| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
06 Dec 2006 10:06:02 PM |
| Object: |
ray fischer's abortion restrictions |
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: james keegan's abortion restrictions |
07 Dec 2006 02:12:17 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
abortion restrictions:
keegan perversions
do you jerk off when you think about dead mommies?
keegan in <jkeeganDD8Czs.ExJ@netcom.com>
do you get excited?
keegan in <jkeeganDCwn6z.G4r@netcom.com>
playing with yourself again, sonny?
keegan in <jkeeganDCzqBu.Asv@netcom.com>
do you jerk off when you think of mutilating someone?
keegan in <3jbb7a$i0i@usenet.rpi.edu>
did you get a hard on when you thought of violence?
keegan in <3jdn01$mmj@usenet.rpi.edu>
do you lick your lips and get a hard on when you think
about people whom you judge to be something or other
you don't like?
keegan in <3je1f2$s7j@usenet.rpi.edu>
the thing is, you really enjoyed being pissed on,
didn't you?
keegan in <3jn1m2$jrh@usenet.rpi.edu>
did someone say that you were
jerking off in mcclatchie's pink footsie pajamas?
keegan in <3kdpke$8cd@usenet.rpi.edu>
masturbating as you watched?
keegan in <3l1uca$khu@usenet.rpi.edu>
watching a death is what turns you on, eh?
have you tried it with a plastic bag over your head?
keegan in <3lh31j$612@usenet.rpi.edu>
does that make you jealous? a bit sexually excited?
keegan in <D6Jn2H.1zI@news.wizvax.net>
do you jerk off when you defend ralph taite? do
you jerk off more when you read his posts about
slapping women around? do you like to slap women
around?
keegan in <3b8oi5$laj@usenet.rpi.edu>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: ray fischer's abortion restrictions |
07 Dec 2006 07:41:28 AM |
|
|
In article <4577cce1$0$34494$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
abortion restrictions:
===begin restore unmarked deletion
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
===end restore unmarked deletion
and here coward ray has been calling himself pro-choice all these
years. no wonder he deletes proof he is not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken" |
|
| Title: Re: ray fischer's abortion restrictions |
07 Dec 2006 05:05:28 PM |
|
|
I just love ***** kicking contests!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: keegan's abortion restrictions |
07 Dec 2006 11:24:18 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
abortion restrictions:
===begin restore unmarked deletion
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
So much for those restrictions you claim exist, pervert.
do you jerk off when you think about dead mommies?
keegan in <jkeeganDD8Czs.ExJ@netcom.com>
do you get excited?
keegan in <jkeeganDCwn6z.G4r@netcom.com>
playing with yourself again, sonny?
keegan in <jkeeganDCzqBu.Asv@netcom.com>
do you jerk off when you think of mutilating someone?
keegan in <3jbb7a$i0i@usenet.rpi.edu>
did you get a hard on when you thought of violence?
keegan in <3jdn01$mmj@usenet.rpi.edu>
do you lick your lips and get a hard on when you think
about people whom you judge to be something or other
you don't like?
keegan in <3je1f2$s7j@usenet.rpi.edu>
the thing is, you really enjoyed being pissed on,
didn't you?
keegan in <3jn1m2$jrh@usenet.rpi.edu>
did someone say that you were
jerking off in mcclatchie's pink footsie pajamas?
keegan in <3kdpke$8cd@usenet.rpi.edu>
masturbating as you watched?
keegan in <3l1uca$khu@usenet.rpi.edu>
watching a death is what turns you on, eh?
have you tried it with a plastic bag over your head?
keegan in <3lh31j$612@usenet.rpi.edu>
does that make you jealous? a bit sexually excited?
keegan in <D6Jn2H.1zI@news.wizvax.net>
do you jerk off when you defend ralph taite? do
you jerk off more when you read his posts about
slapping women around? do you like to slap women
around?
keegan in <3b8oi5$laj@usenet.rpi.edu>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: fischer lies about his abortion restrictions |
08 Dec 2006 09:49:52 AM |
|
|
In article <4578f702$0$34510$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
abortion restrictions:
===begin restore unmarked deletion
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
So much for those restrictions you claim exist
i restored the line your deleted from your abortion restrictions
statement so you could lie about it.
remember when you reply to delete the phrase "but would place
restrictions on the methods" so you can lie about it again.
"Ray, why do you figure it's a good thing to lie on
the net? Lots of people read here. It makes you look bad."
--Adrienne Regard <reg...@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
keep running away from your own words, coward.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: keegan lies |
12 Dec 2006 12:05:13 AM |
|
|
Looks like Dog ***** is going off on one of his obsessive rants again.
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
So much for those restrictions you claim exist
i restored the line
I restored your perversions again, Dog *****.
do you jerk off when you think about dead mommies?
keegan in <jkeeganDD8Czs.ExJ@netcom.com>
do you get excited?
keegan in <jkeeganDCwn6z.G4r@netcom.com>
playing with yourself again, sonny?
keegan in <jkeeganDCzqBu.Asv@netcom.com>
do you jerk off when you think of mutilating someone?
keegan in <3jbb7a$i0i@usenet.rpi.edu>
did you get a hard on when you thought of violence?
keegan in <3jdn01$mmj@usenet.rpi.edu>
do you lick your lips and get a hard on when you think
about people whom you judge to be something or other
you don't like?
keegan in <3je1f2$s7j@usenet.rpi.edu>
the thing is, you really enjoyed being pissed on,
didn't you?
keegan in <3jn1m2$jrh@usenet.rpi.edu>
did someone say that you were
jerking off in mcclatchie's pink footsie pajamas?
keegan in <3kdpke$8cd@usenet.rpi.edu>
masturbating as you watched?
keegan in <3l1uca$khu@usenet.rpi.edu>
watching a death is what turns you on, eh?
have you tried it with a plastic bag over your head?
keegan in <3lh31j$612@usenet.rpi.edu>
does that make you jealous? a bit sexually excited?
keegan in <D6Jn2H.1zI@news.wizvax.net>
do you jerk off when you defend ralph taite? do
you jerk off more when you read his posts about
slapping women around? do you like to slap women
around?
keegan in <3b8oi5$laj@usenet.rpi.edu>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: fischers's abortion restrictions |
12 Dec 2006 06:12:52 AM |
|
|
In article <457e4699$0$80103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Looks like Dog ***** is going off on one of his obsessive rants again.
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
So much for those restrictions you claim exist
i restored the line
===begin restore unmarked deletions
your deleted from your abortion restrictions
statement so you could lie about it.
remember when you reply to delete the phrase "but would place
restrictions on the methods" so you can lie about it again.
"Ray, why do you figure it's a good thing to lie on
the net? Lots of people read here. It makes you look bad."
--Adrienne Regard <reg...@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
keep running away from your own words, coward.
====end restore unmarked deleiton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
12 Dec 2006 08:55:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:12:52 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <457e4699$0$80103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Looks like Dog ***** is going off on one of his obsessive rants again.
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
So much for those restrictions you claim exist
i restored the line
===begin restore unmarked deletions
your deleted from your abortion restrictions
statement so you could lie about it.
remember when you reply to delete the phrase "but would place
restrictions on the methods" so you can lie about it again.
"Ray, why do you figure it's a good thing to lie on
the net? Lots of people read here. It makes you look bad."
--Adrienne Regard <reg...@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
keep running away from your own words, coward.
====end restore unmarked deleiton
So what is your hang up with Ray Fischer? He is Pro-Choice. He is
not Pro-Abortion. Restrictions on abortion exist, as allowed by Roe
v. Wade. Do you have a problem with the present restrictions on
abortion -- restrictions in place to safeguard the health of the
woman?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
14 Dec 2006 11:36:15 AM |
|
|
In article <457ebdf0.238778953@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:12:52 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <457e4699$0$80103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Looks like Dog ***** is going off on one of his obsessive rants again.
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
So much for those restrictions you claim exist
i restored the line
===begin restore unmarked deletions
your deleted from your abortion restrictions
statement so you could lie about it.
remember when you reply to delete the phrase "but would place
restrictions on the methods" so you can lie about it again.
"Ray, why do you figure it's a good thing to lie on
the net? Lots of people read here. It makes you look bad."
--Adrienne Regard <reg...@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
keep running away from your own words, coward.
====end restore unmarked deleiton
So what is your hang up with Ray Fischer? He is Pro-Choice.
he supports abortion restrictions and would imprison women who have
abortions beyond those he, ray fischer, would allow.
you may call such a person pro-choice if you wish.
support for my statements are shown below in ray's own words.
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
14 Dec 2006 01:18:40 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:36:15 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
So what is your hang up with Ray Fischer? He is Pro-Choice.
he supports abortion restrictions and would imprison women who have
abortions beyond those he, ray fischer, would allow.
you may call such a person pro-choice if you wish.
It is not what I call Pro-Choice. It is what Pro-Choice *IS*. It is
also what the law *IS*.
support for my statements are shown below in ray's own words.
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
You prove that Ray is Pro-Choice. Are you Pro-Choice, or are you
Pro-Abortion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
14 Dec 2006 01:57:29 PM |
|
|
In article <4581a24f.115423968@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:36:15 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
So what is your hang up with Ray Fischer? He is Pro-Choice.
he supports abortion restrictions and would imprison women who have
abortions beyond those he, ray fischer, would allow.
you may call such a person pro-choice if you wish.
It is not what I call Pro-Choice. It is what Pro-Choice *IS*.
i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice.
support for my statements are shown below in ray's own words.
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
You prove that Ray is Pro-Choice.
only if you believe pro-choice endorses abortion restrictions. you
really don't believe that, do you?
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
and reposted several hundred times. have you?
if you want to refresh your apparently failing memory, you can find
it in google under the subject "restating my abortion position" which
turns up 223 hits. of course it has been posted under different
headings too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
14 Dec 2006 08:13:40 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:57:29 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
he supports abortion restrictions and would imprison women who have
abortions beyond those he, ray fischer, would allow.
you may call such a person pro-choice if you wish.
It is not what I call Pro-Choice. It is what Pro-Choice *IS*.
i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice.
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Pro-Choice is *NOT* Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice does not favor or
advocate or support abortion *except* where it is required to allow
the woman to terminate her pregnancy.
You prove that Ray is Pro-Choice.
only if you believe pro-choice endorses abortion restrictions. you
really don't believe that, do you?
Ah, yeah. Pro-Choice endorses such restrictions as to who may perform
abortions, in what facilities, and supports having a second doctor to
care for a resulting baby in those rare late term abortions.
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
and reposted several hundred times. have you?
No. Haven't bothered since I noticed you dodge any questions to
clairify your position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
15 Dec 2006 07:15:45 AM |
|
|
In article <4582001a.139434953@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:57:29 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
he supports abortion restrictions and would imprison women who have
abortions beyond those he, ray fischer, would allow.
you may call such a person pro-choice if you wish.
It is not what I call Pro-Choice. It is what Pro-Choice *IS*.
i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice.
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Pro-Choice is *NOT* Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice does not favor or
advocate or support abortion *except* where it is required to allow
the woman to terminate her pregnancy.
"i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice."
You prove that Ray is Pro-Choice.
only if you believe pro-choice endorses abortion restrictions. you
really don't believe that, do you?
Ah, yeah. Pro-Choice endorses such restrictions as to who may perform
abortions, in what facilities, and supports having a second doctor to
care for a resulting baby in those rare late term abortions.
ray's abortion restrictions are shown below:
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
do you call these pro-choice?
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
and reposted several hundred times. have you?
==begin restore unmarked deletion
if you want to refresh your apparently failing memory, you can find
it in google under the subject "restating my abortion position" which
turns up 223 hits. of course it has been posted under different
headings too.
===end restore unmarked deletion
No. Haven't bothered since I noticed you dodge any questions to
clairify your position.
you look kind of dishonest after i restore that unmarked deletion.
that's the behavior i expect of ray. i hadn't expected it of you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
16 Dec 2006 01:51:18 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:15:45 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4582001a.139434953@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:57:29 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
he supports abortion restrictions and would imprison women who have
abortions beyond those he, ray fischer, would allow.
you may call such a person pro-choice if you wish.
It is not what I call Pro-Choice. It is what Pro-Choice *IS*.
i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice.
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Pro-Choice is *NOT* Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice does not favor or
advocate or support abortion *except* where it is required to allow
the woman to terminate her pregnancy.
"i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice."
You prove that Ray is Pro-Choice.
only if you believe pro-choice endorses abortion restrictions. you
really don't believe that, do you?
Ah, yeah. Pro-Choice endorses such restrictions as to who may perform
abortions, in what facilities, and supports having a second doctor to
care for a resulting baby in those rare late term abortions.
ray's abortion restrictions are shown below:
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
do you call these pro-choice?
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
None of the above restrictions touch the right of the woman to
terminate her pregnancy at any time, for any or no stated reason.
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
and reposted several hundred times. have you?
==begin restore unmarked deletion
if you want to refresh your apparently failing memory, you can find
it in google under the subject "restating my abortion position" which
turns up 223 hits. of course it has been posted under different
headings too.
===end restore unmarked deletion
No. Haven't bothered since I noticed you dodge any questions to
clairify your position.
you look kind of dishonest after i restore that unmarked deletion.
that's the behavior i expect of ray. i hadn't expected it of you.
HUH? What was deleted was meaningless.
What IS your problem with the Pro-Choice position?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
16 Dec 2006 09:26:02 AM |
|
|
In article <4583a4ac.19913859@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:15:45 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4582001a.139434953@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:57:29 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
he supports abortion restrictions and would imprison women who have
abortions beyond those he, ray fischer, would allow.
you may call such a person pro-choice if you wish.
It is not what I call Pro-Choice. It is what Pro-Choice *IS*.
i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice.
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Pro-Choice is *NOT* Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice does not favor or
advocate or support abortion *except* where it is required to allow
the woman to terminate her pregnancy.
"i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice."
You prove that Ray is Pro-Choice.
only if you believe pro-choice endorses abortion restrictions. you
really don't believe that, do you?
Ah, yeah. Pro-Choice endorses such restrictions as to who may perform
abortions, in what facilities, and supports having a second doctor to
care for a resulting baby in those rare late term abortions.
ray's abortion restrictions are shown below:
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
do you call these pro-choice?
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
None of the above restrictions touch the right of the woman to
terminate her pregnancy at any time, for any or no stated reason.
"but would place restrictions on the methods." lying for ray isnlt
going to do him any good, nor does ti speak well to your credibility.
i see you ran away from my question too. i'll repeat it for you: "do
you call these pro-choice?"
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
and reposted several hundred times. have you?
==begin restore unmarked deletion
if you want to refresh your apparently failing memory, you can find
it in google under the subject "restating my abortion position" which
turns up 223 hits. of course it has been posted under different
headings too.
===end restore unmarked deletion
No. Haven't bothered since I noticed you dodge any questions to
clairify your position.
you look kind of dishonest after i restore that unmarked deletion.
that's the behavior i expect of ray. i hadn't expected it of you.
HUH? What was deleted was meaningless.
was it?
i don't think so.
What IS your problem with the Pro-Choice position?
what problem is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
16 Dec 2006 01:33:23 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4583a4ac.19913859@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:15:45 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4582001a.139434953@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:57:29 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
he supports abortion restrictions and would imprison women who have
abortions beyond those he, ray fischer, would allow.
you may call such a person pro-choice if you wish.
It is not what I call Pro-Choice. It is what Pro-Choice *IS*.
i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice.
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Pro-Choice is *NOT* Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice does not favor or
advocate or support abortion *except* where it is required to allow
the woman to terminate her pregnancy.
"i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice."
You prove that Ray is Pro-Choice.
only if you believe pro-choice endorses abortion restrictions. you
really don't believe that, do you?
Ah, yeah. Pro-Choice endorses such restrictions as to who may perform
abortions, in what facilities, and supports having a second doctor to
care for a resulting baby in those rare late term abortions.
ray's abortion restrictions are shown below:
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
do you call these pro-choice?
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
None of the above restrictions touch the right of the woman to
terminate her pregnancy at any time, for any or no stated reason.
"but would place restrictions on the methods." lying for ray isnlt
going to do him any good, nor does ti speak well to your credibility.
Notice that Dog ***** doesn't even care that I'm pro-chocie. He's a
perverted extremist who accepts nothing less than a right to kill.
do you jerk off when you think about dead mommies?
keegan in <jkeeganDD8Czs.ExJ@netcom.com>
do you get excited?
keegan in <jkeeganDCwn6z.G4r@netcom.com>
playing with yourself again, sonny?
keegan in <jkeeganDCzqBu.Asv@netcom.com>
do you jerk off when you think of mutilating someone?
keegan in <3jbb7a$i0i@usenet.rpi.edu>
did you get a hard on when you thought of violence?
keegan in <3jdn01$mmj@usenet.rpi.edu>
do you lick your lips and get a hard on when you think
about people whom you judge to be something or other
you don't like?
keegan in <3je1f2$s7j@usenet.rpi.edu>
the thing is, you really enjoyed being pissed on,
didn't you?
keegan in <3jn1m2$jrh@usenet.rpi.edu>
did someone say that you were
jerking off in mcclatchie's pink footsie pajamas?
keegan in <3kdpke$8cd@usenet.rpi.edu>
masturbating as you watched?
keegan in <3l1uca$khu@usenet.rpi.edu>
watching a death is what turns you on, eh?
have you tried it with a plastic bag over your head?
keegan in <3lh31j$612@usenet.rpi.edu>
does that make you jealous? a bit sexually excited?
keegan in <D6Jn2H.1zI@news.wizvax.net>
do you jerk off when you defend ralph taite? do
you jerk off more when you read his posts about
slapping women around? do you like to slap women
around?
keegan in <3b8oi5$laj@usenet.rpi.edu>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
16 Dec 2006 02:04:25 PM |
|
|
In article <45844a03$0$80048$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4583a4ac.19913859@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:15:45 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4582001a.139434953@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:57:29 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
he supports abortion restrictions and would imprison women who have
abortions beyond those he, ray fischer, would allow.
you may call such a person pro-choice if you wish.
It is not what I call Pro-Choice. It is what Pro-Choice *IS*.
i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice.
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Pro-Choice is *NOT* Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice does not favor or
advocate or support abortion *except* where it is required to allow
the woman to terminate her pregnancy.
"i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice."
You prove that Ray is Pro-Choice.
only if you believe pro-choice endorses abortion restrictions. you
really don't believe that, do you?
Ah, yeah. Pro-Choice endorses such restrictions as to who may perform
abortions, in what facilities, and supports having a second doctor to
care for a resulting baby in those rare late term abortions.
ray's abortion restrictions are shown below:
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
do you call these pro-choice?
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
None of the above restrictions touch the right of the woman to
terminate her pregnancy at any time, for any or no stated reason.
"but would place restrictions on the methods." lying for ray isnlt
going to do him any good, nor does ti speak well to your credibility.
Notice that Dog ***** doesn't even care that I'm pro-chocie.
you call yourself pro-choice and you support abortion restrictions.
support for my statements follow. remember to delete them and lie
again in your reply.
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
methods of restricting abortion:
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
16 Dec 2006 09:16:09 AM |
|
|
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:15:45 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4582001a.139434953@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:57:29 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
he supports abortion restrictions and would imprison women who have
abortions beyond those he, ray fischer, would allow.
you may call such a person pro-choice if you wish.
It is not what I call Pro-Choice. It is what Pro-Choice *IS*.
i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice.
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Pro-Choice is *NOT* Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice does not favor or
advocate or support abortion *except* where it is required to allow
the woman to terminate her pregnancy.
"i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice."
You prove that Ray is Pro-Choice.
only if you believe pro-choice endorses abortion restrictions. you
really don't believe that, do you?
Ah, yeah. Pro-Choice endorses such restrictions as to who may perform
abortions, in what facilities, and supports having a second doctor to
care for a resulting baby in those rare late term abortions.
ray's abortion restrictions are shown below:
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
do you call these pro-choice?
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
None of the above restrictions touch the right of the woman to
terminate her pregnancy at any time, for any or no stated reason.
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
and reposted several hundred times. have you?
==begin restore unmarked deletion
if you want to refresh your apparently failing memory, you can find
it in google under the subject "restating my abortion position" which
turns up 223 hits. of course it has been posted under different
headings too.
===end restore unmarked deletion
No. Haven't bothered since I noticed you dodge any questions to
clairify your position.
you look kind of dishonest after i restore that unmarked deletion.
that's the behavior i expect of ray. i hadn't expected it of you.
HUH? What was deleted was meaningless.
What IS your problem with the Pro-Choice position?
Would you say that the term "pro-abortion" means one who favors
abortion over giving birth?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: keegan's right to kill |
15 Dec 2006 10:40:52 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
American Heritage Dictionary, as reported by Dictionary.com:
pro-choice
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Pro-Choice is *NOT* Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice does not favor or
advocate or support abortion *except* where it is required to allow
the woman to terminate her pregnancy.
"i don't believe you can be successful making the claim that
pro-choice calls for abortion restrictions which remove choice."
What you whine about is denying people the right to kill.
There is no right, no freedom, no choice to kill, Dog *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: defining ray's abortion restrictions... |
15 Dec 2006 02:52:47 PM |
|
|
In article <4582d014$0$80075$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
There is no right, no freedom, no choice to kill
not if you have your way.
you'd enslave women with the abortion restrictions you call for and
your wish to imprison women who don't follow *your* rules.
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: defining keegan's right to kill |
16 Dec 2006 12:43:35 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4582d014$0$80075$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
There is no right, no freedom, no choice to kill
not if you have your way.
Only you are such an extremist that you think that there should be
some right to kill. Sane people don't share your irrational
extremism.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: defining ray's abortion restrictions... |
16 Dec 2006 09:11:06 AM |
|
|
In article <45839597$0$80116$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4582d014$0$80075$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
There is no right, no freedom, no choice to kill
not if you have your way.
===begin restore unmarked deletion
you'd enslave women with the abortion restrictions you call for and
your wish to imprison women who don't follow *your* rules.
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
===end restore unmarked deletion
Only you are such an extremist that you think that there should be
some right to kill. Sane people don't share your irrational
extremism.
"Ray, why do you figure it's a good thing to lie on
the net? Lots of people read here. It makes you look bad."
--Adrienne Regard <reg...@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: defining keegan's perversions |
16 Dec 2006 01:32:27 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4582d014$0$80075$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
There is no right, no freedom, no choice to kill
not if you have your way.
===begin restore unmarked deletion
you'd enslave women with the abortion restrictions you call for and
You're lying, Dog *****.
But you're such a pro-killing extremist that you insist that women
should have the right to kill a fetus, even minutes before birth.
do you jerk off when you think about dead mommies?
keegan in <jkeeganDD8Czs.ExJ@netcom.com>
do you get excited?
keegan in <jkeeganDCwn6z.G4r@netcom.com>
playing with yourself again, sonny?
keegan in <jkeeganDCzqBu.Asv@netcom.com>
do you jerk off when you think of mutilating someone?
keegan in <3jbb7a$i0i@usenet.rpi.edu>
did you get a hard on when you thought of violence?
keegan in <3jdn01$mmj@usenet.rpi.edu>
do you lick your lips and get a hard on when you think
about people whom you judge to be something or other
you don't like?
keegan in <3je1f2$s7j@usenet.rpi.edu>
the thing is, you really enjoyed being pissed on,
didn't you?
keegan in <3jn1m2$jrh@usenet.rpi.edu>
did someone say that you were
jerking off in mcclatchie's pink footsie pajamas?
keegan in <3kdpke$8cd@usenet.rpi.edu>
masturbating as you watched?
keegan in <3l1uca$khu@usenet.rpi.edu>
watching a death is what turns you on, eh?
have you tried it with a plastic bag over your head?
keegan in <3lh31j$612@usenet.rpi.edu>
does that make you jealous? a bit sexually excited?
keegan in <D6Jn2H.1zI@news.wizvax.net>
do you jerk off when you defend ralph taite? do
you jerk off more when you read his posts about
slapping women around? do you like to slap women
around?
keegan in <3b8oi5$laj@usenet.rpi.edu>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: defining ray's abortion restrictions |
16 Dec 2006 02:02:23 PM |
|
|
In article <458449cb$0$80048$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4582d014$0$80075$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
There is no right, no freedom, no choice to kill
not if you have your way.
===begin restore unmarked deletion
you'd enslave women with the abortion restrictions you call for and
==begin restore unmarked deletion
your wish to imprison women who don't follow *your* rules.
prison:
"What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And
yes, that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she
be so convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I
don't think that women should be treated like children just because
they are pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law."
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) in
article1992Nov17.052121.2...@netcom.com>
abortion restrictions:
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
===end restore unmarked deletion
You're lying, Dog *****.
your own words prove i am telling the truth. that is, no doubt, why
you continue to delete them in each of your responses and then lie
about them.
you're far too much of a coward to face your own words.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
15 Dec 2006 01:50:11 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
Like most pro-liar cowards, Dog ***** is too scared to actually answer
any questions about hhis own extremist positions.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
15 Dec 2006 07:07:10 AM |
|
|
In article <458253b3$0$80061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
===begin restore unmarked deletion
and reposted several hundred times. have you?
if you want to refresh your apparently failing memory, you can find
it in google under the subject "restating my abortion position" which
turns up 223 hits. of course it has been posted under different
headings too.
===end restore unmarked deletions
Like most pro-liar cowards,
ray deletes content in the posts he responds to and then
misrepresents that contents.
that's consistent with most anti-choicers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
15 Dec 2006 10:41:17 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <458253b3$0$80061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
===begin restore unmarked deletion
You keep deleting these words, Dog *****.
do you jerk off when you think about dead mommies?
keegan in <jkeeganDD8Czs.ExJ@netcom.com>
do you get excited?
keegan in <jkeeganDCwn6z.G4r@netcom.com>
playing with yourself again, sonny?
keegan in <jkeeganDCzqBu.Asv@netcom.com>
do you jerk off when you think of mutilating someone?
keegan in <3jbb7a$i0i@usenet.rpi.edu>
did you get a hard on when you thought of violence?
keegan in <3jdn01$mmj@usenet.rpi.edu>
do you lick your lips and get a hard on when you think
about people whom you judge to be something or other
you don't like?
keegan in <3je1f2$s7j@usenet.rpi.edu>
the thing is, you really enjoyed being pissed on,
didn't you?
keegan in <3jn1m2$jrh@usenet.rpi.edu>
did someone say that you were
jerking off in mcclatchie's pink footsie pajamas?
keegan in <3kdpke$8cd@usenet.rpi.edu>
masturbating as you watched?
keegan in <3l1uca$khu@usenet.rpi.edu>
watching a death is what turns you on, eh?
have you tried it with a plastic bag over your head?
keegan in <3lh31j$612@usenet.rpi.edu>
does that make you jealous? a bit sexually excited?
keegan in <D6Jn2H.1zI@news.wizvax.net>
do you jerk off when you defend ralph taite? do
you jerk off more when you read his posts about
slapping women around? do you like to slap women
around?
keegan in <3b8oi5$laj@usenet.rpi.edu>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
15 Dec 2006 02:57:02 PM |
|
|
In article <4582d02d$0$80075$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <458253b3$0$80061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
===begin restore unmarked deletion
==begin restore unmarked deletion
and reposted several hundred times. have you?
==begin restore unmarked deletion
if you want to refresh your apparently failing memory, you can find
it in google under the subject "restating my abortion position" which
turns up 223 hits. of course it has been posted under different
headings too.
===end restore unmarked deletion
No. Haven't bothered since I noticed you dodge any questions to
clairify your position.
you look kind of dishonest after i restore that unmarked deletion.
that's the behavior i expect of ray. i hadn't expected it of you.
====end restore unmarked deletion
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
16 Dec 2006 12:44:00 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4582d02d$0$80075$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <458253b3$0$80061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
===begin restore unmarked deletion
==begin restore unmarked deletion
and reposted several hundred times. have you?
==begin restore unmarked deletion
do you jerk off when you think about dead mommies?
keegan in <jkeeganDD8Czs.ExJ@netcom.com>
do you get excited?
keegan in <jkeeganDCwn6z.G4r@netcom.com>
playing with yourself again, sonny?
keegan in <jkeeganDCzqBu.Asv@netcom.com>
do you jerk off when you think of mutilating someone?
keegan in <3jbb7a$i0i@usenet.rpi.edu>
did you get a hard on when you thought of violence?
keegan in <3jdn01$mmj@usenet.rpi.edu>
do you lick your lips and get a hard on when you think
about people whom you judge to be something or other
you don't like?
keegan in <3je1f2$s7j@usenet.rpi.edu>
the thing is, you really enjoyed being pissed on,
didn't you?
keegan in <3jn1m2$jrh@usenet.rpi.edu>
did someone say that you were
jerking off in mcclatchie's pink footsie pajamas?
keegan in <3kdpke$8cd@usenet.rpi.edu>
masturbating as you watched?
keegan in <3l1uca$khu@usenet.rpi.edu>
watching a death is what turns you on, eh?
have you tried it with a plastic bag over your head?
keegan in <3lh31j$612@usenet.rpi.edu>
does that make you jealous? a bit sexually excited?
keegan in <D6Jn2H.1zI@news.wizvax.net>
do you jerk off when you defend ralph taite? do
you jerk off more when you read his posts about
slapping women around? do you like to slap women
around?
keegan in <3b8oi5$laj@usenet.rpi.edu>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: fischers's abortion restrictions |
16 Dec 2006 09:28:20 AM |
|
|
In article <458395b0$0$80116$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <4582d02d$0$80075$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <458253b3$0$80061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
Are you Pro-Choice
i believe you have read my position on abortion which has been posted
===begin restore unmarked deletion
==begin restore unmarked deletion
and reposted several hundred times. have you?
==begin restore unmarked deletion
==begin restore unmarked deletion
if you want to refresh your apparently failing memory, you can find
it in google under the subject "restating my abortion position" which
turns up 223 hits. of course it has been posted under different
headings too.
===end restore unmarked deletion
No. Haven't bothered since I noticed you dodge any questions to
clairify your position.
you look kind of dishonest after i restore that unmarked deletion.
that's the behavior i expect of ray. i hadn't expected it of you.
====end restore unmarked deletion
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
