NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53745

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 10.6 KB | 244 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Mark Cochran (Was: Peter) shows his ignorance, once again.
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 menioning.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 03:23:38 GMT
Lines: 229

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

>>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.
>
I'll be looking for it. Somehow I doubt I'll see anything worth
reading.

>>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.
>
Ahhhh, lookie, PHoney finally figured out what an ass he's been making
of himself, and now is going to try and pretend he actually has a
clue.

>You're learning, Mark, you're learning.
>
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of you.

>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.
>
So you are backing down, and admiting that I was correct. Nice of you
to do so in plain language., instead of a 1000 line noise article.
But let us review, just to ensure that there is no further bilge from
your end.
Another poster already provided a source which states that 1/2 to 1/3
of all fertilized eggs never implant.
The abortion rate is roughly 500 per 1000 live births (Source, since
you can't find it yourself: Maternal Newborn Nursing, 4th Edition
Olds/London/Ladewig)
Do we really need to add in other causes of failed pregnancies PHoney?
By my math, (you're the math geek, you can add this up...) we're
at or over the 2/3 failure rate I posted.

>>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.
>
Since you are so sadly unable to find commonly available information,
please try reading the sources that have been posted in this very
thread.

>So I decline your offer of a wild goose chase, and ask you to
>either put up or shut up.
>
I've already put up PHoney. Are you ready to shut up now?

>HOORAY!!!!!!!!!! MARK DOES NOT DISPUTE THE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!
>
Petey, your little quote has already been quite well repudiated by
Larry, why should I waste my time duplicating efforts? True, I didn't
notice what ancient drek you were quoting from the first time around.
That's what I get for responding to your incrediby long, extremly
boring articles in the middle ofthe night.

>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.
>
Nonsense PHoney, I've never recieved any email from any of the
individuals you term my "pro-choice friends".
One individual did send me mail about my medical credentials, but he
is not (I don't think) amoung those you are mentioning here.

>>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.
>
Petey, you really must work on your reading. This is an awful lot like
your inability to understand that fetal tissue cultures are not
derived from cancer cell tissue cultures.

>>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.
>
PHoney, some of us never had to be clued in. Some of us already had a
clue before we had one forcibly beaten into our skulls. Has the
headache from having yours beaten in finally ceased?

>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.
>
Loren? *MY* nemesis? You mean Loren "I admit I know nothing about
<insert subject here> but I know I'm right" Finkelstein? The little
boy who ran screaming in terror from the newsgroup after heather
ripped his pitiful little arguments apart?
This is another of your fantasies PHoney.

>_____________________________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:
Lets make sure this is clear PHoney, this was written by *YOU* not me,
as your attribution above would seem to indicate.
You still don't understand how those things work do you?

>
>>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.
>
Personally, I've always found Dan to be considerably less obnoxious,
and considerably more intelligent then you PHoney.

>[...]
>
>>>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.
>
Inner circle be damned PHoney, anybody who posts their SAT/GRE scores
is patently a twit. You are a fine example of how true this is.

>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."
Uh huh, *now* you are claiming "I knew this was a sucker punch, but I
walked into it anyway"...
I guess there's not much to say about somebody like you. You're either
a twit for posting, or a greater twit for posting when you claim to
have *known* it was a mistake.

>  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?
>
*YAWN* Sorry, I fell asleep. Did you have some point to make?
Oh, I didn't think so.

>>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.
>
Now Petey Honey... If you've seen *some* of them, as you admit above,
then I've *already* provided one, as per your request. Come on PHoney,
you're supposed to be a mathematician, surely having seen *some*
implies *more then one*...

>>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.
Now PHoney, you're way off base. But if you're going to post jobs
which are considered trvial, then your list is incomplete. Try:
>How about {janitor, mail clerk, hang gliding instructor, topologist}?
That seems more close to the truth at this point than any of the
above.

As if you knew anything about truth PHoney...

--
                  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.