On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:33:44 +1200,
Anyonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

Anyonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

"Reptile944" <reptile944@aol.com> wrote:

Anonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote::

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

"#" in the attributes denotes material previously-posted
elsewhere by Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi,com>:

[ ... ]

Not at all. You just assume that everyone loves your posts as
much as you do. You're even blind to the words that other
pro-aborts have had in condemning your stupidity.

FIRST of all, theres's no such thing as a "pro-abort." So THANKS for
giving us this heads-up on your abject STUPIDITY, so early in the post.
It lets everyone know they can't expect to see anything intelligent or
credible in your anonymous writings.

I would be very worried if people like YOU **didn't** think
of me as you do.

In short -- thanks for the ENCOURAGEMENT!! You just
made my day!!

Great... He just helped you dig the hole for yourself
even deeper.

You have got to be kidding, right? I have not seen a pro-choice
advocate *here* take exception to any of Craig's posts.

Wishful thinking, I'm sorry... not.

Matt Pillsbury in:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=m2heizb093.fsf%40seesig.net&output=gplain

"Except that's not the problem. The problem is that many
of your points are vacuous, many aren't supported adequately,
and many appear to be totally wrong.

(Matt considers FACTS to be "vacuous." That says a LOT about that
**supposed** Pro-Choicer right there!) Pillsbury is Pro-Choice to about
the same extent that Quisling was a patriot.

You're saying Matt Pillsbury isn't pro-abortion (pro-choice)?? ROTFL.

Obviously not, since no Pro-Choicer could help but see that the facts
I've presentind in my posts ARE facts. Any claims he may make that he's
Pro-Choice therefore have no credibility. I'm just an observer and a
messenger. The FACTS are there for all to see. If he denies them,
even though they are obvious, he's no Pro-Choicer.

What - have you never emotionally recovered from the time he said
this of you:

Mr. Chilton is in my killfile. Part of the reason is that I
do, indeed, find his posts somewhat embarassing to read.

I couldn't care less. If he's stupid enough to be an ostrich, that's
HIS problem.

[ ... ]

**APPEAR** to be totally wrong? Yeah. To an ignoramus, maybe.
Not to anyone who bothers to read what I say with any comprehension.

As I told you before...

Now if any GENUINE Pro-Choicer takes exception to my posts on this
topic... people, say, like Pat Winstanley, Patrick Humphrey, Ray Fischer,
Paul Anderson, Galen, Mizzyandrea, Krisblake, James Keegan, H,R.
Gruemm, and a host of other ACTUAL Pro-Choicers, then DO get back
to me about that and show me the proof. Meanwhile, though, you can
stew in your lying juices.

"Consider, for instance, that there were periods of strong
economic growth in the US prior to the legalization of abortion
(and, also, after its criminalization). Such growth was, in fact,
stronger than it is now, or even was recently. "

So what? I never claimed otherwise. I simply pointed out the
following:

# ... Other related facts include:
#
# -- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
# when the timing is better
# -- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
# had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
# ova would not have matched up.
# -- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
# significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
# of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
# early 1990s.
# -- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
# continues into the early 20s.
# -- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
# LESS prone to criminal behavior.
# -- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
# workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
# every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
# the age where they could be getting quite successful.
# -- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
# has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
# lows in many categories.

... and just last week, USA Today reported that it is CONTINUING to
decline.

I think it's the Gallup organization whose annual poll for the last few
decades shows a constant and gradual erosion of support of abortion.

If so, nothing significant. And an indiaction that more FACTS need
to be presented to counter the LIES of the Anti-Choicers.

# -- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2003 to date, in
# the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
# any nation in the entire history of the world.

...DESPITE a slowdown that the Bush administration hasn't done diddly
to correct; all the credit for averting a real problem goes to GREENSPAN.

Bush inherited the failing economy from Clinton. But maybe that's
Greenspan's fault too since he too was there before Bush.

Yeah Right. Blame it on Clinton.

CLUE, loser: The Clinton years were the MOST prosperous ones of all
American (and world!) history.

# Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
# probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
# all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
# is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
# on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
# world.

Oops. There goes a full 50% of Chilton's pro-abortion propaganda
blown out of the water -- and by a fellow pro-abort.

As I told you before, anonymous loser who lacks sufficent courage of
his convictions to put his name to his loony and bigoted claims, there's
no such thing as a "pro-abort." As everyone knows, except for most of
those who are IGNORANT enough to BE Anti-Choicers. (But please DO
keep right on *confirming* your ignorance (and cowardice) to all of us.)

I've no interest in being harrassed in RL by the likes of you...

Coward. I've been tormenting bigots in these groups for more than 7
years, now, by presenting FACTS that make total fools of them. And
have ALWAYS posted under my REAL name and e-mail address. And
have NEVER been harrassed, nor have ever seen any significant
increase in the fairly MINIMAL spam that I get.

Nevertheless, your fellow pro-abort agrees with me (just above).

There's no such thing as a "pro-abort," ignoramus. Do you believe in
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, too?

PRO-Choicers have literally ALL of the FACTS on their side. There is
no such thing as a fact that supports being ANTI-Choice.

Honestly, someone trying to sound as much an idiot as they could for
the [Pro-Choice] side couldn't act any dumber than you already do!

ROTFL!!!! Which *explains*, I suppose, why all the FACTS in my posts
with you are presented by *me*, and the BEST you can ever come up with
are idiotic and whiny denials like that? You are a joke!

Thus, we who defend the rights and well-bing of millions of women
against mindless losers like you, and ENSURE that you will *never*
again make their lives miserable for NO good reason, employ NO
propaganda. We leave that up to you, since it's ALL you've got
going for you.

Man, this guy is sad..

ROTFLMAO!!!! Thanks for the reaffirmation of what I just said about
you.

If you EVER come up with even so much as **ONE** single FACT that
supports the Anti-Choice stance, DO let us all know. Since NO one has
probably *ever* seen such a thing. EVER.

The only ones who foam at the mouth over them are the
radical anti-choice proponents.

If you think it makes one "radical" to take exception to Chilton's
objective stupidity then you're the radical nut -- as Chilton is.

Let's see... I present solid FACTS all the time... while all YOU any
your ignorant ilk EVER do is WHINE, lie, propagandize, lie, spread
utterly ridiculous disinformation, lie, play semantic word-games, lie,
strive to elicit sympathy from gullible people who are as ignorant as
you are, and lie.

In your dreams.

There you go again, PROVING yourself to be a moron.

That very OBVIOUSLY reveals *you* to be the radical nut.

Like Craig, I am very comfortable with being called a "nut,"
an "idiot," a "sociopath" and an evil, hateful person.

It confirms for me that there is a lot more going on inside
the head of an anti-choicer besides a concern for fetal life.
Funny, isn't it, that those are the same names my daughter-in-
law's parents called me, when I supported her desire to GIVE
BIRTH to my son's baby? They were furious with me because
I upsurped their "power" to force her to HAVE an abortion!
See how easily that crap can get turned on you? The
operative word is CHOICE! The CHOICE of the woman who
is pregnant. Hers, not YOURS.

HERS??? Half of [abortions involve fetuses that are] female...

<propaganda-snip/ Fetuses are only just *that*: fetuses>

But they're also male or female.

And count for NOTHING when unwanted by a host having NO
desire to gestate it. Any more than gametes do.

And we could go on and on and describe ALL their human
attributes -- which can only reveal them to be unique human
individuals in the same way as everyone else.

JUST like the gametes you and your ilk hypocritically never attempt to
defend.. The ONLY requirement is that their DNA is *human*. If so, they
are HUMAN entities.

You don't support choice at all -- for them.

ROTFL!!!! Embryoes and fetus have PRECISELY as much
capability to choose ANYTHING as the did when they were gametes...

They were never gametes, by biological definition.

Bullcrap!! Mentally rebverse-engineer ANY person and you'll find
that there was a period of time when his gametes both existed, but
had not yet met. And the SUM of their DNA was the SAME as that
of the later stages. Had EITHER of those died at that point, that
person NEVER would have been born.

The same definition and by which we understand and observe
ourselves to be alive -- as well as 'ourselves', (i.e. distinct living
organisms) for that matter.

See above. Gametes qualify in ever way that counts. They DO
comprise Stage One of the reproductive process.

However, the empirical facts demonstrate that each of us WAS
once a fetus as much as we were once a newborn baby.

And each of us was once in the form of two gametes that had not yet
met, precisely as I decribed above. If you deny THAT, we'll have ALL of
the proof we'll ever need that you are a complete moron.

at which point they ALSO were human, unique, living and NON-sentient
*potential* people... and they GIVE a rat's ***** to precisely the SAME
extent: NONE.

(The bone-ignorance of Anti-Choicers is nothing short of
astounding. They should all be in "Ripley's Believe It Or Not.")

Craig Chilton <

Anyonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <

"Reptile944" <reptile944@aol.com> wrote:

Anonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote::

Craig Chilton <

"#" in the attributes denotes material previously-posted
elsewhere by Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi,com>:

Not at all. You just assume that everyone loves your posts as
much as you do. You're even blind to the words that other
pro-aborts have had in condemning your stupidity.

FIRST of all, theres's no such thing as a "pro-abort." So THANKS for
giving us this heads-up on your abject STUPIDITY, so early in the post.
It lets everyone know they can't expect to see anything intelligent or
credible in your anonymous writings.

I would be very worried if people like YOU **didn't** think
of me as you do.

In short -- thanks for the ENCOURAGEMENT!! You just
made my day!!

Great... He just helped you dig the hole for yourself
even deeper.

You have got to be kidding, right? I have not seen a pro-choice
advocate *here* take exception to any of Craig's posts.

Wishful thinking, I'm sorry... not.

Matt Pillsbury in:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=m2heizb093.fsf%40seesig.net&output=gplain

"Except that's not the problem. The problem is that many
of your points are vacuous, many aren't supported adequately,
and many appear to be totally wrong.

(Matt considers FACTS to be "vacuous." That says a LOT about that
**supposed** Pro-Choicer right there!) Pillsbury is Pro-Choice to about
the same extent that Quisling was a patriot.

You're saying Matt Pillsbury isn't pro-abortion (pro-choice)?? ROTFL.

What -- have you never emotionally recovered from the time he said
this of you:

Mr. Chilton is in my killfile. Part of the reason is that I
do, indeed, find his posts somewhat embarassing to read.

**APPEAR** to be totally wrong? Yeah. To an ignoramus, maybe.
Not to anyone who bothers to read what I say with any comprehension.

Now if any GENUINE Pro-Choicer takes exception to my posts on this
topic... people, say, like Pat Winstanley, Patrick Humphrey, Ray Fischer,
Paul Anderson, Galen, Mizzyandrea, Krisblake, James Keegan, H,R.
Gruemm, and a host of other ACTUAL Pro-Choicers, then DO get back
to me about that and show me the proof. Meanwhile, though, you can
stew in your lying juices.

"Consider, for instance, that there were periods of strong
economic growth in the US prior to the legalization of abortion
(and, also, after its criminalization). Such growth was, in fact,
stronger than it is now, or even was recently. "

So what? I never claimed otherwise. I simply pointed out the
following:

# ... Other related facts include:
#
# -- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
# when the timing is better
# -- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
# had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
# ova would not have matched up.
# -- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
# significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
# of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
# early 1990s.
# -- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
# continues into the early 20s.
# -- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
# LESS prone to criminal behavior.
# -- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
# workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
# every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
# the age where they could be getting quite successful.
# -- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
# has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
# lows in many categories.

... and just last week, USA Today reported that it is CONTINUING to
decline.

I think it's the Gallup organization whose annual poll for the last few
decades shows a constant and gradual erosion of support of abortion.

# -- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2003 to date, in
# the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
# any nation in the entire history of the world.

...DESPITE a slowdown that the Bush administration hasn't done diddly
to correct; all the credit for averting a real problem goes to GREENSPAN.

Bush inherited the failing economy from Clinton. But maybe that's
Greenspan's fault too since he too was there before Bush.

# Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
# probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
# all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
# is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
# on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
# world.
Oops. There goes a full 50% of Chilton's pro-abortion propaganda
blown out of the water -- and by a fellow pro-abort.

As I told you before, anonymous loser who lacks sufficent courage of
his convictions to put his name to his loony and bigoted claims, there's
no such thing as a "pro-abort." As everyone knows, except for most of
those who are IGNORANT enough to BE Anti-Choicers. (But please DO
keep right on *confirming* your ignorance (and cowardice) to all of us.)

I've no interest in being harrassed in RL by the likes of you...

Nevertheless, your fellow pro-abort agrees with me (just above).

PRO-Choicers have literally ALL of the FACTS on their side. There is
no such thing as a fact that supports being ANTI-Choice.

Honestly, someone trying to sound as much an idiot as they could for
the [Pro-Choice] side couldn't act any dumber than you already do!

Thus, we who defend the rights and well-bing of millions of women
against mindless losers like you, and ENSURE that you will *never*
again make their lives miserable for NO good reason, employ NO
propaganda. We leave that up to you, since it's ALL you've got
going for you.

Man, this guy is sad..

The only ones who foam at the mouth over them are the
radical anti-choice proponents.

If you think it makes one "radical" to take exception to Chilton's
objective stupidity then you're the radical nut -- as Chilton is.

Let's see... I present solid FACTS all the time... while all YOU any
your ignorant ilk EVER do is WHINE, lie, propagandize, lie, spread
utterly ridiculous disinformation, lie, play semantic word-games, lie,
strive to elicit sympathy from gullible people who are as ignorant as
you are, and lie.

In your dreams.

That very OBVIOUSLY reveals *you* to be the radical nut.

Like Craig, I am very comfortable with being called a "nut,"
an "idiot," a "sociopath" and an evil, hateful person.

It confirms for me that there is a lot more going on inside
the head of an anti-choicer besides a concern for fetal life.
Funny, isn't it, that those are the same names my daughter-in-
law's parents called me, when I supported her desire to GIVE
BIRTH to my son's baby? They were furious with me because
I upsurped their "power" to force her to HAVE an abortion!
See how easily that crap can get turned on you? The
operative word is CHOICE! The CHOICE of the woman who
is pregnant. Hers, not YOURS.

HERS??? Half of [abortions involve fetuses that are] female...

<propaganda-snip/ Fetuses are only just *that*: fetuses>

But they're also male or female.

And we could go on and on and describe ALL their human
attributes -- which can only reveal them to be unique human
individuals in the same way as everyone else.

You don't support choice at all -- for them.

ROTFL!!!! Embryoes and fetus have PRECISELY as much
capability to choose ANYTHING as the did when they were
gametes...

They were never gametes, by biological definition.

The same definition and by which we understand and observe
ourselves to be alive -- as well as 'ourselves', (i.e. distinct living
organisms) for that matter.

However, the empirical facts demonstrate that each of us WAS
once a fetus as much as we were once a newborn baby.

at which point they ALSO were human, unique, living and NON-sentient
*potential* people... and they GIVE a rat's ***** to precisely the SAME
extent: NONE.

(The bone-ignorance of Anti-Choicers is nothing short of
astounding. They should all be in "Ripley's Believe It Or Not.")