet-...@tessarakt.de> writes:
>>>> asilentskeptic schrieb:
>>>>> So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic),
>>>>> these students remain ignorant of the issues and dangers involved
>>>>> with sex and pregnancy, and wouldn't have easy access to
>>>>> protective measures even if they were well informed.
>>>>
>>>> Well, they could go to a shop and buy condoms? Easy enough?
>>>
>>> The article makes it pretty clear that the pregnancies were
>>> intentional.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- cary
>>
>> Bearing in mind that the sex education - which should have included
>> some of the financial and life altering consequences of early
>> pregnancies, was lacking due to religious/political pressure.
>>
>> An unintended consequence of assuming you know how things will turn
>> out when one acts to achieve a political end . . .
>
> How amusing. Schools have been teaching children how to have sex for
> 50 years now and have done an excellent job.
ROTFLMAO!
Riiiiiiiight, because before that, for 10,000s of years, teens didn't
know how -- and therefore weren't -- having sex, eh jackass?
Including some middle-eastern 13yr-old Jewish slut named Mary,
who claimed to be a "virgin", yet managed to get pregnant by her
teenage boyfriend Joseph ... and then blamed it on some "angel".
And there are pig-ignorant morons stupid enough to
actually believe it!
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:23:02 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>> news:x-3FB358.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>> In article <6c92kiF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>
>>>> "Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4bup54p2661mj9v1f...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:31:21 -0400, default
>>>>> <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:12:52 -0500, Kent Wills
>>>>>> <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
Re-read the article you stammering jackass.
" Currently, we, citizens of the U.S., aren't allowed to go to
Venezuela or Cuba. My hope is that Venezuela's restriction will
be lifted after the next election."
- Kent Wills 2007, lying jackass
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:45:23 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>> "Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
"Let's pretend breathing is outlawed and everyone the world
over ceases inhaling and exhaling.
There will be NO change in CO2 levels since we exhale carbon
monoxide, not carbon dioxide, stupid."
- Kent Wills si-untist from Iowa
"You are in the Kill File. Have been for a while.
Note that I can only reply if I read someone else's
reply to you."
-- Kent B Wills vainly trying to curtail his OCD
"At this point Madeleine is equally alive and dead. "
-- Kent ignoramus Wills giving the Iowa version of Kwantum Mahkaniks
_ Prof. Jonez _
Why do you ignore the evidence?
Do you have any "direct evidence" proving that none of the girls are Catholic?
<cue crickets chirping>
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <6cceguF...@mid.individual.net>,>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:23:02 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:x-3FB358.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>>>> In article <6c92kiF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4bup54p2661mj9v1f...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:31:21 -0400, default
>>>>>>> <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:12:52 -0500, Kent Wills
>>>>>>>> <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
Why do you habitually lie?
"Having private savings accounts comprise a part of social security
is not the same as privatizing social security."
-- Larry Glasser, stammering imbecile
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the moron
"Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
crime if the recipient knows it is stolen"
-- Lyin' Larry, the legal jackass
>>>> Kent Wills: "I'm just the guy who can travel without restriction to
>>>> several Latin American countries."
>>>> UM: "Why not all the Latin American countries then, eh Kent?"
>>>> Larry the imbecile Glasser: "Federal law, dumbass. No citizen can go
>>>> to some of the nations from the US."
Larry the Imbecile claims that 0.625 grams is "far more than a gram"
and that a handcuffed man will "fall faster" when pushed off a cliff.
>>>> Q: And just what does a moron like you think a Townhouse is, eh jackass ?
>>>> Larry the Ignoramus: "A dwelling, which is a type of structure or building.
>>>> It is not, however, real property."
"I never mentioned New York? That's so demonstrably false I'm still
laughing. Anytime I speak in anything resembling a specific, I make it
clear that I'm referring to NY statutes. I've never claimed to know the
details of criminal statutes in other jurisdictions."
-- Larry Glasser the Pathological Liar
_ Prof. Jonez _
> That's his point. There's no evidence one way or the other,
You're lying again, you lying asswipe.
nobody
There is no evidence. That's the problem.
>
>Do you have any "direct evidence" proving that none of the girls are Catholic?
>
><cue crickets chirping>
The last refuge of the liberal loon. The claim that was made that
they were Catholic. You, rather than support the claim, demand that I
prove it's not so. If you can't support the original claim, then just
say so.
>
nobody
>In article <6ccv01F...@mid.individual.net>,
>Then provide the evidence here:
<crickets.wav>
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3ma7h$9...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <x-738FEB.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >In article <g3ksua$f...@rac2.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <x-97B297.17...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> >> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >> >Jonez admitted to being a bigot
>> >>
>> >> Cite? Message ID? URL?
>> >
>> >In MID <6b8rctF...@mid.individual.net>, in response to my question
>> >(to you)"Have you ever heard Jonze make a racist and bigoted statement
>> >or not?" he responded "You mean like when I've called you and your ilk
>> >pig-ignorant white-trash scumbags?"
>>
>> After all your months of innuendo, the best you can come up with is
>> that Jonez (who I suspect is also white) called you "white trash?"
>
>The best? Far from it. But I said Jonez admitted to being a bigot, you
>asked for proof, and I provided proof where he admitted to it.
That didn't sound like an admission to me, Larry.
Do you still think our mission in Iraq is to crush the Sunnis and the Shiites?
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3manp$9...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>
>> In article <x-738FEB.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >cooked to death in ovens and gas chambers as well.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> How about a direct quote?
>
>You got the links, read them.
No direct quote then. Figures.
>> Was this the same thread in which you suggested that our goal in
>> Iraq is to "crush the Sunnis and the Shiites" (well over 95% of
>> Iraq's population)?
>
>That wasn't what I said our goal was,
No, you took the coward's way and put your hateful bigotry in the mouth of
an American soldier. Nice, real nice.
What did *you* say our goal was, Larry?
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3manp$9...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <x-738FEB.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >(You'll see in the same thread he makes multiple jokes about Jews being
>> >cooked to death in ovens and gas chambers as well.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> How about a direct quote?
>
><6b8tn5F...@mid.individual.net>, where he refers to Jews being
>cooked in ovens, and says that they are tasty when eaten with barbecue
>sauce.
What you write here is just not there. But you do have a pretty sick
imagination.
What I see there is you getting called on your hypocrisy. After all,
you did defend as acceptable the proposition that our mission in
Iraq was to "crush the Sunnis and the Shiites" - well over 95% of Iraq's
population.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3rpu5$a...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>
>> In article <x-457ABD.18...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >In article <g3ma7h$9...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <x-738FEB.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> >> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <g3ksua$f...@rac2.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <x-97B297.17...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> >> >> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >Jonez admitted to being a bigot
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cite? Message ID? URL?
>> >> >
>> >> >In MID <6b8rctF...@mid.individual.net>, in response to my question
>> >> >(to you)"Have you ever heard Jonze make a racist and bigoted statement
>> >> >or not?" he responded "You mean like when I've called you and your ilk
>> >> >pig-ignorant white-trash scumbags?"
>> >>
>> >> After all your months of innuendo, the best you can come up with is
>> >> that Jonez (who I suspect is also white) called you "white trash?"
>> >
>> >The best? Far from it. But I said Jonez admitted to being a bigot, you
>> >asked for proof, and I provided proof where he admitted to it.
>>
>> That didn't sound like an admission to me, Larry.
>
>
>> Do you still think our mission in Iraq is to crush the Sunnis and the Shiites?
>
>poor your reading comprehension skills are.
>
>But wouldn't someone wanting to crush all Sunnis and Shiites at least be
>on par with someone who calls al Native Americans "savages"?
Maybe if you don't think there's any difference between killing people and
calling them names.
Kent Wills
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:23:02 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>>> news:x-3FB358.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>>> In article <6c92kiF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4bup54p2661mj9v1f...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:31:21 -0400, default
>>>>>> <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:12:52 -0500, Kent Wills
>>>>>>> <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:54:23 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>> Point out where in the article any religious view was given for any
>>of the girls.
>> If you prefer, you may admit it was another of your MANY lies.
>
>Re-read the article you stammering jackass.
>
So you admit it was another of your MANY lies. Got it.
Kent Wills
>In article <6cceguF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:23:02 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>> > <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:x-3FB358.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> >>> In article <6c92kiF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> >>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:4bup54p2661mj9v1f...@4ax.com...
>> >>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:31:21 -0400, default
>> >>>>> <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:12:52 -0500, Kent Wills
>> >>>>>> <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:54:23 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>Why not respond to Kent's entire sentence, instead of taking one phrase
>out of context, you stammering jackass?
His inability to be honest, of course.
Not to worry. When I replied to his post, I restored the context.
[...]
Kent Wills
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
[...]
>>>>
>>>> Point out where in the article any religious view
>>>
>>> Re-read the article you stammering jackass.
>>
>>
>> Why not respond
>
>Why do you habitually lie?
>
>"Having private savings accounts comprise a part of social security
>is not the same as privatizing social security."
> -- Larry Glasser, stammering imbecile
So Larry beat you again. It's almost boring see how you admit
defeat so early now.
[Snip the remainder of Jonezie's admitting Larry has, once again,
beaten him]
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3rq8a$a...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>
>> In article <x-576E28.18...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >In article <g3manp$9...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <x-738FEB.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> >> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >(You'll see in the same thread he makes multiple jokes about Jews being
>> >> >cooked to death in ovens and gas chambers as well.
>> >>
>> >> Really?
>> >>
>> >> How about a direct quote?
>> >
>> >You got the links, read them.
>>
>> No direct quote then. Figures.
>
Something for you to eat your crow with.
>If you haven't noticed, Jonez is getting his ass handed to him in
>multiple threads today, by posters in multiple countries. One is judged
>by the company they keep, you know, and you're starting to be viewed as
>the right-hand-man to a Usenet joke.
>
>
>> >> Was this the same thread in which you suggested that our goal in
>> >> Iraq is to "crush the Sunnis and the Shiites" (well over 95% of
>> >> Iraq's population)?
>> >
>> >That wasn't what I said our goal was,
>>
>> No, you took the coward's way and put your hateful bigotry in the mouth of
>> an American soldier. Nice, real nice.
>>
>> What did *you* say our goal was, Larry?
>
>I didn't say what our goal was, through my voice or that of a
>hypothetical soldier. I said I could see a soldier saying that
Do you hallucinate often?
>and those of us with intelligence would understand what he meant.
Would that be the same intelligence that Bush claimed to have before the war?
Kent Wills
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>>> Can you cite in the original post where the religious views of the
>>>> girls is mentioned?
>>>
>>> Kent the lyin' Polack Wills admits he's a lying Polack.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You most recent proof of your bigotry aside, how does my proving
>> you to be the liar you are make me a liar?
>
>
>"Let's pretend breathing is outlawed and everyone the world
>over ceases inhaling and exhaling.
>There will be NO change in CO2 levels since we exhale carbon
>monoxide, not carbon dioxide, stupid."
> - Kent Wills si-untist from Iowa
I've beaten you again. OK.
I sniped the rest of your proof that I've beaten you.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3rqqj$a...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>
>> In article <x-E0CEAB.18...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >In article <g3manp$9...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <x-738FEB.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> >> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >(You'll see in the same thread he makes multiple jokes about Jews being
>> >> >cooked to death in ovens and gas chambers as well.
>> >>
>> >> Really?
>> >>
>> >> How about a direct quote?
>> >
>> >Kent already provided it for you, but see MID
>> ><6b8tn5F...@mid.individual.net>, where he refers to Jews being
>> >cooked in ovens, and says that they are tasty when eaten with barbecue
>> >sauce.
>>
>> What you write here is just not there. But you do have a pretty sick
>> imagination.
>
You have been elected to speak for everyone but me then? I guess I
owe a debt of gratitude to "everyone" for leaving me out of that one.
>What do you think Jonez meant when he said it was a softball?
You'd have to ask him. I'd call it more of a changeup, and you swung
three times before it ever reached the plate.
>> What I see there is you getting called on your hypocrisy. After all,
>> you did defend as acceptable the proposition that our mission in
>> Iraq was to "crush the Sunnis and the Shiites" - well over 95% of Iraq's
>> population.
>
>I can't believe I once thought you were better than Jonez.
Tell me again why you think you're better than Jonez.
Kent Wills
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> "Catholic High School Sluts" can mean High School age women who are
>>> Catholic.
>>>
>>> That part of the country is predominately Catholic or very Catholic -
>>> So the girls may be raised Catholic.
>>
>> There's no direct evidence that *any* of the girls were Catholic.
>
>Why do you ignore the evidence?
>
>Do you have any "direct evidence" proving that none of the girls are Catholic?
>
><cue crickets chirping>
There's no evidence one way or the other. Still you had to LIE
and state they are Catholic.
They may be, but the article makes no mention of any religious
views held by any of the girls.
Kent Wills
>>>> That part of the country is predominately Catholic or very Catholic -
>>>> So the girls may be raised Catholic.
>>>
>>> There's no direct evidence that *any* of the girls were Catholic.
>>
>>Why do you ignore the evidence?
>
>There is no evidence. That's the problem.
Jonezie is well known to ignore the lack of evidence.
>
>>
>>Do you have any "direct evidence" proving that none of the girls are Catholic?
>>
>><cue crickets chirping>
>
>The last refuge of the liberal loon.
Jonezie is a proud Communist.
>The claim that was made that
>they were Catholic. You, rather than support the claim, demand that I
>prove it's not so. If you can't support the original claim, then just
>say so.
He's never been able to support any claim he's ever made.
Seriously. He's only tried once that I know of, and he failed.
He claimed a woman who killed her baby was a Christian. His proof
was screen caps of a MySpace page for a woman with the same first and
last name, but living in a different state, claiming to be a
Christian.
Since then, he's only stated claim X has been proved, or, as
above, he demands someone prove him wrong (which happens a lot).
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3rrbc$a...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>Yes or no.
How about a yes or no to the question you've been ducking since the beginning
of May, Larry? (See thread: Larry rings doorbell, runs away.)
Kent Wills
[...]
>>> >In MID <6b8rctF...@mid.individual.net>, in response to my question
>>> >(to you)"Have you ever heard Jonze make a racist and bigoted statement
>>> >or not?" he responded "You mean like when I've called you and your ilk
>>> >pig-ignorant white-trash scumbags?"
>>>
>>> After all your months of innuendo, the best you can come up with is
>>> that Jonez (who I suspect is also white) called you "white trash?"
>>
>>The best? Far from it. But I said Jonez admitted to being a bigot, you
>>asked for proof, and I provided proof where he admitted to it.
>
>That didn't sound like an admission to me, Larry.
It wouldn't, since you foolishly took the position that he's not
a bigot. Rather than be mature and admit you were wrong, you pull an
ostridge and burry your head (metaphorically) when the proof is
presented.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3rrlr$b...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>
>> In article <x-B2E053.18...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >In article <g3rq8a$a...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <x-576E28.18...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> >> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <g3manp$9...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <x-738FEB.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> >> >> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >(You'll see in the same thread he makes multiple jokes about Jews
>> >> >> >being
>> >> >> >cooked to death in ovens and gas chambers as well.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Really?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How about a direct quote?
>> >> >
>> >> >You got the links, read them.
>> >>
>> >> No direct quote then. Figures.
>> >
>> >What did you take the barbecue sauce comment to mean?
>>
>> Something for you to eat your crow with.
>
>defend him. It truly is remarkable. First, that he wasn't referring to
>a Catholic High School, then that he wasn't even referring to Catholic
>High School sluts, and now this.
>
>Does your willingness to bend all reason and common sense apply to
>anyone else, or just things that your idol Jonezy writes?
>
>
>> >If you haven't noticed, Jonez is getting his ass handed to him in
>> >multiple threads today, by posters in multiple countries. One is judged
>> >by the company they keep, you know, and you're starting to be viewed as
>> >the right-hand-man to a Usenet joke.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> Was this the same thread in which you suggested that our goal in
>> >> >> Iraq is to "crush the Sunnis and the Shiites" (well over 95% of
>> >> >> Iraq's population)?
>> >> >
>> >> >That wasn't what I said our goal was,
>> >>
>> >> No, you took the coward's way and put your hateful bigotry in the mouth of
>> >> an American soldier. Nice, real nice.
>> >>
>> >> What did *you* say our goal was, Larry?
>> >
>> >I didn't say what our goal was, through my voice or that of a
>> >hypothetical soldier. I said I could see a soldier saying that
>>
>> Do you hallucinate often?
>
>said "I could see" something, you take it to literally mean I visually
>observed it.
>
>Are you intentionally applying this double standard, or is your bias so
>deeply ingrained by now you don't even realize you're doing it?
>
>
>> >and those of us with intelligence would understand what he meant.
>>
>> Would that be the same intelligence that Bush claimed to have before the war?
>
>talking about information, I was referring to mental capacity.
What makes you so sure I wasn't also?
Kent Wills
>In article <x-E0CEAB.18...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>In article <g3manp$9...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> In article <x-738FEB.09...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >(You'll see in the same thread he makes multiple jokes about Jews being
>>> >cooked to death in ovens and gas chambers as well.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> How about a direct quote?
>>
>>Kent already provided it for you, but see MID
>><6b8tn5F...@mid.individual.net>, where he refers to Jews being
>>cooked in ovens, and says that they are tasty when eaten with barbecue
>>sauce.
>
>What you write here is just not there. But you do have a pretty sick
>imagination.
>
If you're going to lie, make certain the lie can't be exposed.
Here is what your hero, Jonezie, wrote:
>> Sauce ... goose ... oven!
> Disgustingly tasteless.
Try it with some BBQ sauce.
That's a direct C&P from
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.non.racism/msg/9763857ab58a0bf1
Care to try a different lie?
>What I see there is you getting called on your hypocrisy. After all,
>you did defend as acceptable the proposition that our mission in
>Iraq was to "crush the Sunnis and the Shiites" - well over 95% of Iraq's
>population.
>
>
So now he's defended it? But you claimed he stated it.
Which is the lie (since you won't ever admit you were in error,
you'll have to admit you were lying by default)? Both can't be true,
so one must be a lie. Which one is it?
--
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3rs3q$b...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>more intelligent, less bigoted, less racist, more willing to engage in
>substantive discussion, and less willing to resort to insults and
>name-calling than your BFF Jonez.
I didn't ask about "virtually everyone." I asked about you.
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 24 Jun 2008 17:45:41 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> >In MID <6b8rctF...@mid.individual.net>, in response to my question
>>>> >(to you)"Have you ever heard Jonze make a racist and bigoted statement
>>>> >or not?" he responded "You mean like when I've called you and your ilk
>>>> >pig-ignorant white-trash scumbags?"
>>>>
>>>> After all your months of innuendo, the best you can come up with is
>>>> that Jonez (who I suspect is also white) called you "white trash?"
>>>
>>>The best? Far from it. But I said Jonez admitted to being a bigot, you
>>>asked for proof, and I provided proof where he admitted to it.
>>
>>That didn't sound like an admission to me, Larry.
>
> It wouldn't, since you foolishly took the position that he's not
>a bigot.
It wouldn't, because for all any of us other than Larry and Jonez know,
this is just one white person calling another white person white.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3rslf$b...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>confront?
Answer the question you've been ducking since the beginning of May and maybe I'll
answer yours sometime in the next month or two. Until then, stop whining.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <g3rsr2$b...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>something other than information.
A person in your line of work should really have a better grasp of the
difference between "information" and lies.
I say that as a preface to pointing out that there are in fact an awful
lot of people who think that what Bush put in front of the public before
the war was something other than "information."