NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53579

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 12.3 KB | 263 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
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.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None worth mentioning.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 21:43:46 GMT
Lines: 248

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.
>If I could just emulate her tone from the beginning, I'd have no such
>problems.
>
>>>Did you miss the "Meet Ismail Elguindi, Abortionist" thread, which featured
I have a hard timer imagineing that anybody considers you "Mr. Nice
Guy" at any time. "Mr. Clueless Twit" maybe...

>>>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."
>
>And even if you do think it is not just more junk, I'd still be wasting
Provide the reference, and I'll draw my own conclusions.

>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.
>
If you will stop babbling and provide the reference, I'll look it up
for myself.

>I will gladly mail photocopies of anything I directly quote from, but
>I charge $1.00, in advance (why should I hold myself to a higher standard than
>your heroes Tiller et.al.?) for the mailing.  Then if it is not as in
>my electronic mail (barring routine typos) you get your money refunded,
>double.
>
You make some amazing assumptions here PHoney. First you make
assumptions about my race, and now you are making assumptions about
who my heroes are. Do you read tarot cards too?
And why should we "bar[ring] routine typos", since you seem to spend
more effort looking for typos then in responding intelligently to
other peoples articles?

>[Well, OK, I am holding myself to a higher standard, both as regards
>refunds and as regards not charging extortionist prices for "handling"
>like so many places do.  I only charge for photocopying and mailing, and
>the difference between that and what you spend comes out of the below-minimum
>wage you pay me for all the extra trouble.  Also I do accept personal checks,
>but will wait for them to clear if they come from a pro-choicer.]
>
I wouldn't pay you to wash my car, let alone provide any real services
PHoney...

>>>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.]
>
You spent all that time and wasted bandwidth trying to show that Dr.
Tiller was doing something wrong, and you forget what your own
innuendos and implications were? You're a bigger moron then even I
thought you were.

>>>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.
>
And this is the same guy who wishes to excuse his own "routine
typos"... What a hypocrite.
More then you could ever dream of PHoney. And yes, I do still think
that viability starts at 26 weeks. That is the legal definition in
every state I've been in, and weeks earlier then any *healthy*
surviver.

>> 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
>ignoramus when it comes to the scientific method, and rules of evidence?
>
Hardly Phoney, I'm simply waiting for you to *show* any evidence.

>Data: Over 10,000 abortions are done past the 21st week.  Ask your
>brother Keith for the documentation, he's posted it himself before.
>Apparently he is more clued into medicine and statistics than you are.
>
Unsubstantiated, but even if true, what does this have to do with
anything? Kindly produce evidence that 21 weeks has anything to do
with viablility, which is considered to begin at 26 weeks.

>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.
>
Blah Blah... More Truth By Blatant Assertion. Provide support for it,
or admit it's inccorect.

>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."]
>
Given my own experience, I feel no compelling reason to search for the
data. My own experience informs me that a 50% survival rate for pre-26
week fetuses is just another one of your fantasies PHoney.

>>>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.
>
>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.
>The murder case ended in a hung jury, due to technical material concerning
>a California definition of death.
>
>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.
>
>How is it that you missed out on all this?
>
>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? :-)
>
I will ask if this is the best you can do. The only evidence you can
find is a 15 year old case in which the doctor was never convicted?
Remember... "innocent until proiven guilty" Petey.
And if he *is* guilty, then he can and was dealt with under existing
law. So what does this have to do with your desire to legislate
abortion? Given that existing law covers the only (ancient) case
you've been able to find, why should we allow further legislation?

>>>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.
>
Whine Whine Wimper Whine. What's your point?

>'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.
>
You claiming to read minds now Petey? How would you possibly know what
feeling (if any) I have for any poster in this or any other forum?

>>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've no doubt of that, considering you waited 4 months to appologise
to Adrienne, and even then you did it in one of the most mealy
mouthed, wishy washy ways I've ever seen.
Besides, I'm aware that I'd have to stand in line behind plenty of
other people you've maligned and libeled. It seems to be your one
major talent.

>>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.
>
Drat, another line to stand in. Considering how slow you are to
respond to people who catch you lying, this will take forever...

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.