In article <5WRCf.353412$2k.80800@pd7tw1no>, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote

In article <6BGCf.345815$2k.50553@pd7tw1no>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote

In article <aYBCf.234906$tl.35600@pd7tw3no>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:

"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote

After sixteen years of reading this newsgroup, I think it's safe
to
say
I've
already seen your tactics used by more people than I can count

What are my tactics exactly?

Well so far it is being "really vague."

About my position? I don't fit into either stereotypical "side". I
believe
that if the circumstances warrant then choice may be right, but I
don't
believe in lying or playing mind games to make a difficult moral
decision
easy.

Who decides if "the circumstances warrant?"

Most people think that the mother should have the ultimate choice, I
would
have to agree, but in many jurisdictions the law takes the position that
there is an interest in the life of the fetus that increases and becomes
more compelling as the fetus approaches viability.

What jurisdictions are those? Not in the U.S.

It's not a cut and dried
thing. That whole concept of the interests of the fetus becoming more
"compelling" raises questions in me that I can't easily answer.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:01:08 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:at4lt1lggd76ktcun8hghhd5hrfv0pa7t0@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:33:52 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:44:51 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote

"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote

your hypocrisy stinks from here.

You're still an arrogant *****, and you didn't do too well on the
topic
we
were discussing before you managed to get it conveniently
sidetracked
either.

Maybe if you had the wits to just declare victory and run away, you
might
be
regarded as something more than a punching bag.

I didn't declare victory and run away, HE did. Did you even read the
thread
in question or are you just shooting off your yap?

Actually, that's a lie.

There's a novel approach for this newsgroup, start by calling the other
guy
a liar!

Who's starting?

You, you started right off with "Actually, that's a lie."

So, this is the first time we've exchanged posts now?

Who knew? How many are out there using that nym now?

You had your chance, you blew it.

What lame *****.

Sad but true

If you want to
dictate rules of discussion you'd best be sure to stick to them - the
fact that you couldn't was pretty much certain proof that you're just
trolling.

Diversion and non sequitor, it shows I am frustrated with the level of
debate. It's sure a convenient excuse for you to bail out of the
discussion
though, that's my only regret.

There was no 'discussion'. You ensured that there couldn't be one with
your constant strawman attacks and red herrings.

I just got tired of explaining what I was
actually saying every time you decided to mis-state it and then attack
the strawman.

You didn't need to explain anything over and over, you just chose to
repeat
yourself rather than engage in the discussion.

You didn't "discuss" anything. You mis-stated it and attacked the
mis-statement.

That's a lie, I did not attribute anything to you that you didn't say. I
pursued a line of inquiry which followed directly from your assertion and
conclusion.

Balls. You mis-quoted me on numerous occasions even after being
corrected.

I decided not to waste my time correcting you any more.

You decided that my question placed the issue in a light that you didn't
like so you bailed. You are now focused completely on diversions, which
unfortunately I aided in providing.

If you need to call your inability to address what I actually wrote a
'diversion' then that's your lookout.

You said the wording of the
statute clearly states that murder applies to "person or fetus" which
implies (to you) that the fetus is not defined as a person. Fine, my
question is so what? What meaning does "person" status have when a fetus
is
protected by murder statute? You want to make a moot semantic point then
fold your tent when I ask a reasonable follow-up question, that's your
choice.

I answered your questions. Why feel the need to get pissy about it?

You're the one making phony accusations of lying and strawmen, so who's
pissy? And you didn't answer the question above, you are dodging it.

No, the accusations are real. I've shown you where they're real, and
this last post of yours is only further proof of your inability to
discuss.

Next time you're looking for validation, say so from the start.