On Feb 27, 6:30 pm, "Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote:
> "f650" <f...@rd.dually> wrote in message
>
> news:x45Fh.140$Wn.110@fe06.news.easynews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Curt wrote:
> > > "f650" <f...@rd.dually> wrote in message
> > >news:zTNEh.25690$s72.13322@fe12.news.easynews.com...
> > >> Curt wrote:
> > >>> "f650" <f...@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 Wr=
ong
> > > 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.

Are you borrowing Adam Albright's Bible software?

> See, I'm smart and you're dumb. I'm educated and you're.. well.. uneducat=
ed.
> I'm left and you're right. I'm hero and you're weenie. Anything that's go=
od
> 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.

Could you explain how these words from Jesus Christ relate to the
Pentateuch:

Matthew 26:27-29 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright =A9 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying,
"Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[a] covenant,
which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell
you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that
day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

On Feb 27, 6:29 pm, f650 <f...@rd.dually> wrote:
> Iarnrodwrote:
> > On Feb 26, 10:07 pm, f650 <f...@rd.dually> wrote:
> >> Iarnrodwrote:
> >>> On Feb 25, 10:04 pm, kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote:
> >>>> Iarnrodwrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 25, 6:50 pm, kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote:
> >>>>>> Iarnrodwrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 25, 1:38 pm, kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>news:45E1E3AD.C80CE103@yahoo.co.uk:
> >>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>news:wajEh.9987$gl2.4523@fe10.news.easynews.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote in news:ZP9Eh.3718$_X1.3164
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @fe05.news.easynews.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kompressor <m...@des.benz> wrote in news:%47Eh.5412$k82.1626
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @fe07.news.easynews.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Larry (Scratch)" <Scra...@Tigard.OR.com> wrote in news:4t-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dnb7N5a2wOH3YnZ2dnUVZ_s7in...@comcast.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al Smith wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 12:27 pm, use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al Smith <caddyshack...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.break.com/index/pro_abortionist_attacks_pro_life_woman.h
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tml
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think you're anything but foolish for saying that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'leftists'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are represented by a single person whose stated gripe had
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the political message, but the images of dead fetuses on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signboards?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it happens all the time. It's not an isolated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incident.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv9xa-VxchM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell you what. You park your car with a "Kerry Edwards"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sticker in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhood, I'll park my car with a "Bush Cheney" in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhood. I'll pay for your repairs and you pay for mine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yep! Leftists believe in free speech just as long as IT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THEIR FREE SPEECH.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shooting abortion doctors in the back and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compares in what numbers to owning the mass media and controlling
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the universities?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who controls what universities?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uh.....the LEFT!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That explains "leftist" college professors like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey and Phil Gramm and Henry
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kissinger and Ken Starr.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, right.....................
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And they constitute the MAJORITY????
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Liberal bias in colleges bleeds into classroom
> >>>>>>>>>>>> by Cal Thomas
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Townhall.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> March 31, 2005
> >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050330.shtml
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You'd better sit down and firmly grip your bowl of Corn Flakes while
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reading this shocking news: College faculties are not only mostly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> liberal, but lean even further to the left than conservatives have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> imagined.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> According to a study by professors at Smith College, George Mason
> >>>>>>>>>>>> University and the University of Toronto (they surveyed 1,643
> >>>>>>>>>>>> full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools), 72 percent of professors
> >>>>>>>>>>>> at American universities labeled themselves liberal, while just 15
> >>>>>>>>>>>> percent said they are conservative. 50 percent of faculty members
> >>>>>>>>>>>> identified themselves as Democrats and only 11 percent Republicans.
> >>>>>>>>>>> So what you are trying to say is that educated
> >>>>>>>>>>> people tend to be liberal and stupid people tend to
> >>>>>>>>>>> be conservative.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tell us something we don't already know.........;)
> >>>>>>>>>> It's not very smart of you to conclude the academia represents the
> >>>>>>>>>> location of the smartest people.
> >>>>>>>>> It represents those smarter than "C-average"
> >>>>>>>> LikeWardChurchillthe fake Indian?
> >>>>>>> Ward Churchill is a Republican.
> >>>>>> yawn...and a cop-hater, and a liar, and a crank, and a smoker, and a
> >>>>>> rabble rouser, and...
> >>>>> well, and a Republican, as in...
> >>>> ...as in also: a male, a Boulder resident, a poor husband, a flesh
> >>>> eater, etc...
> >>>> You're fucking SLOW on the uptake....
> >>> You're petulant when your covering up your own mistakes.
> >> Am I?
>
> > Who the fuck are you?
>
> I am me and you are merely you.

So I take it you're a troll.

> >>> Ward is a Republican, as in...
>
> > As in, as keeps getting snipped, Not. A. Democrat. Which shows that
> > those here who said or implied he was were, well, wrong.
>
> Who said that?

The other guy.

> He's neither imo, he's an anarchistic liberal CRANK!

WRONG! Call Wardo a liberal, and he'd have his fist down your throat.
You really don't know anything about him, do you.

> >> As in not representative of said party nor anything more than a fraud.
>
> > And, dickwad, neither is he representative of any Democrats.
>
> So?

Well, again, so those who associate him with the liberal Democratic
corps of university professors were wrong. That's, uh, the point here.

> >> A disposed of used up piece of shit!
>
> > Well, not quite yet. A result of over-due process.
>
> No process was due, save for flushing him.

Well, again you're wrong. Keep it up, you're pretty much batting 1.000
in the loser standings.

> > You know, for someone who sides with the losing assholes here, your
> > iddy biddy bit of usenet bwavado is simply precious!
>
> > Go smoke a blunt, dipshit.
>
> Sounds more your speed, druggie.

Only to your infantile brain, dickweed. The only drug I've taken is
acetaminophen.

Harold Burton wrote:

-snip-

> 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.

Then apparently you'd disallow abortion even in the case of rape or
incest or when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother?

Just so we know where you stand.

Peace and justice,

Al Smith <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:

> 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

[.]

> > 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. 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.
>
> 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. [.]

Al, you just defined yourself. The definition is far from flattering. I
mean, I understood you to be shortsighted and stupid, but those things
are forgivable. This latest, however.... This is another level. You
believe that freedom is too ambiguous and dangerous to be allowed, and
that all individuality should be sublimated to an 'objective,'
'scientific' view.

So now that you've defined yourself, Al, there's something I've been
dying to ask a full-blown fascist: What's the attraction? Is it really
*that* hard to compromise?

--
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 <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.

I'm not the one snipping out context.

--
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 <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
[.]
> > 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?

Well, not that it has anything to do with this discussion, but I'm
troubled a bit by the 500 point dive the stock market took today, in
conjunction with the Chinese market. See, the troubling part is that
they own the majority of our federal issues, so if they tank, we're kind
of fucked.

There's also the notion that I live in a nation, perhaps the only
'advanced' nation on the planet, which has a gulag of torture prisons
sprinkled around the globe. That troubles me, because it's being done in
my name, and your name, too.

I'm also troubled by the fact that there's no real opposition party in
this country, which means the right-wingers will drive us off the cliff
before there can be correction.

Another thing that troubles me is that I'm having a hard time getting a
project off the ground, because entropy is easier than order.

Why do you ask?

--
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 wrote:
>
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> [.]
> > > 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?
>
> Well, not that it has anything to do with this discussion, but I'm
> troubled a bit by the 500 point dive the stock market took today, in
> conjunction with the Chinese market. See, the troubling part is that
> they own the majority of our federal issues, so if they tank, we're kind
> of fucked.
>
1) No they don't.

2) Even if they did, why would that hurt us?



> There's also the notion that I live in a nation, perhaps the only
> 'advanced' nation on the planet, which has a gulag of torture prisons
> sprinkled around the globe. That troubles me, because it's being done in
> my name, and your name, too.
>
Yer a nut, Paul. Holding the terrorists is a necessary thing. This has
nothing whatever to do with "torture".


> I'm also troubled by the fact that there's no real opposition party in
> this country, which means the right-wingers will drive us off the cliff
> before there can be correction.
>
I suggest you vote for the "Democrats".



> Another thing that troubles me is that I'm having a hard time getting a
> project off the ground, because entropy is easier than order.
>
Is it?


> Why do you ask?
>
Copycat.


--
"And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty
heart, 'til the Devil whispered behind the leaves 'It's pretty, but is
it Art?'."

 

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> 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?

Is amputation a good thing or a bad thing?

 

f650 wrote:

> 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.

I'm sure they'll do better once they learn to read. Anyway, don't worry
too much about the ten percent. 93.765% of all statistics are made up
on the spot.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:59:00 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>

>> Regulating something intensely Private is quite another.
>
>Like whether or not your children get vaccinated.

I consider vaccination a Public Health question relating to Public
Safety.

But you can apply for a religious exemption, if you wish.

You'd still be pretty stupid for doing so, though.

You don't need to apply for a religious exemption on an abortion
question. If you don't want one, then just don't have one.

Simple as that.

In article <kB5Fh.11221$tA1.4946@trndny02>,
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?

For the women who want it, absolutely.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

In article <CD5Fh.11223$tA1.8465@trndny02>,
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

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

> > 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!!

What provacative, thoughtful and compelling answers.

Trying to have a discussion with you is as rewarding as splinters under
a finger nail.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:10:53 -0800, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

>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.

When "dramatic" terms are used, when there are
neutral terms that could have been used, ALWAYS
READ "ulterior motive at work". That's why the scholars
and/or professionals, use and/or develop generic terms
to dis-engage from the hubris, so they can get on with
their work.

Obwon


O][ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ][O
"You can fool some of the people all the time,
and those are the ones
you want to concentrate on".
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/george_w._bush/
George W. Bush quotes
O][ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ][O

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:56:13 -0800, 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. 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.

Name calling, however dramatic, proves no point!

Obwon


O][ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ][O
"You can fool some of the people all the time,
and those are the ones
you want to concentrate on".
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/george_w._bush/
George W. Bush quotes
O][ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ][O

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. 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.


It seems to have gotten you stirred up. Heheheheh.

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

> Paul Mitchum wrote:

-snip-

>>Well, not that it has anything to do with this discussion, but I'm
>>troubled a bit by the 500 point dive the stock market took today, in
>>conjunction with the Chinese market. See, the troubling part is that
>>they own the majority of our federal issues, so if they tank, we're kind
>>of fucked.

> 1) No they don't.

> 2) Even if they did, why would that hurt us?

Well, ya' see, if they tank, they ain't gonna be able to buy any more of
our debt - read treasury bills and T-notes and the like.

And if they stop buying, the dubya's policy of continually rolling over
and adding to our national debt is gonna be in some serious trouble.

At the minimum, it's gonna result in higher interest rates to finance
and re-finance our deficit spending. The alternatives of spending less
or raising taxes don't seem to appeal to the dubya regime so we're
pretty much stuck with paying higher interest.

Which is gonna increase the national debt still further and increase the
interest rates on money for everyone else on everything from home
mortgages to car loans to credit card balances as well.

THAT's why that would hurt us.

Peace and justice,

Curt wrote:
> "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.

Why not, you so invite such treatment.

Curt wrote:

> Right. And making an adult decision to terminate a pregnancy is neither like
> "killing a houseplant" nor is it like "killing a child".

It indeed is like killing a child, you are scum.

Curt wrote:
> "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.

Really?

> See, I'm smart and you're dumb. I'm educated and you're.. well.. uneducated.

Damn, you are even dumber than I suspected.

> 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.

Poor dumb curt the business school wannabe...

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

Mene, mene, tekel upharsim.

And we can explore the missing gospel of St. Thomas while you're in a
feisty mood.

Curt 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"

He doesn't have to, others handle that for him.

Curt wrote:
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:kR1Fh.1999
>
>> f650 for how long?
>
> I'll never know.

Coward's retreat?

Curt wrote:
> "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.

MORON!

> But you're going to have to change nyms again to answer, because I
> finally canned you.
>
> Bye till next time.
>

See ya coward.

Clave wrote:
>
>> 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.

We ALL judge you to be almost as stupid as curt...

Clave 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.
>

A task you are unable to master.

James wrote:
>
>
> f650 wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm sure they'll do better once they learn to read.

I'm sure a shitface like you never will.