Curt wrote:
> "f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
> news:zTNEh.25690$s72.13322@fe12.news.easynews.com...
>> Curt wrote:
>>> "f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
>>> news:ZMMEh.46432$M42.31263@fe11.news.easynews.com...
>>>> Curt wrote:
>>>>> "Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
>>>>>> Only if you believe that any fetus is a Person as defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Murder is a legalistic term. Abortion is not Murder as defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That makes my original comment spot on. And it asks why in the world
>>>>> should that be
>>>>>>> the law?
>>>>>> Why ought it not? Your original comment is Wrong in Fact and Wrong
> in
>>>>>> Law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may be Correct in Belief, but that's a whole different kettle of
>>>>>> fish, and idiosyncratic altogether.
>>>>> It's certainly not a biblically based belief, however. There's nothing
>>> in
>>>>> the bible that even suggests that God frowns on abortion.
>>>> sigh....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go away for a long long time.
>>> Why?
>> Because you are stupid, evil, and unevolved.
>>
>> You are like a ham sammich with no mayo, profane and useless.
>
> A ham sandwich that knows more about the bible than you.

Ah...no.

Curt wrote:
> "f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
> news:CqNEh.20810$gl2.9464@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>> Ockham's Razor wrote:
>
>>> You know nothing about Tenure.
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> It is awarded after about 20 or so years
>>> of high level productivity.
>> Translation: lieberal ASS KISSING!
>>
>>> The dumb shits like bush are weeded out
>>> long before that.
>> Right, NO conservatives allowe, thank you!
>
> Well, no. There are plenty of conservative professors

Nope, they're far less than even 10 %.

Stop lying.

Curt wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1hu5smb.zz53s51ozbihnN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>> f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>> everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with 'smarter'
>>> Is that why lieberals favor junk science?
>> What do you mean by 'lieberal?'
>
> What does she mean by "junk science"?
>

Is the term not sufficiently expository for you, dummy?

Curt wrote:
> "f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
> news:gUNEh.25694$s72.11134@fe12.news.easynews.com...
>> Curt wrote:
>>> "Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hal.i.burton-C7093B.21591126022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>>> In article <12u76hupe18e606@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>> "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bill Bonde" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:45E1FDEC.84CB7520@yahoo.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fetuses don't make choices.
>>>>>>> Neither to babies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet they are protected by law.
>>>>> Because they're people.
>>>> Who determines "people". Why aren't fetuses "people"? Just asking.
>>> Because they aren't born. People are born.
>> Gee...guess where they were before birth...
>>
>> You're a very disgusting scumhole POS.
>
> They were in a state of non personhood.

You still are.

Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <F_1Fh.2005$RN6.267@trndny07>,
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <1hu5shi.a0qenp1z0gy5gN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > >> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > In article <12u77u93tehug08@corp.supernews.com>,
> > >> > > "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > >> > > > news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > >> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point
> > >> > > > > > > > > you're arguing - either for or against!
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you
> > >> > > > > came up with the word 'leftard?'
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard"
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Well you're a little smarter than Paul, not that that's difficult
> > >> > > to be.
> > >> >
> > >> > You didn't actually have an answer, did you?
> > >>
> > >> Sure I did, [.]
> > >
> > > Well, no. That's kinda sorta the point here. You call me a 'leftard,'
> > > and you call other people 'leftard,' and yet here you are failing
> > > utterly when it comes time to explain yourself.
> > >
> > > So explain yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to communicate when
> > > you use that term? Anything? At all?
>
>
> > He's trying to tell you politely that you're a fucking moron. He's being
> > Nice.
>
>
> Again leave it to someone other than a leftard to "get" it.
>
> They (leftards) love to use the term "rightard"

*I* don't use that term. And you're talking about me. So why do you have
to lie?

> but if anyone does the same thing to them they (leftards) get their
> panties all in a knot. I'm glad to know they (leftards) are so sensitive
> about the term (leftards) so I'll keep using it. heheheheheh.

My panties aren't in a knot. I'm simply asking you what you think it
means. You seem unable to come up with an answer, and instead you're
laughing nervously. Why is that?

I mean, obviously you *thought* it would put my panties in a knot, and
you wish it *had* put my panties in a knot, but if you'd done any
research at all you'd know I don't wear panties.

Here's a hint, Harold: 'Leftard' doesn't mean anything. It's about as
meaningful as 'moonbat' or 'surrender monkey.' The only thing you're
doing by using this term is marking yourself as a) an idiot, and b)
belonging to the tribe of freep. In that order. The term doesn't hurt
anyone except you.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hu6xs3.1ky13l6jrc3uoN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1hu5vgm.1lsbiwp1tpyp5uN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, usenet@mile23.c0m
> > > (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > [.]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > point you're arguing - either for or against!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how
> > > > > > > > > > you came up with the word 'leftard?'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because I asked nicely.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You misunderstood my question, so I'll ask it again. Why do you
> > > > > > > need to know?
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's not the same question.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am asking for you to explain to me what you mean by 'leftard.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And I'm asking you why do you need to know?
> > > >
> > > > Because it interests me, obviously.
> > >
> > > Read Bob Tiernan's post.
> >
> > Just tell me.
>
>
> How about:
>
> Leftard - someone too stupid to follow simple instructions like "Read
> Bob Tiernan's post."

So you're saying that the only measure of someone's intelligence is
their ability to follow instructions.

That explains a lot, Harold.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hu6xtn.1rwvp9812kccykN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1hu5shi.a0qenp1z0gy5gN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <12u77u93tehug08@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > > "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > > > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point
> > > > > > > > > > > you're arguing - either for or against!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > with the word 'leftard?'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard"
> > > > >
> > > > > Well you're a little smarter than Paul, not that that's difficult to
> > > > > be.
> > > >
> > > > You didn't actually have an answer, did you?
> > >
> > > Sure I did, [.]
> >
> > Well, no. That's kinda sorta the point here. You call me a 'leftard,'
> > and you call other people 'leftard,' and yet here you are failing
> > utterly when it comes time to explain yourself.
> >
> > So explain yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to communicate when
> > you use that term? Anything? At all?
>
>
> The same sort of thing (but from the opposite end of the political
> spectrum) that leftards are trying to communicate when they make use of
> the term "rightard"?

Are you asking me? I'm the one who's asking you.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hu6xy3.1x0ebrp3nauizN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, usenet@mile23.c0m
> (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <1hu5sjp.9cxz9z1gm2fyzN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <1hu5ohz.1fqiu4e1l0sfd9N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > At this point in history, to be 'liberal' means to know and say
> > > > > > things that piss off 'conservatives.' And also at this point in
> > > > > > history, to be 'conservative,' is to be wilfully ignorant,
> > > > > > xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So don't worry about trying to argue that liberals are smarter.
> > > > > > By this point, everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with
> > > > > > 'smarter' when applied by a 'conservative.'
> > > > >
> > > > > Much like to be "conservative" means to know and say things that
> > > > > piss off libruls.
> > > >
> > > > Well, no. I defined 'conservative' above. Why do you disagree with
> > > > my definition?
> > >
> > > Why do you disagree with mine?
> >
> > Are you afraid even to *say* that you're not willfully ignorant...
>
> Nope.

But the other parts... The characterizations of conservatives as
ignorant, xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception... You
*are* afraid of defending yourself from *those* characterizations.
Right? Otherwise you wouldn't have snipped them like a coward.

You have an opportunity to prove me wrong. And the way you do that is
not to call people 'leftards' or 'libruls,' or just be a jerk. No, the
way you do that is to act in ways that don't so completely display the
qualities I characterized as being 'conservative.'

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:
>
>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:31:25 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fetuses don't make choices. That's an adult responsibility and
>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>> 'First thing we do, we kill all the children. We are the adults'
>>>>>>> I'd never support killing all the children.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
>>>>> Adults get to choose many things. Children do not.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you want is for Some adults to do the choosing for Other
>>>>> adults.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no reason for your choice to be taken as superior to that
>>>>> of someone else, especially for matters that are simply None of
>>>>> your business in the first place.
>>>> Bottom line, you're OK with adults killing their children.
>>> Which children are you talking about, Lobby? The ones that aren't
>>> children yet?
>>>
>> There we go, potential humans....fuck em all!
>>
>
> f650 for how long?

Til they bring out the f750?

Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:

> In article <EQ1Fh.1998$RN6.359@trndny07>,
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > Regulating a public service is one thing.
>> >
>> > Regulating something intensely Private is quite another.
>>
>> Like whether or not your children get vaccinated.
>
> Immunization of children is a public health measure. Just because
> some parents are too stupid to have their children immunized does not
> mean it is not a good idea. Prevention of epidemic diseases is a good
> thing.
>

So, Abortion is a Good Thing?

f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:31:25 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>>>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fetuses don't make choices. That's an adult responsibility
>>>>>>>>>> and right.
>>>>>>>>> 'First thing we do, we kill all the children. We are the
>>>>>>>>> adults'
>>>>>>>> I'd never support killing all the children.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
>>>>>> Adults get to choose many things. Children do not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you want is for Some adults to do the choosing for Other
>>>>>> adults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no reason for your choice to be taken as superior to that
>>>>>> of someone else, especially for matters that are simply None of
>>>>>> your business in the first place.
>>>>> Bottom line, you're OK with adults killing their children.
>>>> Which children are you talking about, Lobby? The ones that aren't
>>>> children yet?
>>>>
>>> There we go, potential humans....fuck em all!
>>>
>>
>> f650 for how long?
>
> Til they bring out the f750?
>

I was thinking in terms of f-stop.

Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:

> In article <EV1Fh.2001$RN6.1127@trndny07>,
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <f0MEh.24785$s72.5475@fe12.news.easynews.com>,
>> > f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ockham's Razor wrote:
>> >> > In article <IfudnSwBge9c2X7YnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> >> > Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Bill Bonde wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -snip-
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Show the me the evidence that the smartest people are in
>> >> >>> academia.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well, they're clearly not in the White House.
>> >> >
>> >> > Dumb Shits in Academia do not last
>> >>
>> >> Yes they do, it's called TENURE!
>> >
>> > You know nothing about Tenure. It is awarded after about 20 or so
>> > years of high level productivity. The dumb shits like bush are
>> > weeded out long before that.
>> >
>>
>> No, it's a LOT less than 20. And the level of 'productivity' is a few
>> papers per yer (avg) and getting enough grant money to offset Some of
>> your salary.
>
> It is less than 20 for a few who are remarkably productive and become
> nationally or internationally recognized.

Bullshit!

> Many work their entire
> career and are never tenured. "A few papers per year" will just about
> allow you to keep your job but only if they are published in leading
> journals.

More Bullshit!!

>

In article <1hu7g0v.1gq6z23h6kyokN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu6xy3.1x0ebrp3nauizN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, usenet@mile23.c0m
> > (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <1hu5sjp.9cxz9z1gm2fyzN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <1hu5ohz.1fqiu4e1l0sfd9N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > At this point in history, to be 'liberal' means to know and say
> > > > > > > things that piss off 'conservatives.' And also at this point in
> > > > > > > history, to be 'conservative,' is to be wilfully ignorant,
> > > > > > > xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So don't worry about trying to argue that liberals are smarter.
> > > > > > > By this point, everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with
> > > > > > > 'smarter' when applied by a 'conservative.'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Much like to be "conservative" means to know and say things that
> > > > > > piss off libruls.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, no. I defined 'conservative' above. Why do you disagree with
> > > > > my definition?
> > > >
> > > > Why do you disagree with mine?
> > >
> > > Are you afraid even to *say* that you're not willfully ignorant...
> >
> > Nope.
>
> But the other parts... The characterizations of conservatives as
> ignorant, xenophobic, fearful, and devoid of self-perception... You
> *are* afraid of defending yourself from *those* characterizations.


Nope.

Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:

> In article <ST1Fh.2000$RN6.881@trndny07>,
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <IfudnSwBge9c2X7YnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> > Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bill Bonde wrote:
>> >>
>> >> -snip-
>> >>
>> >> > Show the me the evidence that the smartest people are in
>> >> > academia.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Well, they're clearly not in the White House.
>> >
>> > Dumb Shits in Academia do not last but about one sixth as long as
>> > Bush and Cheney.
>> >
>>
>> Depends on whether or not they have tenure.
>
> Dumb shits do not get tenure. They are recognized and replaced in
> about a year.
>

Wrong! On Both counts.

In article <1hu7fsl.1nfavde6ubjwgN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <F_1Fh.2005$RN6.267@trndny07>,
> > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In article <1hu5shi.a0qenp1z0gy5gN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > >> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > In article <12u77u93tehug08@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > >> > > "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > > >> > > > news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > > >> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point
> > > >> > > > > > > > > you're arguing - either for or against!
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you
> > > >> > > > > came up with the word 'leftard?'
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard"
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Well you're a little smarter than Paul, not that that's difficult
> > > >> > > to be.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > You didn't actually have an answer, did you?
> > > >>
> > > >> Sure I did, [.]
> > > >
> > > > Well, no. That's kinda sorta the point here. You call me a 'leftard,'
> > > > and you call other people 'leftard,' and yet here you are failing
> > > > utterly when it comes time to explain yourself.
> > > >
> > > > So explain yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to communicate when
> > > > you use that term? Anything? At all?
> >
> >
> > > He's trying to tell you politely that you're a fucking moron. He's being
> > > Nice.
> >
> >
> > Again leave it to someone other than a leftard to "get" it.
> >
> > They (leftards) love to use the term "rightard"
>
> *I* don't use that term. And you're talking about me.


Nope.

In article <1hu7fv7.zpd6uszp3p64N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu6xtn.1rwvp9812kccykN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1hu5shi.a0qenp1z0gy5gN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <12u77u93tehug08@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > > > "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > > > > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point
> > > > > > > > > > > > you're arguing - either for or against!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you
> > > > > > > > came
> > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > with the word 'leftard?'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well you're a little smarter than Paul, not that that's difficult
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > be.
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn't actually have an answer, did you?
> > > >
> > > > Sure I did, [.]
> > >
> > > Well, no. That's kinda sorta the point here. You call me a 'leftard,'
> > > and you call other people 'leftard,' and yet here you are failing
> > > utterly when it comes time to explain yourself.
> > >
> > > So explain yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to communicate when
> > > you use that term? Anything? At all?
> >
> >
> > The same sort of thing (but from the opposite end of the political
> > spectrum) that leftards are trying to communicate when they make use of
> > the term "rightard"?
>
> Are you asking me?


Nope.

In article <1hu7frk.1x619yq8hgh68N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu6xs3.1ky13l6jrc3uoN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1hu5vgm.1lsbiwp1tpyp5uN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > usenet@mile23.c0m
> > > > (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > [.]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > point you're arguing - either for or against!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how
> > > > > > > > > > > you came up with the word 'leftard?'
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Why?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Because I asked nicely.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You misunderstood my question, so I'll ask it again. Why do
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > need to know?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's not the same question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am asking for you to explain to me what you mean by 'leftard.'
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I'm asking you why do you need to know?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because it interests me, obviously.
> > > >
> > > > Read Bob Tiernan's post.
> > >
> > > Just tell me.
> >
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > Leftard - someone too stupid to follow simple instructions like "Read
> > Bob Tiernan's post."
>
> So you're saying that the only measure of someone's intelligence is
> their ability to follow instructions.


Nope.

Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

> Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <EQ1Fh.1998$RN6.359@trndny07>,
> > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Regulating a public service is one thing.
> >> >
> >> > Regulating something intensely Private is quite another.
> >>
> >> Like whether or not your children get vaccinated.
> >
> > Immunization of children is a public health measure. Just because some
> > parents are too stupid to have their children immunized does not mean it
> > is not a good idea. Prevention of epidemic diseases is a good thing.
>
> So, Abortion is a Good Thing?

Abortion is Not Your Decision.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

 
"f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
news:845Fh.139$Wn.126@fe06.news.easynews.com...
> Curt wrote:
> > "f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
> > news:BSNEh.25683$s72.21265@fe12.news.easynews.com...
> >> Curt wrote:
> >>> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> >>> news:1hu5nrg.o0bkmu11t6akN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> >>>> Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:1hu3zb5.11102ev11gq1ziN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> >>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
> >>>>>>>>>> But not in reality.
> >>>>>>>>> Because you don't define it as "murder".
> >>>>>>>> No, I don't. So?
> >>>>>>> That's the difference, you don't define it as murder. It isn't
that
> >>> a
> >>>>>>> living thing isn't being killed either way.
> >>>>>> But it's still not murder, regardless.
> >>>>> Can you really "kill" something if it's unable to live on its own?
> >>>> Sure. It's just that abortion isn't murder.
> >>> Dunno. "Kill" seems to be a word with connotations I wouldn't use in
the
> >>> case of abortion. You're not "killing" a living being, in the normal
> > sense
> >>> of the word. You're removing a fetus that doesn't have any self
> > awareness
> >> Is that why mothers sing to them, play classical music on their bellies
> >> with portable speakers and let their husbands stroke their stomachs and
> >> kiss their unborn children?
> >>
> >> You are so callously inhumane and definably unevolved I am ashamed to
> >> know you are also human.
> >>
> >> Damn your soul to HELL!
> >
> > I suppose that was meant to make me feel bad,
>
> But a soulless scumball like you can never feel.

Oww owww owwww that hurts.

Come on. Let's not be mean to each other. Especially since, when I'm mean to
you, it's funny. And when you're.. well, what passes for "mean" in what
passes for your "mind", everyone just feels sorry for you. I mean, they
would, if they didn't find you so contemptible.

Curt

Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hu7fv7.zpd6uszp3p64N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1hu6xtn.1rwvp9812kccykN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <1hu5shi.a0qenp1z0gy5gN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <12u77u93tehug08@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > > > > "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > > > > > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > point you're arguing - either for or against!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how
> > > > > > > > > you came up with the word 'leftard?'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well you're a little smarter than Paul, not that that's
> > > > > > > difficult to be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You didn't actually have an answer, did you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure I did, [.]
> > > >
> > > > Well, no. That's kinda sorta the point here. You call me a
> > > > 'leftard,' and you call other people 'leftard,' and yet here you are
> > > > failing utterly when it comes time to explain yourself.
> > > >
> > > > So explain yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to communicate
> > > > when you use that term? Anything? At all?
> > >
> > > The same sort of thing (but from the opposite end of the political
> > > spectrum) that leftards are trying to communicate when they make use
> > > of the term "rightard"?
> >
> > Are you asking me?
>
> Nope.

Then why did you put a question mark at the end? That usually means
you're asking a question.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1hu6wnw.w955xmmxk0w0N%
>
> > -- is left for all to answer on their own. I don't want Bush, Falwell,
> > *or* Hawking to dictate to me what's human and what isn't. I'll listen
> > to their ideas and come to my own conclusions. That's freedom.
>
> See, and that's a big difference -- Hawking has never tried to "dictate"
> anything, despite being far better qualified in ANY arena than bush The
> Lesser or Jerry "child molester" Falwell.

In all fairness, Falwell isn't charged with molesting children. He has,
however, minimized the charge when it's been leveled against others in
his flock.

So either way, probably not the guy you want dictating the meaning of
human existence to you.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

 
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1hu6zr4.ok1zlp1isq2vN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > news:12u8qqs8ck29d9a@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > > news:1hu5r2n.k4yxr1od64p9N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > > > Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dunno. "Kill" seems to be a word with connotations I wouldn't use
in
> > > > > the case of abortion.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't use 'kill' in the case of abortion. You asked if it's
possible
> > > > to kill something -- *anything* -- that's unable to live on its own.
And
> > > > the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > A houseplant needs water. So it's unable to live on its own. Take
away
> > > > the water, and you kill the plant. That solves the philosophical
problem
> > > > of whether you can kill something that can't live on its own, for
> > > > varying defintiions of independence.
> > > >
> > > > If you're asking if a fetus can be killed, I'd say it's a matter of
> > > > political definition. The fetus was 'viable,' but now it's not, so
was
> > > > it killed? This leads inexorably to a shouting match, especially on
> > > > usenet. In the political realm, it's simultaneously fair and unfair
to
> > > > say that it was killed. Schroedinger's rhetorical fetus. For
instance:
> > > > Does it diminish the fetus to say you killed it like you'd kill a
> > > > houseplant? This is actually a very, very important distinction, and
> > > > it's good that we haven't reached a unanimous verdict yet.
> > > >
> > > As I recall, they often us the term "kill" with cancer - as in "kill
the
> > > cancer".
> >
> > Sure. You "kill" things, sort of, affirmatively. I dunno if that's the
best
> > word. But you "kill" enemy soldiers, you "kill" cancers, you "kill" the
> > radio when Rush Limbaugh comes on. You "kill" something because you
don't
> > like it, or you don't like what it's doing. You don't "kill" your pets
when
> > they're old and sick. You "put them down" or "have them put to sleep" or
> > some other term. It's the connotations of the word "kill" that I object
to.
> > See?
>
> That's exactly what I was addressing above. Anti-abortion people want to
> say that abortion is murder. They want to do this because it implies
> that anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. They're using words in a
> vivid way. And talking about killing the unborn works the same way. It's
> a whole vocabulary that makes their point in as vivid a way as possible.
>
> But there's also an ambiguity. Compare these statements:
>
> "Killing a fetus is like killing a houseplant."
>
> "Killing a fetus is like killing a child."
>
> Neither is really false, and neither is really true. Neither tells the
> whole story, and either could hide a political agenda.

Right. And making an adult decision to terminate a pregnancy is neither like
"killing a houseplant" nor is it like "killing a child". Nor is it like
bleaching the sheets or changing the car oil, for that matter.

Curt

 
"f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
news:x45Fh.140$Wn.110@fe06.news.easynews.com...
> Curt wrote:
> > "f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
> > news:zTNEh.25690$s72.13322@fe12.news.easynews.com...
> >> Curt wrote:
> >>> "f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
> >>> news:ZMMEh.46432$M42.31263@fe11.news.easynews.com...
> >>>> Curt wrote:
> >>>>> "Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
> >>>>>> Only if you believe that any fetus is a Person as defined.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any is not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Murder is a legalistic term. Abortion is not Murder as defined.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That makes my original comment spot on. And it asks why in the
world
> >>>>> should that be
> >>>>>>> the law?
> >>>>>> Why ought it not? Your original comment is Wrong in Fact and Wrong
> > in
> >>>>>> Law.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It may be Correct in Belief, but that's a whole different kettle of
> >>>>>> fish, and idiosyncratic altogether.
> >>>>> It's certainly not a biblically based belief, however. There's
nothing
> >>> in
> >>>>> the bible that even suggests that God frowns on abortion.
> >>>> sigh....
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Go away for a long long time.
> >>> Why?
> >> Because you are stupid, evil, and unevolved.
> >>
> >> You are like a ham sammich with no mayo, profane and useless.
> >
> > A ham sandwich that knows more about the bible than you.
>
> Ah...no.

Really? Would you like to discuss any aspect of the bible?

Cmon, Spammy. Let's argue. You choose the chapter and verse. Shit, you
choose the side you want to argue too. I'll take the other side, and I'll
still win.

See, I'm smart and you're dumb. I'm educated and you're.. well.. uneducated.
I'm left and you're right. I'm hero and you're weenie. Anything that's good
is me, and anything that's bad is you. You know I'm right, which is why
you're so bitter and angry about everything.

So I guess I'm waiting, stupid. Pick a verse. Stupid.

Curt

In article <1hu7hu0.fft9r1810rq9N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu7fv7.zpd6uszp3p64N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1hu6xtn.1rwvp9812kccykN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <1hu5shi.a0qenp1z0gy5gN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article <12u77u93tehug08@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > > > > > "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > > > > > > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > point you're arguing - either for or against!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how
> > > > > > > > > > you came up with the word 'leftard?'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well you're a little smarter than Paul, not that that's
> > > > > > > > difficult to be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You didn't actually have an answer, did you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure I did, [.]
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, no. That's kinda sorta the point here. You call me a
> > > > > 'leftard,' and you call other people 'leftard,' and yet here you are
> > > > > failing utterly when it comes time to explain yourself.
> > > > >
> > > > > So explain yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to communicate
> > > > > when you use that term? Anything? At all?
> > > >
> > > > The same sort of thing (but from the opposite end of the political
> > > > spectrum) that leftards are trying to communicate when they make use
> > > > of the term "rightard"?
> > >
> > > Are you asking me?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Then why did you put a question mark at the end? That usually means
> you're asking a question.


Loop up "rhetorical question"

In article <12u9ppdjl6v95f2@corp.supernews.com>,
"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> "Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-B2ECFC.20152427022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <1hu6xtn.1rwvp9812kccykN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
>
> > > Well, no. That's kinda sorta the point here. You call me a 'leftard,'
> > > and you call other people 'leftard,' and yet here you are failing
> > > utterly when it comes time to explain yourself.
> > >
> > > So explain yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to communicate when
> > > you use that term? Anything? At all?
> >
> >
> > The same sort of thing (but from the opposite end of the political
> > spectrum) that leftards are trying to communicate when they make use of
> > the term "rightard"?
>
> So, basically, you're copying. Yeah?


If you say so.