Religions > Atheism > "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County,"
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2005 11:08:51 PM |
| Object: |
"She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
This headline could have easily been about the closing of the local abortion
mill. Maybe Andrea Yates should take her cue from Planned Parenthood; have
the ACLU represent her and claim she was only exercising her "Freedom of
Choice", albeit retroactively.
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-09T232314Z_01_SPI960173_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-YATES.xml
Texas child-killer Yates will have second trial
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who drowned her five
children in 2001, will face a second trial after the state's highest
criminal court refused on Wednesday to reinstate the murder convictions
against her.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a lower appeals court's ruling
issued in January that overturned jury verdicts against Yates because of
errors in the testimony of an expert witness.
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said he would try Yates
again as soon as possible. "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do
that in Harris County," he said.
.
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
06 Dec 2005 09:04:22 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
shitstain IAAH reflexively lied:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:47:19 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH reflexively lied:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:01:15 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH reflexively lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 19:36:49 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In 1993 -- nearly thirty years after SIECUS first
described the
general
theory -- researchers began to disaggregate the impact
of the
various
strands of "comprehensive sexuality education." The
analyses were
authored not by partisans of the Christian Right, but by
luminaries of
peer-reviewed medical research journals.
In "Factors Influencing First Intercourse for Teenage
Men,"
researchers
Leighton Ku, Freyn Sonenstein, and Joseph Pleek
studied the
relationship between sex education and sexual
initiation by
instructional topic. They divided sex education into
four content
categories: biological knowledge, birth-control
methods, AIDS
education, and "resistance skills" -- how to say "no"
to sex.
"In analysis of the full sample," wrote Ku and
associates, "prior
AIDS
education and resistance skills are each associated
with significant
decreases in the risk of first intercourse (AIDS
education: 26
per cent
reduction; resistance skills: 29 per cent reduction).
Significant
increases in the odds ratios were detected for prior
instruction in
birth control (30 per cent increase) or in the
biological aspects of
sex (32 per cent increase)."
Put simply: what worked in postponing sexual activity
among
teens, and
its attendant ills, was fear (AIDS awareness) and
directive
abstinence
(resistance skills). What accelerated teen sex was adult
validation of
pre-marital carnal knowledge. But for the caveat that
fear of God
might
replace fear of AIDS, this is what the Religious Right
had always
maintained.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
So: teaching the birds and the bees and birth control
methods
increases the chance of first sexual activity among
males; teaching
AIDS awareness (fear) and resistance skills (abstinence)
decreases it.
Of course, everyone already knows this, but hedonism
advocates don't
care.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
Repeating your empty polemic won't make it fact.
I'm still waiting for you to show in some way how the
numbers from the
CDC and the AMA
I'm still waiting for you to show a stronger refutation of
Barbara
Dafoe Whitehead's excellent and well written article,
other than "She
took me out of context" and "it wasn't typical".
You lazy shiftless *****.
D'you know, when the sources she used say that she's wrong,
We've already put that to bed.
Yes, and
and I demonstrated that the shitstain IAAH lied -
No, you didn't.
I did, repeatedly.
Lie?
No, demonstrate
That you lied? Yes, and it was easy.
he did not come close
to "refuting" (guffaw) Whitehead's well-written, thoughtful,
thorough
article. IAAH is a convicted felon, and so are you.
Would you care to explain that bit of fantasy before I contact
your ISP, or after?
What are you going to do?
Ah, so
Ah, so
you admit that
I kicked your fucking felony-convicted *****.
No, you admitted no such thing,
That is EXACTLY what I admitted
That you
kicked your *****, yes. Exactly. You can stop agreeing
with me now; you've agreed with me sufficiently.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
06 Dec 2005 09:13:07 AM |
|
|
In article <WLhlf.82$nm.54@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
shitstain IAAH reflexively lied:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:47:19 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH reflexively lied:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:01:15 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH reflexively lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 19:36:49 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In 1993 -- nearly thirty years after SIECUS first
described the
general
theory -- researchers began to disaggregate the impact
of the
various
strands of "comprehensive sexuality education." The
analyses were
authored not by partisans of the Christian Right, but by
luminaries of
peer-reviewed medical research journals.
In "Factors Influencing First Intercourse for Teenage
Men,"
researchers
Leighton Ku, Freyn Sonenstein, and Joseph Pleek
studied the
relationship between sex education and sexual
initiation by
instructional topic. They divided sex education into
four content
categories: biological knowledge, birth-control
methods, AIDS
education, and "resistance skills" -- how to say "no"
to sex.
"In analysis of the full sample," wrote Ku and
associates, "prior
AIDS
education and resistance skills are each associated
with significant
decreases in the risk of first intercourse (AIDS
education: 26
per cent
reduction; resistance skills: 29 per cent reduction).
Significant
increases in the odds ratios were detected for prior
instruction in
birth control (30 per cent increase) or in the
biological aspects of
sex (32 per cent increase)."
Put simply: what worked in postponing sexual activity
among
teens, and
its attendant ills, was fear (AIDS awareness) and
directive
abstinence
(resistance skills). What accelerated teen sex was adult
validation of
pre-marital carnal knowledge. But for the caveat that
fear of God
might
replace fear of AIDS, this is what the Religious Right
had always
maintained.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
So: teaching the birds and the bees and birth control
methods
increases the chance of first sexual activity among
males; teaching
AIDS awareness (fear) and resistance skills (abstinence)
decreases it.
Of course, everyone already knows this, but hedonism
advocates don't
care.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
Repeating your empty polemic won't make it fact.
I'm still waiting for you to show in some way how the
numbers from the
CDC and the AMA
I'm still waiting for you to show a stronger refutation of
Barbara
Dafoe Whitehead's excellent and well written article,
other than "She
took me out of context" and "it wasn't typical".
You lazy shiftless *****.
D'you know, when the sources she used say that she's wrong,
We've already put that to bed.
Yes, and
and I demonstrated that the shitstain IAAH lied -
No, you didn't.
I did, repeatedly.
Lie?
No, demonstrate
That you lied? Yes, and it was easy.
he did not come close
to "refuting" (guffaw) Whitehead's well-written, thoughtful,
thorough
article. IAAH is a convicted felon, and so are you.
Would you care to explain that bit of fantasy before I contact
your ISP, or after?
What are you going to do?
Ah, so
Ah, so
you admit that
I kicked your fucking felony-convicted *****.
No, you admitted no such thing,
That is EXACTLY what I admitted
That you
kicked your *****, yes. Exactly. You can stop agreeing
with me now; you've agreed with me sufficiently.
Eight, right? You are eight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
06 Dec 2005 09:45:18 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <WLhlf.82$nm.54@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
shitstain IAAH reflexively lied:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:47:19 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH reflexively lied:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:01:15 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH reflexively lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 19:36:49 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In 1993 -- nearly thirty years after SIECUS first
described the
general
theory -- researchers began to disaggregate the impact
of the
various
strands of "comprehensive sexuality education." The
analyses were
authored not by partisans of the Christian Right, but by
luminaries of
peer-reviewed medical research journals.
In "Factors Influencing First Intercourse for Teenage
Men,"
researchers
Leighton Ku, Freyn Sonenstein, and Joseph Pleek
studied the
relationship between sex education and sexual
initiation by
instructional topic. They divided sex education into
four content
categories: biological knowledge, birth-control
methods, AIDS
education, and "resistance skills" -- how to say "no"
to sex.
"In analysis of the full sample," wrote Ku and
associates, "prior
AIDS
education and resistance skills are each associated
with significant
decreases in the risk of first intercourse (AIDS
education: 26
per cent
reduction; resistance skills: 29 per cent reduction).
Significant
increases in the odds ratios were detected for prior
instruction in
birth control (30 per cent increase) or in the
biological aspects of
sex (32 per cent increase)."
Put simply: what worked in postponing sexual activity
among
teens, and
its attendant ills, was fear (AIDS awareness) and
directive
abstinence
(resistance skills). What accelerated teen sex was adult
validation of
pre-marital carnal knowledge. But for the caveat that
fear of God
might
replace fear of AIDS, this is what the Religious Right
had always
maintained.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
So: teaching the birds and the bees and birth control
methods
increases the chance of first sexual activity among
males; teaching
AIDS awareness (fear) and resistance skills (abstinence)
decreases it.
Of course, everyone already knows this, but hedonism
advocates don't
care.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
Repeating your empty polemic won't make it fact.
I'm still waiting for you to show in some way how the
numbers from the
CDC and the AMA
I'm still waiting for you to show a stronger refutation of
Barbara
Dafoe Whitehead's excellent and well written article,
other than "She
took me out of context" and "it wasn't typical".
You lazy shiftless *****.
D'you know, when the sources she used say that she's wrong,
We've already put that to bed.
Yes, and
and I demonstrated that the shitstain IAAH lied -
No, you didn't.
I did, repeatedly.
Lie?
No, demonstrate
That you lied? Yes, and it was easy.
he did not come close
to "refuting" (guffaw) Whitehead's well-written, thoughtful,
thorough
article. IAAH is a convicted felon, and so are you.
Would you care to explain that bit of fantasy before I contact
your ISP, or after?
What are you going to do?
Ah, so
Ah, so
you admit that
I kicked your fucking felony-convicted *****.
No, you admitted no such thing,
That is EXACTLY what I admitted
That you
kicked your *****, yes. Exactly. You can stop agreeing
with me now; you've agreed with me sufficiently.
Eight, right?
I think it's been more like a dozen times I've kicked
your *****; maybe 15 or 16, but at least a dozen for sure.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
06 Dec 2005 09:19:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:13:07 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <WLhlf.82$nm.54@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
I kicked your fucking felony-convicted *****.
No, you admitted no such thing,
That is EXACTLY what I admitted
That you
kicked your *****, yes. Exactly. You can stop agreeing
with me now; you've agreed with me sufficiently.
Eight, right? You are eight.
Don't you think that's giving Spazzy a little too much credit? Even an
eight-year-old understands the concept of offering some sort of
evidence, and Spazzy hasn't gotten there yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
06 Dec 2005 09:38:52 AM |
|
|
In article <utabp1lptmj06886odhfdfhi8105tbd27e@4ax.com>, IAAH
<iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:13:07 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <WLhlf.82$nm.54@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
I kicked your fucking felony-convicted *****.
No, you admitted no such thing,
That is EXACTLY what I admitted
That you
kicked your *****, yes. Exactly. You can stop agreeing
with me now; you've agreed with me sufficiently.
Eight, right? You are eight.
Don't you think that's giving Spazzy a little too much credit? Even an
eight-year-old understands the concept of offering some sort of
evidence, and Spazzy hasn't gotten there yet.
I guess I'm just an optimist at heart.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
03 Dec 2005 12:32:51 AM |
|
|
shitstain S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> lied
IAAH
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
Repeating your empty polemic won't make it fact.
I'm still waiting for you to show in some way how the numbers from the
CDC and the AMA
I'm still waiting for you to show a stronger refutation
of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's excellent and well written
Repeating your empty polemic won't make it fact.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
01 Dec 2005 09:39:53 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
In 1993 -- nearly thirty years after SIECUS first described the general
theory -- researchers began to disaggregate the impact of the various
strands of "comprehensive sexuality education." The analyses were
authored not by partisans of the Christian Right, but by luminaries of
peer-reviewed medical research journals.
In "Factors Influencing First Intercourse for Teenage Men," researchers
Leighton Ku, Freyn Sonenstein, and Joseph Pleek studied the
relationship between sex education and sexual initiation by
instructional topic. They divided sex education into four content
categories: biological knowledge, birth-control methods, AIDS
education, and "resistance skills" -- how to say "no" to sex.
"In analysis of the full sample," wrote Ku and associates, "prior AIDS
education and resistance skills are each associated with significant
decreases in the risk of first intercourse (AIDS education: 26 per cent
reduction; resistance skills: 29 per cent reduction). Significant
increases in the odds ratios were detected for prior instruction in
birth control (30 per cent increase) or in the biological aspects of
sex (32 per cent increase)."
Put simply: what worked in postponing sexual activity among teens, and
its attendant ills, was fear (AIDS awareness) and directive abstinence
(resistance skills). What accelerated teen sex was adult validation of
pre-marital carnal knowledge. But for the caveat that fear of God might
replace fear of AIDS, this is what the Religious Right had always
maintained.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
At the same source, immediately following:
This study of first intercourse, published in the November/December
1993 Public Health Reports, undermined the foundations of comprehensive
sexuality education by revealing its implicit behavioral tendencies. It
remained for a blue-ribbon panel, commissioned by the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC), to dismantle it in detail.
Reviewing the literature on school-based sex-education programs for
their effectiveness in preventing teen pregnancy, co-authors Doug Kirby
(ETR Associates), Janet Collins (CDC), Marion Howard (Emory
University), Freya Sonenstein (Urban Institute), and Laurie Zabin
(Johns Hopkins) compiled the best available teen-sex surveys and
implementation data on sex-education programs. Based on their synthesis
of best practices, Kirby and his colleagues -- strong sex-education
advocates, all -- challenged the SIECUS orthodoxy platitude by
platitude in the May/June 1994 issue of Public Health Reports.
Programs that reduced teen pregnancy were not open-ended in their
objectives, but based on "the development of conservative group norms."
Teachers were not neutral facilitators of morally autonomous wards, but
active advocates who "presented a clear stand and emphasized clear
behavior values." In effective programs, teens were provided
information that "was not unnecessarily detailed or comprehensive."
Rather, instruction focused on encouraging desired behaviors.
The researchers reserved their greatest ire for "role-playing" in which
the instructor/facilitator gave no hint as to the expected outcome.
Comprehensive sexuality education as promoted by SIECUS was shown to be
as methodologically inept as it was theoretically perverse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 08:25:24 AM |
|
|
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo. The entire article is
little more than a cherry-picked screed against Clinton and Dr.
Joycelyn Elders.
All the abstinence courses in the world aren't going to make a bit of
difference to a couple of horny teens in the back seat of Dad's Grand
Torino. You're fighting against millions of years of biological
imperative and you're going to lose. The best you can do is arm teens
with accurate disease and pregnancy prevention information and hope
they're smart enough to use it.
Out of personal curiosity, what is your major malfunction with regards
to sex? It's exciting, fun, and infinitely rewarding if done right.
Everybody does it, even your mommy and daddy. (You know, the people who
taught you words like "*****" and "asswipe.")
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 10:49:57 AM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:30:11 PM |
|
|
In article <VW_jf.11800$aA2.464@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
There's nothing to address. Slanted opinion pieces do not constitute
public policy.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middla Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:36:04 PM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
In article <VW_jf.11800$aA2.464@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
There's nothing to address.
Sure there is. He *quoted* from a peer-reviewed article:
In "Factors Influencing First Intercourse for Teenage Men,"
researchers Leighton Ku, Freyn Sonenstein, and Joseph
Pleek studied the relationship between sex education and
sexual initiation by instructional topic. They divided sex
education into four content categories: biological knowledge,
birth-control methods, AIDS education, and "resistance
skills" -- how to say "no" to sex.
"In analysis of the full sample," wrote Ku and associates,
"prior AIDS education and resistance skills are each
associated with significant decreases in the risk of first
intercourse (AIDS education: 26 per cent reduction;
resistance skills: 29 per cent reduction). Significant
increases in the odds ratios were detected for prior
instruction in birth control (30 per cent increase) or in the
biological aspects of sex (32 per cent increase)."
Put simply: what worked in postponing sexual activity
among teens, and its attendant ills, was fear (AIDS
awareness) and directive abstinence (resistance skills).
What accelerated teen sex was adult validation of pre-
marital carnal knowledge. But for the caveat that fear of
God might replace fear of AIDS, this is what the Religious
Right had always maintained.
Why did you ignore that? Oh, yes: It gets in the way of your
ideologically driven and ignorant pre-conceptions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
03 Dec 2005 09:47:49 AM |
|
|
In article <1133552164.428917.65340@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <VW_jf.11800$aA2.464@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
There's nothing to address.
Sure there is. He *quoted* from a peer-reviewed article:
He quote-mined a peer-reviewed article.
In "Factors Influencing First Intercourse for Teenage Men,"
researchers Leighton Ku, Freyn Sonenstein, and Joseph
Pleek studied the relationship between sex education and
sexual initiation by instructional topic. They divided sex
education into four content categories: biological knowledge,
birth-control methods, AIDS education, and "resistance
skills" -- how to say "no" to sex.
"In analysis of the full sample," wrote Ku and associates,
"prior AIDS education and resistance skills are each
associated with significant decreases in the risk of first
intercourse (AIDS education: 26 per cent reduction;
resistance skills: 29 per cent reduction). Significant
increases in the odds ratios were detected for prior
instruction in birth control (30 per cent increase) or in the
biological aspects of sex (32 per cent increase)."
Put simply: what worked in postponing sexual activity
among teens, and its attendant ills, was fear (AIDS
awareness) and directive abstinence (resistance skills).
What accelerated teen sex was adult validation of pre-
marital carnal knowledge. But for the caveat that fear of
God might replace fear of AIDS, this is what the Religious
Right had always maintained.
Why did you ignore that?
I ignored it because a 2-3% difference in human population surveys is
statistically irrelevant.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
03 Dec 2005 10:52:31 AM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133552164.428917.65340@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <VW_jf.11800$aA2.464@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
There's nothing to address.
Sure there is. He *quoted* from a peer-reviewed article:
He quote-mined a peer-reviewed article.
He quoted from a peer-reviewed article. The article
was about a narrowly tailored study, and he quoted its
conclusion.
What peer-reviewed literature have *you* read, prickcheese?
In "Factors Influencing First Intercourse for Teenage Men,"
researchers Leighton Ku, Freyn Sonenstein, and Joseph
Pleek studied the relationship between sex education and
sexual initiation by instructional topic. They divided sex
education into four content categories: biological knowledge,
birth-control methods, AIDS education, and "resistance
skills" -- how to say "no" to sex.
"In analysis of the full sample," wrote Ku and associates,
"prior AIDS education and resistance skills are each
associated with significant decreases in the risk of first
intercourse (AIDS education: 26 per cent reduction;
resistance skills: 29 per cent reduction). Significant
increases in the odds ratios were detected for prior
instruction in birth control (30 per cent increase) or in the
biological aspects of sex (32 per cent increase)."
Put simply: what worked in postponing sexual activity
among teens, and its attendant ills, was fear (AIDS
awareness) and directive abstinence (resistance skills).
What accelerated teen sex was adult validation of pre-
marital carnal knowledge. But for the caveat that fear of
God might replace fear of AIDS, this is what the Religious
Right had always maintained.
Why did you ignore that?
I ignored it because a 2-3% difference in human population surveys is
statistically irrelevant.
You don't know what you're talking about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 11:00:39 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you, twat. Remember what you said about the source I posted?
Since that was ad-hom in itself, you can now go back and address what
the article said. Until then you and Whitehead are refuted (actually,
you and her are refuted anyway, since her primary sources say that her
conclusions about what they gave her are absolutely wrong).
Keep it up, Spazzy. You're quite amusing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 11:13:53 AM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well
researched, informative and lengthy article, shitstain.
You only found a couple of whines from two people
whom she interviewed, one of whom is clearly the
proponent of exactly what Whitehead concludes is wrong
with sex education. Susan Wilson has an axe to grind,
you stupid shitstained *****. She didn't like the
way Whitehead portrayed her work. Too bad.
The Rutgers Press book "Learning About Family Life" and
the curriculum that surrounds it were COMPLETELY
typical for New Jersey at the time of the article.
Wilson lied about that. You're lying now, and you're
lying from a position of abject ignorance. You haven't
read the article, you haven't researched what is taught
in New Jersey or elsewhere. You're just a raving,
raging far-left extremist and polemicist. You're sewage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 11:43:02 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well
researched, informative and lengthy article, shitstain.
Yes, I did.
You only found a couple of whines from two people
whom she interviewed,
Her two primary sources on which her conclusion is based, actually.
Plus the data from the CDC puts Whitehead entirely in the ground. Now
you can either refute Wilson, Kirby, AND the CDC, or we'll just accept
your admission that you have nothing left to say on the matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 11:59:26 AM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well
researched, informative and lengthy article, shitstain.
Yes, I did.
ipse dixit; also false.
You only found a couple of whines from two people
whom she interviewed,
Her two primary sources
Her two *disgruntled* primary sources, one of whom was
clearly portrayed in the article - you know, the
article you HAVE NOT READ - as the architect of the
program that Whitehead identified as emblematic of all
that is wrong with "comprehensive" sex education.
Susan Wilson got pissy because Whitehead made her
life's work look like the ***** that it is. He claim
that the program as identified by Whitehead is "not
typical" is not supported anywhere. It was typical
"Mother Jones" drive-by polemics.
Once again, little shitstain, you lose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 12:19:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that ad-hom attacks don't mean *****, and I
don't see you showing how the statements in that article were false,
and so, ipso facto, they stand for now.
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well
researched, informative and lengthy article, shitstain.
Yes, I did.
ipse dixit; also false.
Then you should have no trouble at all demonstrating how Wilson and
Kirby were incorrect in their claims that Whitehead misrepresented
their data and drew invalid conclusions from it.
Until you do that, the refutation stands.
You only found a couple of whines from two people
whom she interviewed,
Her two primary sources
kicked the legs out from under Whitehead's arguments and conclusions.
End of story, case closed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 12:24:36 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that ad-hom attacks don't mean *****, and I
don't see you showing how the statements in that article were false,
and so, ipso facto, they stand for now.
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well
researched, informative and lengthy article, shitstain.
Yes, I did.
ipse dixit; also false.
Then you should have no trouble at all demonstrating how Wilson and
Kirby were incorrect in their claims that Whitehead misrepresented
their data and drew invalid conclusions from it.
Not my burden. It is THEIR burden to prove their
claims, punkie, not my burden to disprove them. They
have offered no evidence; just whiny complaints. That
isn't a refutation.
Until you do that, the refutation
There has been none.
You only found a couple of whines from two people
whom she interviewed,
Her two primary sources
kicked themselves in the *****
Neat trick!
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 12:29:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:24:36 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that ad-hom attacks don't mean *****, and I
don't see you showing how the statements in that article were false,
and so, ipso facto, they stand for now.
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well
researched, informative and lengthy article, shitstain.
Yes, I did.
ipse dixit; also false.
Then you should have no trouble at all demonstrating how Wilson and
Kirby were incorrect in their claims that Whitehead misrepresented
their data and drew invalid conclusions from it.
Not my burden. It is THEIR burden to prove their
claims, punkie, not my burden to disprove them. They
have offered no evidence; just whiny complaints. That
isn't a refutation.
Still nothing, huh? Well, I don't blame you for giving up - all that
evidence against Whitehead was pretty damning.
Got that proof you need yet, newbie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:17:05 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:24:36 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that ad-hom attacks don't mean *****, and I
don't see you showing how the statements in that article were false,
and so, ipso facto, they stand for now.
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well
researched, informative and lengthy article, shitstain.
Yes, I did.
ipse dixit; also false.
Then you should have no trouble at all demonstrating how Wilson and
Kirby were incorrect in their claims that Whitehead misrepresented
their data and drew invalid conclusions from it.
Not my burden. It is THEIR burden to prove their
claims, punkie, not my burden to disprove them. They
have offered no evidence; just whiny complaints. That
isn't a refutation.
Still nothing
Yes, you still have nothing that refutes Whitehead: just what I've
been saying.
Wilson and Kirby need to support their claims of atypicality and
misrepresentation. They haven't done so. I don't believe their
claims. You have no reason to believe them, apart from your dishonest
partisanship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:30:11 PM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 11:17:05 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:24:36 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that ad-hom attacks don't mean *****, and I
don't see you showing how the statements in that article were false,
and so, ipso facto, they stand for now.
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well
researched, informative and lengthy article, shitstain.
Yes, I did.
ipse dixit; also false.
Then you should have no trouble at all demonstrating how Wilson and
Kirby were incorrect in their claims that Whitehead misrepresented
their data and drew invalid conclusions from it.
Not my burden. It is THEIR burden to prove their
claims, punkie, not my burden to disprove them. They
have offered no evidence; just whiny complaints. That
isn't a refutation.
Still nothing
And nothing more. Have you come up with something that demonstrates
that the data from the CDC, the AMA, and the AGI is incorrect yet?
Something that hasn't already been shown to be utterly undependable,
anyway?
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:32:23 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:17:05 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:24:36 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that ad-hom attacks don't mean *****, and I
don't see you showing how the statements in that article were false,
and so, ipso facto, they stand for now.
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well
researched, informative and lengthy article, shitstain.
Yes, I did.
ipse dixit; also false.
Then you should have no trouble at all demonstrating how Wilson and
Kirby were incorrect in their claims that Whitehead misrepresented
their data and drew invalid conclusions from it.
Not my burden. It is THEIR burden to prove their
claims, punkie, not my burden to disprove them. They
have offered no evidence; just whiny complaints. That
isn't a refutation.
Still nothing
And nothing more.
Right! You *STILL* haven't refuted Whitehead! When are you going to
try? You won't; you're too smugly satisfied with your extremist
ideology to bother with a real refutation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:38:00 PM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 11:32:23 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Right! You *STILL* haven't refuted Whitehead! When are you going to
try? You won't; you're too smugly satisfied with your extremist
ideology to bother with a real refutation.
I already have, bonehead. Anytime a writer's primary sources say that
writer is wrong, that is a refutation.
Now, you still need to refute the CDC, the AMA, and the AGI, all of
whom also contradict Whitehead's opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:40:13 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:32:23 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Right! You *STILL* haven't refuted Whitehead! When are you going to
try? You won't; you're too smugly satisfied with your extremist
ideology to bother with a real refutation.
I already have,
You haven't. You haven't even seriously tried. You've quoted from an
inflammatory opinion piece that contains whines from two people
interviewed by Whitehead. They quibble with her; they don't refute
her. Their quibbles are not serious.
You haven't refuted Whitehead. The whiners haven't refuted Whitehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:42:10 PM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 11:40:13 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:32:23 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Right! You *STILL* haven't refuted Whitehead! When are you going to
try? You won't; you're too smugly satisfied with your extremist
ideology to bother with a real refutation.
I already have,
You haven't.
I already have, bonehead. Anytime a writer's primary sources say that
writer is wrong, that is a refutation.
Now, you still need to refute the CDC, the AMA, and the AGI, all of
whom also contradict Whitehead's opinion.
Last chance, Spazzy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:59:14 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:40:13 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:32:23 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Right! You *STILL* haven't refuted Whitehead! When are you going to
try? You won't; you're too smugly satisfied with your extremist
ideology to bother with a real refutation.
I already have,
You haven't.
I already have,
You haven't. Why do you keep lying and saying you have when you
haven't? Didn't your parents teach you not to lie? What other aspects
of your moral instruction did they neglect? Oh- *all* of it. I see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn' | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
