Science > Abortion > How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Osprey" |
| Date: |
23 Oct 2007 04:36:05 PM |
| Object: |
How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
On March 6, 2006, The New York Times ran a front-page article arguing that
parental involvement laws have been ineffective at reducing the incidence of
abortion among teens.[1] The authors collected data from six states that
recently passed parental involvement legislation. They found that, both
before and after the enactment of parental involvement laws, the ratio of
abortions to births for minors closely tracks the ratio of abortions to
births for 18- to 19-year-olds, who would not be directly affected by the
law. Hence, the Times reporters argue that parental involvement laws have
had little impact on the childbearing decisions of teens.
The effect of parental involvement laws is a topic that has long been
neglected by the mainstream media. In fact, this article marks the first
time in recent years that a mainstream media organization has reported on
this issue. Regrettably, however, some real shortcomings are evident in the
methods that the Times reporters used to collect and analyze their data.
Furthermore, these shortcomings led them to arrive at incorrect conclusions
about the effect of parental involvement laws. Contrary to their claims,
properly analyzed data provide solid evidence that parental involvement
laws have been effective at reducing the incidence of abortion among minors.
Six Problems
In particular, there exist six primary problems with the Times's data
collection and data analysis.
Problem #1: Using Questionable Data from Arizona
Arizona's Department of Health Services changed its abortion reporting
requirements in 2004, the year after the state's parental consent law was
enacted.[2] This renders any analysis of Arizona's parental consent law
highly suspect. The Times reporters should have noted this change in
reporting requirements or else excluded the Arizona data from their
analysis.
Problem #2: Relying on Data from State Health Departments, Which Most
Academic Researchers Do Not Use
State health departments are generally not considered reliable sources of
abortion data. Academic researchers conducting research on the incidence of
abortion almost always obtain their data from either the Alan Guttmacher
Institute or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Alan
Guttmacher Institute obtains data from a comprehensive survey of abortion
providers. The CDC does obtain their data from the states but clearly notes
any changes in state collection mechanisms.
Problem #3: Using the Ratio of Abortions to Births as the Only Metric for
Comparison
Some researchers measure the incidence of abortion by comparing the ratio
of abortions to births. However, many other researchers use the abortion
rate, which is the number of abortions performed per thousand women of
childbearing age. Furthermore, the abortion rate can also be calculated for
specific groups of women, such as women ages 15- 17 or Hispanic women. The
abortion rate is often a better metric for two reasons.
First, birthrates often fluctuate for a variety of reasons. As a result, the
ratio of abortions to births may fluctuate for reasons that have little to
do with the actual incidence of abortion.
Second, parental involvement laws could possibly affect the sexual behavior
of teens. After passage of such a law, teens may be more likely to use birth
control or less likely to engage in sexual activity. Using the ratio of
abortions to births would not fully capture the impact that these laws have
on teen sexual behavior.
It should be noted that a recent New England Journal of Medicine study that
examines the impact of the Texas parental involvement law makes extensive
use of abortion rate statistics from that state.[3]
Problem #4: Comparing Only the First Full Year After a State Began Enforcing
a Parental Law to the Last Full Year Before the Law
One of the problems that researchers of state legislation frequently
encounter is obtaining information about the enforcement date of many of
these laws. As a result, it is typically safest to compare data from
multiple years before the law was passed to data from multiple years after
the law was passed. This allows researchers to be more certain that they are
comparing data from before and after the enforcement of legislation.
Furthermore, considering data from a range of years provides researchers
with more data points and allows them to present their results with a higher
degree of statistical confidence. The fact that the Times reporters consider
only two data points from every state, instead of a range of years,
therefore limits their analysis.
Problem #5: Failure to Weight the Data
When analyzing data from a number of states, it is appropriate to give
states with greater population more weight than states with less population.
In the Times study, the authors should have weighted data from Texas,
Tennessee, and Virginia more heavily than data from Idaho and South Dakota.
Since there are relatively few abortions and teen pregnancies in Idaho and
South Dakota, chance variation in the data could easily skew the results.
Since Texas, Tennessee, and Virginia have more pregnancies, births, and
abortions, we can be more confident in data collected from these states.
Problem #6: Using 18-19-Year-Olds as the Only Reference Point for Minors
The authors of the Times article assume that the abortion ratio for minors
should be correlated with the abortion ratio for teens ages 18-19. However,
this is not necessarily the case. Since a higher percentage of
18-19-year-olds are married, a higher percentage of pregnancies among
18-19-year-olds are likely intentional. Furthermore, since many teens go
away to school, the 18- and 19-year-olds residing in a particular state
might be much different demographically from the 13-17-year-olds who reside
in the same state. At any rate, a better reference point for minors in a
state that passed a parental involvement law might be minors in other
states.
Replicating the Times Analysis
To further analyze the Times findings, I decided to replicate their findings
while avoiding these shortcomings.
First, abortion data from Arizona were not analyzed.
Second, all data on the incidence of abortion were obtained from publicly
available CDC publications.
Third, in addition to examining abortion ratios, I considered the abortion
rates for both 13-17-year-olds and 18-19-year-olds.
Fourth, I compared the average abortion rate in the three years before each
law was passed to the average abortion rate for all of the years after the
legislation was passed.
Fifth, I weighted each state's data by the population of females aged 13-17
residing in that state. This ensures that the trends in larger states will
have more weight. Furthermore, it guarantees that chance variation in states
with small populations will not bias the findings.
Sixth, overall, I ran two comparisons. I compared the abortion rate for
minors to the abortion rate for 18-19-year-olds both before and after
enactment of the parental involvement legislation. (See Table 1.) I then did
another comparison using the abortion ratio rather than the abortion rate.
(See Table 2.) More detailed results are given in the Appendix.
In both comparisons, the decline in the incidence of abortion was larger
for 13-17-year-olds than for 18-19-year-olds. Contrary to the claims of the
Times reporters, properly analyzed data provide solid evidence that parental
involvement laws have been effective at reducing the incidence of abortion
among minors.
Examining National Abortion Trends
It is true that when we analyze the abortion ratio, the decline in the
incidence of abortion among 13- 17-year-olds is only slightly larger than
the decline in the incidence of abortion for 18-19-year-olds. However, this
begs an important question: Are these comparisons the best way to measure
the efficacy of parental involvement laws? Some evidence suggests that they
are not.
In their article, the Times reporters assume that there is a natural
correlation between the abortion ratio for minors and the abortion ratio
for women aged 18-19. However, there is good reason to believe that the
childbearing decisions of 18- and 19-year-olds may differ from the
decisions of minors. Since a higher percentage of 18- 19-year-olds are
married, a higher percentage of pregnancies among 18-19-year-olds are likely
intentional. Furthermore, since many teens leave their state to attend
college, the 18- and 19-year-olds residing in a particular state might be
much different demographically from minors 13-17 years of age who reside in
the same state. It is thus entirely possible that abortion trends of
18-19-year-olds may differ from the abortion trends for minors.
In short, we cannot be entirely sure of any correlation between the
incidence of abortion for minors and the incidence of abortion for 18- and
19-year-olds. Therefore, a better comparison might be to compare the
incidence of abortion among minors in states that recently passed parental
involvement laws to the incidence of abortion among minors in other states.
This comparison can even be taken a step further. We can see how the
incidence of abortion among minors changes relative to the incidence of
abortion among 18- and 19-year-olds both in states that did pass parental
involvement legislation and in states that did not do so.
Overall, I ran two comparisons. I compared changes in the abortion rate for
minors and for teens aged 18-19 in the five states that enacted parental
involvement laws and in 35 other states that did not enact parental
involvement legislation.[4] (See Table 3). I then ran a similar set of
comparisons using the abortion ratio rather than the abortion rate. (See
Table 4). More detailed results are given in the Appendix.
This set of comparisons clearly demonstrates the efficacy of parental
involvement legislation. In both comparisons, the largest decline in the
incidence of abortion was always among minors who lived in states where a
parental involvement law was passed. This is consistent with our
expectations.
More important, the decline in the minor abortion ratio, relative to the
abortion ratio for women aged 18-19, is considerably larger in states that
have passed parental involvement laws than in states that have not done so.
This statistic holds true for abortion rates as well. This provides very
solid evidence of the efficacy of parental involvement legislation.
Indeed, the New York Times attempted to show that, in states that passed
parental involvement laws, the decline in the abortion ratio for minors was
similar to the decline in the abortion ratio for women aged 18-19. What the
Times reporters failed to realize is that the abortion ratio for minors was
increasing relative to the abortion ratio for women aged 18-19 in other
states. Therefore, states that passed parental involvement laws were more
successful at preventing teen abortions relative to other states.
Regrettably, the Times' use of a faulty baseline gives the incorrect
impression that parental involvement laws are ineffective.
Conclusion
This analysis adds to the body of social science evidence suggesting that
parental involvement laws are effective at reducing the incidence of
abortion. Indeed, comprehensive studies done by public health researchers,
political scientists, and economists that have appeared in journals as
diverse as the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Journal of Health
Economics, and Contemporary Economic Policy have found evidence that
parental involvement laws are correlated with reductions in teen abortion
rates.[5] Separate state-specific studies that examined parental
involvement laws in Minnesota and Massachusetts have also provided evidence
that parental involvement laws reduce the teen abortion rate.[6]
Even as recently as March 2006, The New England Journal of Medicine released
a study looking at the impact of the Texas parental notification law that
was passed in 2000. Using an approach that was similar to, but more
methodologically rigorous than, the approach used by the Times reporters,
the authors arrived at conclusions that were strikingly different. They
found that after passage of this parental notification law, the abortion
rate for minors fell more sharply than the abortion rate for
18-year-olds-who would be unaffected by the law.[7]
In summary, through a flawed analysis of the data and selective coverage of
the social science research, The New York Times attempts to make the case
that parental involvement laws are ineffective. However, better data,
better analysis, and a more thorough reporting of the academic literature
leads to the exact opposite conclusion: namely, that parental involvement
laws have been effective at reducing the incidence of abortion among minors.
Michael J. New, Ph.D., is Visiting Health Policy Fellow at The Heritage
Foundation and an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University
of Alabama.
[1]Andrew Lehren and John Leland, "Scant Drop in Abortions Seen If Parents
Are Told," The New York Times, March 6, 2006, p. A1.
[2]Arizona Department of Health Services, Arizona Health Status and Vital
Statistics 2004, Part 1D, "Induced Terminations of Pregnancy," at
http://www.azdhs.gov/plan/report/ahs/ahs2004/pdf/text1d.pdf (July 11, 2006).
[3]Theodore Joyce, Robert Kaestner, and Silvie Coleman, "Changes in
Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental Involvement Law," New England
Journal of Medicine, Vol. 354, No. 10 (March 9, 2006), pp. 1031-1038.
[4]The 35 other states that released data on minor abortions every year from
1994 to 2002 were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
[5]Deborah Haas-Wilson, "The Economic Impact of State Policy Restrictions on
Abortion: Parental Consent and Notification Laws and Medicaid Funding
Restrictions," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 12, No. 3
(Summer 1993), pp. 498-511; Rebecca Blank, Christine George, and Rebecca
London, "State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies Providers, Politics,
Demographics, and Economic Environment," Journal of Health Economics, Vol.
15, No. 5 (October 1996), pp. 513-553; and Robert Ohsfeldt and Stephan
Gohman, "Do Parental Involvement Laws Reduce Adolescent Abortion Rates?"
Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2 (April 1994), pp. 65-76.
[6]Virginia Cartoof and Lorraine Klerman, "Parental Consent for Abortion:
Impact of the Massachusetts Law," American Journal of Public Health, Vol.
76, No. 4 (April 1986), pp. 397-400, and James Rogers, Robert Boruch, George
Storms, and Dorothy DeMoya, "Impact of the Minnesota Parental Notification
Law on Abortion and Birth," American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, No.
3 (March 1991), pp. 294-298.
[7]Joyce et al., "Changes in Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental
Involvement Law."
Source:
New, M. J. Ph.D. (2006, July 18). Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times
Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions. The
Heritage Foundation. Retrieved October 23, 2007 from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda06-05.cfm
.
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
23 Oct 2007 06:38:48 PM |
|
|
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation, an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 12:52:23 PM |
|
|
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation, an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
innews:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 02:00:07 PM |
|
|
In article <1193248343.562290.205210@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation, an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a child
molesting priest.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 02:13:18 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-303E43.15000724102007@individual.net...
In article <1193248343.562290.205210@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion
Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation, an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a child
molesting priest.
*smirk*
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who manages to
copy "illegally" I might add, from www.truthout.org
Truthout.org is one of the most left wing sites out there and they are known
for lying and posting false information.
Just thought that the readers should know about your hypocrisy, which most
already do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 04:43:03 PM |
|
|
In article <bradndUiFZHSBILanZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-303E43.15000724102007@individual.net...
In article <1193248343.562290.205210@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion
Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation, an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a child
molesting priest.
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who manages to
copy "illegally" I might add, from www.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have admitted.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 04:55:39 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-EE1D39.17430324102007@individual.net...
In article <bradndUiFZHSBILanZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-303E43.15000724102007@individual.net...
In article <1193248343.562290.205210@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion
Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation, an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a child
molesting priest.
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who manages to
copy "illegally" I might add, from www.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public humiliation of
his hypocrisy.
He does this, approximately 99.99% of the time with his advesaries by
throwing out what is knowing in the debating world as a red herring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 04:59:19 PM |
|
|
In article <a4ydnflfNOnBIoLanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-EE1D39.17430324102007@individual.net...
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who manages to
copy "illegally" I might add, from www.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public humiliation of
his hypocrisy.
can you point out exactly there, or would you just prefer to focus on
this new, and inconsequential lie rather than the one i commented on
above?
what are you going to do when your kids google heishman?
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 05:10:16 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-106AC1.17591924102007@individual.net...
In article <a4ydnflfNOnBIoLanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-EE1D39.17430324102007@individual.net...
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who manages
to
copy "illegally" I might add, from www.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public humiliation
of
his hypocrisy.
can you point out exactly there, or would you just prefer to focus on
this new, and inconsequential lie rather than the one i commented on
above?
What lie? You are a hypocrite, that's the truth and a known fact.
You're childish, that's the truth and known fact.
You avoid debates and resort to red herrings, those are "truths" and
"facts".
You misrepresent what people say, you distort, you take quotes out of
context..those are all truths and facts.
You have no following, nobody but the very lowest of scum would ever give
you and credibility or respect.
You're a loser..that's the truth and a fact.
what are you going to do when your kids google heishman?
I think once they would ever read your crap, they would pity you.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 05:20:35 PM |
|
|
In article <DOCdnTWiP4ZUX4LanZ2dnUVZ_tOtnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-106AC1.17591924102007@individual.net...
In article <a4ydnflfNOnBIoLanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-EE1D39.17430324102007@individual.net...
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who manages
to copy "illegally" I might add, from www.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public humiliation
of his hypocrisy.
can you point out exactly there, or would you just prefer to focus on
this new, and inconsequential lie rather than the one i commented on
above?
What lie?
ha ha ha, the denials already start, even though one of your lies is
the first paragraph of this post. another of your lies follows the
word "Note." a third lie from you is contained in my .sig.
and those are just lies to which you have previously admitted.
*smirk*
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 05:32:49 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-202435.18203524102007@individual.net...
In article <DOCdnTWiP4ZUX4LanZ2dnUVZ_tOtnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-106AC1.17591924102007@individual.net...
In article <a4ydnflfNOnBIoLanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-EE1D39.17430324102007@individual.net...
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who
manages
to copy "illegally" I might add, from www.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have
admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public
humiliation
of his hypocrisy.
can you point out exactly there, or would you just prefer to focus on
this new, and inconsequential lie rather than the one i commented on
above?
What lie?
ha ha ha, the denials already start, even though one of your lies is
the first paragraph of this post. another of your lies follows the
word "Note." a third lie from you is contained in my .sig.
and those are just lies to which you have previously admitted.
We all know your little games Keegan, you're reputation proceeds you.
If you have that little respect for yourself, don't whine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 05:44:21 PM |
|
|
In article <ZqadnamSzq2MVYLanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-202435.18203524102007@individual.net...
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who
manages
to copy "illegally" I might add, from www.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have
admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public
humiliation
of his hypocrisy.
can you point out exactly there, or would you just prefer to focus on
this new, and inconsequential lie rather than the one i commented on
above?
What lie?
ha ha ha, the denials already start, even though one of your lies is
the first paragraph of this post. another of your lies follows the
word "Note." a third lie from you is contained in my .sig.
and those are just lies to which you have previously admitted.
We all know your little games Keegan, you're reputation proceeds you.
most people do know that i often confront you on your lies. don't you
think confronting liars on their lies is a good thing?
as for reputations, your reputation as the abortion newsgroups most
prolific liar is quite significant, isn't it?
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 06:18:37 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-1B9C2F.18442124102007@individual.net...
In article <ZqadnamSzq2MVYLanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-202435.18203524102007@individual.net...
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who
manages
to copy "illegally" I might add, from www.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would
you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have
admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public
humiliation
of his hypocrisy.
can you point out exactly there, or would you just prefer to focus
on
this new, and inconsequential lie rather than the one i commented on
above?
What lie?
ha ha ha, the denials already start, even though one of your lies is
the first paragraph of this post. another of your lies follows the
word "Note." a third lie from you is contained in my .sig.
and those are just lies to which you have previously admitted.
We all know your little games Keegan, you're reputation proceeds you.
most people do know that i often confront you on your lies.
The only ones who would support you are the lowest of the low Keegan.
Those who are honest and intelligent either ignore you or mock you.
That frustrates you that you can't gain any credibility with those who are
far more intelligent than you are.
don't you
think confronting liars on their lies is a good thing?
What do you do when you get confronted on your lies?
You play these childish games.
Run along Keegan, enough attention has been waisted on you tonight.
Go cry to Gwen or Barnes.
as for reputations, your reputation as the abortion newsgroups most
prolific liar is quite significant, isn't it?
Only in your eyes and the lowest of the scum's eyes..that doesn't bother me
at all because I am far more intelligent than you could ever hope to be and
know far more than you do.
You can't debate, all you can do is poison newsgroups with your childish
crap and then illegally violate copyright laws.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 06:45:17 PM |
|
|
In article <ELqdnflHyZNTT4LanZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-1B9C2F.18442124102007@individual.net...
In article <ZqadnamSzq2MVYLanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-202435.18203524102007@individual.net...
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who
manages
to copy "illegally" I might add, from www.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would
you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have
admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public
humiliation
of his hypocrisy.
can you point out exactly there, or would you just prefer to focus
on
this new, and inconsequential lie rather than the one i commented on
above?
What lie?
ha ha ha, the denials already start, even though one of your lies is
the first paragraph of this post. another of your lies follows the
word "Note." a third lie from you is contained in my .sig.
and those are just lies to which you have previously admitted.
We all know your little games Keegan, you're reputation proceeds you.
most people do know that i often confront you on your lies.
The only ones who would support you are the lowest of the low Keegan.
name one other person who has endorsed your lies, and support your
claim.
don't you
think confronting liars on their lies is a good thing?
What do you do when you get confronted on your lies?
nice try at changing the subject and running away from the question.
as for reputations, your reputation as the abortion newsgroups most
prolific liar is quite significant, isn't it?
Only in your eyes and the lowest of the scum's eyes.
so you define all of those who have been critical of your lies as
"scum?"
that doesn't bother me
that comment has the stench of untruth.
because I am far more intelligent than you could ever hope to be and
know far more than you do.
now you're trying for the insanity defense?
You can't debate, all you can do is poison newsgroups with your childish
crap and then illegally violate copyright laws.
you have already admitted that your last claim is one of your lies.
are you getting confused and mixing up which of your lies you have
admitted to?
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
24 Oct 2007 05:22:54 PM |
|
|
In article <DOCdnTWiP4ZUX4LanZ2dnUVZ_tOtnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-106AC1.17591924102007@individual.net...
what are you going to do when your kids google heishman?
I think once they would ever read your crap, they would pity you.
so you admit to raising your kids to ignore your lies? wow.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 08:20:07 AM |
|
|
On Oct 24, 5:10 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:jgkeegan-106AC1.17591924102007@individual.net...
In article <a4ydnflfNOnBIoLanZ2dnUVZ_oCvn...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-EE1D39.17430324102007@individual.net...
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who manages
to
copy "illegally" I might add, fromwww.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public humiliation
of
his hypocrisy.
can you point out exactly there, or would you just prefer to focus on
this new, and inconsequential lie rather than the one i commented on
above?
What lie? You are a hypocrite, that's the truth and a known fact.
You're childish, that's the truth and known fact.
You avoid debates and resort to red herrings, those are "truths" and
"facts".
You misrepresent what people say, you distort, you take quotes out of
context..those are all truths and facts.
You have no following, nobody but the very lowest of scum would ever give
you and credibility or respect.
Credibility and respect are earned, not that you'd nothing anything
about hard work.
You're a loser..that's the truth and a fact.
No, that's an opinion shared between a few crazies.
what are you going to do when your kids google heishman?
I think once they would ever read your crap, they would pity you.
His name isn't Robert "Osprey" Heishman.
<smirk>
Good luck.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
innews:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 08:17:44 AM |
|
|
On Oct 24, 4:55 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:jgkeegan-EE1D39.17430324102007@individual.net...
In article <bradndUiFZHSBILanZ2dnUVZ_hisn...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-303E43.15000724102007@individual.net...
In article <1193248343.562290.205...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion
Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation, an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a child
molesting priest.
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who manages to
copy "illegally" I might add, fromwww.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public humiliation of
his hypocrisy.
He does this, approximately 99.99% of the time with his advesaries by
throwing out what is knowing in the debating world as a red herring.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What is it with you and red herrings - do you smell like one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 08:20:43 AM |
|
|
"Gwyneš Bennetdottir" <bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193318264.789630.172020@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 4:55 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:jgkeegan-EE1D39.17430324102007@individual.net...
In article <bradndUiFZHSBILanZ2dnUVZ_hisn...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-303E43.15000724102007@individual.net...
In article <1193248343.562290.205...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion
Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation,
an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about
the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is
reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a child
molesting priest.
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who manages
to
copy "illegally" I might add, fromwww.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public humiliation
of
his hypocrisy.
He does this, approximately 99.99% of the time with his advesaries by
throwing out what is knowing in the debating world as a red herring.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What is it with you and red herrings - do you smell like one?
A red herring is what is known as a diversion attempt, when people are
debating. When a person can't counter an argument or he/she knows they
can't win a debate, they often times throw out red herrings in order to
confuse and throw the issue into another direction.
You are famous for this tactic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 10:07:22 AM |
|
|
In article <z_idneElrKexBb3anZ2dnUVZ_tCrnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Gwyneš Bennetdottir" <bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193318264.789630.172020@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
What is it with you and red herrings - do you smell like one?
A red herring is what is known as a diversion attempt, when people are
debating. When a person can't counter an argument or he/she knows they
can't win a debate, they often times throw out red herrings in order to
confuse and throw the issue into another direction.
you are famous for this tactic, when you are not outright lying, of
course.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 08:35:51 AM |
|
|
On Oct 25, 8:20 am, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"Gwyne=F0 Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193318264.789630.172020@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 4:55 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:jgkeegan-EE1D39.17430324102007@individual.net...
In article <bradndUiFZHSBILanZ2dnUVZ_hisn...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-303E43.15000724102007@individual.net...
In article <1193248343.562290.205...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com=
,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abort=
ion
Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that t=
he
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundatio=
n,
an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logi=
cal
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about
the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is
reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a ch=
ild
molesting priest.
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who manag=
es
to
copy "illegally" I might add, fromwww.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have admitte=
d=2E
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public humiliat=
ion
of
his hypocrisy.
He does this, approximately 99.99% of the time with his advesaries by
throwing out what is knowing in the debating world as a red herring.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What is it with you and red herrings - do you smell like one?
A red herring is what is known as a diversion attempt,
I know the definition of that logical fallacy, from where it stems
and why it applies to you - hence my statement, you *infamous* moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 08:41:19 AM |
|
|
"Gwyneš Bennetdottir" <bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193319351.872244.246090@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 25, 8:20 am, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"Gwyneš Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193318264.789630.172020@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 4:55 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:jgkeegan-EE1D39.17430324102007@individual.net...
In article <bradndUiFZHSBILanZ2dnUVZ_hisn...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-303E43.15000724102007@individual.net...
In article
<1193248343.562290.205...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets
Abortion
Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that
the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage
foundation,
an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a
logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about
the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is
reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a
child
molesting priest.
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who
manages
to
copy "illegally" I might add, fromwww.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have
admitted.
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public
humiliation
of
his hypocrisy.
He does this, approximately 99.99% of the time with his advesaries by
throwing out what is knowing in the debating world as a red herring.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What is it with you and red herrings - do you smell like one?
A red herring is what is known as a diversion attempt,
I know the definition of that logical fallacy,
If you knew you wouldn't be so afraid to debate and use red herrings all the
time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 08:42:54 AM |
|
|
On Oct 25, 8:41 am, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"Gwyne=F0 Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
If you knew you...
I know the definition of that term, from where it stems
and why it applies to you - hence my statement, you *infamous* moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 08:40:21 AM |
|
|
On Oct 25, 8:20 am, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"Gwyne=F0 Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193318264.789630.172020@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 4:55 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:jgkeegan-EE1D39.17430324102007@individual.net...
In article <bradndUiFZHSBILanZ2dnUVZ_hisn...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-303E43.15000724102007@individual.net...
In article <1193248343.562290.205...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com=
,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abort=
ion
Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that t=
he
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundatio=
n,
an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logi=
cal
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about
the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is
reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a ch=
ild
molesting priest.
That's so funny coming from a leftist loser like yourself who manag=
es
to
copy "illegally" I might add, fromwww.truthout.org
you have already admitted that your assertion above is a lie.
since nothing you post has any credibility whatsoever, why would you
think anyone might believe one of the lies to which you have admitte=
d=2E
Note: Out of embarrassment, Keegan choose to avoid the public humiliat=
ion
of
his hypocrisy.
He does this, approximately 99.99% of the time with his advesaries by
throwing out what is knowing in the debating world as a red herring.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What is it with you and red herrings - do you smell like one?
A red herring is what is known as a diversion attempt..
I know the definition of that term (in this case, it's a metaphor),
from where it stems
and why it applies to you - hence my statement, you *infamous* moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 08:08:15 AM |
|
|
On Oct 24, 3:00 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1193248343.562290.205...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation, an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a child
molesting priest.
Don't worry, I'm used to liberals being condescending. It's a general
trait amongst you. My point stands. The data is either true or false
regardless of who is reporting it. Your stuff about the bush
adminisration is entirely irrelevant.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
innews:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 10:06:16 AM |
|
|
In article <1193317695.610643.15250@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:00 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1193248343.562290.205...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion
Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation, an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a child
molesting priest.
Don't worry,
oh, i am not.
I'm used to liberals being condescending
i am glad to hear that others have also tried to accommodate your
limitations.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 02:38:31 PM |
|
|
On Oct 25, 11:06 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1193317695.610643.15...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:00 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1193248343.562290.205...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion
Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation, an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a child
molesting priest.
Don't worry,
oh, i am not.
I'm used to liberals being condescending
i am glad to hear that others have also tried to accommodate your
limitations.
throw out your accusations then run away when asked to support them.
typical liberal.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
innews:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
25 Oct 2007 02:52:04 PM |
|
|
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote in message
news:1193341111.769309.78250@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 25, 11:06 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1193317695.610643.15...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:00 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1193248343.562290.205...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <MaWdnZmlWv3V9IPanZ2dnUVZ_vmln...@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
July 18, 2006
Getting It Wrong: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion
Statistics
and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-05
not surprisingly, coward heishman "forgets" top mention that the
"Center for Data Analysis" is a part of the heritage foundation,
an
extreme right-wing group.
*smirk*
What are you smirking at? All you're doing is committing a logical
fallacy here. You're not making any valid point whatsoever about
the
article. If the data is sound then it doesn't matter who is
reporting
it. Do you or do you not have proof that the CDC stats used to
generate the article were fabricated or incorrect in some way?
patrick, normally i wouldn't explain this because i'd appear
condescending. but given your limitations, i'll make an effort.
accepting data from an organization consisting of right-wing kooks
would be like believing former attorney general gonzales when
asserting that the bush administration didn't commit treason or
believing a roman catholic bishop asserting the innocence of a child
molesting priest.
Don't worry,
oh, i am not.
I'm used to liberals being condescending
i am glad to hear that others have also tried to accommodate your
limitations.
throw out your accusations then run away when asked to support them.
typical liberal.
That's Keegan. There is a new saying that warns people when they are a
screw up..."you pulled a Keegan".
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How The New York Times Misinterprets Abortion Statistics and Arrives at Incorrect Conclusions |
27 Oct 2007 03:39:28 PM |
|
|
In article <ipidnfO6AIV4br3anZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
[...]
That's Keegan. There is a new saying that warns people when they are a
screw up..."you pulled a Keegan".
really? why don't you cite a few examples.
"If you are going to make the claim, prove it. "
coward bobby heishman posting as osprey
news:8912d58d.0307090126.4a25ab87@posting.google.com:
"Your statement is to be considered a lie until you
can prove it to be true."
"osprey" in <1161104485.981302.246...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
as bobby has offered no proof of his allegation, he clearly wishes
all readers to consider it just another lie.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
