"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.

Curt

 
"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?

Curt

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

> In article <1hu7hu0.fft9r1810rq9N%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,'
[.]
> > > > > > 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"

Harold, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
trouble?

--
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 message
news:hal.i.burton-

> > So *you'll* defend Harold from the accusation...
>
>
>
> What accusation? Please be precise and provide credible support of
> whatever accusation you make. I don't waste my time refuting every
> silly accusation some leftard makes but without providing some basis for
> that accusation.

Yeh, from your hundreds of posts here we can tell you're a really busy guy
with lots to do..

Curt

 
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:kR1Fh.1999

>
> f650 for how long?

I'll never know.

Curt

 
"f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
news:G55Fh.143$Wn.101@fe06.news.easynews.com...
> 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?

Nope. But you're going to have to change nyms again to answer, because I
finally canned you.

Bye till next time.

Curt

In article <1hu7i5b.1rldylhrvwgolN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu7hu0.fft9r1810rq9N%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,'
> [.]
> > > > > > > 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"
>
> Harold, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> trouble?


Paul, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
trouble?

"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:F_1Fh.2005$RN6.267@trndny07...
> 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.

If so, it doesn't say very much for his ability to judge intelligence.

Jim

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

> In article <1hu7i5b.1rldylhrvwgolN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1hu7hu0.fft9r1810rq9N%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,'
> > [.]
> > > > > > > > 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"
> >
> > Harold, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> > trouble?
>
> Paul, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> trouble?

What trouble am I in?

--
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

usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> 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.
>

So You think it is a Good Thing?

In article <1hu7jlf.120js3vyldji0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu7i5b.1rldylhrvwgolN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1hu7hu0.fft9r1810rq9N%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,'
> > > [.]
> > > > > > > > > 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"
> > >
> > > Harold, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> > > trouble?
^^^^^^^

> > Paul, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> > trouble?


> What trouble am I in?


Same trouble you claim I'm in?

In article <FOWdneDTF90GbXnYnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@cablespeedwa.com>,
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:F_1Fh.2005$RN6.267@trndny07...
> > 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.
>
> If so, it doesn't say very much for his ability to judge intelligence.


It does, and it say a lot about your inability to judge the same.
heheheheh.

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

> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> So You think it is a Good Thing?

I think it's Not Your Decision. Unless you have a uterus, of course.

--
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 <1hu7jlf.120js3vyldji0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1hu7i5b.1rldylhrvwgolN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <1hu7hu0.fft9r1810rq9N%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,'
> > > > [.]
> > > > > > > > > > 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"
> > > >
> > > > Harold, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> > > > trouble?
> ^^^^^^^
>
> > > Paul, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> > > trouble?
>
>
> > What trouble am I in?
>
>
> Same trouble you claim I'm in?

Well, no. You're in trouble because you're unable to get a rise out of
me by using a meaningless word to describe someone else. I don't have
that problem.

--
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 message
news:hal.i.burton-205E87.22134727022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <FOWdneDTF90GbXnYnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@cablespeedwa.com>,
> "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:F_1Fh.2005$RN6.267@trndny07...
>> > 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.
>>
>> If so, it doesn't say very much for his ability to judge intelligence.
>
>
> It does

Nah -- just your ability to make noise. As usual, you think that's the same
thing as saying something.

Jim

In article <9m6Fh.15808$sv6.7796@trndny08>,
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> So You think it is a Good Thing?


I think it was the book "Children of the Ice Age" (A very good book,
highly recommended) that pointed out that "gestation" in humans is
really an 18-20 month process, of which only the first 9 months is in
the womb. Deciding that it's OK to kill a fetus at the 8 month point
but not a one month old baby is biolobically arbitrary.

In article <PLOdnb8PmcbqaXnYnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@cablespeedwa.com>,
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> "Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-205E87.22134727022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <FOWdneDTF90GbXnYnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@cablespeedwa.com>,
> > "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> news:F_1Fh.2005$RN6.267@trndny07...
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> If so, it doesn't say very much for his ability to judge intelligence.
> >
> >
> > It does
>
> Nah -- just your ability to make noise.


And to get you to respond to that "noise". hehehehehehe.

In article <1hu7k5a.2qa36n1hlg1gsN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu7jlf.120js3vyldji0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1hu7i5b.1rldylhrvwgolN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <1hu7hu0.fft9r1810rq9N%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,'
> > > > > [.]
> > > > > > > > > > > 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"
> > > > >
> > > > > Harold, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> > > > > trouble?
> > ^^^^^^^
> >
> > > > Paul, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> > > > trouble?
> >
> >
> > > What trouble am I in?
> >
> >
> > Same trouble you claim I'm in?
>
> Well, no. You're in trouble because you're unable to get a rise out of
> me


Must be why you not only keep responding to me but begging me to answer
you questions. hehehehehehe.

"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-8FD643.22243227022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <PLOdnb8PmcbqaXnYnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@cablespeedwa.com>,
> "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
>> "Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hal.i.burton-205E87.22134727022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> > In article <FOWdneDTF90GbXnYnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@cablespeedwa.com>,
>> > "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:F_1Fh.2005$RN6.267@trndny07...
>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> If so, it doesn't say very much for his ability to judge intelligence.
>> >
>> >
>> > It does
>>
>> Nah -- just your ability to make noise. As usual, you think that's the
>> same
>> thing as saying something.
>
>
> And to get you to respond to that "noise". hehehehehehe.

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

> In article <1hu7k5a.2qa36n1hlg1gsN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1hu7jlf.120js3vyldji0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <1hu7i5b.1rldylhrvwgolN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <1hu7hu0.fft9r1810rq9N%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,'
> > > > > > [.]
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harold, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> > > > > > trouble?
> > > ^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > > > Paul, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> > > > > trouble?
> > >
> > >
> > > > What trouble am I in?
> > >
> > >
> > > Same trouble you claim I'm in?
> >
> > Well, no. You're in trouble because you're unable to get a rise out of
> > me by using a meaningless word to describe someone else. I don't have
> > that problem.
>
> Must be why you not only keep responding to me but begging me to answer
> you questions. hehehehehehe.

No, not at all. I'm not begging you, I've simply been asking you, in a
civil way, to explain your use of the term 'leftard' to describe Bill
Bonde. Since you're afraid to answer, I've already reached my
conclusions. At this point, we're talking about your reluctance to
explain yourself. So I'll ask you again: How is it that you've let one
little word cause you so much trouble?

--
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

In article <1hu7lvu.1231r5310cpd4wN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu7k5a.2qa36n1hlg1gsN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1hu7jlf.120js3vyldji0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <1hu7i5b.1rldylhrvwgolN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article <1hu7hu0.fft9r1810rq9N%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,'
> > > > > > > [.]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Harold, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so
> > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > trouble?
> > > > ^^^^^^^
> > > >
> > > > > > Paul, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so much
> > > > > > trouble?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > What trouble am I in?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Same trouble you claim I'm in?
> > >
> > > Well, no. You're in trouble because you're unable to get a rise out of
> > > me by using a meaningless word to describe someone else. I don't have
> > > that problem.
> >
> > Must be why you not only keep responding to me but begging me to answer
> > you questions. hehehehehehe.
>
> No, not at all.

Your posts prove otherwise. heheheheheheh.

usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> So You think it is a Good Thing?
>
> I think

Not so's anyone would notice.

> it's Not Your Decision.

Neither is paying taxes.

> Unless you have a uterus, of course.

I don't have a cow and don't want one, but somebody else decided I can't
have one where I now live.

>

Is abortion a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

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

> In article <9m6Fh.15808$sv6.7796@trndny08>,
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>>
>> > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <EQ1Fh.1998$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.
>> >
>>
>> So You think it is a Good Thing?
>
>
> I think it was the book "Children of the Ice Age" (A very good book,
> highly recommended) that pointed out that "gestation" in humans is
> really an 18-20 month process, of which only the first 9 months is in
> the womb. Deciding that it's OK to kill a fetus at the 8 month point
> but not a one month old baby is biolobically arbitrary.
>

Recent case in Florida of a 21 week, 10 ounce survivor. One of my parrots
weighs about 10 ounces.

Saw a preemie that small myself. Got called to the ER from OB to
"dispose" of a miscarriage. They pointed me to a towel. I unwrap the
towel to find a breathing child. Ran like hell back to OB and an
incubator carrying the "miscarriage". Child eventually died, but we're
talking 45 years ago and a not very promising start.

usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1hu7k5a.2qa36n1hlg1gsN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
>> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>>
>> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <1hu7jlf.120js3vyldji0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
>> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > In article <1hu7i5b.1rldylhrvwgolN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
>> > > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > In article <1hu7hu0.fft9r1810rq9N%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,'
>> > > > > > [.]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 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"
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Harold, how is it that you've let one little word cause you
>> > > > > > so much trouble?
>> > > ^^^^^^^
>> > >
>> > > > > Paul, how is it that you've let one little word cause you so
>> > > > > much trouble?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > What trouble am I in?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Same trouble you claim I'm in?
>> >
>> > Well, no. You're in trouble because you're unable to get a rise out
>> > of me by using a meaningless word to describe someone else. I don't
>> > have that problem.
>>
>> Must be why you not only keep responding to me but begging me to
>> answer you questions. hehehehehehe.
>
> No, not at all. I'm not begging you, I've simply been asking you, in a
> civil way, to explain your use of the term 'leftard' to describe Bill
> Bonde. Since you're afraid to answer, I've already reached my
> conclusions. At this point, we're talking about your reluctance to
> explain yourself. So I'll ask you again: How is it that you've let one
> little word cause you so much trouble?
>

What's troubling you, Paul?

On Feb 27, 11:53 am, use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> Al Smith <caddyshack...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 7:46 pm, use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > Al Smith <caddyshack...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > [.]
>
> > > > If murder is defined as the unjust killing of a human being,
> > > > scientists are better equipped than politicians and clergy to
> > > > determine what a human is.
>
> > > First of all, that doesn't follow.
>
> > Who do you think would be least biased and make the most accurate
> > assessment of what a human being is:
>
> > 1) A politician like George W. Bush
> > 2) A theologian like Jerry Falwell
> > 3) A scientist like Stephen Hawking
>
> It doesn't follow, Al. Let me walk you through it, OK?
>
> "If murder is defined as the unjust killing of a human being, scientists
> are better equipped than politicians and clergy to determine what a
> human is."
>
> You have a premise which defines murder as the unjust killing of a human
> being.
>
> And from that, somehow, you extract a conclusion: Scientists are the
> best at determining whether something is human or not.
>
> With me so far?
>
> Your premise does not contain anything that even hints at why a
> scientist would be better equipped to make that judgement.
>
> Since we're talking about murder, which is a legal term, it's the
> judicial system which makes that judgement at the moment. So you have to
> explain why scientists should be the gatekeepers of the definition of
> humanity, rather than a judicial system which is publically accountable.

You've conflated "human" with "murder". Scientists are better equiped
to decide what is human or not. Politicians, who know the law are
better equipped to determine the definition of murder which is how you
are trying to reframe the argument.

If you had honestly answered my question about who you'd rather have
making a determination on what is human you'd have to admit that
scientists who would measure humanity, would have the most objective
perspective.

> But before you do, I suggest you rent a few of science fiction movies
> and watch them through a couple times. Start with 'THX 1138.'

This is a totally bizarre stalling tactic. It was on TV a couple
months back.

> > > But second of all.... Are you nuts?
>
> > What I find nuts is for non-heterosexuals to leave the decision of what a
> > human is to politicians and/or theologians when in certain cultures that
> > exist today their sexual preference indicates they are something less than
> > human and are put to death.
>
> Who said non-heterosexuals are leaving the decision of what a human is
> to politicians and/or theologians?

"Certain cultures" = Muslim which exist today. In the past it included
other cultures as well.

> Your argument is flawed on a couple of different levels.
>
> There will always be disagreement. And that's good, because it means
> that the fundamental philosophical question -- what it means to be human
> -- is left for all to answer on their own.

Relativism like this means those cruel, evil cultures I described in
the sentence above will always be possible. Having an unambiguous
morality that strives for perfection means society doesn't regress.
This effort can be be enhanced by science that proves the Jews,
blacks, homosexuals and women are all equally human.

> I don't want Bush, Falwell,
> *or* Hawking to dictate to me what's human and what isn't.

It is being dictated to you by politicians now, and they throughout
time have found it expedient to conclude that certain portions of
society are not, or are not completely human. And they are doing it in
a completely arbitrary way. In the case of abortion, it's not a crime
to kill an unborn with a Dr's license and a scalpel - but a father who
intentionally kills his unborn with his fist doesn't get charged with
practicing medicine without a license. A doctor can kill the unborn if
all but its head has left the birth canal - but if only his head is
out, it's a crime.

None of these special cases take into account what is human. Those
aspects of physical and emotional development that differentiate a
human from everything else.

> I'll listen
> to their ideas and come to my own conclusions. That's freedom.

And if homosexuals had all the money the other 97% of the population
will come to the conclusion that they aren't human and need to be
disposed of.

> And I'll
> be engaged in the political process, which means my ideas stand a better
> chance of benefiting everyone, if there's benefit to be had. And that,
> my friend, is the benefit of a democratic process.

You trust that the majority will always be right when it comes to life
and death? When on earth has that worked? You think that a popular
vote in histories democidal societies would have changed anything?

Maybe we can have the UN pass out ballots in Darfur?