Pure Parents

Question:

> I see you like my little buddy Eric.  I have some others that are just as > precious as he is. > So that’s what you call your DICK!!! > You obnoxious shithead. > Steve

So that’s what you call your DICK!!! You obnoxious shithead.

Response:

> I see you like my little buddy Eric.  I have some others that are just as > precious as he is.

    Yea – I see that some jerk who would have me believe he is merely kinda dumb felt some great need to toss in his two cents worth.     I’d almost be halfway curious enough to check what ng the twits post from just to see what other sorts of incredible crap they got to present. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > >     ?? – Has anyone ever told you that you are incredibly stupid? > > Frequently, but such errors in perception reflect negatively only on > > the people who make them. >     Okay. You are capable of saying something intelligent but just chose not > to. > > So – is everyone in the cross-posted newsgroups in favor of putting > > disabled children in the car, and pumping exhaust in?  Shall we take > > a poll? >     What a delightful characterization from a moronic babbler. >     You idiotically assume the worst of motives for a person and then would > attempt to defend you own depravity with the above tripe. >     I don’t know if the fellow who killed that kid had bad motives. Only got > to read a bit about him. You are here though, with some great desire to > announce your stupidity for all to read. >     I doubt that you will find much of anyone in the newsgroups who would > really advocate the gassing of disabled children. There may be a fair number > unwilling to jump to such harsh assumption and judgment of motives on that > persons part. >     As it is, you are an idiot. I like idiots. If you are not too noisy an > idiot I might allow you to follow me around to do me simple errands. > — > "Some have brains, and some haven’t," Pooh says, "and there it is."

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> No, I think a ten year sentence is perfectly appropriate for someone >who >> >> deliberately gases their disabled child with car exhaust, regardless of >> >> any mitigating circumstances. >> > Well, your earlier post already established you as an idiot asshole. So, >> > what you think is mostly of import to you. >> I have little intention of trying to explain my earlier post to someone >> such as yourself whose command of the English language is clearly lacking. >> > Your earlier post made quite some declaration of what was his motives. >> > So, you are an idiot asshole who does not stand by his grand >> > declarations. >> My earlier post said nothing of this individual’s motives.  It merely >> stated that the sentence should serve as an example to others >> contemplating doing the same, for whatever reason. >> I also observed that given the child’s condition, it was highly unlikely >> that she made a request to be assisted in a suicide. >> You can call me all the names you like, but it doesn’t change those FACTS >> one iota. >    Then some imposter made the quoted statements  below? >    Of course I can call you all the names I wish. > Generally, immature children (…and adults who find sentence > structuring a very daunting task) will resort to name calling.

    I guess you felt some need to stick your bozo nose in?     Well have at it. the more the merrier. >In response you may act >pompous and indignant. > Anyone who has come to know Mr Cordian is cognizant of his compelling > ability to goad the ignorant into making blithering fools of > themselves… > …while making them think he is acting indignant and pompous.  :)

    I don’t know that jackass any better than I do you.     I don’t need be made a fool of. I do well enough right out the gate.     Look what follows;-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->    Now did you or did you not impose some motives for yourself to make >judgment upon? >Eric said: >What rights would you rather have?  The parents’ right to kill any child >whose care takes up too much of their time, when they’d rather be watching >"Oprah?" >This was about the parents’ pain, not the child’s.  Let the sentence >stand as an example to others who want an easy way out of caring for >disabled family members.

Response:

> Not every parent is like your own Eric so quit projecting. > Again, you resort to the typical tricks of people who disrespect everyone > under 18.  Trying to switch the discussion to be about the person posting, > instead of the issues.  Trying to insult your opponents by comparing them > to children.  Trying to suggest that any defense of childrens’ rights > stems from some sort of personal vendetta the poster has against his own > family.

    Insult you by comparing you with a child? – Perhaps it is a bad caomparison. A child may have excuse of some relative ignorance. The child may grow and learn better.     Ignorance is curable through education. Your stupidity is likely to be very enduring in the face of all assaults. > People like you are why I wouldn’t waste a moment of my time criticizing a > parent or teacher killing.

    That is because you are a babbling moron.

Response:

> > I see you like my little buddy Eric.  I have some others that are just as > precious as he is. > So that’s what you call your DICK!!!

> You obnoxious shithead. > Steve

– "Some have brains, and some haven’t," Pooh says, "and there it is."

Response:

> >>> Not every parent is like your own Eric so quit projecting. >> Again, you resort to the typical tricks of people who disrespect everyone >> under 18. > I love my 18 year and under friends and you are are trying to distract > from the fact I burned your ass badly.  Must have hit home with that > one. > I consider you a troll,

And I am suppose to now cry as your considerations are suppose to mean what to me? > and only bother responding to your posts when > there are none left from rational people.

YOU pick the threads like I pick the articles since that is all you reply to at the start.  I see something that seems interesting and I share you.  YOU will note that I only post the article and it is you who takes the article and runs the troll on it.  I include your ng as on some days you can debate but it seems to be less and less lately so I may just leave your ng out of this.  I can bet that won’t keep you away from the articles I post though as you take great delight in trying to troll me. > Your choice of crossposted > newsgroups leaves no doubt that you are a troll,

Look at the subject of the post lamer and the ng’s it is posted to. alt.activism.children  ON TOPIC alt.activism    ON TOPIC alt.thebird.liberal    ON TOPIC alt.prisons    ON TOPIC alt.parenting.solutions    ON TOPIC The most restrictive standard I have seen to what constitutes spam or trolling as some would say is greater than 5 ng’s.  I try to keep mine at that but sometimes go over as the need dictates.  I did notice that you are far from your home ng. Seems I never posted this to your group and you are the one who hunted down my post in the ng’s above to make your reply to. > even when it is not > instantly apparent from your disconnected ramblings, attempts to draw > conclusions from facts not in evidence, ad hominem attacks, and complete > cluelessness as to what constitutes a syllogism.

Is it not funny that the very thing he tries to mark me with so he can save what dignity he might salvage is the very thing he uses on me at this time?  Most people would have got lost in your whining about me doing these things to poor little you and missed that you are the one doing that same thing right now.  I attack your posts Eric as all you try to use is an emotional appeal each time you post.  You may use some facts and logic at times but you do not stick to that and quickly go to some poor little age discriminated against kids and bad old adult old fat me. >> Trying to switch the discussion to be about the person posting, >> instead of the issues. > You made it about Oprah > When Oprah posts on this thread, you will have a valid point, and not > before.

Nice troll trick again.  You acted as if Oprah was my issue and all the time you were the first to use her name and thus you are the one who falls under that directive. >> Trying to insult your opponents by comparing them to children. > I would never insult children by comparing them to you. > But you have in prior posts too numerous to mention, so this is a blatant > lie as well.

This is the here and now Eric.  Stay out of the past and quit projecting your own childhood into these posts.  I am new each post I make and I advise you to just let go of all those bad thoughts of previous posts and bad Mommy and Daddy. >> Trying to suggest that any defense of childrens’ rights stems from some >> sort of personal vendetta the poster has against his own family. > YOU are the one proving that post after post.  I only offered the same > observation many others have had. > I think you have the word "observation" confused with "wishful thinking."

Since I am schooled in making just those kind of observations I think mine do carry more weight than yours. > That fact that others of your ilk often make the same error is about as > relevant to this discussion as the suggestion that shit is wholesome food > because it is preferred by billions of flies. > You aren’t even worth a checkbox flame. > — > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

– "Some have brains, and some haven’t," Pooh says, "and there it is."

Response:

> I see you like my little buddy Eric.  I have some others that are just as > precious as he is.

So that’s what you call your DICK!!! You obnoxious shithead. Steve

Response:

>>> Not every parent is like your own Eric so quit projecting. > Again, you resort to the typical tricks of people who disrespect everyone > under 18. > I love my 18 year and under friends and you are are trying to distract > from the fact I burned your ass badly.  Must have hit home with that > one.

I consider you a troll, and only bother responding to your posts when there are none left from rational people.  Your choice of crossposted newsgroups leaves no doubt that you are a troll, even when it is not instantly apparent from your disconnected ramblings, attempts to draw conclusions from facts not in evidence, ad hominem attacks, and complete cluelessness as to what constitutes a syllogism. > Trying to switch the discussion to be about the person posting, > instead of the issues. > You made it about Oprah

When Oprah posts on this thread, you will have a valid point, and not before. > Trying to insult your opponents by comparing them to children. > I would never insult children by comparing them to you.

But you have in prior posts too numerous to mention, so this is a blatant lie as well. > Trying to suggest that any defense of childrens’ rights stems from some > sort of personal vendetta the poster has against his own family. > YOU are the one proving that post after post.  I only offered the same > observation many others have had.

I think you have the word "observation" confused with "wishful thinking." That fact that others of your ilk often make the same error is about as relevant to this discussion as the suggestion that shit is wholesome food because it is preferred by billions of flies. You aren’t even worth a checkbox flame. — Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Response:

> > Not every parent is like your own Eric so quit projecting. > Again, you resort to the typical tricks of people who disrespect everyone > under 18.

I love my 18 year and under friends and you are are trying to distract from the fact I burned your ass badly.  Must have hit home with that one. > Trying to switch the discussion to be about the person posting, > instead of the issues.

You made it about Oprah and that works in what way old wise one — I mean non age specific holder of knowledge that is not in any way age related. > Trying to insult your opponents by comparing them > to children.

I would never insult children by comparing them to you. > Trying to suggest that any defense of childrens’ rights > stems from some sort of personal vendetta the poster has against his own > family.

YOU are the one proving that post after post.  I only offered the same observation many others have had. > People like you are why I wouldn’t waste a moment of my time criticizing a > parent or teacher killing.

Your lack of logic and social skills makes that a wise choice even if your reasoning is wrong. > — > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

– "Some have brains, and some haven’t," Pooh says, "and there it is."

Response:

> Not every parent is like your own Eric so quit projecting.

Again, you resort to the typical tricks of people who disrespect everyone under 18.  Trying to switch the discussion to be about the person posting, instead of the issues.  Trying to insult your opponents by comparing them to children.  Trying to suggest that any defense of childrens’ rights stems from some sort of personal vendetta the poster has against his own family. People like you are why I wouldn’t waste a moment of my time criticizing a parent or teacher killing. — Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Response:

I see you like my little buddy Eric.  I have some others that are just as precious as he is. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >     ?? – Has anyone ever told you that you are incredibly stupid? > Frequently, but such errors in perception reflect negatively only on > the people who make them. >     Okay. You are capable of saying something intelligent but just chose not > to. > So – is everyone in the cross-posted newsgroups in favor of putting > disabled children in the car, and pumping exhaust in?  Shall we take > a poll? >     What a delightful characterization from a moronic babbler. >     You idiotically assume the worst of motives for a person and then would > attempt to defend you own depravity with the above tripe. >     I don’t know if the fellow who killed that kid had bad motives. Only got > to read a bit about him. You are here though, with some great desire to > announce your stupidity for all to read. >     I doubt that you will find much of anyone in the newsgroups who would > really advocate the gassing of disabled children. There may be a fair number > unwilling to jump to such harsh assumption and judgment of motives on that > persons part. >     As it is, you are an idiot. I like idiots. If you are not too noisy an > idiot I might allow you to follow me around to do me simple errands.

– "Some have brains, and some haven’t," Pooh says, "and there it is."

Response:

Answer to subject is yes and I would like to start as soon as possible. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->     ?? – Has anyone ever told you that you are incredibly stupid? > Frequently, but such errors in perception reflect negatively only on > the people who make them. > So – is everyone in the cross-posted newsgroups in favor of putting > disabled children in the car, and pumping exhaust in?  Shall we take > a poll? > — > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

– "Some have brains, and some haven’t," Pooh says, "and there it is."

Response:

> > You never fail to surprise me Eric with what way you will make the issue > one of child’s rights even if you have to twist the rights in ten > directions at once. > What rights would you rather have?  The parents’ right to kill any child > whose care takes up too much of their time, when they’d rather be watching > "Oprah?"

Not every parent is like your own Eric so quit projecting. > — > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

– "Some have brains, and some haven’t," Pooh says, "and there it is."

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> No, I think a ten year sentence is perfectly appropriate for someone who >> deliberately gases their disabled child with car exhaust, regardless of >> any mitigating circumstances. > Well, your earlier post already established you as an idiot asshole. So, > what you think is mostly of import to you. > I have little intention of trying to explain my earlier post to someone > such as yourself whose command of the English language is clearly lacking. > Your earlier post made quite some declaration of what was his motives. > So, you are an idiot asshole who does not stand by his grand > declarations. > My earlier post said nothing of this individual’s motives.  It merely > stated that the sentence should serve as an example to others > contemplating doing the same, for whatever reason. > I also observed that given the child’s condition, it was highly unlikely > that she made a request to be assisted in a suicide. > You can call me all the names you like, but it doesn’t change those FACTS > one iota.

    Then some imposter made the quoted statements  below?     Of course I can call you all the names I wish. In response you may act pompous and indignant.     Now did you or did you not impose some motives for yourself to make judgment upon? Eric said: What rights would you rather have?  The parents’ right to kill any child whose care takes up too much of their time, when they’d rather be watching "Oprah?" This was about the parents’ pain, not the child’s.  Let the sentence stand as an example to others who want an easy way out of caring for disabled family members.

Response:

>> No, I think a ten year sentence is perfectly appropriate for someone who > deliberately gases their disabled child with car exhaust, regardless of > any mitigating circumstances. > Well, your earlier post already established you as an idiot asshole. So, > what you think is mostly of import to you.

I have little intention of trying to explain my earlier post to someone such as yourself whose command of the English language is clearly lacking. > Your earlier post made quite some declaration of what was his motives. > So, you are an idiot asshole who does not stand by his grand > declarations.

My earlier post said nothing of this individual’s motives.  It merely stated that the sentence should serve as an example to others contemplating doing the same, for whatever reason. I also observed that given the child’s condition, it was highly unlikely that she made a request to be assisted in a suicide. You can call me all the names you like, but it doesn’t change those FACTS one iota. — Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Response:

>     ?? – Has anyone ever told you that you are incredibly stupid?

Frequently, but such errors in perception reflect negatively only on the people who make them. So – is everyone in the cross-posted newsgroups in favor of putting disabled children in the car, and pumping exhaust in?  Shall we take a poll? — Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Response:

> You idiotically assume the worst of motives for a person and then would > attempt to defend you own depravity with the above tripe.

No, I think a ten year sentence is perfectly appropriate for someone who deliberately gases their disabled child with car exhaust, regardless of any mitigating circumstances. > I don’t know if the fellow who killed that kid had bad motives.

Neither do I, but if he did, he should have gotten an even longer sentence. > I doubt that you will find much of anyone in the newsgroups who would > really advocate the gassing of disabled children.

Ah, so this is your first time on Usenet.  Welcome.   — Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Response:

> You idiotically assume the worst of motives for a person and then would > attempt to defend you own depravity with the above tripe. > No, I think a ten year sentence is perfectly appropriate for someone who > deliberately gases their disabled child with car exhaust, regardless of > any mitigating circumstances.

    Well, your earlier post already established you as an idiot asshole. So, what you think is mostly of import to you. > I don’t know if the fellow who killed that kid had bad motives. > Neither do I, but if he did, he should have gotten an even longer > sentence.

    Your earlier post made quite some declaration of what was his motives.     So, you are an idiot asshole who does not stand by his grand declarations. > I doubt that you will find much of anyone in the newsgroups who would > really advocate the gassing of disabled children. > Ah, so this is your first time on Usenet.  Welcome.

    I’m sure we could find a few. There are usually idiot assholes of whatever extreme. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> — > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Response:

>     ?? – Has anyone ever told you that you are incredibly stupid? > Frequently, but such errors in perception reflect negatively only on > the people who make them.

    Okay. You are capable of saying something intelligent but just chose not to. > So – is everyone in the cross-posted newsgroups in favor of putting > disabled children in the car, and pumping exhaust in?  Shall we take > a poll?

    What a delightful characterization from a moronic babbler.     You idiotically assume the worst of motives for a person and then would attempt to defend you own depravity with the above tripe.     I don’t know if the fellow who killed that kid had bad motives. Only got to read a bit about him. You are here though, with some great desire to announce your stupidity for all to read.     I doubt that you will find much of anyone in the newsgroups who would really advocate the gassing of disabled children. There may be a fair number unwilling to jump to such harsh assumption and judgment of motives on that persons part.     As it is, you are an idiot. I like idiots. If you are not too noisy an idiot I might allow you to follow me around to do me simple errands.

Response:

> You never fail to surprise me Eric with what way you will make the issue > one of child’s rights even if you have to twist the rights in ten > directions at once.

What rights would you rather have?  The parents’ right to kill any child whose care takes up too much of their time, when they’d rather be watching "Oprah?" — Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Response:

> You never fail to surprise me Eric with what way you will make the issue > one of child’s rights even if you have to twist the rights in ten > directions at once. > What rights would you rather have?  The parents’ right to kill any child > whose care takes up too much of their time, when they’d rather be watching > "Oprah?"

    ?? – Has anyone ever told you that you are incredibly stupid?     It would be a good thing for you to know, though you are likely too stupid for the knowledge to do you any good.     But have a nice day.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->         OTTAWA, June 14 (UPI) — The Supreme Court of Canada heard > arguments Wednesday in an appeal filed by Saskatchewan farmer Robert > Latimer against his mandatory 10-year jail sentence for killing his > severely disabled daughter, Tracy. >         Latimer was convicted twice for ending Tracy’s life by > directing exhaust fumes, through a tube, to where she was seated in a > pickup truck in October 1993. >         Tracy was a victim of cerebral palsy and could neither talk > nor move, nor feed herself, and was often in severe pain. > Then it’s really unlikely she asked to be terminated, isn’t it? >         The court heard that surgery had only made her condition worse, > and neither Latimer nor his wife could bear to see her suffer any > longer. > This was about the parents’ pain, not the child’s.  Let the sentence > stand as an example to others who want an easy way out of caring for > disabled family members.

    And let your post stand as an example of folks who are most ready to assume the worst of motives in others.     I am sure that you would be grateful to anyone who might prolong your moments of life were you to be reduced to a thinking vegetable not capable of much but to feel pain – and whatever thoughts one might entertain ones self with.     Criminals are sentenced to restricted motion as a form of punishment. Are you a compassionate sadist?

Response:

You never fail to surprise me Eric with what way you will make the issue one of child’s rights even if you have to twist the rights in ten directions at once. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->         OTTAWA, June 14 (UPI) — The Supreme Court of Canada heard > arguments Wednesday in an appeal filed by Saskatchewan farmer Robert > Latimer against his mandatory 10-year jail sentence for killing his > severely disabled daughter, Tracy. >         Latimer was convicted twice for ending Tracy’s life by > directing exhaust fumes, through a tube, to where she was seated in a > pickup truck in October 1993. >         Tracy was a victim of cerebral palsy and could neither talk > nor move, nor feed herself, and was often in severe pain. > Then it’s really unlikely she asked to be terminated, isn’t it? >         The court heard that surgery had only made her condition worse, > and neither Latimer nor his wife could bear to see her suffer any > longer. > This was about the parents’ pain, not the child’s.  Let the sentence > stand as an example to others who want an easy way out of caring for > disabled family members. > — > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

– "Some have brains, and some haven’t," Pooh says, "and there it is."

Response:

>         OTTAWA, June 14 (UPI) — The Supreme Court of Canada heard > arguments Wednesday in an appeal filed by Saskatchewan farmer Robert > Latimer against his mandatory 10-year jail sentence for killing his > severely disabled daughter, Tracy. >         Latimer was convicted twice for ending Tracy’s life by > directing exhaust fumes, through a tube, to where she was seated in a > pickup truck in October 1993. >         Tracy was a victim of cerebral palsy and could neither talk > nor move, nor feed herself, and was often in severe pain.

Then it’s really unlikely she asked to be terminated, isn’t it? >         The court heard that surgery had only made her condition worse, > and neither Latimer nor his wife could bear to see her suffer any > longer.

This was about the parents’ pain, not the child’s.  Let the sentence stand as an example to others who want an easy way out of caring for disabled family members. — Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Response:

        OTTAWA, June 14 (UPI) — The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Wednesday in an appeal filed by Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer against his mandatory 10-year jail sentence for killing his severely disabled daughter, Tracy.         Latimer was convicted twice for ending Tracy’s life by directing exhaust fumes, through a tube, to where she was seated in a pickup truck in October 1993.         Tracy was a victim of cerebral palsy and could neither talk nor move, nor feed herself, and was often in severe pain.         The court heard that surgery had only made her condition worse, and neither Latimer nor his wife could bear to see her suffer any longer. Canada’s top criminal lawyer Edward Greenspan, representing Latimer, said the Saskatchewan farmer decided to end his daughter’s life out of love for her.         The prosecution argued that Latimer killed Tracy not out of love and compoassion, but because he did not want to go on bearing the burden of caring for a disabled person.         Last year, a Saskatchewan court awarded Latimer the mandatory punishment for second-degree murder-life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 10 years.         In the Supreme Court, Latimer’s lawyers argued that he should have the benefit of a rarely used constitutional exemption from the mandatory sentence, as he was not a common killer, but a man who was acting out of compassion.         The court heard long and convoluted arguments in favor of euthanasia, but advocates for the disabled want the sentence to remain, saying any leniency by the Supreme Court would send the wrong message to those who must care for disabled family members.         Several disabled people showed up in Ottawa while arguments were being heard, and told reporters they were afraid of what would happen to them if the court decides in favor of Latimer.         Latimer himself did not show up in court, opting instead to remain on his farm in Wilkie, Saskatchewan, where he has been out on bail pending a Supreme Court decision.         The court withheld judgement after hearing arguments from both sides, and is expected to announce its ruling in six months to one year. — "Some have brains, and some haven’t," Pooh says, "and there it is."

Response: