Science > Abortion > Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz!
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sadburger" |
| Date: |
17 Jul 2005 01:07:29 AM |
| Object: |
Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
Have you ever read a Ray Fischer post and said to yourself, "Boy, that's
not anything at all! I bet I could do what Ray does-- easy peasy!" Well
now here's your chance to prove it, in the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray
Fischer" quiz! If you get all answers correct, your name will be entered
into a drawing for a DREAM DATE with Ray Fischer at the participating
Applebees location nearest you!!! (Offer void in states where law
prohibits.)
This is your quiz... take the following thread titles, and below them
write how RAY FISCHER would change them. All entries must be postmarked by
July 19... don't delay!
t e a r a l o n g p e r f o r a t e d e d g e
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
m a i l t h i s p a r t
1) Vacuous Pro-Abortion Arguments
2) Abortionists the Baby Killers
3) Desperation showing in pro-abortion statement
4) abortionist baby killers
5) Words From an Abortion Survivor
6) Pro-aborts and their death/injury wishes
7) Pro-choice morons on Broadway: You go girl!
8) Abortionist admits gruesome practice under oath
9) Abortion advocate admits abortion is killing!
...Be careful... the next one's tricky!
10) Attempted Cover-up at an Abortion Mill
11) Are any Pro-Choice posters here Paid propagandists???
12) Pro-choice: The new minority
13) "I used to be pro-choice."
14) Pro-Abortion Syndrome hides personal pain
15) It must suck to be pro abortion these days
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
| User: "Sadburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
18 Jul 2005 08:51:12 PM |
|
|
Response to the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" quiz has been, to
say the least, underwhelming. Either the challenge truly was too
difficult, or the prospect of sharing our Fabulous Brownie Sundae® with
Ray- grumbling something about lying neocons or murderous pro-liars under
his breath- just wasn't that appealing. In any case, you've deprived Ray
of a free meal at Applebees as well, so I hope you're happy. Anyway, the
answers- not like anyone cares- are as follows:
1) Vacuous Pro-Abortion Arguments
Vacuous Pro-Liar Arguments
2) Abortionists the Baby Killers
Pro-liar terrorists the baby killers
3) Desperation showing in pro-abortion statement
Desperation showing in pro-liar statement
4) abortionist baby killers
Pro-liar baby killers
5) Words From an Abortion Survivor
Words From a Pro-liar
6) Pro-aborts and their death/injury wishes
Pro-liar and their death/injury wishes
7) Pro-choice morons on Broadway: You go girl!
Pro-Lie morons on Broadway: You go girl!
8) Abortionist admits gruesome practice under oath
pro-liar admits gruesome practice under oath
9) Abortion advocate admits abortion is killing!
Pro-liar admits abortion is killing!
...Be careful... the next one's tricky!
10) Attempted Cover-up at an Abortion Mill
Attempted Cover-up at Pro-Liar Mill (We told you it was tricky!)
11) Are any Pro-Choice posters here Paid propagandists???
Are any Pro-Lie posters here Paid propagandists???
12) Pro-choice: The new minority
Pro-lie: The new minority
13) "I used to be pro-choice."
"I used to be pro-lie."
14) Pro-Abortion Syndrome hides personal pain
Pro-Lie Syndrome hides personal pain
15) It must suck to be pro abortion these days
It must suck to be pro lie these days
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
18 Jul 2005 09:07:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:51:12 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
Response to the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" quiz has been, to
say the least, underwhelming. Either the challenge truly was too
difficult, or the prospect of sharing our Fabulous Brownie Sundae® with
Ray- grumbling something about lying neocons or murderous pro-liars under
his breath-
Maybe it's because your 'quiz' was really too stupid to solicit a
stupid response.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
18 Jul 2005 09:26:33 PM |
|
|
Sadburger <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote:
Response to the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" quiz has been, to
say the least, underwhelming. Either the challenge truly was too
difficult, or the prospect of sharing our Fabulous Brownie Sundae® with
Or people aren't that interested in your childish whining.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sadburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
19 Jul 2005 04:39:14 AM |
|
|
In article <dbhoco$ehg$1@bolt.sonic.net>, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Sadburger < > wrote:
Response to the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" quiz has been, to
say the least, underwhelming. Either the challenge truly was too
difficult, or the prospect of sharing our Fabulous Brownie Sundae® with
Or people aren't that interested in your childish whining.
Do you think people are interested in your bilous one-liners containing
absolutely zero informational content?
"Pro-LIARS would rather watch women suffer and die than be free." OKAY!
YOU THINK WE'RE HORRIBLE PEOPLE! WE GET IT! But I don't understand what
you expect is going to happen by posting it OVER and OVER and OVER. It's
bizarre to me that you would take a big chunk of each day for 15 years to
do this, when your goal clearly isn't to persuade at all. It makes me
wonder what's the *real* reason you do this, what's the personal *****
you're working out in this public forum.
Oh, I'm sure venting all your free-floating hostility at pro-lifers is
very cathartic for you. It's crushingly dull for everyone else, however.
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
19 Jul 2005 06:01:58 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:39:14 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
In article <dbhoco$ehg$1@bolt.sonic.net>, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Sadburger < > wrote:
Response to the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" quiz has been, to
say the least, underwhelming. Either the challenge truly was too
difficult, or the prospect of sharing our Fabulous Brownie Sundae® with
Or people aren't that interested in your childish whining.
Do you think people are interested in your bilous one-liners containing
absolutely zero informational content?
To answer you succintly--YES. Otherwise, your bilious, agonizingly
(and unnecessarily) prolonged rants (with marginal content, other than
lines and lines of noted hate) would garner more attention--but
posters aren't interested in them.
"Pro-LIARS would rather watch women suffer and die than be free." OKAY!
YOU THINK WE'RE HORRIBLE PEOPLE! WE GET IT! But I don't understand what
you expect is going to happen by posting it OVER and OVER and OVER. It's
bizarre to me that you would take a big chunk of each day for 15 years to
do this, when your goal clearly isn't to persuade at all. It makes me
wonder what's the *real* reason you do this, what's the personal *****
you're working out in this public forum.
Envious? ;-)
Oh, I'm sure venting all your free-floating hostility at pro-lifers is
very cathartic for you. It's crushingly dull for everyone else, however.
....hence, your screed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sadburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
19 Jul 2005 08:39:17 PM |
|
|
In article <rtmpd191n02dmnohamk54e5em4il4kghj3@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:39:14 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
Do you think people are interested in your bilous one-liners containing
absolutely zero informational content?
To answer you succintly--YES. Otherwise, your bilious, agonizingly
(and unnecessarily) prolonged rants
So who are these people "interested" in what Ray has to say? Most of the
time he's ignored, and what he says is tremendously predictable (that was
my point with this thread... anybody can do what Ray does. You don't even
have to be pro-choice to do at least as good a job as he does.)
No, my posts aren't bilious... compare my posts and Ray's side-to-side
and the differences should be readily apparent. For instance, I actually
try to *engage* opposing viewpoints in my posts- to consider both sides of
the issue- rather than just demonizing my opponent.
(And yes, the fact that "demonization" is one of Ray's stock dismissals
is one of those ridiculous ironies somebody would point out to Ray if he
could wrap his mind around something like irony. It's as ironic as Ray
claiming an "appeal to authority fallacy" whenever anybody reposts a
scientific article despite the fact he reposts the same "The Myth of
Post-Abortion Syndrome" article over and over. As ironic as him claiming
pro-lifers don't "understand science" when he continually offers his own
pet theories as fact to account for the results of scientific studies
when- if he bothered to read them correctly- he'd know his alternate
interpretation had been anticipated and corrected-for in the study's
methodology. As ironic as him claiming pro-lifers "hate" when he is the
purest source of white-hot hatred I've encountered on usenet. I have
hesitations about calling his "propaganda" dismissals ironic, since I
honestly have no idea what he thinks the term means.)
Not that any pro-choicers around here are going to call him on it.
Apparently they're afraid that admitting that any other pro-choicer is
anything less than a genius would be a fatal admission of weakness on
their part. That's why they're still batting around those same hoary
40-year-old clichés-- originality could be construed as abandonment of
principle.
(with marginal content, other than
lines and lines of noted hate) would garner more attention--but
posters aren't interested in them.
Ummmm... "noted hate"!?! What the ***** does that mean? What have I ever
said that's hateful? I mean, being as how it's noted and all, it should be
pretty easy to find. Unlike Ray, I'm trying to effect a transformation of
the way the abortion issue is understood, I'm trying to create "A-Ha!"
moments for the reader where they suddenly see the issue in a new light.
Whether or not I succeed or fail, at least I'm *trying*. And with a few
exceptions I don't think my posts go to unnessecary length; by the same
token I wouldn't dare think that the issue could be "solved" in one or two
vitriolic sentences posted over and over in minor variations.
Seriously, this is abortion, we should all know this is the thorniest of
issues. What could a person possibly say about abortion in one or two
sentences that would be worth saying at all, never mind repeated five
thousand times?
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
19 Jul 2005 09:37:23 PM |
|
|
(Sadburger) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1907052137250001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <rtmpd191n02dmnohamk54e5em4il4kghj3@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:39:14 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
Do you think people are interested in your bilous one-liners
containing
absolutely zero informational content?
To answer you succintly--YES. Otherwise, your bilious, agonizingly
(and unnecessarily) prolonged rants
So who are these people "interested" in what Ray has to say? Most of
the
time he's ignored, and what he says is tremendously predictable (that
was my point with this thread... anybody can do what Ray does. You
don't even have to be pro-choice to do at least as good a job as he
does.)
No, my posts aren't bilious... compare my posts and Ray's
side-to-side
and the differences should be readily apparent. For instance, I
actually try to *engage* opposing viewpoints in my posts- to consider
both sides of the issue- rather than just demonizing my opponent.
(And yes, the fact that "demonization" is one of Ray's stock
dismissals
is one of those ridiculous ironies somebody would point out to Ray if
he could wrap his mind around something like irony. It's as ironic as
Ray claiming an "appeal to authority fallacy" whenever anybody reposts
a scientific article despite the fact he reposts the same "The Myth of
Post-Abortion Syndrome" article over and over. As ironic as him
claiming pro-lifers don't "understand science" when he continually
offers his own pet theories as fact to account for the results of
scientific studies when- if he bothered to read them correctly- he'd
know his alternate interpretation had been anticipated and
corrected-for in the study's methodology. As ironic as him claiming
pro-lifers "hate" when he is the purest source of white-hot hatred
I've encountered on usenet. I have hesitations about calling his
"propaganda" dismissals ironic, since I honestly have no idea what he
thinks the term means.)
Not that any pro-choicers around here are going to call him on it.
Apparently they're afraid that admitting that any other pro-choicer is
anything less than a genius would be a fatal admission of weakness on
their part. That's why they're still batting around those same hoary
40-year-old clichés-- originality could be construed as abandonment of
principle.
(with marginal content, other than
lines and lines of noted hate) would garner more attention--but
posters aren't interested in them.
Ummmm... "noted hate"!?! What the ***** does that mean? What have I
ever
said that's hateful? I mean, being as how it's noted and all, it
should be pretty easy to find. Unlike Ray, I'm trying to effect a
transformation of the way the abortion issue is understood, I'm trying
to create "A-Ha!" moments for the reader where they suddenly see the
issue in a new light. Whether or not I succeed or fail, at least I'm
*trying*. And with a few exceptions I don't think my posts go to
unnessecary length; by the same token I wouldn't dare think that the
issue could be "solved" in one or two vitriolic sentences posted over
and over in minor variations.
Seriously, this is abortion, we should all know this is the thorniest
of
issues. What could a person possibly say about abortion in one or two
sentences that would be worth saying at all, never mind repeated five
thousand times?
Here's one that's been around for awhile but is just as true and
appropriate as the first time it was stated.
"Don't like abortions? Don't have one."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
19 Jul 2005 10:18:00 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:37:23 GMT, BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote:
(Sadburger) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1907052137250001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <rtmpd191n02dmnohamk54e5em4il4kghj3@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:39:14 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
Do you think people are interested in your bilous one-liners
containing
absolutely zero informational content?
To answer you succintly--YES. Otherwise, your bilious, agonizingly
(and unnecessarily) prolonged rants
So who are these people "interested" in what Ray has to say? Most of
the
time he's ignored, and what he says is tremendously predictable (that
was my point with this thread... anybody can do what Ray does. You
don't even have to be pro-choice to do at least as good a job as he
does.)
No, my posts aren't bilious... compare my posts and Ray's
side-to-side
and the differences should be readily apparent. For instance, I
actually try to *engage* opposing viewpoints in my posts- to consider
both sides of the issue- rather than just demonizing my opponent.
(And yes, the fact that "demonization" is one of Ray's stock
dismissals
is one of those ridiculous ironies somebody would point out to Ray if
he could wrap his mind around something like irony. It's as ironic as
Ray claiming an "appeal to authority fallacy" whenever anybody reposts
a scientific article despite the fact he reposts the same "The Myth of
Post-Abortion Syndrome" article over and over. As ironic as him
claiming pro-lifers don't "understand science" when he continually
offers his own pet theories as fact to account for the results of
scientific studies when- if he bothered to read them correctly- he'd
know his alternate interpretation had been anticipated and
corrected-for in the study's methodology. As ironic as him claiming
pro-lifers "hate" when he is the purest source of white-hot hatred
I've encountered on usenet. I have hesitations about calling his
"propaganda" dismissals ironic, since I honestly have no idea what he
thinks the term means.)
Not that any pro-choicers around here are going to call him on it.
Apparently they're afraid that admitting that any other pro-choicer is
anything less than a genius would be a fatal admission of weakness on
their part. That's why they're still batting around those same hoary
40-year-old clichés-- originality could be construed as abandonment of
principle.
(with marginal content, other than
lines and lines of noted hate) would garner more attention--but
posters aren't interested in them.
Ummmm... "noted hate"!?! What the ***** does that mean? What have I
ever
said that's hateful? I mean, being as how it's noted and all, it
should be pretty easy to find. Unlike Ray, I'm trying to effect a
transformation of the way the abortion issue is understood, I'm trying
to create "A-Ha!" moments for the reader where they suddenly see the
issue in a new light. Whether or not I succeed or fail, at least I'm
*trying*. And with a few exceptions I don't think my posts go to
unnessecary length; by the same token I wouldn't dare think that the
issue could be "solved" in one or two vitriolic sentences posted over
and over in minor variations.
Seriously, this is abortion, we should all know this is the thorniest
of
issues. What could a person possibly say about abortion in one or two
sentences that would be worth saying at all, never mind repeated five
thousand times?
Here's one that's been around for awhile but is just as true and
appropriate as the first time it was stated.
"Don't like abortions? Don't have one."
He'd rather write a thousand word response as to why he should make
these kinds of decisions for women.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
19 Jul 2005 10:13:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:39:17 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
In article <rtmpd191n02dmnohamk54e5em4il4kghj3@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:39:14 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
Do you think people are interested in your bilous one-liners containing
absolutely zero informational content?
To answer you succintly--YES. Otherwise, your bilious, agonizingly
(and unnecessarily) prolonged rants
So who are these people "interested" in what Ray has to say? Most of the
time he's ignored, and what he says is tremendously predictable (that was
my point with this thread... anybody can do what Ray does. You don't even
have to be pro-choice to do at least as good a job as he does.)
No, my posts aren't bilious... compare my posts and Ray's side-to-side...
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently defending
the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of your
incredulously written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I am so
much better than aeverybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay attention to me and
my written *****!"
(with marginal content, other than
lines and lines of noted hate) would garner more attention--but
posters aren't interested in them.
Ummmm... "noted hate"!?! What the ***** does that mean?
[...]
Your countless lines of disdain for a man whom you greatly envy,
apparently. If he was not but a worthless bug on the pavement, you'd
have stepped on it without offering it the time of day.
Sheesh--you gave the time of day to both Malapert and Chilton on your
website, while castagating these two of USENET's kindest and more
democratic of all Pro-Choicers posting, viciously attributing their
names to your hate-laced screed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
19 Jul 2005 10:16:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:39:17 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
In article <rtmpd191n02dmnohamk54e5em4il4kghj3@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:39:14 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
Do you think people are interested in your bilous one-liners containing
absolutely zero informational content?
To answer you succintly--YES. Otherwise, your bilious, agonizingly
(and unnecessarily) prolonged rants
So who are these people "interested" in what Ray has to say? Most of the
time he's ignored, and what he says is tremendously predictable (that was
my point with this thread... anybody can do what Ray does. You don't even
have to be pro-choice to do at least as good a job as he does.)
No, my posts aren't bilious... compare my posts and Ray's side-to-side...
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently defending
the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of your
narcissisticly written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I am so
much better than aeverybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay attention to me and
my written *****!"
(with marginal content, other than
lines and lines of noted hate) would garner more attention--but
posters aren't interested in them.
Ummmm... "noted hate"!?! What the ***** does that mean?
[...]
Your countless lines of disdain for a man whom you greatly envy,
apparently. If he was not but a worthless bug on the pavement, you'd
have stepped on it without offering it the time of day.
Sheesh--you gave the time of day to both Malapert and Chilton on your
website, while castagating these two of USENET's kindest and more
democratic of all Pro-Choicers posting, viciously attributing their
names to your hate-laced screed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sadburger" |
|
| Title: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
21 Jul 2005 01:55:57 AM |
|
|
In article <jcgrd11sjrqua1vlqjcn8787fmgl716b1m@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently defending
the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of your
narcissisticly written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I am so
much better than aeverybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay attention to me and
my written *****!"
I'm delighted at this characterization of my writing. I honestly had no
idea I came across as that coinfident!
(with marginal content, other than
lines and lines of noted hate) would garner more attention--but
posters aren't interested in them.
Ummmm... "noted hate"!?! What the ***** does that mean?
[...]
Your countless lines of disdain for a man whom you greatly envy,
apparently. If he was not but a worthless bug on the pavement, you'd
have stepped on it without offering it the time of day.
Errr... envious of Ray!?! I know nothing of Ray except from what he posts
here. I wish I could say he was ugly or friendless or something, but sadly
I don't know these to be the case. I do know that he has rather
stereotyped thought patterns, and that nonliteral meaning like sarcasm or
irony is completely lost on him... maybe he's Asperger's or something (I
suspect that of many t.aers.) He must be at least middle age, and he
spends an inordinate amount of time flaming people on politics newsgroups,
so he can't be in the best of physical shape. Maybe he's actually a very
charming person in real life, but I think it's more likely that his
abrasive online persona reflects his real personality-- I picture him with
a ***** Cheneyesqe perma-scowl, mumbling to himself as he kicks the
pavement. His hatred of pro-lifers seems almost more like a personal
grudge than a political stance... like the Chain of Life trampled his
flower bed and never apologized.
I've also mentioned this before, but had difficulty explaining exactly
what I meant; his politics seem *extremely* superficial. OK, so he's a
liberal because he believes things that are liberal which are good, and
he's against all those conservatives who lie and propagandize and are
hypocritical because they reject all those good liberal things. I've
gotten no indication of *any* underlying philosophy to his beliefs, or any
critical ability to compare and contrast his beliefs with others. I
compared it to children playing Cowboys and Indians, where they could at
any time switch alliances and continue playing uninterrupted. Maybe he's
disenfranchised- from his family, from society, spiritually
disenfranchised, whatever- and is just trying to find community and a
sense of identity in a political group, even if his understanding and
conviction is wafer-thin.
I don't know much about Ray, but what I *imagine* of him I certainly
can't envy.
Sheesh--you gave the time of day to both Malapert and Chilton on your
website, while castagating these two of USENET's kindest and more
democratic of all Pro-Choicers posting, viciously attributing their
names to your hate-laced screed.
Hold up... you criticize *my* "agonizing and unnecessarily prolonged
rants with marginal content," but defend CHILTON!?! Chilton measures his
prose out with a friggin' livestock scale. He surrounds himself with an
insulating foam of verbiage that prevents ideas from going in or coming
out; if you try to engage him- say, bring into question his idea of what
constitutes a 'fact'- he'll extract one sentence and use that as a
jumping-off point for scrawls of text you're already read before. And even
though he and Malapert are very different writers on two vastly different
intellectual plateaus, they both belong to that "why use one adjective
when you can use three?" school of writing.
I intentionally singled out Chilton and Malapert as kind of Janus-masks
of the pro-choice movement-- one one hand you have the corny medicine show
huckster, the fast talking carpetbagger who wows the townspeople with
mile-a-minute patter about his often imitated, never duplicated REMEDY
that will INSTANTLY RESTORE all their well-being and full range of future
opportunities! And there's a hopeful, reassuring tinge to the belief that
the only thing preventing heaven from falling down on earth this second is
those last few holdouts of grouchy, mean-spirited pro-lifers-- maybe all
we need is to be shown the True Meaning Of Christmas! On the other hand,
there was no trace of optimism or pollyannaism in Malapert; her posts
outlined a particularly bleak view of human existance, and- as evil
flowers where hope is barren- she's one of the few people I'd
unhesitatingly describe as evil. Listen at the imagery in her writing: a
child kidnapped by a predatory sexual woman and imprisoned in her womb,
tormented with threats of death, grateful at the end of the nine-month
sentence to escape from this "horrible woman"; the spent, bleeding body of
the backalley butcher's victim as a sacrifial offering for people's
subterranean fear of personal annihilation, which is in turn their fear of
a woman's "terrifying sexuality." Fear is the currency of her world-- as I
said to Micheal Calwell in an email, it is "Fear projected on fear, fear
transferred to fear, fear begetting fear,-- it occured to me that,
ultimately, the only 'transcendence' this philosophy offered was to cede
our beliefs to her, as we may very well be incapable of seeing through
this solipsistic world of fear."
Yet pro-choicers turned a blind eye to her sickness. She was even the
resident pro-choice expert on a reference website, where she casually
dropped phrases like "birth control for selfish sluts" in ostensibly
serious political articles. Didn't they care that this woman said it was a
crying shame that teenagers were *only* aborting 1/3 of their
pregnancies[1]? Or that she excoriated the mentor of a teenage girl for
allowing the girl to carry to term and put the child up for adoption, even
though the girl was pro-life and that's what she wished?
An unbelieving mother sent her unbelieving daughter to Catholic school.
If she was hoping to create a monster, she sure as hell succeeded.
Yes, I think Chilton is a doofus and Malapert is evil. But this isn't
hate, this is me exercising my own God-given, uncensored power of moral
discernment, and I hope to convince people of the same- not by demanding
that they censor their own thoughts (eg. "Woman!?! What woman!?!") or by
shaming them ("You would rather watch women suffer and die than be free")-
but inviting other people to do the same, by appealing to their
conscience, to their better angels. And, as flawed as the "essay" was, it
wasn't hate-laced-- hell there warn't *nothin* lacing that essay together!
[1] BTW, a British Planned Parenthood claimed it was a shame that
teenagers were only abortion *half* of their pregnancies... how many
abortions *should* teenagers be having before pro-choicers admit they
really are pro-abortion?
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
21 Jul 2005 07:03:13 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:55:57 GMT,
"Sadburger" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently
defending the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of
your narcissisticly written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I
am so much better than everybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay
attention to me and my written *****!"
I'm delighted at this characterization of my writing. I honestly had no
idea I came across as that coinfident!
"Confident?" LOL!!! Well, at least you had the first *letter* right.
The correct terminology is: "Conceited."
[ ... ]
Errr... I know nothing of Ray ...
I don't know much about Ray, ...
You should have stopped after the first 4 words, in each of those
sentences, and then you'd have been *thoroughly* accurate.
[ ... ]
Yes, I think Chilton is a doofus and Malapert is evil. But this isn't
hate, this is me exercising my own God-given, uncensored power of
moral discernment,
"God"-given? A moral discernment that seeks to, for NO good reason,
hatefully impose abject misery and untold hardship upon MILLIONS of
people by FORCING them to gestate UNwanted reproductive-process
entities to term, against their will?
Don't blame God for that. Blame Satan for your sociopathic and
delusional hatefulness and bigotry. He just LOVES suckers like you.
You have picked a very appropriate alias for yourself, anonymous
coward. You're as "sad" as a raw burger that's been left out in the
hot sun all afternoon. And you demonstrate about the same levels of
fairness, compassion, and intelligence.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sgt. America" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
23 Jul 2005 07:29:01 PM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:55:57 GMT,
"Sadburger" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently
defending the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of
your narcissisticly written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I
am so much better than everybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay
attention to me and my written *****!"
I'm delighted at this characterization of my writing. I honestly had no
idea I came across as that coinfident!
"Confident?" LOL!!! Well, at least you had the first *letter* right.
The correct terminology is: "Conceited."
I suppose you think it's conceited to use lots of different words in your
posts. Whereas you're humble enough to repeat the same thing over and over....
[ ... ]
Errr... I know nothing of Ray ...
I don't know much about Ray, ...
You should have stopped after the first 4 words, in each of those
sentences, and then you'd have been *thoroughly* accurate.
[ ... ]
Yes, I think Chilton is a doofus and Malapert is evil. But this isn't
hate, this is me exercising my own God-given, uncensored power of
moral discernment,
"God"-given? A moral discernment that seeks to, for NO good reason,
hatefully impose abject misery and untold hardship upon MILLIONS of
people by FORCING them to gestate UNwanted reproductive-process
entities to term, against their will?
Yep - here we go again!
Your accusations prove nothing, doofus.
Don't blame God for that. Blame Satan for your sociopathic and
delusional hatefulness and bigotry. He just LOVES suckers like you.
Satan means 'slanderer'. So, I think we know who the authority is on that.
You have picked a very appropriate alias for yourself, anonymous
coward. You're as "sad" as a raw burger that's been left out in the
hot sun all afternoon. And you demonstrate about the same levels of
fairness, compassion, and intelligence.
(Whee!)
---
Library of Usenet Madness
http://www.twhi.org/Library/library_usenet_madness.htm
See "Abortion is Your Time Machine" - a Craig Chilton classic!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
21 Jul 2005 08:45:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:03:13 GMT, Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:55:57 GMT,
"Sadburger" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently
defending the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of
your narcissisticly written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I
am so much better than everybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay
attention to me and my written *****!"
I'm delighted at this characterization of my writing. I honestly had no
idea I came across as that coinfident!
"Confident?" LOL!!! Well, at least you had the first *letter* right.
The correct terminology is: "Conceited."
[ ... ]
There's something he'll never be which you've truly embraced, which
also, ironically, commences with that little letter of "c"-- and that
terminology is compassion. COMPASSION. It oozes from your fingertips.
And no, this is not a suck-up.
Errr... I know nothing of Ray ...
I don't know much about Ray, ...
You should have stopped after the first 4 words, in each of those
sentences, and then you'd have been *thoroughly* accurate.
[ ... ]
Indeed.
Yes, I think Chilton is a doofus and Malapert is evil. But this isn't
hate, this is me exercising my own God-given, uncensored power of
moral discernment,
"God"-given?
I thought _that_ was exceedingly funny. In other words, he's full of
***** and he can express as such in this forums. That's all he had to
confirm.
A moral discernment that seeks to, for NO good reason,
hatefully impose abject misery and untold hardship upon MILLIONS of
people by FORCING them to gestate UNwanted reproductive-process
entities to term, against their will?
And think of the harm that will come to those *unwanted* unborns when
they are born--the likes of Diseased Algebra (Sadburger)
won't be there to pay up when their choice has materialized.
Don't blame God for that. Blame Satan for your sociopathic and
delusional hatefulness and bigotry. He just LOVES suckers like you.
No, blame "Sadburger" for being a social retard. Gods or demons are
not responsible for our behavior.
You have picked a very appropriate alias for yourself, anonymous
coward. You're as "sad" as a raw burger that's been left out in the
hot sun all afternoon. And you demonstrate about the same levels of
fairness, compassion, and intelligence.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
21 Jul 2005 09:35:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:45:41 -0400,
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Sadburger" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently
defending the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of
your narcissisticly written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I
am so much better than everybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay
attention to me and my written *****!"
I'm delighted at this characterization of my writing. I honestly had no
idea I came across as that coinfident!
"Confident?" LOL!!! Well, at least you had the first *letter* right.
The correct terminology is: "Conceited."
[ ... ]
There's something he'll never be which you've truly embraced, which
also, ironically, commences with that little letter of "c"-- and that
terminology is compassion. COMPASSION. It oozes from your fingertips.
And no, this is not a suck-up.
Thanks. I believe that compassion is the most important thing Christ
came to teach us, other than how to accept His gift of eternal life with
Him. That's why I regard RRR cultists/bigots to be PSEUDO-Christians
(or in some cases, very sadly, badly deluded ones. They seem to LIVE
to miss the mark on that.
Errr... I know nothing of Ray ...
I don't know much about Ray, ...
You should have stopped after the first 4 words, in each of those
sentences, and then you'd have been *thoroughly* accurate.
Indeed.
Yes, I think Chilton is a doofus and Malapert is evil. But this isn't
hate, this is me exercising my own God-given, uncensored power of
moral discernment,
"God"-given?
I thought _that_ was exceedingly funny. In other words, he's full of
***** and he can express as such in this forums. That's all he had to
confirm.
Yep. He's just like every other RRR cultist, in that regard. If there
are any exceptions, they're exceedingly rare. Most think they're on the
side of god (and vice-versa) while pursuing their agendas of hateful
bigotry. How ironic.
A moral discernment that seeks to, for NO good reason, hatefully
impose abject misery and untold hardship upon MILLIONS of people
by FORCING them to gestate UNwanted reproductive-process
entities to term, against their will?
And think of the harm that will come to those *unwanted* unborns
when they are born--the likes of Diseased Algebra (Sadburger)
won't be there to pay up when their choice has materialized.
Sadly, Anti-Choicers have nothing to lose, personally, when they
wreck the lives of other people. They are SELFISH to the infinite power
factorial.
Don't blame God for that. Blame Satan for your sociopathic and
delusional hatefulness and bigotry. He just LOVES suckers like you.
No, blame "Sadburger" for being a social retard. Gods or demons are
not responsible for our behavior.
"Responsible," no. We have free will. But I believe that both can be
hugely influential in the lives of those who seek what they have to offer.
Unfortunately, there is *nothing* Godly about "Sadburger's" chosen source.
You have picked a very appropriate alias for yourself, anonymous
coward. You're as "sad" as a raw burger that's been left out in the
hot sun all afternoon. And you demonstrate about the same levels of
fairness, compassion, and intelligence.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sgt. America" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
23 Jul 2005 07:21:57 PM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:45:41 -0400,
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Sadburger" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently
defending the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of
your narcissisticly written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I
am so much better than everybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay
attention to me and my written *****!"
I'm delighted at this characterization of my writing. I honestly had no
idea I came across as that coinfident!
"Confident?" LOL!!! Well, at least you had the first *letter* right.
The correct terminology is: "Conceited."
[ ... ]
There's something he'll never be which you've truly embraced, which
also, ironically, commences with that little letter of "c"-- and that
terminology is compassion. COMPASSION. It oozes from your fingertips.
And no, this is not a suck-up.
Thanks. I believe that compassion is the most important thing Christ
came to teach us, other than how to accept His gift of eternal life with
Him. That's why I regard RRR cultists/bigots to be PSEUDO-Christians
(or in some cases, very sadly, badly deluded ones. They seem to LIVE
to miss the mark on that.
Sheeez. What a couple of jerkoffs.
Errr... I know nothing of Ray ...
I don't know much about Ray, ...
You should have stopped after the first 4 words, in each of those
sentences, and then you'd have been *thoroughly* accurate.
Indeed.
Yes, I think Chilton is a doofus and Malapert is evil. But this isn't
hate, this is me exercising my own God-given, uncensored power of
moral discernment,
"God"-given?
I thought _that_ was exceedingly funny. In other words, he's full of
***** and he can express as such in this forums. That's all he had to
confirm.
Yep. He's just like every other RRR cultist, in that regard. If there
are any exceptions, they're exceedingly rare. Most think they're on the
side of god (and vice-versa) while pursuing their agendas of hateful
bigotry. How ironic.
They're not the baby killers, moron:
http://www.aiclancaster.com/p_3dult.htm
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html
A moral discernment that seeks to, for NO good reason, hatefully
impose abject misery and untold hardship upon MILLIONS of people
by FORCING them to gestate UNwanted reproductive-process
entities to term, against their will?
And think of the harm that will come to those *unwanted* unborns
when they are born--the likes of Diseased Algebra (Sadburger)
won't be there to pay up when their choice has materialized.
Sadly, Anti-Choicers have nothing to lose, personally, when they
wreck the lives of other people. They are SELFISH to the infinite power
factorial.
You two masturbatory self-congratulating morally enfeebled morons still at it,
huh.
Don't blame God for that. Blame Satan for your sociopathic and
delusional hatefulness and bigotry. He just LOVES suckers like you.
No, blame "Sadburger" for being a social retard. Gods or demons are
not responsible for our behavior.
"Responsible," no. We have free will. But I believe that both can be
hugely influential in the lives of those who seek what they have to offer.
Unfortunately, there is *nothing* Godly about "Sadburger's" chosen source.
I have two words to say to you: "Craig Chilton"
ROTFLMAO....
---
Library of Usenet Madness
http://www.twhi.org/Library/library_usenet_madness.htm
See "Abortion is Your Time Machine" - a Craig Chilton classic!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
23 Jul 2005 07:35:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:21:57 +1200, "Sgt. America" <fdglkj@dfsfg.dfg>
wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:45:41 -0400,
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Sadburger" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently
defending the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of
your narcissisticly written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I
am so much better than everybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay
attention to me and my written *****!"
I'm delighted at this characterization of my writing. I honestly had no
idea I came across as that coinfident!
"Confident?" LOL!!! Well, at least you had the first *letter* right.
The correct terminology is: "Conceited."
[ ... ]
There's something he'll never be which you've truly embraced, which
also, ironically, commences with that little letter of "c"-- and that
terminology is compassion. COMPASSION. It oozes from your fingertips.
And no, this is not a suck-up.
Thanks. I believe that compassion is the most important thing Christ
came to teach us, other than how to accept His gift of eternal life with
Him. That's why I regard RRR cultists/bigots to be PSEUDO-Christians
(or in some cases, very sadly, badly deluded ones. They seem to LIVE
to miss the mark on that.
Sheeez. What a couple of jerkoffs.
Nosperm (Nospam), you're a notorious woman hater and ignoramous. Get
fucked and leave true human beings, along.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
23 Jul 2005 07:40:02 PM |
|
|
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote in message
news:meo5e1pashfklieue5g1udapninue43qbb@4ax.com...
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:21:57 +1200, "Sgt. America" <fdglkj@dfsfg.dfg>
wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:45:41 -0400,
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Sadburger" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently
defending the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of
your narcissisticly written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I
am so much better than everybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay
attention to me and my written *****!"
I'm delighted at this characterization of my writing. I
honestly had no
idea I came across as that coinfident!
"Confident?" LOL!!! Well, at least you had the first *letter*
right.
The correct terminology is: "Conceited."
[ ... ]
There's something he'll never be which you've truly embraced,
which
also, ironically, commences with that little letter of "c"-- and that
terminology is compassion. COMPASSION. It oozes from your fingertips.
And no, this is not a suck-up.
Thanks. I believe that compassion is the most important thing
Christ
came to teach us, other than how to accept His gift of eternal life with
Him. That's why I regard RRR cultists/bigots to be PSEUDO-Christians
(or in some cases, very sadly, badly deluded ones. They seem to LIVE
to miss the mark on that.
Sheeez. What a couple of jerkoffs.
Nosperm (Nospam), you're a notorious woman hater and ignoramous. Get
fucked and leave true human beings, along.
You aren't suggesting chilton is a human, are you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
21 Jul 2005 10:00:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:35:28 GMT, Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:45:41 -0400,
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Sadburger" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently
defending the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of
your narcissisticly written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I
am so much better than everybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay
attention to me and my written *****!"
I'm delighted at this characterization of my writing. I honestly had no
idea I came across as that coinfident!
"Confident?" LOL!!! Well, at least you had the first *letter* right.
The correct terminology is: "Conceited."
[ ... ]
There's something he'll never be which you've truly embraced, which
also, ironically, commences with that little letter of "c"-- and that
terminology is compassion. COMPASSION. It oozes from your fingertips.
And no, this is not a suck-up.
Thanks.
I sincerely meant every word of what I espoused.
I believe that compassion is the most important thing Christ
came to teach us, other than how to accept His gift of eternal life with
Him. That's why I regard RRR cultists/bigots to be PSEUDO-Christians
(or in some cases, very sadly, badly deluded ones. They seem to LIVE
to miss the mark on that.
Yet, you wish those people no harm! That's what separates you from the
extremists of any group that don't care.
Errr... I know nothing of Ray ...
I don't know much about Ray, ...
You should have stopped after the first 4 words, in each of those
sentences, and then you'd have been *thoroughly* accurate.
Indeed.
Yes, I think Chilton is a doofus and Malapert is evil. But this isn't
hate, this is me exercising my own God-given, uncensored power of
moral discernment,
"God"-given?
I thought _that_ was exceedingly funny. In other words, he's full of
***** and he can express as such in this forums. That's all he had to
confirm.
Yep. He's just like every other RRR cultist, in that regard. If there
are any exceptions, they're exceedingly rare. Most think they're on the
side of god (and vice-versa) while pursuing their agendas of hateful
bigotry. How ironic.
And yet the people who are truly fighting for the basic betterment of
others are the champions of their cause who don't need God to
reinforce their point.
A moral discernment that seeks to, for NO good reason, hatefully
impose abject misery and untold hardship upon MILLIONS of people
by FORCING them to gestate UNwanted reproductive-process
entities to term, against their will?
And think of the harm that will come to those *unwanted* unborns
when they are born--the likes of Diseased Algebra (Sadburger)
won't be there to pay up when their choice has materialized.
Sadly, Anti-Choicers have nothing to lose, personally, when they
wreck the lives of other people. They are SELFISH to the infinite power
factorial.
Craig--this is where I will disagree. It may hurt the rest of us with
what they're trying to enforce, but they go down as well--eventually.
Don't blame God for that. Blame Satan for your sociopathic and
delusional hatefulness and bigotry. He just LOVES suckers like you.
No, blame "Sadburger" for being a social retard. Gods or demons are
not responsible for our behavior.
"Responsible," no. We have free will. But I believe that both can be
hugely influential in the lives of those who seek what they have to offer.
If you're the religious sort, yes. The rest of us have a natural
inclination to discern between what is perceptually right and wrong
and the gray matter (which is in excess) is left to figure out -- we
don't require the influence of any deity or ghoul to make those
choices.
Sadburger is obviously ignorant or apathetic towards the experiences
of this magnitude. It takes an adult, one with a discernable clue, to
extend any concern and understanding for the suffering of others from
within their person.
Unfortunately, there is *nothing* Godly about "Sadburger's" chosen source.
Sadburger chose to be an idiot.
You have picked a very appropriate alias for yourself, anonymous
coward. You're as "sad" as a raw burger that's been left out in the
hot sun all afternoon. And you demonstrate about the same levels of
fairness, compassion, and intelligence.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sadburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
22 Jul 2005 01:12:55 PM |
|
|
In article <t1dvd1lkttaf3n14rtsip9pvep7nchkmji@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:35:28 GMT, Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Thanks.
I sincerely meant every word of what I espoused.
Ever get that sinking feeling when you start to realize the person you
were debating is illiterate?
I believe that compassion is the most important thing Christ
came to teach us, other than how to accept His gift of eternal life with
Him. That's why I regard RRR cultists/bigots to be PSEUDO-Christians
(or in some cases, very sadly, badly deluded ones. They seem to LIVE
to miss the mark on that.
Yet, you wish those people no harm! That's what separates you from the
extremists of any group that don't care.
Uh oh... it's another morale meeting for the pro-choicers. "That mean
pro-lifer said mean things about us... but we still rock, right?
Sadly, Anti-Choicers have nothing to lose, personally, when they
wreck the lives of other people. They are SELFISH to the infinite power
factorial.
Craig--this is where I will disagree. It may hurt the rest of us with
what they're trying to enforce, but they go down as well--eventually.
It figures that the one disagreement pro-choicers would allow themselves
to have would concern the exact *nature* of pro-lifers' horribleness.
Let's hope this "tastes great/less filling" disagreement slowly unravels
the whole movement from the inside.
"Responsible," no. We have free will. But I believe that both can be
hugely influential in the lives of those who seek what they have to offer.
If you're the religious sort, yes. The rest of us have a natural
inclination to discern between what is perceptually right and wrong
and the gray matter (which is in excess) is left to figure out -- we
don't require the influence of any deity or ghoul to make those
choices.
Actually, it would appear that grey matter is in severe shortage.
Sadburger is obviously ignorant or apathetic towards the experiences
of this magnitude. It takes an adult, one with a discernable clue, to
extend any concern and understanding for the suffering of others from
within their person.
Unfortunately, there is *nothing* Godly about "Sadburger's" chosen source.
Sadburger chose to be an idiot.
Tell me something... why is it necessary for pro-choicers to constantly
*congratulate* eachother? Why is it necessary for them to constantly
reassure themselves that they are right and that pro-lifers are bad,
stupid, controlling, woman-hating, &c.? I can't name any other political
movement that is fueled on this much self-reassurance and
self-congratulation, nor can I name any other political movement whose
entire argument depends so centrally on the villainy of the 'them'. At the
same time, something that strikes me about most pro-lifers is a certain
capacity for self-deprecating humor notably absent in pro-choicers. It's
almost as if, by deferring the superhuman task of deciding life and death,
we're unburdened of the constant chore of having to pretend to possess
superhuman judgement.
Perhaps, also, the anger and venom directed at pro-lifers isn't by virtue
of their political opposition, but by virtue of the philopsophical problem
posed by their very existance-- how can we believe in our capacity for
superhuman judgement when so many are stupid enough to refuse the idea?
The 'extinction' of pro-lifers would make it all much tidier, although the
trivialization of intent in something like "pro-lifers just want to
control women's bodies' is its own form of nihilation (naturally, in doing
so they project their own quality of superhuman control on pro-lifers.)
Still another possibility-- there is nothing showy or spectacular about
being pro-life, it is uncomplicated and direct-- killing a human being is
killing a human being. On the other hand, it's trickier to negotiate that
channel that starts with defending human rights and bodily autonomy and
ends with rationalizing killing. I imagine I would congratulate myself,
too, if I could pull off a feat of moral gymnastics like that.
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
22 Jul 2005 02:08:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:12:55 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
In article <t1dvd1lkttaf3n14rtsip9pvep7nchkmji@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:35:28 GMT, Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Thanks.
I sincerely meant every word of what I espoused.
Ever get that sinking feeling when you start to realize the person you
were debating is illiterate?
Ever get the feeling that somebody who deems himself so literate
*he* needs an excess of many words for a concept which requires only
but a senetence to explain?
People make errors. Yours are just bigger.
I believe that compassion is the most important thing Christ
came to teach us, other than how to accept His gift of eternal life with
Him. That's why I regard RRR cultists/bigots to be PSEUDO-Christians
(or in some cases, very sadly, badly deluded ones. They seem to LIVE
to miss the mark on that.
Yet, you wish those people no harm! That's what separates you from the
extremists of any group that don't care.
Uh oh... it's another morale meeting for the pro-choicers. "That mean
pro-lifer said mean things about us... but we still rock, right?
Ray can compose in a handful of words what you need several lines
of text to express, and you still are unable to make a worthwhile
point other than to chatisize Ray and everybody else who doesn't suck
your Pro-Life *****.
[...]
"Responsible," no. We have free will. But I believe that both can be
hugely influential in the lives of those who seek what they have to offer.
If you're the religious sort, yes. The rest of us have a natural
inclination to discern between what is perceptually right and wrong
and the gray matter (which is in excess) is left to figure out -- we
don't require the influence of any deity or ghoul to make those
choices.
Actually, it would appear that grey matter is in severe shortage.
Only a narrow idiot would think so.
Sadburger is obviously ignorant or apathetic towards the experiences
of this magnitude. It takes an adult, one with a discernable clue, to
extend any concern and understanding for the suffering of others from
within their person.
Unfortunately, there is *nothing* Godly about "Sadburger's" chosen source.
Sadburger chose to be an idiot.
Tell me something... why is it necessary for pro-choicers to constantly
*congratulate* eachother?
You know what they say about *men* who chase excess, right? ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
22 Jul 2005 02:15:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:12:55 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
In article <t1dvd1lkttaf3n14rtsip9pvep7nchkmji@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:35:28 GMT, Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Thanks.
I sincerely meant every word of what I espoused.
Ever get that sinking feeling when you start to realize the person you
were debating is illiterate?
Ever get the feeling that somebody who deems himself so literate
needs an excess of many words for a concept which requires only a few
words to express?
People make errors. Yours are just bigger.
I believe that compassion is the most important thing Christ
came to teach us, other than how to accept His gift of eternal life with
Him. That's why I regard RRR cultists/bigots to be PSEUDO-Christians
(or in some cases, very sadly, badly deluded ones. They seem to LIVE
to miss the mark on that.
Yet, you wish those people no harm! That's what separates you from the
extremists of any group that don't care.
Uh oh... it's another morale meeting for the pro-choicers. "That mean
pro-lifer said mean things about us... but we still rock, right?
Ray can compose in a handful of words what you need lines and lines
and lines and lines and lines and lines of text to express, and you
still are unable to make a worthwhile point other than to chastise Ray
and everybody else who doesn't suck your Pro-Life *****.
[...]
"Responsible," no. We have free will. But I believe that both can be
hugely influential in the lives of those who seek what they have to offer.
If you're the religious sort, yes. The rest of us have a natural
inclination to discern between what is perceptually right and wrong
and the gray matter (which is in excess) is left to figure out -- we
don't require the influence of any deity or ghoul to make those
choices.
Actually, it would appear that grey matter is in severe shortage.
Only a narrow idiot would think so.
Sadburger is obviously ignorant or apathetic towards the experiences
of this magnitude. It takes an adult, one with a discernable clue, to
extend any concern and understanding for the suffering of others from
within their person.
Unfortunately, there is *nothing* Godly about "Sadburger's" chosen source.
Sadburger chose to be an idiot.
Tell me something... why is it necessary for pro-choicers to constantly
*congratulate* eachother?
You know what they say about *men* who chase excess, right? ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer, Chilton, Malapert, revisited |
21 Jul 2005 05:38:37 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:55:57 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
In article <jcgrd11sjrqua1vlqjcn8787fmgl716b1m@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
Ray cuts to the chase, without the frills, whilst vehemently defending
the rights of people, which is painfully absent in ALL of your
narcissisticly written monlogues: "Oh, I am so Pro-Life and I am so
much better than aeverybody who's Pro-Choice--Pay attention to me and
my written *****!"
I'm delighted at this characterization of my writing. I honestly had no
idea I came across as that coinfident!
No, you came across as a an embarassingly flustering
Bozo with a bone to pick. THAT image is scary.
[...]
Your countless lines of disdain for a man whom you greatly envy,
apparently. If he was not but a worthless bug on the pavement, you'd
have stepped on it without offering it the time of day.
Errr... envious of Ray!?! I know nothing of Ray...
Yet you have so much to say. If you haven't noticed, he is impervious
to your *****.
Sheesh--you gave the time of day to both Malapert and Chilton on your
website, while castagating these two of USENET's kindest and more
democratic of all Pro-Choicers posting, viciously attributing their
names to your hate-laced screed.
Hold up... you criticize *my* "agonizing and unnecessarily prolonged
rants with marginal content,"
Yes.
but defend CHILTON!?!
Yes, but at least he's genuinely defending people's rights, though
Ray does so more compactly.
I intentionally singled out Chilton and Malapert as kind of Janus-masks
of the pro-choice movement--
Absolutely. They represent what is good of the movement.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
20 Jul 2005 07:18:12 AM |
|
|
Sneekers <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote in
news:jcgrd11sjrqua1vlqjcn8787fmgl716b1m@4ax.com:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:39:17 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
Sheesh--you gave the time of day to both Malapert and Chilton on your
website, while castagating these two of USENET's kindest and more
democratic of all Pro-Choicers posting, viciously attributing their
names to your hate-laced screed.
people like sadburger need to demonize their adversaries privately, such as
on a web site they control, because they are not sufficiently competent to
debate them in public newsgroups.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
19 Jul 2005 10:26:47 PM |
|
|
Sadburger <> wrote:
Sneekers
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:39:14 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
Do you think people are interested in your bilous one-liners containing
absolutely zero informational content?
To answer you succintly--YES. Otherwise, your bilious, agonizingly
(and unnecessarily) prolonged rants
So who are these people "interested" in what Ray has to say? Most of the
time he's ignored, and what he says is tremendously predictable (that was
my point with this thread... anybody can do what Ray does. You don't even
have to be pro-choice to do at least as good a job as he does.)
No, my posts aren't bilious... compare my posts and Ray's side-to-side
and the differences should be readily apparent.
You depend upon falsehoods, hypocrisy, and a complete lack of morals.
You rationalize terrorism, justify it with fictions, and excuse
yourself from the consequences of your own rules.
Notably absent is any justification for treating people like
criminals and forcing them into abject servitude.
For instance, I actually
try to *engage* opposing viewpoints in my posts- to consider both sides of
the issue- rather than just demonizing my opponent.
LOL! This entire thread is nothing but you resorting to a childish ad
hominem. There's no engagement. It's the usual whining that people
won't blindly accept your immoral ideology.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
19 Jul 2005 10:16:43 PM |
|
|
Sadburger <> wrote:
In article <rtmpd191n02dmnohamk54e5em4il4kghj3@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:39:14 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
Do you think people are interested in your bilous one-liners containing
absolutely zero informational content?
To answer you succintly--YES. Otherwise, your bilious, agonizingly
(and unnecessarily) prolonged rants
So who are these people "interested" in what Ray has to say? Most of the
time he's ignored, and what he says is tremendously predictable (that was
my point with this thread... anybody can do what Ray does. You don't even
have to be pro-choice to do at least as good a job as he does.)
No, my posts aren't bilious... compare my posts and Ray's side-to-side
and the differences should be readily apparent.
You depends upon falsehood, hypocrisy, and a complete lack of morals.
You rationalize terrorism, justify it with fictions, and excuse
yourself from the consequences of your own crap.
For instance, I actually
try to *engage* opposing viewpoints in my posts- to consider both sides of
the issue- rather than just demonizing my opponent.
LOL! This entire thread is nothing but you resorting to a childish ad
hominem. There's no engagement. It's the usual whining that people
won't blindly accept your immoral ideology.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz! |
19 Jul 2005 10:41:27 PM |
|
|
Sadburger wrote:
In article <rtmpd191n02dmnohamk54e5em4il4kghj3@4ax.com>, Sneekers
<coadviolators@mail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:39:14 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
Do you think people are interested in your bilous one-liners containi=
ng
absolutely zero informational content?
To answer you succintly--YES. Otherwise, your bilious, agonizingly
(and unnecessarily) prolonged rants
So who are these people "interested" in what Ray has to say? Most of the
time he's ignored, and what he says is tremendously predictable (that was
my point with this thread... anybody can do what Ray does. You don't even
have to be pro-choice to do at least as good a job as he does.)
No, my posts aren't bilious... compare my posts and Ray's side-to-side
and the differences should be readily apparent. For instance, I actually
try to *engage* opposing viewpoints in my posts- to consider both sides of
the issue- rather than just demonizing my opponent.
(And yes, the fact that "demonization" is one of Ray's stock dismissals
is one of those ridiculous ironies somebody would point out to Ray if he
could wrap his mind around something like irony. It's as ironic as Ray
claiming an "appeal to authority fallacy" whenever anybody reposts a
scientific article despite the fact he reposts the same "The Myth of
Post-Abortion Syndrome" article over and over. As ironic as him claiming
pro-lifers don't "understand science" when he continually offers his own
pet theories as fact to account for the results of scientific studies
when- if he bothered to read them correctly- he'd know his alternate
interpretation had been anticipated and corrected-for in the study's
methodology. As ironic as him claiming pro-lifers "hate" when he is the
purest source of white-hot hatred I've encountered on usenet. I have
hesitations about calling his "propaganda" dismissals ironic, since I
honestly have no idea what he thinks the term means.)
Not that any pro-choicers around here are going to call him on it.
Apparently they're afraid that admitting that any other pro-choicer is
anything less than a genius would be a fatal admission of weakness on
their part. That's why they're still batting around those same hoary
40-year-old clich=E9s-- originality could be construed as abandonment of
principle.
(with marginal content, other than
lines and lines of noted hate) would garner more attention--but
posters aren't interested in them.
Ummmm... "noted hate"!?! What the ***** does that mean? What have I ever
said that's hateful? I mean, being as how it's noted and all, it should be
pretty easy to find. Unlike Ray, I'm trying to effect a transformation of
the way the abortion issue is understood, I'm trying to create "A-Ha!"
moments for the reader where they suddenly see the issue in a new light.
Whether or not I succeed or fail, at least I'm *trying*. And with a few
exceptions I don't think my posts go to unnessecary length; by the same
token I wouldn't dare think that the issue could be "solved" in one or two
vitriolic sentences posted over and over in minor variations.
Seriously, this is abortion, we should all know this is the thorniest of
issues. What could a person possibly say about abortion in one or two
sentences that would be worth saying at all, never mind repeated five
thousand times?
Once again, "Bravo!" Sadburger. Extremely well done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sadburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Take the "I Want to Win a Date with Ray Fischer" Quiz!</ | | | | | | | | |
