 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Pregnancy / Pregnancy / July 2008=> 17 Catholic High School Sluts in Pregnancy Pact <= Christian Family Values !
Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting By KATIE ZEZIMA New York Times News Service Published on: 06/19/08 BOSTON - At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town of Gloucester, Mass., are expecting babies, and a Time magazine report says nearly half became pregnant after making a pact to do so and raise the children together. Local officials reached Thursday would not confirm the existence of such a pact but acknowledged that many of the 17 pregnancies - a total four times as many as last school year at the 1,200-student school - had been intentional. "I've heard some of them were not accidents; some of them were pleased when they got the results," said Greg Verga, a member of the Gloucester School Committee. "I did hear that there were cases where a teen went in several times for pregnancy tests and seemed depressed when it was negative." Joseph Sullivan, the principal of the school, Gloucester High, could not be reached for comment. But Time quoted him as saying that of the pregnant students, almost half, none older than 16, had engaged in the pact. Reached on Thursday, Mayor Carolyn Kirk said the existence of such an agreement was "believable, in the sense that it would explain this spike" in teenage pregnancies. Kirk, a member of the school committee, also said that some of those who impregnated the students were men in their mid-20s. Gloucester is a fishing town of 30,000 that is encountering hardships with the decline of the fishing industry. "This is a city in transition going through a hard economic time," Kirk said. "There are cuts in economic programs, cuts in services, cuts in after-school programs, and they're all impacting the social climate. We really let these kids down." "It's the social environment these girls are coming from," she added. "They think that a baby can give them love or give them status or fill an empty space in their life, and these girls are very, very young. And I think if you talk to any teenage mother who is caring for an infant, the road is not easy." The surge in teenage pregnancy has brought a heated debate over contraception and education in Gloucester, which is heavily Roman Catholic. The school clinic's medical director and its chief nurse practitioner both resigned in May after the hospital that administers grants for the clinic opposed making contraceptives available to students. The clinic does not distribute contraceptives, and Gloucester High School's health curriculum has been cut for budget reasons, meaning there is no sex education, Kirk said. Meanwhile, in addition to the 17 girls known to be pregnant, others continue to arrive at the clinic asking for pregnancy tests. The school committee is now considering educational programs on teenage pregnancy and weighing whether the clinic should distribute contraceptives. Kirk has instructed her health director to compile information about the issue from the state, other agencies and independent experts. She said the committee hoped to have a policy regarding education, contraception and related services in place by the start of the next school year. "It's very complicated," she said. "There are many layers, and I am insisting on a process where the school committee can explore all of the layers, get good information, find out what works in other communities and come to a good decision on behalf of our children." > Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? > At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > nearly half became pregnant after making a pact to do so and raise the > children together. This is a public high school, moron. It says so right there in the first sentence. > In article <6c0rg1F3eb3s...@mid.individual.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > This is a public high school, moron. It says so right there in the > first sentence. You are absolutely correct. It was a public school, but if you think that there weren't religious views and motivations being held, you are mistaken. Quote: "The school clinic's medical director and its chief nurse practitioner both resigned in May after the hospital that administers grants for the clinic opposed making contraceptives available to students. The clinic does not distribute contraceptives, and Gloucester High School's health curriculum has been cut for budget reasons, meaning there is no sex education" So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic), these students remain ignorant of the issues and dangers involved with sex and pregnancy, and wouldn't have easy access to protective measures even if they were well informed. > You are absolutely correct. It was a public school, but if you think > that there weren't religious views and motivations being held, you are > mistaken. > So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic), > these students remain ignorant of the issues and dangers involved with > sex and pregnancy, and wouldn't have easy access to protective > measures even if they were well informed. So your theory is that the girls who "[made] a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together" would not have done so had they not been denied access to condoms for "religious, political and economic" reasons. They were smart enough to figure out how to get pregnant, but due to the nefarious machinations of the religious, they weren't smart enough to figure out how not to get pregnant, which they did on purpose anyway. I have a theory too: it's that you're a f.cking ignoramous. > > You are absolutely correct. It was a public school, but if you think > > that there weren't religious views and motivations being held, you are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > not to get pregnant, which they did on purpose anyway. I have a theory too: > it's that you're a f.cking ignoramous. Not at all. I think they may not have done so if they really realized what being pregnant (and the responsibilities that it entails) meant. They are not mature enough to be making those sorts of decisions. But, if you want to call me a "f.cking ignoramous", I won't be bothered too much. Maybe I could use some education. I don't mind it much. I was hoping for more civil discussion though. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, and am quite open to changing my mind! Those specific girls purposefully got pregnant, and no matter how many condoms you would have handed them, they would probably not have used them. The problem comes when you do not educate a whole group of kids as to the risks and dangers involved. Would better education have helped? I think so. Do some girls still make the same decisions these girls made despite education? Of course. It doesn't make not having the education any better. asilentskeptic schrieb: > So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic), > these students remain ignorant of the issues and dangers involved with > sex and pregnancy, and wouldn't have easy access to protective > measures even if they were well informed. Well, they could go to a shop and buy condoms? Easy enough? > asilentskeptic schrieb: > > So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic), [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well, they could go to a shop and buy condoms? Easy enough? The article makes it pretty clear that the pregnancies were intentional. --- cary > In article <6c2a9vF3ei3m...@mid.individual.net> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= <usenet-11-2...@tessarakt.de> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > --- cary It does. I am worried about the problem with the lack of an education which may (or may not) have helped. It is far better to have even partially educated kids then it is to have none at all. You would probably have fewer young teenage girls purposefully getting pregnant. . > > In article <6c2a9vF3ei3m...@mid.individual.net> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= <usenet-11-2...@tessarakt.de> writes: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > probably have fewer young teenage girls purposefully getting pregnant. > . I would hope so. But to be effective in this situation, I'd guess, the education would have to go beyond sex education or lecturing the girls on how hard single teenage motherhood can be -- it would have to be the sort of education that opens up other opportunities for the girls to find fulfillment in something besides motherhood. -- cary ><usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> writes: >> asilentskeptic schrieb: >>> So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic), >>> these students remain ignorant of the issues and dangers involved with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The article makes it pretty clear that the pregnancies were > intentional. While the sexist and bigoted remark that they're sluts was provided by an ignorant jackass.  SignatureL. Raymond >> asilentskeptic schrieb: >> > So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic), [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >--- cary Bearing in mind that the sex education - which should have included some of the financial and life altering consequences of early pregnancies, was lacking due to religious/political pressure. An unintended consequence of assuming you know how things will turn out when one acts to achieve a political end . . . Signature----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >>> asilentskeptic schrieb: >>> > So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic), [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > An unintended consequence of assuming you know how things will turn > out when one acts to achieve a political end . . . How amusing. Schools have been teaching children how to have sex for 50 years now and have done an excellent job. Teen sexual activity, teen sexual diseases, teen pregnancies, have all skyrocketed since the introducion of sex education and the ready availability of contraception and abortion. But it's not the fault of secular progessives that these things have happened. It's not the fault of a society that glorifies sex without responsibility. It's not the fault of a curriculum that teaches kids how and where to f.ck, that it's prefectly natural to be curious about licking some other guy's sphincter, and that sucking a dick's a safe alternative to vaginal intercourse. No, it's the unimtended consequences from the actions of mean old right wing religious cranks who've brought nebulous "pressure" that has thwarted information about the "financial ... consequences" of early pregnancy from reaching these kids, because that's what would have convinced them that their behavior was a tad reckless. My god, how breathtakingly stupid you are. >>>> asilentskeptic schrieb: >>>> > So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic), [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >them that their behavior was a tad reckless. My god, how breathtakingly >stupid you are. No, the blame lies squarely with the parents - the rest of it is just the usual political smoke screen, and religion is certainly a factor. Signature----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >>>> asilentskeptic schrieb: >>>>> So, for a variety of reasons (religious, political and economic), [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > How amusing. Schools have been teaching children how to have sex for > 50 years now and have done an excellent job. ROTFLMAO! Riiiiiiiight, because before that, for 10,000s of years, teens didn't know how -- and therefore weren't -- having sex, eh jackass? Including some middle-eastern 13yr-old Jewish slut named Mary, who claimed to be a "virgin", yet managed to get pregnant by her teenage boyfriend Joseph ... and then blamed it on some "angel". And there are pig-ignorant morons stupid enough to actually believe it! > >>In article <6c2a9vF3ei3m...@mid.individual.net> > >>=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= <usenet-11-2...@tessarakt.de> writes: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - people have been f.cking since the dawn of man and popping out children. I don't think anyone set down with them and told them how to screw. They just knew. If those girls had to have taken care of a baby for two weeks, they never would have gotten knocked up. >>>> In article <6c2a9vF3ei3m...@mid.individual.net> >>>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jens_M=FCller?= <usenet-11-2...@tessarakt.de> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > screw. They just knew. If those girls had to have taken care of a baby > for two weeks, they never would have gotten knocked up. Too bad your mother didn't heed the same advice, eh? >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >This is a public high school, moron. It says so right there in the >first sentence. You are right the article doesn't go into religious affiliation. We should wait for more information before coming to conclusions. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/girls-pact-produces-pregnancy-bump-in-school/20 08/06/20/1213770924658.html The school forbids the distribution of condoms and other contraception without parental consent - a rule that prompted the school's doctor and nurse to resign in protest in May. "But even if we had contraceptives, that pact shows that if they want to get pregnant, they will get pregnant. "Whether we distribute contraceptives is irrelevant," Greg Verga, chairman of the Gloucester School Committee, said. Signature----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >This is a public high school, moron. It says so right there in the >first sentence. Wait until the stats are in - you may have to eat your words. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/20pregnant.html?_r=1&oref=slogin The surge in teenage pregnancy has brought a heated debate over contraception and education in Gloucester, which is heavily Roman Catholic. The school clinics medical director and its chief nurse practitioner both resigned in May after the hospital that administers grants for the clinic opposed making contraceptives available to students. The clinic does not distribute contraceptives, and Gloucester High Schools health curriculum has been cut for budget reasons, meaning there is no sex education, Ms. Kirk said. Meanwhile, in addition to the 17 girls known to be pregnant, others continue to arrive at the clinic asking for pregnancy tests. The school committee is now considering educational programs on teenage pregnancy and weighing whether the clinic should distribute contraceptives. Mayor Kirk has instructed her health director to compile information about the issue from the state, other agencies and independent experts. She said the committee hoped to have a policy regarding education, contraception and related services in place by the start of the next school year. Signature----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? > >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Wait until the stats are in - you may have to eat your words. There are no stats to wait for - it is a public school. Whether it gives out contraceptives or not, and whether the town is predominantly comprised of members of one religion or another, doesn't matter. >> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? >> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >predominantly comprised of members of one religion or another, doesn't >matter. Depends on how you parse the subject line; it could be that all 17 of the girls are Catholic. > >> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? > >> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Depends on how you parse the subject line; it could be that all 17 > of the girls are Catholic. It could be, but the article doesn't say they're all Catholic. It's just your bigoted friend Jonez injecting an anti-religious comment into a story that has nothing to do with religion. And, on schedule, here you are to back him up and make excuses for him. Why can't you just admit the article says nothing about religion, so there is no rational basis for Jonez to claim that either it is a Catholic school or that the girls are Catholic? Can't you just once call him out on something? Once? >> >> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? >> >> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >there is no rational basis for Jonez to claim that either it is a >Catholic school or that the girls are Catholic? From another article: "'Gloucester is a very, very proud community,' she said of the heavily Roman Catholic and insular town that is accessible only by a bridge from the mainland." And from yet another: "The disclosure of the pact, and reports that one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless man, has sparked a spirited debate in Gloucester about teenaged sex. In May the medical director and nurse at the school clinic resigned in protest at the refusal of the local hospital that controls their funds to allow them to distribute contraceptives to pupils without parental consent. "The hospital authorities made it clear they were anxious about the public impact of handing out contraception from the strongly Catholic local community. In the absence of provision by the clinic, students must travel 20 miles to the nearest women's health clinic." And you insist that this story has nothing to do with religion? >Can't you just once call him out on something? Once? Do you really need me to affirm the obvious - that "Reality_Check" sometimes makes assumptions about religion? Is your ego really that weak? > >> >> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? > >> >> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > she said of the heavily Roman Catholic and insular town that is > accessible only by a bridge from the mainland." So what? A bunch of teenagers at a public school decided to get pregnant. Catholicism has nothing to do with it, without knowing whether any of the girls were practicing or not, how they were raised, or what they were taught. But it's quite telling you're doing outside research to valiantly try to save jonezy's bigoted assertion. Quite telling. And shameful. > And from yet another: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > funds to allow them to distribute contraceptives to pupils without parental > consent. Teenage pregnancy and single parenting should spark a spirited debate, since public policy and social welfare are affected. There's nothing religious about it. > "The hospital authorities made it clear they were anxious about the public > impact of handing out contraception from the strongly Catholic local [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And you insist that this story has nothing to do with religion? Of course not. These girls, for whatever misguided reason, wanted to get pregnant. The availability of contraception has nothing to do with it. They could have had condoms and pills in their purses, believed in using them, and still ended up exactly as they are now. > >Can't you just once call him out on something? Once? > > Do you really need me to affirm the obvious - that "Reality_Check" > sometimes makes assumptions about religion? Is your ego really that > weak? "Assumptions"!?!? It's a start. Pathetic, but a start. >> >> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? >> >> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >It could be, but the article doesn't say they're all Catholic. The article doesn't say they're all sluts either, but I don't see you getting all up in arms over that. > >> >> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? > >> >> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > The article doesn't say they're all sluts either, but I don't see you > getting all up in arms over that. One could conclude that a hiigh school girl who goes out and has sex with someone just to get pregnant, without having strong feelings for the person, is a slut, if one was so inclined. One could not conclude anything about their religious affiliation from this. Actually, if anything, the logical conclusion is that they're _not_ Catholic, since a devout Catholic would be abstinent until marriage. And all of this presupposes we even accept your tortured and unlikely parsing of the subject line. >> >> >> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? >> >> >> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are expecting [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >with someone just to get pregnant, without having strong feelings for >the person, is a slut, if one was so inclined. Does it say in the article that none of the girls had strong feelings for the persons who impregnated them? Seems to me you're letting your own bigotry/carelessness with the facts reported show. >One could not conclude anything about their religious affiliation from >this. Actually, if anything, the logical conclusion is that they're >_not_ Catholic, since a devout Catholic would be abstinent until >marriage. By your "logic," there are a couple of orders of magnitude more Catholics than there are devout Catholics. Then again, the subject line doesn't say anything about devout. One could argue that devout Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Moslems, and Buddhists would be abstinent until marriage, yet by most polls over 90% of Americans have sex before marriage. What do you logically conclude from that, Larry? > >> >> >> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? > >> >> >> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > for the persons who impregnated them? Seems to me you're letting your > own bigotry/carelessness with the facts reported show. Why do you argue with me for the sake of it? But fine, have it your way. Jonez jumped to multiple unsupported conclusions about these girls - one about them being Catholic, one about them being sluts. Rather than criticizing him for them, you attack me for only calling him out on one of the irrational and unsupported conclusions he drew. Your blind support of him leads you to put forth some truly absurd arguments. > >One could not conclude anything about their religious affiliation from > >this. Actually, if anything, the logical conclusion is that they're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > By your "logic," there are a couple of orders of magnitude more Catholics > than there are devout Catholics. I'd think most of them would agree with you that they're Catholic, but not devoutly so. Do you have a point, or are you arguing with me for the sake of it, as usual? > Then again, the subject line doesn't > say anything about devout. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What do you logically conclude from that, Larry? That you go to ridiculously laughable lengths to be the only one who defends Jonez and his bigoted absurd statements. >> >> >> >> >> Did teen mothers-to-be make pregnancy pact? >> >> >> >> >> At least 17 students in one Massachusetts high school are [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >conclusions about these girls - one about them being Catholic, one about >them being sluts. A post back you implied that this was a reasonable conclusion. What changed your mind? >Rather than criticizing him for them, you attack me >for only calling him out on one of the irrational and unsupported >conclusions he drew. > >Your blind support of him leads you to put forth some truly absurd >arguments. Not supporting him, just disabusing you of the delusion that you are better than him. >> >One could not conclude anything about their religious affiliation from >> >this. Actually, if anything, the logical conclusion is that they're [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >not devoutly so. Do you have a point, or are you arguing with me for >the sake of it, as usual? I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic. Do you think you should be immune from that? >> Then again, the subject line doesn't >> say anything about devout. Point being that you are doing exactly what you accuse the OP of doing. >> One could argue that devout Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Moslems, >> and Buddhists would be abstinent until marriage, yet by most polls [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >That you go to ridiculously laughable lengths to be the only one who >defends Jonez and his bigoted absurd statements. See thread "Larry Gets His Bluff Called, Then Shows He's a Chicken!" > >> >> >> In article > >> >> >> <x-BCA5EE.11455320062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > What changed your mind? I think it is a reasonable conclusion. Teenage girls, with no indication any are married or even in serious relationships, agree with each other - not with the baby-fathers, but with each other - to get pregnant. I think it is a reasonable conclusion, but you're the one who challenged me on it. Look at it this way. I say "slut" was reasonable and "Catholic" was an unsupported bigoted assumption. If I'm right, your best friend Jonez only made one such assumption. But you challenge me on my conclusion that "slut" is appropriate. So if you're right, Jonez made two baseless, offensive assumptions. That's why I'm willing to let you have this one - you inadvertently portrayed things as worse for your ally. > >Rather than criticizing him for them, you attack me > >for only calling him out on one of the irrational and unsupported [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not supporting him, just disabusing you of the delusion that you are > better than him. By pointing out that he made more unsupported and baseless assertions and accusing me of only pointing out the most obvious one, you think you're showing I'm not better than him? Really? > >> >One could not conclude anything about their religious affiliation from > >> >this. Actually, if anything, the logical conclusion is that they're [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic. Do you think you should be immune > from that? I'm not immune from having these things pointed out to me, when they occur. This is not such a situation. > >> Then again, the subject line doesn't > >> say anything about devout. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > See thread "Larry Gets His Bluff Called, Then Shows He's a Chicken!" I did, and didn't see anything new. Jonez admitted to being a bigot, and you still blindly defend him! >Jonez admitted to being a bigot Cite? Message ID? URL? > >Jonez admitted to being a bigot > > Cite? Message ID? URL? In MID <6b8rctF3akaiiU1@mid.individual.net>, in response to my question (to you)"Have you ever heard Jonze make a racist and bigoted statement or not?" he responded "You mean like when I've called you and your ilk pig-ignorant white-trash scumbags?" Then in MID <6b8steF3ajf26U1@mid.individual.net>, when I asked how you were going to respond to that quote of his, Jonez admitted it was bigoted, saying it was a "slow pitch softball" that he lobbed up for me. What say you now, Jonez apologist? (You'll see in the same thread he makes multiple jokes about Jews being cooked to death in ovens and gas chambers as well. Great guy you've allied yourself with, there.) I expect you'll slink away now, like you did when I originally posted these messages and quotes to you asking for your acknowledgment. >> >Jonez admitted to being a bigot >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >or not?" he responded "You mean like when I've called you and your ilk >pig-ignorant white-trash scumbags?" After all your months of innuendo, the best you can come up with is that Jonez (who I suspect is also white) called you "white trash?" Here is your original challenge to me: [Larry wrote] 1) Do you admit that Jonez has authored posts which include hateful comments based on others' religion, race, perceived sexual orientation, and the like, in which he has called for death and/or serious injuries to befall those people? I gave you a very direct answer: "No." I then asked you this: "Do you assert that Jonez has authored posts which include hateful comments based on others' religion, race, perceived sexual orientation, and the like, in which he has called for death and/or serious injuries to befall those people? Just how gutless are you, that a month and a half has gone by and you have yet to give a direct answer? > >> >Jonez admitted to being a bigot > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > After all your months of innuendo, the best you can come up with is > that Jonez (who I suspect is also white) called you "white trash?" The best? Far from it. But I said Jonez admitted to being a bigot, you asked for proof, and I provided proof where he admitted to it. Game over. Do you think "white trash" is not racist? >> >> >Jonez admitted to being a bigot >> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >The best? Far from it. But I said Jonez admitted to being a bigot, you >asked for proof, and I provided proof where he admitted to it. That didn't sound like an admission to me, Larry. Do you still think our mission in Iraq is to crush the Sunnis and the Shiites? > >> >> >Jonez admitted to being a bigot > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > That didn't sound like an admission to me, Larry. To you, it wouldn't. That's not the least bit surprising. > Do you still think our mission in Iraq is to crush the Sunnis and the Shiites? I don't now, I never did, and you really shouldn't keep advertising how poor your reading comprehension skills are. But wouldn't someone wanting to crush all Sunnis and Shiites at least be on par with someone who calls al Native Americans "savages"? I'm waiting to see how you distinguish that scenario, since I know you will.... >> >> >> >Jonez admitted to being a bigot >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >But wouldn't someone wanting to crush all Sunnis and Shiites at least be >on par with someone who calls al Native Americans "savages"? Maybe if you don't think there's any difference between killing people and calling them names. > >> >> >> In article > >> >> >> <x-97B297.17150321062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Maybe if you don't think there's any difference between killing people and > calling them names. So you don't think calling an entire race a derogatory name is racist? Yes or no. >> >> >> >> In article >> >> >> >> <x-97B297.17150321062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >So you don't think calling an entire race a derogatory name is racist? >Yes or no. How about a yes or no to the question you've been ducking since the beginning of May, Larry? (See thread: Larry rings doorbell, runs away.) > >> >> >> In article > >> >> >> <x-738FEB.09383522062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > How about a yes or no to the question you've been ducking since the beginning > of May, Larry? (See thread: Larry rings doorbell, runs away.) Why do you duck the question? Is the answer too painful for you to confront? >> >> >> >> In article >> >> >> >> <x-738FEB.09383522062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >Why do you duck the question? Is the answer too painful for you to >confront? Answer the question you've been ducking since the beginning of May and maybe I'll answer yours sometime in the next month or two. Until then, stop whining. > >> >> >> In article > >> >> >> <x-457ABD.18232622062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > I'll > answer yours sometime in the next month or two. It's not worth it. You're going to distort any post of Jonezy's I provide for you. Besides, your silence in response to my question was an answer unto itself. It takes a strong person to admit they made a mistake and later renounce an ally of theirs - and a coward not to. >> >> >> >> In article >> >> >> >> <x-457ABD.18232622062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >It's not worth it. You're going to distort any post of Jonezy's I >provide for you. Didn't I tell you to stop whining? [...] >>> >But wouldn't someone wanting to crush all Sunnis and Shiites at least be >>> >on par with someone who calls al Native Americans "savages"? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >How about a yes or no to the question you've been ducking since the beginning >of May, Larry? (See thread: Larry rings doorbell, runs away.) Avoidance noted, and expected. SignatureJonezie: >> Or you could discuss the holocaust of Native Americans by >> the invading White Man ... Deadrat: > Sure. I for Indian or N for Native? Jonezie: S for Savage. Prof. Jonez expressing his racial HATE for Native Americans. Message-ID: <6b3i56F2svfk5U1@mid.individual.net> >> >> >> In article >> >> >> <x-738FEB.09383522062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > So you don't think calling an entire race a derogatory name is racist? > Yes or no. ""Imagine, Niggers Speaking French!" - US Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan [...] >>> >In MID <6b8rctF3akaiiU1@mid.individual.net>, in response to my question >>> >(to you)"Have you ever heard Jonze make a racist and bigoted statement [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >That didn't sound like an admission to me, Larry. It wouldn't, since you foolishly took the position that he's not a bigot. Rather than be mature and admit you were wrong, you pull an ostridge and burry your head (metaphorically) when the proof is presented. Jonezie: >> Or you could discuss the holocaust of Native Americans by >> the invading White Man ... Deadrat: > Sure. I for Indian or N for Native? Jonezie: S for Savage. Prof. Jonez expressing his racial HATE for Native Americans. Message-ID: <6b3i56F2svfk5U1@mid.individual.net> >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It wouldn't, since you foolishly took the position that he's not >a bigot. It wouldn't, because for all any of us other than Larry and Jonez know, this is just one white person calling another white person white. > >[...] > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It wouldn't, because for all any of us other than Larry and Jonez know, > this is just one white person calling another white person white. Calling someone "white trash" is the same as calling them "white"? Wow, the linguistic gymnastics continue! >> >[...] >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Calling someone "white trash" is the same as calling them "white"? Wow, >the linguistic gymnastics continue! Do you think it's racist to call you "trash," or "scumbag?" > >> >[...] > >> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Do you think it's racist to call you "trash," or "scumbag?" He didn't say trash. He said "white trash," which is a well-known phrase. Your gymnastics continue... amazing. >> >> >[...] >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >He didn't say trash. He said "white trash," which is a well-known >phrase. And what did you take him to mean by it? > >> >> >[...] > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > And what did you take him to mean by it? The same thing that everyone but you understands it to mean, I imagine. >> >> >> >[...] >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >The same thing that everyone but you understands it to mean, I imagine. Way to duck a question. > >> >> >> >[...] > >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Way to duck a question. Like you refusing to say whether you think "white trash" is a racist comment or not? >> >> >> >> >[...] >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >Like you refusing to say whether you think "white trash" is a racist >comment or not? Old business before new: You asked me: [Larry wrote] 1) Do you admit that Jonez has authored posts which include hateful comments based on others' religion, race, perceived sexual orientation, and the like, in which he has called for death and/or serious injuries to befall those people? I said no. I then asked you: 1) Do you claim that Jonez has authored posts which include hateful comments based on others' religion, race, perceived sexual orientation, and the like, in which he has called for death and/or serious injuries to befall those people? Well? > >> >> >> In article > >> >> >> <x-FD884F.18450524062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Old business before new: Way to duck a question. > You asked me: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Well? Isn't it obvious from my question to you that I do make that claim? There you go. I answered your question. Now you have no excuse whatsoever. Do you think that calling someone "white trash" is a racist comment or not? >> >> >> >> In article >> >> >> >> <x-FD884F.18450524062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > >Isn't it obvious from my question to you that I do make that claim? Is that a yes? It's obvious from your question that you're trying to make that claim without coming out and saying it. Why? Because then you might have to defend your claim with an example. And apparently you can't. Let me help: an example would be, say, Jonez saying that our mission is to "crush the Sunnis and Shiites" in Iraq. Of course that's just an example -- he didn't say it, you did. Your turn: where do you see Jonez calling for death and/or serious injuries to befall a group of people based on their religion, race, or sexual orientation? > >> >> >> In article > >> >> >> <x-ECB93A.19002624062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > without coming out and saying it. Why? Because then you might have to > defend your claim with an example. And apparently you can't. You're so obtuse you require the word "yes"? OK: Yes. Now answer my question. Is "white trash" a racist insult or not? > Let me help: an example would be, say, Jonez saying that our mission > is to "crush the Sunnis and Shiites" in Iraq. Of course that's just an > example -- he didn't say it, you did. I didn't do it either, liar. > Your turn: where do you see Jonez calling for death and/or serious > injuries to befall a group of people based on their religion, race, > or sexual orientation? No, your turn. I answered your question, you answer mine. Unless this it your backup plan to avoid it yet again, despite saying you'd answer once I answered that question from you. >> >> >> >> In article >> >> >> >> <x-ECB93A.19002624062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > >Now answer my question. Is "white trash" a racist insult or not? Here's your answer: it depends on the speaker and the speaker's intent. Kinda like the "n-word." >> Let me help: an example would be, say, Jonez saying that our mission >> is to "crush the Sunnis and Shiites" in Iraq. Of course that's just an >> example -- he didn't say it, you did. > >I didn't do it either, liar. Another example of your cowardly practice of saying things without having to stand behind them. You put the words in the mouth of a hypothetical US soldier and then heroically came to the defense of your imaginary serviceman. To use your words from above, "isn't it obvious" what you meant? >> Your turn: where do you see Jonez calling for death and/or serious >> injuries to befall a group of people based on their religion, race, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it your backup plan to avoid it yet again, despite saying you'd answer >once I answered that question from you. Your turn: where do you see Jonez calling for death and/or serious injuries to befall a group of people based on their religion, race, or sexual orientation? > >> >> >> In article > >> >> >> <x-D619E4.20372724062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > Here's your answer: it depends on the speaker and the speaker's intent. > Kinda like the "n-word." "It depends"? When Jonez makes a racist comment, and I call him out on it, to which he admits it was a "softball" for me, you can't being yourself to admit that your hero made a racist comment. When he called someone "white trash" you claim you can't tell if it is an insult or not because it depends on the speaker's intent. You're pathetic. And the definition of "apologist." > >> Let me help: an example would be, say, Jonez saying that our mission > >> is to "crush the Sunnis and Shiites" in Iraq. Of course that's just an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > imaginary serviceman. To use your words from above, "isn't it obvious" > what you meant? Yes, it was obvious. And the exact words I used were entirely irrelevant to the point being made. So I suppose it was obvious to everyone except you. > >> Your turn: where do you see Jonez calling for death and/or serious > >> injuries to befall a group of people based on their religion, race, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > or sexual orientation? In his posts. I don't have access to any other of his writings. >> >> >> >> In article >> >> >> >> <x-D619E4.20372724062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] >someone "white trash" you claim you can't tell if it is an insult or not >because it depends on the speaker's intent. Oh, it was definitely an insult. What, are you really as slow-witted as he says? >You're pathetic. And the definition of "apologist." > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >In his posts. Cite? URL? Message ID? > >> >> >> In article > >> >> >> <x-DE3335.00234025062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > Oh, it was definitely an insult. What, are you really as slow-witted as he > says? I called it an insult from day 1. You hemmed and hawwed and beat around the bush until you had no option but to reluctantly admit the inescapable truth. > >You're pathetic. And the definition of "apologist." > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Cite? URL? Message ID? How about the one KEnt provided? [...] >> >"It depends"? When Jonez makes a racist comment, and I call him out on >> >it, to which he admits it was a "softball" for me, you can't being [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the bush until you had no option but to reluctantly admit the >inescapable truth. Has he admitted it? [...] >> >> Your turn: where do you see Jonez calling for death and/or serious >> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >How about the one KEnt provided? That won't count, since it proves tjab wrong. SignatureJonezie: >> Or you could discuss the holocaust of Native Americans by >> the invading White Man ... Deadrat: > Sure. I for Indian or N for Native? Jonezie: S for Savage. Prof. Jonez expressing his racial HATE for Native Americans. Message-ID: <6b3i56F2svfk5U1@mid.individual.net> >> >> >> >> In article >> >> >> >> <x-DE3335.00234025062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] >the bush until you had no option but to reluctantly admit the >inescapable truth. What inescapable truth is that? > >> >> >> In article > >> >> >> <x-198574.06464925062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 177 lines] > > What inescapable truth is that? That "white trash" is a racist insult, and Jonez used it that way >> In article >> <x-1FFF11.21073826062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Larry [quoted text clipped - 193 lines] > > That "white trash" is a racist insult, and Jonez used it that way Since when is "trash" a race, eh numbnuts? > >> In article > >> <x-1FFF11.21073826062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Larry [quoted text clipped - 195 lines] > > Since when is "trash" a race, eh numbnuts? Wow. You're way dumber than the box of ball-peen hammers Deadrat's been comparing you to recently. It's not even close. >> >> >> >> In article >> >> >> >> <x-198574.06464925062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 179 lines] > >That "white trash" is a racist insult, and Jonez used it that way I "admit" nothing of the sort. Here's a racist insult: Grover Norquist calling Obama "John Kerry with a tan." Here's another: Fox News putting the caption "Obama's Baby Mama" under Michelle Obama. Got anything to say about that, Larry? Kent? Moe? > >> >> >> In article > >> >> >> <x-AD4E19.14531625062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 205 lines] > > I "admit" nothing of the sort. So you think it is an insult, but not a racist one? > Here's a racist insult: Grover Norquist calling Obama "John Kerry > with a tan." Here's another: Fox News putting the caption "Obama's > Baby Mama" under Michelle Obama. > > Got anything to say about that, Larry? Kent? Moe? Wow. The "But everyone else is doing it!" defense. Do you realize how low you've sunk? >> >> >> >> In article >> >> >> >> <x-AD4E19.14531625062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 216 lines] >Wow. The "But everyone else is doing it!" defense. Do you realize how >low you've sunk? In other words, you've got nothing to say about that. > >> >> >> >> >Now answer my question. Is "white trash" a racist insult or > >> >> >> >> >not? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > In other words, you've got nothing to say about that. Sure I do. All of Those comments by Norquist and Fox News are completely and utterly unacceptable and inappropriate. I don't know why you'd think I would support or agree with them. Now lets look on the other hand and some of the absurd apologetics you've pulled in the last week or so regarding your friend Jonez: 1) You've argued that "white trash" is not a racist comment, 2) You said I misinterpreted what Jonez said when he called for Jews to be cooked in ovens, 3) You've dismissed as "sarcasm" his call to get kerosene and a stake ready so someone identified as a witch can be burned, and 4) When he referred to girls as "Catholic High School Sluts," when they obviously attended a public school, you argued he was referring to the girls, not the school. But when it was pointed out there was nothing to suggest the girls were Catholic, you fell silent. What's quite interesting is that Jonez himself didn't even go to these lengths to justify what he said as acceptable - rather, he admitted in at least one case I called him out on that it was a "softball" he pitched for me to attack. You're sad. >> >> >> >> >> >Now answer my question. Is "white trash" a racist insult or >> >> >> >> >> >not? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >2) You said I misinterpreted what Jonez said when he called for Jews to >be cooked in ovens, If you say that's what he said, I don't think you misinterpreted anything. I think you're flat out lying. >3) You've dismissed as "sarcasm" his call to get kerosene and a stake >ready so someone identified as a witch can be burned, and And? It clearly was sarcasm, as I suspect you well know. >4) When he referred to girls as "Catholic High School Sluts," when they >obviously attended a public school, you argued he was referring to the >girls, not the school. I pointed out the possibility. >But when it was pointed out there was nothing to >suggest the girls were Catholic, you fell silent. There is plenty to suggest, but nothing to prove this. Ironically, you defended his claim that they were "sluts," on as little evidence. > >> >> >> >> >> >Now answer my question. Is "white trash" a racist insult or > >> >> >> >> >> >not? [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > There is plenty to suggest, but nothing to prove this. See that? An excuse for everything. Amazing. > Ironically, you defended his claim that they were "sluts," > on as little evidence. We know they're teenagers, unmarried, and sexually active. >> >> >> >> >> >> >Now answer my question. Is "white trash" a racist insult or >> >> >> >> >> >> >not? [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > >See that? An excuse for everything. Amazing. Pointing out that you lied about something is "an excuse?" >> Ironically, you defended his claim that they were "sluts," >> on as little evidence. > >We know they're teenagers, unmarried, and sexually active. Which you, with your superior intellect, presented as evidence that they weren't Catholic. And now present as evidence that they were "sluts." Is it hard to read this with that beam in your eye? [...] >> >That "white trash" is a racist insult, and Jonez used it that way >> >> I "admit" nothing of the sort. > >So you think it is an insult, but not a racist one? He's unable or unwilling to accept that someone he's devoted so much "hero worship" to is as vile as the proof shows. >> Here's a racist insult: Grover Norquist calling Obama "John Kerry >> with a tan." Here's another: Fox News putting the caption "Obama's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Wow. The "But everyone else is doing it!" defense. Do you realize how >low you've sunk? The Obama/Kerry comparison looks racist to me. Depending on actual context (tjab HATES context), it may not be. I'll need to look into the matter to make a more informed opinion. I find it interesting how someone referring to Michelle as Baby Mama in some way equates to bigotry in tjab's mind. It's an odd title to bestow, but she is younger than Barack and is the mother of their children. Even if it was bigoted, tjab will excuse it as being sarcasm. SignatureJonezie: >> Or you could discuss the holocaust of Native Americans by >> the invading White Man ... Deadrat: > Sure. I for Indian or N for Native? Jonezie: S for Savage. Prof. Jonez expressing his racial HATE for Native Americans. Message-ID: <6b3i56F2svfk5U1@mid.individual.net> [...] >>> What inescapable truth is that? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Here's a racist insult: Grover Norquist calling Obama "John Kerry >with a tan." Certainly a bigoted comment. >Here's another: Fox News putting the caption "Obama's >Baby Mama" under Michelle Obama. > >Got anything to say about that, Larry? Kent? Moe? Michelle is younger than Barack, but to call her his Baby Mama is odd. I don't see the racism in it. -- Jonezie: >> Or you could discuss the holocaust of Native Americans by >> the invading White Man ... Deadrat: > Sure. I for Indian or N for Native? Jonezie: S for Savage. Prof. Jonez expressing his racial HATE for Native Americans. Message-ID: <6b3i56F2svfk5U1@mid.individual.net> > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Certainly a bigoted comment. Actually, the more I think about it, I'm not so sure. Would "John Kerry with darker skin" be racist? He's saying that the two have similar views, and the only difference is their skin color. Would calling Kerry "Barack Obama with lighter skin" be racist? > >Here's another: Fox News putting the caption "Obama's > >Baby Mama" under Michelle Obama. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Michelle is younger than Barack, but to call her his Baby Mama is > odd. I don't see the racism in it. Well, "baby mama" is a colloquial term used in urban areas to identify someone who is the mother of a guy's child, but isn't his wife or girlfriend. So while it is technically correct that she is the mother of his children, the implication would be that they just hooked up a few times and aren't married, which is just wrong. The comment is mostly used in reference to (and by) African Americans, which is why I think tjab thinks it is racist. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Would calling Kerry "Barack Obama with lighter skin" be racist? I think it would. >> >Here's another: Fox News putting the caption "Obama's >> >Baby Mama" under Michelle Obama. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >of his children, the implication would be that they just hooked up a few >times and aren't married, which is just wrong. They've been married for a long time, so yes, it's certainly wrong. >The comment is mostly >used in reference to (and by) African Americans, which is why I think >tjab thinks it is racist. I don't see it. Perhaps tjab will explain it. SignatureDo not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. > >> [...] > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I think it would. Would saying that Obama is a "shorter John Kerry" be a height-based insult? At some point, it's just a comparison, not an insult or racism. > >> >Here's another: Fox News putting the caption "Obama's > >> >Baby Mama" under Michelle Obama. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I don't see it. Perhaps tjab will explain it. >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I think it would. Why would you think that someone's skin color had a pejorative connotation? <snip/> > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Certainly a bigoted comment. Interesting. Why? >>Here's another: Fox News putting the caption "Obama's >>Baby Mama" under Michelle Obama. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Michelle is younger than Barack, but to call her his Baby Mama is > odd. I don't see the racism in it. "Babymama" is slang for a woman by whom a man has fathered a child, a woman not the man's wife. Connotations vary, but the term often carries the sense that the baby is an incidental and unintended consequence of a strictly sexual relationship. The age of the parties doesn't enter into it. <snip/> > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Michelle is younger than Barack, but to call her his Baby Mama is > odd. I don't see the racism in it. "We huddled 'em up. We made them squat down... I poured four clips into the dinks...the mothers kept hugging their children...we kept on firing..." - Paul Meadlo, US Army commenting on US War crimes at My Lai >>> In article >>> <x-F61059.22113825062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Larry [quoted text clipped - 169 lines] > > What inescapable truth is that? Certainly none of these ... "What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing." -- Larry the legal stooge " [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime, or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact innocent." -- Larry the idiot "The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1 for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal relevance in terms of bail." -- Larry the legal imbecile " Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where you can still smoke." -- Larry the moron "There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence." -- Larry the eponymous fool " I don't know a single attorney, public or private, who knows his/her attorney registration number." -- Larry G. the habitual liar. "Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a crime if the recipient knows it is stolen" -- Lyin' Larry, the legal jackass >>>> Kent Wills: "I'm just the guy who can travel without restriction to >>>> several Latin American countries." >>>> UM: "Why not all the Latin American countries then, eh Kent?" >>>> Larry G. the imbecile: "Federal law, dumbass. No citizen can go >>>> to some of the nations from the US." Larry the Imbecile claims that 0.625 grams is "far more than a gram" and that a handcuffed man will "fall faster" when pushed off a cliff. >>>> Q: And just what does a moron like you think a Townhouse is, eh jackass ? >>>> Larry the Ignoramus: "A dwelling, which is a type of structure or building. >>>> It is not, however, real property." "I never mentioned New York? That's so demonstrably false I'm still laughing. Anytime I speak in anything resembling a specific, I make it clear that I'm referring to NY statutes. I've never claimed to know the details of criminal statutes in other jurisdictions." -- Larry G. the Pathological Liar "Having private savings accounts comprise a part of social security is not the same as privatizing social security." -- Larry G., stammering imbecile "I happen to be a prosecutor in New York. " -- Larry G. the habitual liar "I happen to be an Assistant District Attorney, and I have absolute immunity for the charges I bring against someone. Besides, someone being found "not guilty" does not mean they are 'innocent.' " -- Larry the amoral coward "Actually, as an Assistant District Attorney, I know precisely who should be in prison " -- Larry G, fascist megalomaniac "I truly hope that if you ever come to my jurisdiction and commit a crime, I am assigned to prosecute the case against you. I'd love to show you up close and personal how good of a lawyer I am, fool." -- Larry, the poor pathetic bastard > >>> In article > >>> <x-F61059.22113825062008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Larry [quoted text clipped - 248 lines] > show you up close and personal how good of a lawyer I am, fool." > -- Larry, the poor pathetic bastard I notice all of a sudden I became "Larry G." Is that a tacit admission you had your head up your a.s about what my name really is? [...] >> "Actually, as an Assistant District Attorney, I know precisely who should be >> in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I notice all of a sudden I became "Larry G." Is that a tacit admission >you had your head up your a.s about what my name really is? Isn't it interesting that he stated it's been proved that you are Larry Glasser, yet now shows he doesn't know. SignatureJonezie: >> Or you could discuss the holocaust of Native Americans by >> the invading White Man ... Deadrat: > Sure. I for Indian or N for Native? Jonezie: S for Savage. Prof. Jonez expressing his racial HATE for Native Americans. Message-ID: <6b3i56F2svfk5U1@mid.individual.net> > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Isn't it interesting that he stated it's been proved that you are > Larry Glasser, yet now shows he doesn't know. ========== From : < 19ranger57_at_earthlink.net> Date : 18 Jun 2005 05:01:37 -0700 "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: [snip] > Here's the Greivance information, now all we need to do is identify the > unethical slimball lawyer named "Larry" ... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > New York, NY 10006 > (212) 401-0800 As I pointed out elsewhere, "Larry" has been identified as Larry Glasser, as Glasser's posts make no sense if he is not our Larry. Moreover, *our* Larry has identified himself as a NY ADA, and the chance that there are two Larry Glassers working for that office are almost infinitesmal. It's certainly enough evidence to establish probable cause, which is all we have to do to initiate a grievance. If someone did fi |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message