NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53585

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 9.6 KB | 236 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!udel!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Mark Cochran (Was: Peter) shows his ignorance, once again.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:12:36 GMT
Lines: 224

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>[Hack and slash]

>>>Any text on obstetrics. Pick one, any one, and read it.

>>Mark, your unhelpful response is not bad for a beginner, but you
>>have a long way to go before you have scaled the heights which
>>Ms. Adolf has mastered.  On the other hand, she could learn a lot
>>from your mastery of the Big Lie technique, so well displayed in
>>Cycle 3.
>>
>You know Petey, you keep refering to my "Big Lie". I'd like to see you
>post somethign that indicates I've ever lied on this forum. If you
>cannot, I guess I can stand in line behind Adrienne waiting for you to
>appologise for making false accusations.
>I'm waiting...

Your 26 week "fantasy," equated with viability, should be good for
a start.  Info posted today on the post where I mention your name
and "Documentation" or one of its derivatives.

>>  Could you at least tell
>>me what entry to look for in the index?  "Miscarriages, rate
>>of"?  "Spontaneous abortion, rate of?"  "Ova, fertilized, failure
>>to implant, rate of?"  "Zygotes, failure to implant, rate of"
>>"Blastocysts, failure to implant, rate of?"
>>
>Geee Petey, one assumes that a person with your sterling SAT scores
>(BTW, would you mind reposting those? I'd like to have them in my
>archives just to have something to laugh at when your netserver is
>offline...)

Sorry, I no longer post SAT scores, nor GRE scores.


TEST OF ADRIENNE REGARD SOFTWARE.  PLEASE IGNORE._________________________

WHAT is a GRE?

END OF TEST________________________________________________________________


>is capable of using an index. Keep trying.

>>I am a far more patient person than your kid brother Keith, but
>>even I tend to get a little testy after looking for five entries
>>and coming up nothing to show for my effort.
>>
>Keith is vastly more patient then you, nor is he a kid. As for your
>inability to find information, that is, I'm afraid, your problem. Try
>a remedial reading class.

You're learning, Mark, you're learning.

There is only one little thing wrong.  Y'see, after I wrote the
tongue-in-cheek remark which leads off this post, it occurred to
me that it was only this year that I read somewhere that far more
zygotes don't make it than was heretofore suspected.  So my trip
to the library would have been wasted.

Care to try again?

>>Somehow I don't think I'll find all the statistics in *every* text
>>on obstetrics.  But I'm willing to take you up on your challenge
>>once our university library re-opens after Christmas.
>>
>Perhaps not in every one Petey. Since you seem to be
>research-chanllenged (how's that for a PC term?) try this:
>Any obstetrics text which is aimed at fertility, or was written as a
>general overview of the field.

Excuse me for being skeptical, but I do have a copy of a text on
embryology and teratology, _Before We Are Born_, by Keith L. Moore,
and at least
this, the 1974 edition (there has been a 1983 edition, but the
library does not carry it despite the fact that it incorporates
MAJOR changes) gives no statistics.  Yet it is full of information
about implantation, talking about trophoblasts, cytotrophoblasts,
and syncytotrophoblasts.

So I decline your offer of a wild goose chase, and ask you to
either put up or shut up.

>>In the meantime, I hope you can help me correct an entry in
>>Dr. Willke's _Abortion: Questions and Answers_.  Here it is, as
>>it appears on p. 108 of the Fourth edition.
>>
>>    Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage
>>    rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5%
>>    rate in a non-aborted group.
>>        Richarson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination
>>      on Subsequent Pregnancy," _British Med. Jour., vol. 1,
>>      1976, pp. 1303-04.
>>
>No need for correction. Of course, it would help if ou were capable of
>understanding the difference between miscarriage, non-implantation,
>and the other causes of failed pregnancy.

HOORAY!!!!!!!!!! MARK DOES NOT DISPUTE THE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!

I suspect your pro-choice friends will rake you over the coals (in
private, of course: publicly they'll still be palsy-walsy with you)
for this oversight.

>>>It means, quite obviously, that the z/e/f is only potentially a
>>>child. I would have thought even your meager comprehension capable of
>>>figuring that one out...
>>
>>No problem there, bozo, what I wanted to know was, what does it mean
>>for a fetus to BECOME potentially a child?
>>
>Petey, I'll type slow. Try to keep up...
>A fertilized egg, *if* it implants, and *if* nothing else interferes
>with development can *then* become a potential child. It is not a
>child until after it is born.
>Can your feeble mind grasp that concept?

I said "fetus", bozo.  A fetus, by my lights, is an unborn child.
Here in talk.abortion it is a potential child.  What does it mean,
then for a fetus (not embryo, blastocyst, etc....I can type real
slow too) to BECOME a potential child.

>>>Since you are disputing my facts, care to post your medical
>>>credentials? Or at least, post a source that contradicts me?
>>>I doubt it...
>>
>>How about you posting yours, and telling me why you refer to a
>>morula/blastocyst as a fertilized egg?
>>
>Sure. I'll post mine. But you have to proove a right to know. You
>repost your SAT scores, and if they're sufficiently high, I'll post my
>medical credentials here.

Sorry, Mark.  You've probably been clued into this already, but let
me explain it to newbies, and let it also be known that I have
publicly clued you in.

What I am about to post is from a private correspondence with
your nemesis, Loren Finkelstein, in response to a post.  Loren
has never e-mailed me, so I am not breaking any confidentiality.

_____________________________From letter______________________________-

Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In talk.abortion you write:

>In a previous article, [e-mail] (Dan King) wrote:
>>
>>By the by Loren, last week I posted a copy of the U.S.
>>Constitution for you.  Did you see it.  You still seem
>>to be somewhat confused about how the U.S. government works.

Dan King is his usual obnoxious self here.  There are lots like him in
talk.abortion.

[...]

>>Do you by any chance remember what your SAT scores were?
>>Could you post them?

>I do remember them.  I also remember my GRE scores.  These things, however,
>are completely irrelevant.  I did well enough to move onto higher education.

You just avoided falling into a trap for the uninitiated.  There is a
talk.abortion in-joke: anyone who posts his SAT scores, unless 'e is
a member of the talk.abortion inner circle (no pro-lifers need apply)
is a legitimate target of ridicule, and there seems to be no statute
of limitations on how long the ridicule can go on.

I know, I've been there.  When I posted them, I suspected something fishy
was afloat, so I said "Sorry, I just couldn't resist this opening."
  Then
when the questioner was congratulated on his swordwork against "this
incredible jackass," I came back with, "Well, you know what happens
to boxers who can't resist an opening. [You should know by now that I
sometimes engage in self-deprecating humor.]"  That may have reduced the
level of the flames somewhat, but an enormous amount of space has been
wasted on them anyway.

>Do you by any chance happen to know your IQ?
>Would you mind posting it?

Nice comeback.

Peter Nyikos
________________________________End of letter___________________-

But you knew about all this, didn't you, Mark?

>>I could ask the same about Mark Cochran, with "documented" in place
>>of "correct".  His sterling credentials as--choose some subset of:
>>
>>{ embryologist, fetologist, obstetrician, gynecologist, physician,
>>research biologist}
>>
>Have I ever posted documentation? Ask david Anderson. We're still
>waiting for him to respond to the last bit I posted. Of course, your
>newsserver was no doubt down, so you can claim never to have seen any
>documentation in any of my articles.

Right.  I've only seen some of them.  If you could provide *one* example,
that would be a good start.  You may e-mail me if you prefer.

>>--preferably not the empty set--which he is so coy about describing to
>>us, evidently absolve him, in his eyes, of documenting what he says or
>>*even* giving statistics instead of such vague statements as "against
>>the odds".
>>
>No Petey, we're reserved the empty set for you. There is none more
>deserving. As for your list, it's incomplete, and does not include
>the set of which I am a member. Keep trying Petey...

How about {janitor, mail clerk, hang gliding instructor}?  That seems more
close to the truth at this point than any of the above.

Peter Nyikos