| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
28 Dec 2003 08:22:35 AM |
| Object: |
a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
James Keegan has stated he is not pro-abortion.
true
James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or
support legalized abortion.
i told two people who wrote me ans said you had apologized for
your year-long lie that i was pro-abortion that i was certain
youw ould follow-up your apology with a blatant lie claiming that
i did not support legalized abortion, as you just did.
you got snookered, hooked in, so to speak. here is why.
you followed up the thread entitled "restating my abortion
position" more than 20 times.
the orginal post in that thread is appended to this post,
uncluding full headers.
as you can see it refutes your new lie.
you just gave me an opening to follow-up all of your posts
regarding this new lie until you leave the net or withdraw it.
*heh*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
Subject: restating my abortion position
From: "james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
Organization: t.s.a.k.c.
Message-ID: <Xns94589319C1CB7keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.166>
User-Agent: Xnews/06.08.25
Lines: 57
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:27:41 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.29.53.83
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: twister.nyroc.rr.com 1072034861 24.29.53.83 (Sun, 21 Dec
2003 14:27:41 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:27:41 EST
i have posted the following abortion position statements many
dozens of times in the past 15 or so years.
my position has been misrepresented by fewer than a dozen people
over the years, which isn't bad when you think about it. only
the lowest of the dishonest scumbags have even made the effort,
than that never worked for them. given the current makeup of the
abortion newsagroups, i anticipate there is only one person who
will definately misrepresent it, and a longer-shot possibility
of one other. watch the follow-ups.
rather than retype, i thought it would have some relevance if i
reposted an entire article so readers could see how on-target i
was with some of my predictions made in 1990.
==begin repost
From keegan@pookie (James G Keegan Jr) Mon Oct 1 21:26:00 1990
From: (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: restating my position
Message-Id: <12824@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 1 Oct 90 03:57:36 GMT
Reply-To: (James G. Keegan, Jr.)
with the recent influx of newbies, i thought it might be time to
restate my position. those of you who have seen it before can
ignore it.
i support the right of women to control their bodies and the
contents of their bodies. that includes the right to abortion. i
oppose legislation or regulation to limit or remove that right.
support for choice, reproductive freedom, is not support for
abortion. rather, it is support for each and every woman’s right
to decide whether to give birth. i think the right to terminate
a pregnancy is a basic right and that it should be defended.
there is a matter of concern to me. the era of anti-choicers
like s. forgach and djr is at an end. a new breed of
anti-choicer will emerge, i think. this new breed will try to
chip away at reproductive rights, perhaps by restricting when
abortions can be performed (say, after 20 weeks) or how
(restrict methods of abortion). this is the input i hear from a
friend who consults with the republican national committee where
the feeling is that extreme anti-choice measures will never be
accepted by most people as they are not even accepted by most
republicans. so a new approach will be taken, i’m told, and it
will be harder to deflect.
i hope that those of you who support choice will watch for this
kind of chip-away mentality and oppose it.
===end repost
.
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: James Keegan, snips, runs, part 2 |
28 Dec 2003 08:25:13 AM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945F5F5D0B51Dkeegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.167...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
James Keegan has stated he is not pro-abortion.
true
James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or
support legalized abortion.
Since James Keegan likes to snip post, his post will be snipped.
The proof that James Keegan does not support and/or favor legalized abortion
is below.
Using James own words, and the PROPER definitions WITH SOURCES
James Keegan did say, he is not pro-abortion.
From: "james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
References: <3fe79cee.29689603@netnews.mchsi.com> Message-ID:
<Xns945EDB74DA6D5keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:34:30 GMT
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:irydnUSAAK0Ro3OiRVn-gg@comcast.com:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945ED7B20EBE0keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:EMidnZl9Qt1ep3OiRVn-iQ@comcast.com:
Jimmy, are you pro-abortion?
you lied and falsly claimed i was (and that 5
others were too) in news:3E8EE004.3060101@mail.com
It is obvious that you want to claim you are not pro-abortion.
I said you were.
If you are not pro-abortion, very well I was wrong. I will not
say I lied because I didn't. A opinion is not a lie; however
sometimes opinions can be wrong.
So James Keegan, you are not pro-abortion and I misjudged you.
no i am not, and yes, you did.
thank you for correcting your often repeated false assertion.
From: "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:43:39 -0500
Message-ID: <1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com>
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945EDB74DA6D5keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:irydnUSAAK0Ro3OiRVn-gg@comcast.com:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945ED7B20EBE0keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:EMidnZl9Qt1ep3OiRVn-iQ@comcast.com:
Jimmy, are you pro-abortion?
you lied and falsly claimed i was (and that 5
others were too) in news:3E8EE004.3060101@mail.com
It is obvious that you want to claim you are not pro-abortion.
I said you were.
If you are not pro-abortion, very well I was wrong. I will not
say I lied because I didn't. A opinion is not a lie; however
sometimes opinions can be wrong.
So James Keegan, you are not pro-abortion and I misjudged you.
no i am not, and yes, you did.
Good, I am glad you admitted it
thank you for correcting your often repeated false assertion.
Not a problem.
I can not say that James Keegan has claimed he is NOT pro-abortion.
Pro-abortion means
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion
pro-a·bor·tion (pr-bôrshn)
adj.
Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=proabortion
Main Entry: pro·abor·tion
Pronunciation: "prO-&-'bor-sh&n
Function: adjective
Date: 1972
: favoring the legalization of abortion
- pro-abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0572700.html
pro-a·bor·tion
(pr-bôrshn)
adj.
Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion
pro-a·bor·tion (pr-bôrshn)
adj.
Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813
pro-a·bor·tion
adjective
favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to
voluntary abortion
Legalized means:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=legalized
le·gal·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lg-lz)
tr.v. le·gal·ized, le·gal·iz·ing, le·gal·iz·es
To make legal or lawful; authorize or sanction by law.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0104500.html
le·gal·ize
(lg-lz)
tr.v. le·gal·ized, le·gal·iz·ing, le·gal·iz·es
To make legal or lawful; authorize or sanction by law.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: le·gal·ize
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&-"lIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: circa 1716
: to make legal; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to
James Keegan has stated he is not pro-abortion. James Keegan has shown he
does not favor and/or support legalized abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "golddodgearies" |
|
| Title: Re: James Keegan, snips, runs, part 2 |
28 Dec 2003 01:46:41 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<7dednV8qKZupdXOi4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
James Keegan has stated he is not pro-abortion. James Keegan has shown he
does not favor and/or support legalized abortion.
That's not the issue. The issue is whether the direct abortion of a
living child is objectively murder. It is, and for very obvious
reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dorothy" |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 12:41:06 PM |
|
|
Osprey, just give it up. You have scored a point so why continue to bother
with this little fly who thinks he is important because he buzzes around the
heads of people. Can you imagine how long he would last in an academic
debate at any junior college in the US? Or even any high school debate?
Your time is more valuable than that.
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945F5F5D0B51Dkeegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.167...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
James Keegan has stated he is not pro-abortion.
true
James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or
support legalized abortion.
i told two people who wrote me ans said you had apologized for
your year-long lie that i was pro-abortion that i was certain
youw ould follow-up your apology with a blatant lie claiming that
i did not support legalized abortion, as you just did.
you got snookered, hooked in, so to speak. here is why.
you followed up the thread entitled "restating my abortion
position" more than 20 times.
the orginal post in that thread is appended to this post,
uncluding full headers.
as you can see it refutes your new lie.
you just gave me an opening to follow-up all of your posts
regarding this new lie until you leave the net or withdraw it.
*heh*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
Subject: restating my abortion position
From: "james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
Organization: t.s.a.k.c.
Message-ID: <Xns94589319C1CB7keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.166>
User-Agent: Xnews/06.08.25
Lines: 57
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:27:41 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.29.53.83
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: twister.nyroc.rr.com 1072034861 24.29.53.83 (Sun, 21 Dec
2003 14:27:41 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:27:41 EST
i have posted the following abortion position statements many
dozens of times in the past 15 or so years.
my position has been misrepresented by fewer than a dozen people
over the years, which isn't bad when you think about it. only
the lowest of the dishonest scumbags have even made the effort,
than that never worked for them. given the current makeup of the
abortion newsagroups, i anticipate there is only one person who
will definately misrepresent it, and a longer-shot possibility
of one other. watch the follow-ups.
rather than retype, i thought it would have some relevance if i
reposted an entire article so readers could see how on-target i
was with some of my predictions made in 1990.
==begin repost
From keegan@pookie (James G Keegan Jr) Mon Oct 1 21:26:00 1990
From: (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: restating my position
Message-Id: <12824@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 1 Oct 90 03:57:36 GMT
Reply-To: (James G. Keegan, Jr.)
with the recent influx of newbies, i thought it might be time to
restate my position. those of you who have seen it before can
ignore it.
i support the right of women to control their bodies and the
contents of their bodies. that includes the right to abortion. i
oppose legislation or regulation to limit or remove that right.
support for choice, reproductive freedom, is not support for
abortion. rather, it is support for each and every woman's right
to decide whether to give birth. i think the right to terminate
a pregnancy is a basic right and that it should be defended.
there is a matter of concern to me. the era of anti-choicers
like s. forgach and djr is at an end. a new breed of
anti-choicer will emerge, i think. this new breed will try to
chip away at reproductive rights, perhaps by restricting when
abortions can be performed (say, after 20 weeks) or how
(restrict methods of abortion). this is the input i hear from a
friend who consults with the republican national committee where
the feeling is that extreme anti-choice measures will never be
accepted by most people as they are not even accepted by most
republicans. so a new approach will be taken, i'm told, and it
will be harder to deflect.
i hope that those of you who support choice will watch for this
kind of chip-away mentality and oppose it.
===end repost
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 01:36:38 PM |
|
|
"Dorothy" <Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote in
news:6tFHb.673580$HS4.4775072@attbi_s01:
Osprey, just give it up. You have scored a point
a point was scored; that's for sure. *smirk*
--
"James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support
legalized abortion."
-coward bobby heishman lying as "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 01:38:17 PM |
|
|
"Dorothy" <Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote in message
news:6tFHb.673580$HS4.4775072@attbi_s01...
Osprey, just give it up. You have scored a point so why continue to
bother
with this little fly who thinks he is important because he buzzes around
the
heads of people. Can you imagine how long he would last in an academic
debate at any junior college in the US? Or even any high school debate?
Your time is more valuable than that.
You are right
Good point
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945F5F5D0B51Dkeegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.167...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
James Keegan has stated he is not pro-abortion.
true
James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or
support legalized abortion.
i told two people who wrote me ans said you had apologized for
your year-long lie that i was pro-abortion that i was certain
youw ould follow-up your apology with a blatant lie claiming that
i did not support legalized abortion, as you just did.
you got snookered, hooked in, so to speak. here is why.
you followed up the thread entitled "restating my abortion
position" more than 20 times.
the orginal post in that thread is appended to this post,
uncluding full headers.
as you can see it refutes your new lie.
you just gave me an opening to follow-up all of your posts
regarding this new lie until you leave the net or withdraw it.
*heh*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
Subject: restating my abortion position
From: "james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
Organization: t.s.a.k.c.
Message-ID: <Xns94589319C1CB7keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.166>
User-Agent: Xnews/06.08.25
Lines: 57
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:27:41 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.29.53.83
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: twister.nyroc.rr.com 1072034861 24.29.53.83 (Sun, 21 Dec
2003 14:27:41 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:27:41 EST
i have posted the following abortion position statements many
dozens of times in the past 15 or so years.
my position has been misrepresented by fewer than a dozen people
over the years, which isn't bad when you think about it. only
the lowest of the dishonest scumbags have even made the effort,
than that never worked for them. given the current makeup of the
abortion newsagroups, i anticipate there is only one person who
will definately misrepresent it, and a longer-shot possibility
of one other. watch the follow-ups.
rather than retype, i thought it would have some relevance if i
reposted an entire article so readers could see how on-target i
was with some of my predictions made in 1990.
==begin repost
From keegan@pookie (James G Keegan Jr) Mon Oct 1 21:26:00 1990
From: (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: restating my position
Message-Id: <12824@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 1 Oct 90 03:57:36 GMT
Reply-To: (James G. Keegan, Jr.)
with the recent influx of newbies, i thought it might be time to
restate my position. those of you who have seen it before can
ignore it.
i support the right of women to control their bodies and the
contents of their bodies. that includes the right to abortion. i
oppose legislation or regulation to limit or remove that right.
support for choice, reproductive freedom, is not support for
abortion. rather, it is support for each and every woman's right
to decide whether to give birth. i think the right to terminate
a pregnancy is a basic right and that it should be defended.
there is a matter of concern to me. the era of anti-choicers
like s. forgach and djr is at an end. a new breed of
anti-choicer will emerge, i think. this new breed will try to
chip away at reproductive rights, perhaps by restricting when
abortions can be performed (say, after 20 weeks) or how
(restrict methods of abortion). this is the input i hear from a
friend who consults with the republican national committee where
the feeling is that extreme anti-choice measures will never be
accepted by most people as they are not even accepted by most
republicans. so a new approach will be taken, i'm told, and it
will be harder to deflect.
i hope that those of you who support choice will watch for this
kind of chip-away mentality and oppose it.
===end repost
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 01:46:18 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:yLWdnbRXGIm3rHKiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
You are right
uh huh
--
"James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support
legalized abortion."
-coward bobby heishman lying as "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "golddodgearies" |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 04:21:48 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<yLWdnbRXGIm3rHKiRVn-hg@comcast.com>...
"Dorothy" <Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote in message
news:6tFHb.673580$HS4.4775072@attbi_s01...
Osprey, just give it up. You have scored a point so why continue to
bother
with this little fly who thinks he is important because he buzzes around
the
heads of people. Can you imagine how long he would last in an academic
debate at any junior college in the US? Or even any high school debate?
Your time is more valuable than that.
You are right
Good point
Better yet, as the newsgroups you are sending this to are alt.abortion
and talk.abortion, return to the issue, which is whether the direct
abortion of a living child is objectively murder, which it obviously
is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 05:01:49 PM |
|
|
In article <44e87bc2.0312281421.b58e062@posting.google.com>,
golddodgearies <golddodgearies@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<yLWdnbRXGIm3rHKiRVn-hg@comcast.com>...
"Dorothy" <Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote in message
news:6tFHb.673580$HS4.4775072@attbi_s01...
Osprey, just give it up. You have scored a point so why continue to
bother
with this little fly who thinks he is important because he buzzes around
the
heads of people. Can you imagine how long he would last in an academic
debate at any junior college in the US? Or even any high school debate?
Your time is more valuable than that.
You are right
Good point
Better yet, as the newsgroups you are sending this to are alt.abortion
and talk.abortion, return to the issue, which is whether the direct
abortion of a living child is objectively murder, which it obviously
is.
I've answered you and you merely repeated the word "retard."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 01:55:46 PM |
|
|
In article <yLWdnbRXGIm3rHKiRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Dorothy" <Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote in message
news:6tFHb.673580$HS4.4775072@attbi_s01...
Osprey, just give it up. You have scored a point so why continue to
bother
with this little fly who thinks he is important because he buzzes around
the
heads of people. Can you imagine how long he would last in an academic
debate at any junior college in the US? Or even any high school debate?
Your time is more valuable than that.
You are right
Sure thing. Any excuse you can find, right?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 12:45:06 PM |
|
|
In article <6tFHb.673580$HS4.4775072@attbi_s01>, Dorothy
<Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
Osprey, just give it up. You have scored a point so why continue to bother
with this little fly who thinks he is important because he buzzes around the
heads of people. Can you imagine how long he would last in an academic
debate at any junior college in the US? Or even any high school debate?
Your time is more valuable than that.
Scored a point! LOL! Funny.
And his time isn't more valuable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 04:57:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:45:06 -0800, David Barnes
<dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6tFHb.673580$HS4.4775072@attbi_s01>, Dorothy
<Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
Osprey, just give it up. You have scored a point so why continue to bother
with this little fly who thinks he is important because he buzzes around the
heads of people. Can you imagine how long he would last in an academic
debate at any junior college in the US? Or even any high school debate?
Your time is more valuable than that.
Scored a point! LOL! Funny.
And his time isn't more valuable.
What I find amusing is that Dorothy is acting as Osprey's sockpuppet,
declaring victory for him.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 05:00:14 PM |
|
|
In article <vtnuuvo7f3dc28rm8jrcfmir1qkv3cfeio@4ax.com>, Lawrence E.
McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:45:06 -0800, David Barnes
<dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6tFHb.673580$HS4.4775072@attbi_s01>, Dorothy
<Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
Osprey, just give it up. You have scored a point so why continue to bother
with this little fly who thinks he is important because he buzzes around
the
heads of people. Can you imagine how long he would last in an academic
debate at any junior college in the US? Or even any high school debate?
Your time is more valuable than that.
Scored a point! LOL! Funny.
And his time isn't more valuable.
What I find amusing is that Dorothy is acting as Osprey's sockpuppet,
declaring victory for him.
Any chance they are one in the same?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 05:31:59 PM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight
<lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in
news:vtnuuvo7f3dc28rm8jrcfmir1qkv3cfeio@4ax.com:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:45:06 -0800, David Barnes
<dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6tFHb.673580$HS4.4775072@attbi_s01>, Dorothy
<Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
Osprey, just give it up. You have scored a point so why
continue to bother with this little fly who thinks he is
important because he buzzes around the heads of people. Can
you imagine how long he would last in an academic debate at
any junior college in the US? Or even any high school
debate? Your time is more valuable than that.
Scored a point! LOL! Funny.
And his time isn't more valuable.
What I find amusing is that Dorothy is acting as Osprey's
sockpuppet, declaring victory for him.
dorothy might well be as dishonest as coward bobby, just a bit
smarter and less vocal. then again, she's the only one to have
declared bobby's newest lie a victory.
--
"James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support
legalized abortion."
-coward bobby heishman lying as "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: a NEW lie from coward bobby, #2 |
28 Dec 2003 01:48:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:41:06 GMT, "Dorothy"
<Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
Osprey, just give it up. You have scored a point...
In the loser's box.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
