--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reminds me of the advice not to attempt calculus
> while drunk. "Don't drink and derive."
>
> Guess this would be a PUI (Posting Under the
> Influence)?
Is that pronounced "pyoo-ey," alternate spelling
phewie? ;)
Pepe LePew Maru
_
Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> Ronn! wrote:
>
> > So many possible smart-aleck responses come to mind that I cannot decide
> > on the one I like best, so I will respond by simply quoting the
> > above-cited second amendment:
> >
> > "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
Ronn! wrote:
So many possible smart-aleck responses come to mind that I cannot decide
on the one I like best, so I will respond by simply quoting the
above-cited second amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and b
At 09:42 PM 2/27/04, Doug Pensinger wrote:
What it says to me is that it is OK to outlaw civil unions or any aspect
of them. That SSUs can never expect to have the same rights conferred
upon them that traditional marriages do and that homosexuals are thereby
second class citizens. IMO it is
At 10:19 PM 2/27/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
>What it says to me is that it is a ban on ALL new marriages both
>heterosexual and homosexual. It will remove all 1049 'marriage' rights
>that now exist for all existing married couples.
Shirley, you can't be serious.
There's the word "require" in t
> From: Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Culled from the MCMedia archive as my email program seems to be eating
old
> messages in my brin-l folder.
>
> JDG wrote:
>
> <<
> As I have hinted earlier, if I were forced to cast a vote, I would vote
in
> favor of the "Federal Marriage Amendment
> From: Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Rather than talk about the human morality of killing humans, I am
> curious how many on this list think that it is morally good to emulate
> a `higher being'?
It is Absolutely Morally Wrong to emulate the Evil Deities of the Bible,
Koran, Jewish
Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted John as saying
> I stated plainly and simply that I believe that human life
> begins at conception.
and then when on to say
Give that somewhere between 50% and 80% of conceptions end in
natural spontaneous abortions, that you think that hu
"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 02:40 PM 2/22/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
> >> My problem with IVF is that a typical step of the procedure is selective
> >> abortion, and I am at least intellectually consistent about my belief that
> >> human life begins at conception.
> >
> >How do you feel
At 02:40 PM 2/22/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
>> My problem with IVF is that a typical step of the procedure is selective
>> abortion, and I am at least intellectually consistent about my belief that
>> human life begins at conception.
>
>How do you feel about implanting only 3 embryos at a tim
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
> At 12:18 PM 2/22/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >As to the question of consistency: I think it is every persons
right
> >to change their minds when they feel it is necessary. I also feel
tha
"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> My problem with IVF is that a typical step of the procedure is selective
> abortion, and I am at least intellectually consistent about my belief that
> human life begins at conception.
How do you feel about implanting only 3 embryos at a time? Or do you
also object to
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
> John said:
>
> > I stated plainly and sim
John said:
> I stated plainly and simply that I believe that human life begins at
> conception.
Give that somewhere between 50% and 80% of conceptions end in natural
spontaneous abortions, that you think that human life begins at
conception, and that you think ending a human life is wrong, do you
At 12:18 PM 2/22/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>As to the question of consistency: I think it is every persons right
>to change their minds when they feel it is necessary. I also feel that
>another person sees or think they see an inconsistency in ones
>worldview, it is perfectly OK to point i
- Original Message -
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
> At 08:33 AM 2/22/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger w
At 08:33 AM 2/22/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>"Every sperm is sacred."
>
>
>xponent
>Consistency Is The Hobgoblin Of Small Minds Maru
>rob
The only hobgoblin is the inconsistent one-liner you posted above after
leaving a gratuitous amount of quoted text.
Mine's Bigger Than Your
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 08:33:54AM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> "Every sperm is sacred."
Damn those wet dreams from the devil!
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
- Original Message -
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
> At 06:49 PM 2/17/2004 -0600 Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 06:49 PM 2/17/2004 -0600 Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
>At 06:38 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
>Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he "does not believe
>in it", which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages
>it. AFAIK, the Catholic church does not teach that babies
At 06:47 PM 2/17/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I believe that human sexuality is non-binary. While there are
>> >>certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or
>> >>heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who
>> >exist
>> >>on the in-between. Thu
[regarding time after birth]
You need at *least* 3 months to recuperate. A year is a lot
better.
And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a
few months.
It can be a lot longer if you breast feed: breast feeding tends to
prevent ovulation. Nearly 20 years
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:59:52AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> > And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few
> > months.
>
> Do you know if it can be speeded up by the drugs they use on some women
> who were having troubling getting pregnant,
At 12:37 PM 2/20/2004, you wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:59:52AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few
> months.
Do you know if it can be speeded up by the drugs they use on some women
who were having troubling getting pregnant, w
On 20 Feb 2004, at 3:45 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:26 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of
the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his
mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twi
Bryon Daly wrote:
>
> >From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few
> >months.
>
> Or not! I think breastfeeding can hold off ovulation, but my wife would
> always tell her patients not to rely on that and that they needed t
Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of
> the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his
> mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twins in the
> batch, the rest singletons. Oh, and the dad is an obst
At 10:59 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
Spacing births every 2.5 years might be best for both mother and all
children after the first.
Spacing the children 2.5 miles apart after they are born is also better for
both mother and children . . .
-- Ronn! :)
___
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Reuter wrote:
> Or they could go continuously but 180 degrees (4.5 months) out of
> phase...
You need at *least* 3 months to recuperate. A year is a lot better.
Well, it's probably more "really want" 3 months to recuperate, than "need".
My wife is ju
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 08:34:29AM -0800, Chad Cooper wrote:
> Does anyone find this ironic that the Missionary position AKA Front
> Penetration, was thus named so from Catholic Missionaries who found
> the rear-entry position used by savages to be unnatural.
Which irony was what got me thinking
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:59:52AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few
> months.
Do you know if it can be speeded up by the drugs they use on some women
who were having troubling getting pregnant, who then seem prone to have
quintup
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:26:55AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> > Personally, I think that if a lesbian couple were trying to maximize
> > the procreation, a good schedule would be one has a baby, the other
> > has a baby a year later, the first has her second a year af
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:21:17AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> > Erik Reuter wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> > >
> > > > You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is
> > > > the benefit of pro
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
>
> At 09:26 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> >The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of
> >the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his
> >mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twins in the
>
> Which is why I support the National Doggie-Style Amendment.
> As anyone who has been to the zoo knows, front penetration is
> unnatural. We should not provide government incentives to,
> for example, Catholics who engage in the unnatural act of
> front penetration. Any savages who copulate on
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 07:21:53AM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> Which is why birth rates are measured per woman, not per couple.
Which is both irrelevant and, being an absolute statement requiring only
one exception, not true. But such nonsense to avoid the issue is not
unexpected, JDG.
--
E
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:26:55AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> Personally, I think that if a lesbian couple were trying to maximize
> the procreation, a good schedule would be one has a baby, the other
> has a baby a year later, the first has her second a year after that,
> etc. But that's not
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:21:17AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> Erik Reuter wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> >
> > > You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is
> > > the benefit of producing children at twice the rate?
At 09:26 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of
the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his
mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twins in the
batch, the rest singletons. Oh, and the da
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:09:18PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
>
> > From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > > > You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by
> > > > artificial insemination. They could produce children
Julia said:
> > World domination.
>
> By whom, exactly?
A race of atomic superwomen?
Rich, who was somewhat surprised to learn that an Italian town is going
to start paying EUR10,000 for each baby born there:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3252794.stm
__
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
>
> At 01:09 PM 2/19/04, Jon Gabriel wrote:
> >>From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Su
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> > You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is
> > the benefit of producing children at twice the rate?
>
> World domination.
By whom, exactly?
Julia
just curious...
_
From: Alberto Monteiro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Alternatively, a lesbian couple could pair with a compatible gay male
>> couple, and sperm from both men could be inserted inside both women.
>> One child could live with the men and one with the women (assuming they
>> don't all want to live tog
Andrew P said:
> LOL, yes thats almost perfect.
> You just forgot to mention the Torquemada girdle.
And... the powered armour?
Rich, who thinks the twins should start a revolution on the Moon.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>Erik Reuter wrote:
>>> >
>>> > JDG wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > "I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have
>>> > > children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of
>>> > > adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions
>>Erik Reuter wrote:
>> > You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by
>> > artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE RATE
>> > of a heterosexual couple.
Which is why birth rates are measured per woman, not per couple.
JDG - Nothing like the real thing
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:09:18PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
> From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Erik Reuter wrote:
> > > You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by
> > > artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE
> > > RATE of a heterosex
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is
> the benefit of producing children at twice the rate?
World domination.
> I think all heterosexual woman should be sterilized and only lesbians
> should be a
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
>> "I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have
>> children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of
>> adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce
>> children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreover, the question
>> be
At 01:09 PM 2/19/04, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:53:41 -0600
Erik Reuter wr
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:53:41 -0600
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> JDG wrote:
>
> &
Erik Reuter wrote:
>I support the National Doggie-Style Amendment.
So do I, but for entirely different reasons. :-)
Jim
Was that dirty? Maru
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> JDG wrote:
>
> > "I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have
> > children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of
> > adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce
> > children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreove
JDG wrote:
> "I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have
> children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of
> adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce
> children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreover, the question
> becomes - should
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 09:33:19PM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote:
> John did not mention artificial insemination at all, seemingly
> ignoring that possibility in his original post. I'll quote the
> relevant bit here:
> In my reply, I pointed this oversight out, which he acknowledged and
> then s
At 05:14 AM 2/18/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:28:03AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> Nothing happened to them. I'm not sure what that has to do with the
> current discussion, though.
How disappointing :-(
How so?
Obligatory Second Line Maru
-- Ronn! :)
___
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:28:03AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> Nothing happened to them. I'm not sure what that has to do with the
> current discussion, though.
How disappointing :-(
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mc
At 08:17 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:13:12PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> As, apparently, did you . . .
What ever happened to your God-given predictions?
Nothing happened to them. I'm not sure what that has to do with the
current discussion, though.
-- Ronn!
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Not unlike saying that
artificial insemination does not count for lesbian couples.
Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he "does not believe
in it", which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages it.
AFAIK, the Catholic chu
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:13:12PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> As, apparently, did you . . .
What ever happened to your God-given predictions?
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 08:02 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:49:47PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> Has anybody here said that, other than you just now?
...
> >Not unlike saying that artificial insemination does not count for
> >lesbian couples.
>
> Did anyone say that it does not count?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:49:47PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> Has anybody here said that, other than you just now?
...
> >Not unlike saying that artificial insemination does not count for
> >lesbian couples.
>
> Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he "does
> not believe i
At 06:38 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:33:54PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> At 06:24 PM 2/17/04, Chad Cooper wrote:
>
> >When I replace "Gay" and "Homosexual" with Interracial, replace "sex" with
> >"race", and "heterosexual" as "same-race"..
> >
> >>
At 06:24 PM 2/17/04, Chad Cooper wrote:
When I replace "Gay" and "Homosexual" with Interracial, replace "sex" with
"race", and "heterosexual" as "same-race"..
>>
Chad's Modified text example below
>>
...snip for brevity...
3) interracial unions are ill-
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:33:54PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> At 06:24 PM 2/17/04, Chad Cooper wrote:
>
> >When I replace "Gay" and "Homosexual" with Interracial, replace "sex" with
> >"race", and "heterosexual" as "same-race"..
> >
> >>>
> >Chad's Modified text examp
66 matches
Mail list logo
