| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
02 Sep 2007 12:46:14 PM |
| Object: |
Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/08/aborting_women.php
Aborting Women Are So Decieved
The other day I saw part of a Frontline documentary, linked to here by
my new friend Jill Stanek. It was about abortion, made in 1983. On
Jill's post, there is an explanation as well as two large photo links
to the movie clips which show the woman while she is getting an
abortion.
I clicked the second one, where Jill noted the woman, Helen, had more
problems and apprehension about the abortion. I watched as she was led
into the room where she was to kill her baby--and she was led by a
very nice looking woman. A woman whom I'd gladly converse with under
any normal circumstance.
The look on the Helen's face as she got ready for the abortion was one
of obvious nervousness. She smiled and giggled the way we all do when
we are embarrassed about being embarrassed. She lay on the table alone
while the nurse fetched the "doctor". They prepped Helen and got ready
to give her the abortion.
Going through my mind as I am watching this was the realization that,
firstly, this woman is getting ready to kill her baby. I am actually
watching it happen on TV. No one was doing anything to stop it. The
PBS cameramen were just doing another day at work, apparently.
She spread her legs in the same fashion as she would if she were
giving birth, and the abortionist prepared her cervix. The camera
panned to Helen's face to show what was going on with her as she goes
through with the violent act of killing her baby.
And I turned it off. I couldn't bear to watch it. Me, who has seen a
recent video of an abortion from the baby's point of view. Me, who has
stood before graphic pictures of abortion on the most liberal block in
all of Oregon talking to people who think that they know what's good
for women: killing children. Me, who offers the view to all who come
to his website to see these horrible pictures.
I couldn't bear to watch the pain this woman would go through. She was
so deceived. My compassion for her was so great tat I couldn't bear to
see her in pain as she made the biggest mistake in her life.
As Jill said, "[The film] has not been far from the front of my mind
since. I'm angry all over again. Abortion is so incredibly vile."
These are exactly my thoughts, and I couldn't stomach watching the
entire film. In some ways I think that even the small portion of this
film that I watched was much more effective than seeing the baby after
he has been slaughtered.
Abortion deceives women. The pro-choice movement deceives women.
Abortion must be defended with dishonesty on every front, and it has
been since 1973. The pro-choice advocates and feminists who defend it
as a basic right are deluded beyond deluded if they cannot admit the
dishonesty in their movement.
Perhaps someday I will be able to watch the film. Until then, I will
simply continue to pray for the children in danger of being killed,
and pray for the women of our nation who are being deceived by those
who seek the blood of children to be spilled.
.
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
04 Sep 2007 03:22:56 PM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
The more charges the state of SC can bring you to trial for,
The State of South Carolina has nothing against me.
...except a few indictments for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest,
assaulting a police officer, hit and run, speeding/driving too fast for
conditions...
It is only disgruntled types who fail to observe the laws of the State I
reside in.
You're definitely disgruntled, by your own words.
the more likely you are to become very familiar with Bubba and his penis,
for a very long time.
See how you expose yourself as someone who has evil intent in their heart
against others? What you going to do when your wicked desires against others
go against you?
Given your latest fiasco, what are YOU going to do when that happens to you?
Do your neighbors a favor and just enter a guilty plea for all the charges.
That'll save your state a sizable chunk of change.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patr...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
04 Sep 2007 08:06:55 PM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188937376.376671.282300@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
What threat?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
04 Sep 2007 09:31:58 PM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 9:06 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188937376.376671.282300@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
What threat?
That's it, play stupid now...
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 09:06:42 AM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188959518.250784.42240@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 9:06 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188937376.376671.282300@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
What threat?
That's it, play stupid now...
Like you?
Your failure to produce any threat on my part shows me to be playing stupid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 10:09:43 AM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 10:06 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188959518.250784.42240@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 9:06 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188937376.376671.282300@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
What threat?
That's it, play stupid now...
Like you?
Your failure to produce any threat on my part shows me to be playing stupid?
The threat is in this very thread. Your inability to recognize it is
probably part of the problem that has lead to the numerous criminal
charges being files against you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 12:35:16 PM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189004983.151231.299020@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 10:06 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188959518.250784.42240@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 9:06 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188937376.376671.282300@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such
as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
What threat?
That's it, play stupid now...
Like you?
Your failure to produce any threat on my part shows me to be playing
stupid?
The threat is in this very thread. Your inability to recognize it is
probably part of the problem that has lead to the numerous criminal
charges being files against you.
There is no threat in this thread made by me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 01:20:41 PM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 1:35 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189004983.151231.299020@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 10:06 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188959518.250784.42240@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 9:06 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188937376.376671.282300@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such
as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
What threat?
That's it, play stupid now...
Like you?
Your failure to produce any threat on my part shows me to be playing
stupid?
The threat is in this very thread. Your inability to recognize it is
probably part of the problem that has lead to the numerous criminal
charges being files against you.
There is no threat in this thread made by me.
LOL!!! Just like you claim all the current charges against you are
false. Just like you claim you weren't guilty of indecent exposure,
but plead guilty anyhow. You see, you have a history of not
understanding the law, which is why you once again find yourself in a
position where you may be spending more time in prison.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 04:18:06 PM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189016441.997437.74200@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 1:35 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189004983.151231.299020@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 10:06 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188959518.250784.42240@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 9:06 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188937376.376671.282300@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers
such
as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now
I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
What threat?
That's it, play stupid now...
Like you?
Your failure to produce any threat on my part shows me to be playing
stupid?
The threat is in this very thread. Your inability to recognize it is
probably part of the problem that has lead to the numerous criminal
charges being files against you.
There is no threat in this thread made by me.
LOL!!!
Can't produce it, huh?
Just like you claim all the current charges against you are
false.
Why should I be concerned about your opinion?
Should I waste my time posting the pertinent statutes again to someone who
is so prejudiced against me?
Just like you claim you weren't guilty of indecent exposure,
but plead guilty anyhow.
1996 is somehow the current year to you it seems.
You see, you have a history of not understanding the law,
A real lie.
which is why you once again find yourself in a
position where you may be spending more time in prison.
Not understanding the law, which really isn't a problem of mine, isn't
something that sends people to prison.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 08:13:12 PM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 5:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189016441.997437.74200@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 1:35 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189004983.151231.299020@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 10:06 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188959518.250784.42240@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 9:06 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188937376.376671.282300@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers
such
as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now
I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
What threat?
That's it, play stupid now...
Like you?
Your failure to produce any threat on my part shows me to be playing
stupid?
The threat is in this very thread. Your inability to recognize it is
probably part of the problem that has lead to the numerous criminal
charges being files against you.
There is no threat in this thread made by me.
LOL!!!
Can't produce it, huh?
Can't see it, huh? It's there.
Just like you claim all the current charges against you are
false.
Why should I be concerned about your opinion?
Should I waste my time posting the pertinent statutes again to someone who
is so prejudiced against me?
Then stop responding. By the way, why should I waste my time showing
you your threat when you are prejudiced against me?
Just like you claim you weren't guilty of indecent exposure,
but plead guilty anyhow.
1996 is somehow the current year to you it seems.
How does that change the fact that you claim you weren't guilty, but
plead guilty anyway?
Free clue: it doesn't.
Besides, you continue to ***** about RvW and that happened it 1973.
Is 1973 today?
You see, you have a history of not understanding the law,
A real lie.
Then why do you continue to break the law?
which is why you once again find yourself in a
position where you may be spending more time in prison.
Not understanding the law, which really isn't a problem of mine, isn't
something that sends people to prison.-
You'll find out at your trial.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 08:31:50 PM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189041192.308785.187560@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 5:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Why should I be concerned about your opinion?
Should I waste my time posting the pertinent statutes again to someone
who
is so prejudiced against me?
Then stop responding. By the way, why should I waste my time showing
you your threat when you are prejudiced against me?
In what way am I prejudiced against you?
Besides, you continue to ***** about RvW and that happened it 1973.
Is 1973 today?
The issue of roevwade is one of constitutional authority and representative
government.
The Xth Amendment disallowed the USSC's decision.
The legislative process was usurped by a roe court.
Maybe you forgot much of the events of that time.
Watergate was being hyped on television to detract the nation's attention
from roevwade at the time.
The secrecy of roevwade falls down when measured by legal requirements.
You see, you have a history of not understanding the law,
A real lie.
Then why do you continue to break the law?
Who said I broke the law?
Not understanding the law, which really isn't a problem of mine, isn't
something that sends people to prison.-
You'll find out at your trial.
Putting people on trial when they didn't commit any crimes is your
deepthroat agenda, huh?
How about finding someone else to pick on other than pro-lifers and those
who are not pro-gay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 09:09:54 PM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 9:31 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189041192.308785.187560@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 5:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Why should I be concerned about your opinion?
Should I waste my time posting the pertinent statutes again to someone
who
is so prejudiced against me?
Then stop responding. By the way, why should I waste my time showing
you your threat when you are prejudiced against me?
In what way am I prejudiced against you?
Several. You accuse me of making porno films, whoring around with
women, and various other accusations - some of which are below. Care
to tell me how that's NOT prejudiced?
Besides, you continue to ***** about RvW and that happened it 1973.
Is 1973 today?
The issue of roevwade is one of constitutional authority and representative
government.
The Xth Amendment disallowed the USSC's decision.
The legislative process was usurped by a roe court.
Maybe you forgot much of the events of that time.
Watergate was being hyped on television to detract the nation's attention
from roevwade at the time.
The secrecy of roevwade falls down when measured by legal requirements.
You didn't answer the question, is 1973 today?
You see, you have a history of not understanding the law,
A real lie.
Then why do you continue to break the law?
Who said I broke the law?
The state of SC...
And, you of course, when you pleadguilty to indecent exposure.
Not understanding the law, which really isn't a problem of mine, isn't
something that sends people to prison.-
You'll find out at your trial.
Putting people on trial when they didn't commit any crimes is your
deepthroat agenda, huh?
There's that prejudice you have against me...
Besides, that's how the system works, *****. The trial determines
if you are guilty. How else does the system determine that you've
committed no crimes unless you are brought to trial, evidence
presented and then a jury decision.
How about finding someone else to pick on other than pro-lifers and those
who are not pro-gay?
More prejudice against me?
LOL!!! Again, you rant about *****. This has nothing to do with
being pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay or anti-gay. This is about you,
your threat and the current criminal charges against you - NOTHING
ELSE. Did you get that through your thick head?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
06 Sep 2007 09:55:53 AM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189044594.206777.301680@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 9:31 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189041192.308785.187560@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 5:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Why should I be concerned about your opinion?
Should I waste my time posting the pertinent statutes again to someone
who
is so prejudiced against me?
Then stop responding. By the way, why should I waste my time showing
you your threat when you are prejudiced against me?
In what way am I prejudiced against you?
Several. You accuse me of making porno films, whoring around with
women, and various other accusations - some of which are below. Care
to tell me how that's NOT prejudiced?
Are you sure I directly accused you of those things?
And, if I am prejudiced against such acts, how does that attribute any stain
to me?
Besides, you continue to ***** about RvW and that happened it 1973.
Is 1973 today?
The issue of roevwade is one of constitutional authority and
representative
government.
The Xth Amendment disallowed the USSC's decision.
The legislative process was usurped by a roe court.
Maybe you forgot much of the events of that time.
Watergate was being hyped on television to detract the nation's attention
from roevwade at the time.
The secrecy of roevwade falls down when measured by legal requirements.
You didn't answer the question, is 1973 today?
What is the relevance to the legal requirements in the USA in any matter?
You see, you have a history of not understanding the law,
A real lie.
Then why do you continue to break the law?
Who said I broke the law?
The state of SC...
When?
The State of South Carolina isn't set up to be against the people of SC.
Seems to me you are a paranoid New York NASD thief who can't stand the truth
being told about your felonies.
And, you of course, when you pleadguilty to indecent exposure.
What does that matter in the USA?
The prohibition aganst double jepopardy and the statute of limitations and
the sentence absolved me of any guilt whatsoever with regard to that charge,
even if it were true.
How many more times are you going to bring up something that is in error?
Not understanding the law, which really isn't a problem of mine, isn't
something that sends people to prison.-
You'll find out at your trial.
Putting people on trial when they didn't commit any crimes is your
deepthroat agenda, huh?
There's that prejudice you have against me...
That I am not for deepthroat treason?
Any US Citizen should be against deepthroat treason.
Besides, that's how the system works, *****.
The system works by putting deepthroat treason allies down.
The trial determines if you are guilty. How else does the system
determine that you've
committed no crimes unless you are brought to trial, evidence
presented and then a jury decision.
By not putting a person on trial.
There is no need for a trial in matters where the charges can not be proven.
How about finding someone else to pick on other than pro-lifers and those
who are not pro-gay?
More prejudice against me?
Prejudice against you?
LOL!!! Again, you rant about *****. This has nothing to do with
being pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay or anti-gay.
Trying to dodge the law won't help you.
This is about you,
Only in your prejudiced, anti-law, criminal mind.
your threat
What threat, paranoid loser?
and the current criminal charges against you - NOTHING
ELSE.
Still trying to intimidate people against their right to freedom of speech?
Did you get that through your thick head?
I know more than you, I am smarter than you, and I am NOT GUILTY.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
06 Sep 2007 10:09:35 AM |
|
|
On Sep 6, 10:55 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189044594.206777.301680@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 9:31 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189041192.308785.187560@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 5:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Why should I be concerned about your opinion?
Should I waste my time posting the pertinent statutes again to someone
who
is so prejudiced against me?
Then stop responding. By the way, why should I waste my time showing
you your threat when you are prejudiced against me?
In what way am I prejudiced against you?
Several. You accuse me of making porno films, whoring around with
women, and various other accusations - some of which are below. Care
to tell me how that's NOT prejudiced?
Are you sure I directly accused you of those things?
Yes, you accuse anyone who's pro-choice of those things, and many
more.
And, if I am prejudiced against such acts, how does that attribute any stain
to me?
I'm talking about your prejudice towards people.
Besides, you continue to ***** about RvW and that happened it 1973.
Is 1973 today?
The issue of roevwade is one of constitutional authority and
representative
government.
The Xth Amendment disallowed the USSC's decision.
The legislative process was usurped by a roe court.
Maybe you forgot much of the events of that time.
Watergate was being hyped on television to detract the nation's attention
from roevwade at the time.
The secrecy of roevwade falls down when measured by legal requirements.
You didn't answer the question, is 1973 today?
What is the relevance to the legal requirements in the USA in any matter?
You still didn't answer the question.
You see, you have a history of not understanding the law,
A real lie.
Then why do you continue to break the law?
Who said I broke the law?
The state of SC...
When?
Several months ago, and just recently. You were there but don't
remember? LOL!!!
The State of South Carolina isn't set up to be against the people of SC.
Seems to me you are a paranoid New York NASD thief who can't stand the truth
being told about your felonies.
There's more of that prejudice. You just can't help showing it.
And, you of course, when you pleadguilty to indecent exposure.
What does that matter in the USA?
It answers your question of "When did you break the law", dipshit. If
you don't like the answers, stop asking.
The prohibition aganst double jepopardy and the statute of limitations and
the sentence absolved me of any guilt whatsoever with regard to that charge,
even if it were true.
How many more times are you going to bring up something that is in error?
You admitted you plead guilty, there is no error.
Not understanding the law, which really isn't a problem of mine, isn't
something that sends people to prison.-
You'll find out at your trial.
Putting people on trial when they didn't commit any crimes is your
deepthroat agenda, huh?
There's that prejudice you have against me...
That I am not for deepthroat treason?
Any US Citizen should be against deepthroat treason.
That's not even what I'm talking about. Either get your ***** together
or maybe you should go play somewhere else.
Besides, that's how the system works, *****.
The system works by putting deepthroat treason allies down.
The trial determines if you are guilty. How else does the system
determine that you've
committed no crimes unless you are brought to trial, evidence
presented and then a jury decision.
By not putting a person on trial.
There is no need for a trial in matters where the charges can not be proven.
Which should give you a big clue as to how you trial is likely to turn
out.
How about finding someone else to pick on other than pro-lifers and those
who are not pro-gay?
More prejudice against me?
Prejudice against you?
Yep. Did I stutter when I wrote it?
LOL!!! Again, you rant about *****. This has nothing to do with
being pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay or anti-gay.
Trying to dodge the law won't help you.
That's some funny *****, given the current charges pending against you,
when I have none.
This is about you,
Only in your prejudiced, anti-law, criminal mind.
Given the pending criminal charges against you, and your guilty plea
to indecent exposure, you're the only one here with a "anti-law,
criminal mind"
your threat
What threat, paranoid loser?
The one you refuse to see.
and the current criminal charges against you - NOTHING
ELSE.
Still trying to intimidate people against their right to freedom of speech?
Never. And, you can't show where I've ever tried to deny anyone there
freedom of speech. This is just another one of your *****, insane
rants that you pull out of your ***** when the truth has beaten you.
Did you get that through your thick head?
I know more than you, I am smarter than you, and I am NOT GUILTY.
LOL!!! But somehow, I've never managed to spend time in prison for
indecent exposure and I don't have several criminal charges pending
against me that will likely put me in jail, but you do. Yes, Johnny,
you're obviously the smarter one. </sarcasm for the sarcasm impaired>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 08:05:08 AM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 10:31 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 9:06 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188937376.376671.282300@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
What threat?
That's it, play stupid now...
What makes you think that he is playing?
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gwenyth Bennet" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 08:15:14 AM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 8:05 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:31 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 9:06 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188937376.376671.282300@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
What threat?
That's it, play stupid now...
What makes you think that he is playing?
Wentzky is emotionally imbalanced...but he isn't stupid.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
04 Sep 2007 07:51:54 PM |
|
|
Pr0r3p <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
He'll likely never be able to figure that out. I suspect he won't be in court
very long when his date is set. (If I'm lucky enough, it'll be while I'm
visiting my family, and his county is about a five-hour drive from where I'd
be staying.) Even if it isn't, I think justice will be fairly quickly served
- the real possibility exists that at his first pre-trial hearing, he might
get sent to the state hospital for treatment.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
04 Sep 2007 08:08:41 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodgindcl.fsf@eris.io.com...
Pr0r3p <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
He'll likely never be able to figure that out. I suspect he won't be in
court
very long when his date is set. (If I'm lucky enough, it'll be while I'm
visiting my family, and his county is about a five-hour drive from where
I'd
be staying.) Even if it isn't, I think justice will be fairly quickly
served
- the real possibility exists that at his first pre-trial hearing, he
might
get sent to the state hospital for treatment.
Because you can't read english by those who aren't pro-choice or pro-gay
without shitting your pants?
Because your paranoia requires committing crimes against those who are not
pro-choice or pro-gay?
Shaddup, loser.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
04 Sep 2007 10:11:05 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodgindcl.fsf@eris.io.com...
Pr0r3p <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
He'll likely never be able to figure that out. I suspect he won't be in
court very long when his date is set. (If I'm lucky enough, it'll be while
I'm visiting my family, and his county is about a five-hour drive from
where I'd be staying.) Even if it isn't, I think justice will be fairly
quickly served - the real possibility exists that at his first pre-trial
hearing, he might get sent to the state hospital for treatment.
Because you can't read english by those who aren't pro-choice or pro-gay
without shitting your pants?
Since English is my first language, I can read it *and* understand it -
although I'll admit to having an unfair advantage over you, by being sane.
Because your paranoia requires committing crimes against those who are not
pro-choice or pro-gay?
I have no such paranoia. You, on the other hand...
Shaddup, loser.
Sorry, but I don't obey mentally damaged people named John D. Wentzky. I'll
continue to post my opinions of your parachuteless descent without having to
get your permission.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 09:05:41 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkwsv5lsc6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodgindcl.fsf@eris.io.com...
Pr0r3p <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
He'll likely never be able to figure that out. I suspect he won't be in
court very long when his date is set. (If I'm lucky enough, it'll be
while
I'm visiting my family, and his county is about a five-hour drive from
where I'd be staying.) Even if it isn't, I think justice will be fairly
quickly served - the real possibility exists that at his first pre-trial
hearing, he might get sent to the state hospital for treatment.
Because you can't read english by those who aren't pro-choice or pro-gay
without shitting your pants?
Since English is my first language, I can read it *and* understand it -
although I'll admit to having an unfair advantage over you, by being sane.
When you learn to stop resorting to unfounded insults and show me that you
can read english and understand it, my and others' opinion of you could
change.
Because your paranoia requires committing crimes against those who are not
pro-choice or pro-gay?
I have no such paranoia.
*****.
You, on the other hand...
More bs.
Shaddup, loser.
Sorry, but I don't obey mentally damaged people named John D. Wentzky.
Your fault.
By not adhering to my personal agenda you are easly seen as being against
law in the USA.
I'll continue to post my opinions of your parachuteless descent without
having to
get your permission.
Of course you can post, but whenever you post things that are in direct
opposition to the law and reason they may be countered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 03:17:33 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkwsv5lsc6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodgindcl.fsf@eris.io.com...
Pr0r3p <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
He'll likely never be able to figure that out. I suspect he won't be in
court very long when his date is set. (If I'm lucky enough, it'll be
while I'm visiting my family, and his county is about a five-hour drive
from where I'd be staying.) Even if it isn't, I think justice will be
fairly quickly served - the real possibility exists that at his first
pre-trial hearing, he might get sent to the state hospital for treatment.
Because you can't read english by those who aren't pro-choice or pro-gay
without shitting your pants?
Since English is my first language, I can read it *and* understand it -
although I'll admit to having an unfair advantage over you, by being sane.
When you learn to stop resorting to unfounded insults and show me that you
can read english and understand it, my and others' opinion of you could
change.
You don't have anything to do with anyone else's opinion of me, son...and you
repeatedly demonstrate how little an understanding of written English you
have. (You've been doing that in a public newsgroup, where everyone can see
your mental dysfunctions in full color.)
Because your paranoia requires committing crimes against those who are not
pro-choice or pro-gay?
I have no such paranoia.
*****.
I know what I'm thinking far better than you ever will. (Unlike you, I know I
can't read minds.)
You, on the other hand...
More bs.
That's you, indeed.
Shaddup, loser.
Sorry, but I don't obey mentally damaged people named John D. Wentzky.
Your fault. By not adhering to my personal agenda you are easly seen as
being against law in the USA.
....by one mentally ill crackhead in Anderson.
I'll continue to post my opinions of your parachuteless descent without
having to get your permission.
Of course you can post, but whenever you post things that are in direct
opposition to the law and reason they may be countered.
You don't have any idea of the law, let alone enforce it. (The ones who
enforce the law have already arrested you at least three times this year, and
you consistently refuse to learn anything from your experience. You're giving
every appearance of being intent on spending the rest of your life in some
form of confinement.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 11:35:59 AM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 10:05 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote in messagenews:szkwsv5lsc6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodgindcl.fsf@eris.io.com...
Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
He'll likely never be able to figure that out. I suspect he won't be in
court very long when his date is set. (If I'm lucky enough, it'll be
while
I'm visiting my family, and his county is about a five-hour drive from
where I'd be staying.) Even if it isn't, I think justice will be fairly
quickly served - the real possibility exists that at his first pre-trial
hearing, he might get sent to the state hospital for treatment.
Because you can't read english by those who aren't pro-choice or pro-gay
without shitting your pants?
Since English is my first language, I can read it *and* understand it -
although I'll admit to having an unfair advantage over you, by being sane.
When you learn to stop resorting to unfounded insults
You are the on that constantly resorts to unfounded insults, so you
have no reason to call others on it. Besides, his insult is not
unfounded.
and show me that you
can read english and understand it,
He has done so many times. Perhaps one day, you will show people that
you can read and understand English.
my and others' opinion of you could change.
Your opinion of those smarter and more compassionate than you is
unlikely to change. And you do not get to define what other people's
opinion are. You only get to define what your opinion is.
Because your paranoia requires committing crimes against those who are not
pro-choice or pro-gay?
I have no such paranoia.
*****.
He has not shown any paranoia.
You, on the other hand...
More bs.
Nope.
Shaddup, loser.
Sorry, but I don't obey mentally damaged people named John D. Wentzky.
Your fault.
No, it is not. There is no fault in not obeying you.
By not adhering to my personal agenda you are easly seen as being against
law in the USA.
How? There is no requirement at all for anyone to follow, respect,
obey, or adhere to your arrogant, ignorant, intolerant, oppressive,
bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic agenda. Anyone can oppose your
agenda in any way without it being illegal. They can also say what
they think about your agenda without it being in any way illegal. If
you think that opposing your agenda is illegal, then prove it. Post
the federal laws that state that opposing the agenda of John Darin
Wentzky of Anderson, SC is illegal. State laws will not work since
they do not apply to anyone that is not in your state.
And thank you for again displaying your extreme arrogance and lack of
understanding of US law.
I'll continue to post my opinions of your parachuteless descent without
having to get your permission.
Of course you can post,
As if he needs your permission. You could not stop him from posting
even if you wanted to.
but whenever you post things that are in direct
opposition to the law and reason they may be countered.
Good thing that he has never posted anything that is in direct
opposition to either the law or to reason. That is why you have never
been able to intelligently counter his statements, or anyone else's.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 12:34:28 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189010159.641272.240540@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 10:05 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote in
messagenews:szkwsv5lsc6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodgindcl.fsf@eris.io.com...
Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such
as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
He'll likely never be able to figure that out. I suspect he won't be
in
court very long when his date is set. (If I'm lucky enough, it'll be
while
I'm visiting my family, and his county is about a five-hour drive
from
where I'd be staying.) Even if it isn't, I think justice will be
fairly
quickly served - the real possibility exists that at his first
pre-trial
hearing, he might get sent to the state hospital for treatment.
Because you can't read english by those who aren't pro-choice or
pro-gay
without shitting your pants?
Since English is my first language, I can read it *and* understand it -
although I'll admit to having an unfair advantage over you, by being
sane.
When you learn to stop resorting to unfounded insults
You are the on that constantly resorts to unfounded insults, so you
have no reason to call others on it. Besides, his insult is not
unfounded.
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
and show me that you
can read english and understand it,
He has done so many times. Perhaps one day, you will show people that
you can read and understand English.
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
my and others' opinion of you could change.
Your opinion of those smarter and more compassionate than you is
unlikely to change. And you do not get to define what other people's
opinion are. You only get to define what your opinion is.
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
Because your paranoia requires committing crimes against those who are
not
pro-choice or pro-gay?
I have no such paranoia.
*****.
He has not shown any paranoia.
What is it that causes him continually resist the constitution and law then?
What is it that causes him to impose the title "chief instigator" on
himself?
You, on the other hand...
More bs.
Nope.
False denail doesn't add anything to your cause.
Shaddup, loser.
Sorry, but I don't obey mentally damaged people named John D. Wentzky.
Your fault.
No, it is not.
How can his resistance of the Constitutional requirements validate his
refusal to obey it?
There is no fault in not obeying you.
You think that failing to abide by the Constitution isn't faulty in this
nation?
By not adhering to my personal agenda you are easly seen as being against
law in the USA.
How? There is no requirement at all for anyone to follow, respect,
obey, or adhere to your arrogant, ignorant, intolerant, oppressive,
bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic agenda.
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
Anyone can oppose your agenda in any way without it being illegal. They
can also say what
they think about your agenda without it being in any way illegal. If
you think that opposing your agenda is illegal, then prove it. Post
the federal laws that state that opposing the agenda of John Darin
Wentzky of Anderson, SC is illegal. State laws will not work since
they do not apply to anyone that is not in your state.
How about reading the Constitution and notice where resisting me is very
much akin to resisting the law itself.
And thank you for again displaying your extreme arrogance and lack of
understanding of US law.
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
I'll continue to post my opinions of your parachuteless descent without
having to get your permission.
Of course you can post,
As if he needs your permission.
Would be your delusion.
You could not stop him from posting
even if you wanted to.
Still thinking that people are trying to stop him from posting after he has
made so many references to 'removing' me from usenet?
LOL!
Your dug in defense of him posting while advocating for him after he has so
often referred to removing me from usenet shows your hypocritical demeanor.
but whenever you post things that are in direct
opposition to the law and reason they may be countered.
Good thing that he has never posted anything that is in direct
opposition to either the law or to reason.
Denial on your part makes your position less defensible.
That is why you have never been able to intelligently counter his
statements, or anyone else's.
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 03:35:23 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189010159.641272.240540@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 10:05 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote in
messagenews:szkwsv5lsc6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodgindcl.fsf@eris.io.com...
Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sep 4, 3:44 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188912717.077025.147070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bring it on, Johnny.
LOL! Another pro-choice dare.
What you going to do when someone takes you up on it?
No one's going to take him up on it, except psychotic losers such as
you.
The funny part is that Johnny's the one who made the threat, now I
call him on it and he whines. Typical.
He'll likely never be able to figure that out. I suspect he won't be
in court very long when his date is set. (If I'm lucky enough, it'll
be while I'm visiting my family, and his county is about a five-hour
drive from where I'd be staying.) Even if it isn't, I think justice
will be fairly quickly served - the real possibility exists that at
his first pre-trial hearing, he might get sent to the state hospital
for treatment.
Because you can't read english by those who aren't pro-choice or pro-gay
without shitting your pants?
Since English is my first language, I can read it *and* understand it -
although I'll admit to having an unfair advantage over you, by being
sane.
When you learn to stop resorting to unfounded insults
You are the on that constantly resorts to unfounded insults, so you
have no reason to call others on it. Besides, his insult is not
unfounded.
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
Anyone can insult you if they choose to do so. You don't get to dictate the
terms of their opinions.
and show me that you
can read english and understand it,
He has done so many times. Perhaps one day, you will show people that
you can read and understand English.
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
A parrot could hold a better conversation than you.
my and others' opinion of you could change.
Your opinion of those smarter and more compassionate than you is
unlikely to change. And you do not get to define what other people's
opinion are. You only get to define what your opinion is.
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
Get used to it, Anderson County Career Criminal. You're on your way to being
a US citizen who'll be lawfully incarcerated.
Because your paranoia requires committing crimes against those who are
not
pro-choice or pro-gay?
I have no such paranoia.
*****.
He has not shown any paranoia.
What is it that causes him continually resist the constitution and law then?
Since when? I observe the law...maybe that's why I don't get arrested, and
you do, because you refuse to observe it when the notion gets into your fat
head.
What is it that causes him to impose the title "chief instigator" on
himself?
I've already explained that. Your attention span is disappearing.
You, on the other hand...
More bs.
Nope.
False denail doesn't add anything to your cause.
Unlike you, he can demonstrate that - but then, he's also sane and rational,
which puts you at a double disadvantage in dealing with him.
Shaddup, loser.
Sorry, but I don't obey mentally damaged people named John D. Wentzky.
Your fault.
No, it is not.
How can his resistance of the Constitutional requirements validate his
refusal to obey it?
There's no Constitutional requirement to obey *you*, idiot.
There is no fault in not obeying you.
You think that failing to abide by the Constitution isn't faulty in this
nation?
You aren't the Constitution. Choke on that fact.
By not adhering to my personal agenda you are easly seen as being against
law in the USA.
How? There is no requirement at all for anyone to follow, respect,
obey, or adhere to your arrogant, ignorant, intolerant, oppressive,
bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic agenda.
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
*****, Convict Wentzky. Grow a pair and admit you have nothing to base
your whining on.
Anyone can oppose your agenda in any way without it being illegal. They
can also say what they think about your agenda without it being in any way
illegal. If you think that opposing your agenda is illegal, then prove it.
Post the federal laws that state that opposing the agenda of John Darin
Wentzky of Anderson, SC is illegal. State laws will not work since they do
not apply to anyone that is not in your state.
How about reading the Constitution and notice where resisting me is very
much akin to resisting the law itself.
Pure John D. Wentzky *****, no film at 10.
And thank you for again displaying your extreme arrogance and lack of
understanding of US law.
Failure <blip!>
Keep convincing the readership that you need to be locked up in a state
hospital.
I'll continue to post my opinions of your parachuteless descent without
having to get your permission.
Of course you can post,
As if he needs your permission.
Would be your delusion.
I don't need your permission to post anything. End of story.
You could not stop him from posting even if you wanted to.
Still thinking that people are trying to stop him from posting after he has
made so many references to 'removing' me from usenet? LOL!
I don't get to remove you from Usenet. You're going to do that all by
yourself. The rest of us get seats on the glass to watch your attempted
self-martyrdom.
Your dug in defense of him posting while advocating for him after he has so
often referred to removing me from usenet shows your hypocritical demeanor.
It shows that you understand very little of what you read.
but whenever you post things that are in direct
opposition to the law and reason they may be countered.
Good thing that he has never posted anything that is in direct
opposition to either the law or to reason.
Denial on your part makes your position less defensible.
Your position is anything but defensible...and our positions are eminently
legal. (When are you going to drag me into court? I've broken precisely zero
laws in expressing my opinions of your sorry charade.)
That is why you have never been able to intelligently counter his
statements, or anyone else's.
Failure
*HO!* <boot to the head>
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
05 Sep 2007 05:02:58 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7fk4zqs.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
A parrot could hold a better conversation than you.
If you could find a parrot that would repeat what you say.
LOL!
Seen how much they cost lately?
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
06 Sep 2007 01:31:59 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7fk4zqs.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
A parrot could hold a better conversation than you.
If you could find a parrot that would repeat what you say.
LOL!
A parrot could craft a conversation with more original responses than you will
ever be capable of.
Seen how much they cost lately?
See how much it's going to cost you to be locked up for a decade (if not
permanently)?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
06 Sep 2007 09:47:14 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkir6o719c.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7fk4zqs.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
A parrot could hold a better conversation than you.
If you could find a parrot that would repeat what you say.
LOL!
A parrot could craft a conversation with more original responses than you
will
ever be capable of.
Like I said, if you could find a parrot thaty would repeat what you
say.......
Seen how much they cost lately?
See how much it's going to cost you to be locked up for a decade (if not
permanently)?
Trying to inform people of how much money they would be bilked out of to
deny me liberty?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
06 Sep 2007 06:43:46 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkir6o719c.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7fk4zqs.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Failure to cease from your allegiance to insult against a US Citizen.
A parrot could hold a better conversation than you.
If you could find a parrot that would repeat what you say.
LOL!
A parrot could craft a conversation with more original responses than you
will ever be capable of.
Like I said, if you could find a parrot thaty would repeat what you
say.......
You can repeat it all you want, because repetition doesn't make proof.
Seen how much they cost lately?
See how much it's going to cost you to be locked up for a decade (if not
permanently)?
Trying to inform people of how much money they would be bilked out of to
deny me liberty?
Locking you up is definitely a justified expenditure, given your history.
It's in the hands of your county court, so go whine at them.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Aborting Women Are So Decieved |
06 Sep 2007 09:06:38 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkabrz9x71.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkir6o719c.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
