NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54146

Text File | 1993-01-05 | 12.5 KB | 287 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!kcochran
From: [e-mail] (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: Which is NyikosSpeak for "Blowing More Smoke"
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 02:05:30 GMT
Lines: 270

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>#In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>##In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>>>##Susan Garvin is at least a candidate for the title "pro-abortionist,"
>>>>##along with everyone else who sneers at every report of wrongdoing
>>>>##by LEGAL abortionists while choosing to blind themselves to evidence
>>>>##that certain illegal abortions never took place.
>>>>##
>>>>#We have yet to see any evidence of wrongdoing by legal abortionists.
>>>
>>>Who's "we", white man?  [Adrienne can fill you in on the rest of the joke.]
>>>
>>White man? How could you possibly have any idea of my race? Or are you
>>simply building up to announce your acceptance into your lcoal KKK
>>chapter?
>
>Tsk, tsk.  You went off half-cocked without asking Adrienne about the
>joke.  She was quite imperious in her post in which she instructed newbies
>about it.  I wish I had saved that post.  I often have problems with
>students perceiving me as "Mr. Nice Guy" at the beginning of the semester
>and then having to tighten up on discipline as the semester progresses.

So your run your classes as ineptly as you argue on t.a, huh?  Why doesn't
that suprise me?

>If I could just emulate her tone from the beginning, I'd have no such
>problems.

So you're admitting that if you actually sound intelligent, and learn how
to communicate your thoughts effectivly, you'd have "no such problems"?
It's nice of you to admit that, PeteyHoney.

>
>>>Did you miss the "Meet Ismail Elguindi, Abortionist" thread, which featured
>>>wrongdoing sufficient to get the State Board of Medical Examiners to
>>>suspend his license?
>>>
>>Nope, must have been before I came back to this newsgroup. Send me a
>>copy, if you think it's actually valid proof, and not just more junk.
>
>I'll send it, but only if *you* think a Final Report of a State Board
>of Medical Examiners, mandating a suspension of license, is "not just
>more junk."

Are you still going on about this, "Doctor" Nyikos?  One would think you
would give up after a while.

>
>And even if you do think it is not just more junk, I'd still be wasting
>the cost of the electronic signal if you then turn around and say,
>"How do I know you are quoting out of the Final Report and not just
>making all this up?"  Susan Garvin and Keegan have done a similar thing
>in re the Tiller brochure.  From what you are saying below, you are
>holding yourself to a higher standard so far, but that may be because
>you don't think the stuff I quoted is damaging.  Your reaction to the
>Final Report is sure to be somewhat different.

I can make a good guess as to what his reation will be.  "Gee, if I knew of
a doctor that was abusing patients, not treating them properly, and not
holding himself to the standards of the medical profession, I'd hope that
he got his license suspended also".  Why do you have such a problem with
that?

>
>>>Since I mentioned Susan Garvin, I suggest you use "I" in contexts like
>>>these, unless you answered "Yes" to the second question above, in which
>>>case I'd like to know why you say what you do above.
>
>>>>#The crap you've posted about Dr. Tiller
>>>
>>>...much of which was quoted directly from his brochure...
>>>
>>The quotes are fine. They also show that his practices are well within
>>the accepted norms. What is crap is the innuendo and implcations you
>>tried to draw from it.
>
>You have an overactive imagination.  Show me what implications I have
>tried to draw so far.  [Part 3 of the series is still on the back
>burner.  You bozos keep me busy enough as it is.]

Come up with any sources or numbers for that tripe you spouting off about
how it _might_ be legal for force a pregnant minor in SC to get an abortion,
and it _might_ be forced by the sick uncle who got her pregnant, and the
abortionist _might_ know why the girl was pregnant, and you _just have to
wonder_ how many of these abortions are taking place?

And just what _were_ you doing at the abortion clinic that day?

>
>>>But you consider Tiller's words to be impartial and reliable, eh?
>>>Otherwise, why would you make your audacious claim about pregnancy
>>>terminations after 26 weeks being all done with the aim of saving the
>>>life of the child, without documentation?
>>>
>>Petey Honey, *you* are the one claiming that abortions are beign done
>>after viability.                        ^^^^^
>
>How much medicine do you know, Cochran?  Do you really think viability
>still starts after 26 weeks?  If your medical knowledge is as good
>as your spelling, I wouldn't be surprised.

PHoney does spelling flames.  No film becuase nobody cares.

>
>> It is necessary for *you* to provide evidence to
>>support this claim. You have *totally* failed to do so. One assumes
>>the reason is that you are incapable.
>
>Who's "one", white man?  Not you, I am sure: you're just grandstanding
>while deep down inside you are suspending judgment.  Or are you a total

Nyikos reads minds.  Can the "click click" be far behind?  Patrick, maybe
you should talk to your local friends...

>ignoramus when it comes to the scientific method, and rules of evidence?

You have shown yourself to be.

>
>Data: Over 10,000 abortions are done past the 21st week.  Ask your
>brother Keith for the documentation, he's posted it himself before.

Let's see.  The info I have says 99.1% of all abortions are performed before
the 20th week of pregnancy, and <100 are performed after the 24th week.  If
we round it out to 1.6 million voluntary abortions/year, then .9% is 14,400.

Nyikos does math.  The net is shocked.  (Although maybe Chaney helped him with
the tough parts).

>Apparently he is more clued into medicine and statistics than you are.

Possibly statistics.  Certainly not medicine.

>
>Data: Nowadays roughly half of babies born in the 500-750 gram range,
>putting most of them before the end of the 26th week, survive.

How many does it put before the *24th* week?  And how does it cost to
save 50% of these children?

>
>Since you are such an expert on matters medical, you should have
>no trouble documenting this second bit of data yourself. ["Turnabout
>is fair play."]


Let's try this again.  You're the one saying it, you're the one who gets
to prove it.

>
>>>You on the other hand asked me to provide documentation for my claim
>>>that it is otherwise.  Well, since you have been so stingy with
>>>documentation so far, I'll only start the ball rolling here: does the
>>>name Waddil mean anything to you?
>>>
>>Nope, but then, I'm hardly familiar with *every* doctor in the
>>country.
>
>Sorry, I got the spelling wrong.

Petey has no problem admitting his own errors.  Why does he have such a problem
apologizing to Adrienne and the others?

>
>Dr. William B. Waddill is a doctor who gave a saline abortion to a
>woman, but the baby, which was estimated at 32 weeks gestation when it
>came out (Waddill had estimated it around 24, I believe), survived,
>according to a colleague, Dr. Ronald Cornelsen.  He, and nurses, testified
>that the baby was delivered alive and that Waddill had strangled it.

Which means that he's one super-sick puppy who should be allowed small
children.  Your point?

>The murder case ended in a hung jury, due to technical material concerning
>a California definition of death.

Care to enlighten us as to this "technical material"?  Or would it destroy
the case you're trying to build of all abortionists being BugEyedMonstersWho
PerformSatanicRitualsAfterUsingRustyNailsToPerformAbortionsOnWomenWhoAreNot
Pregnant?

>
>This happened in Westminster County, California, in 1977. _Newsweek_
>devoted a full page to it, and the information on the case is available
>in lots of books on abortion.

Care to tell us what Dr. Waddill is doing now?

>
>How is it that you missed out on all this?

Some people have more important things to do than to memorize your every
post.  Have you sent Adrienne another homework assignment yet?

>
>Will you next ask me, "What relevance does a 15-year old case have to
>abortion today?"  If so, perhaps you can tell me just when your
>enlightened standards first came to be adopted.  2001, perhaps? :-)
>
>>>As I remarked in another post, "Thou shalt not be laughed at" appears
>>>to be one of the ten commandments of Susan's private religion [with "Thou
>>>shalt not bear false witness agains thy neighbor" conspicuously absent]
>>>but there is nothing in her religion to keep her from laughing at others.
>>>
>>Given that available evidence indicates that a large majority of t.a.
>>posters find you laughable, I'd say she is simply relating the general
>>consensus about your credibility.
>
>A pity you can't ask Siren why politically correct pro-choicers are such
>an overwhelming majority on talk.abortion.  Keith can tell you who Siren
>was.  What he probably can't tell you is how you can contact Siren.  As
>far as I know, nobody on talk.abortion knows her address.  As to why
>that is, Elizabeth Bartley can tell you more about her than I can.  Y'see,
>she was "flamed off talk.abortion" according to Chaney, but Beth can
>probably confirm that, and I hope you at least consider her a reliable
>witness.

Petey believes Chaney.  The .net is not suprised.

I'm sure that Siren is getting *very* tired of people lying about Her.
First Chaney, now Nyikos...

>
>'Course if you are relying on the words of your net.bosom-buddy
>Susan, you probably think Elizabeth Bartley is laughable and the
>consensus on her credibility is almost as low as mine.

E. Elizabeth Bartley is an extremly intelligent woman who has a consistant
position that is logical and well-thought out, if hazy in certain areas.  In
order to achieve this, she has spent a great deal of time wrestling with
social, religious, and personal issues.  A lot of people don't agree with
her on parts (or all) of her stance.  I know I don't.  I know that Susan
doesn't.  E. Elizabeth Bartley is, however, respected for her beliefs.

You, on the other hand, say things like "now listen, son" to people.  You
post your SAT scores at the drop of a hat.  You can't get attribution lines
correct.  You have inconsistant, and illogical views on pregnancy and
abortion.  You threaten people.  Would you like to debate with everybody
about your hungarian bible again?

>
>>And I have never seen Susan bear false witness against anybody,
>>neighbor or otherwise. Is this another appology you're going to have
>>to make PHoney?
>
>Don't hold your breath, Cochran.  You'll turn blue and pass out, assuming
>you can hold your breath that long [free medical clue to someone who has
>yet to show me any evidence of medical knowledge].
>
>>I know I've asked this before, but you tend to ignore and delte it...
>>Please provide proof of this alledged disinformation I've originated,
>                  ^^^^^^^^
>>or admit that it is yet another of your lies.
>
>Susan made the claim of me posting disinformation first.  You'll have
>to wait your turn in line until she either puts up or shuts up.
>
>Remainder of post saved to another follow-up.

Why?
--
=[e-mail] | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker.  Space Reserved For Patrick, Gordon, and Druiex... (FWA!)=