Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#7001
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:18:53 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >> >
> >> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
> >>
> >> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
> >
> >Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
> >baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
> >"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
> >bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
> >hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
> >
> >So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
> >lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
> >The other person could not be another lesbian.
>
> So you're playing a semantics game. It is possible for a lesbian
> couple to have a child while married without any adultery involved.
> Therefore the couple can have children.
Uh - no. If I were playing a semantics game, I would not have put the
word "have" in quotes nor would I have emphasized *my* meaning when I
used the word with the words "biologically" and "bioliogical" several
times. Had I wanted to use semantics tricks, I would have left it
ambiguous to trick those menatlly asleep at the wheel that my claim
which was false for one meaning and true for the second meaning was true
for both - that's a typical Lloyd trick, and I don't play those
intellectually dishonest games.
However, I will say that if someone said "Did you know that Anne and Jim
had a baby last week", any normal person would know (assume is too weak
a word in this case) that what was meant was that there was a baby born
and that Anne and Jim were the (biological) parents. Only an idiot
would assume that Anne had had an affair, and that someone besides Jim
was the father (even if that were indeed the case, clearly the meaning
by the statement was not that).
So for the 3rd or 4th time, no - a lesbian couple cannot have a baby in
the sense that normal, reasonable, intelligent people use the word
"have" in the context of babies.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#7002
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:18:53 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >> >
> >> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
> >>
> >> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
> >
> >Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
> >baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
> >"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
> >bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
> >hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
> >
> >So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
> >lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
> >The other person could not be another lesbian.
>
> So you're playing a semantics game. It is possible for a lesbian
> couple to have a child while married without any adultery involved.
> Therefore the couple can have children.
Uh - no. If I were playing a semantics game, I would not have put the
word "have" in quotes nor would I have emphasized *my* meaning when I
used the word with the words "biologically" and "bioliogical" several
times. Had I wanted to use semantics tricks, I would have left it
ambiguous to trick those menatlly asleep at the wheel that my claim
which was false for one meaning and true for the second meaning was true
for both - that's a typical Lloyd trick, and I don't play those
intellectually dishonest games.
However, I will say that if someone said "Did you know that Anne and Jim
had a baby last week", any normal person would know (assume is too weak
a word in this case) that what was meant was that there was a baby born
and that Anne and Jim were the (biological) parents. Only an idiot
would assume that Anne had had an affair, and that someone besides Jim
was the father (even if that were indeed the case, clearly the meaning
by the statement was not that).
So for the 3rd or 4th time, no - a lesbian couple cannot have a baby in
the sense that normal, reasonable, intelligent people use the word
"have" in the context of babies.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#7003
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:18:53 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >> >
> >> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
> >>
> >> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
> >
> >Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
> >baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
> >"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
> >bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
> >hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
> >
> >So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
> >lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
> >The other person could not be another lesbian.
>
> So you're playing a semantics game. It is possible for a lesbian
> couple to have a child while married without any adultery involved.
> Therefore the couple can have children.
Uh - no. If I were playing a semantics game, I would not have put the
word "have" in quotes nor would I have emphasized *my* meaning when I
used the word with the words "biologically" and "bioliogical" several
times. Had I wanted to use semantics tricks, I would have left it
ambiguous to trick those menatlly asleep at the wheel that my claim
which was false for one meaning and true for the second meaning was true
for both - that's a typical Lloyd trick, and I don't play those
intellectually dishonest games.
However, I will say that if someone said "Did you know that Anne and Jim
had a baby last week", any normal person would know (assume is too weak
a word in this case) that what was meant was that there was a baby born
and that Anne and Jim were the (biological) parents. Only an idiot
would assume that Anne had had an affair, and that someone besides Jim
was the father (even if that were indeed the case, clearly the meaning
by the statement was not that).
So for the 3rd or 4th time, no - a lesbian couple cannot have a baby in
the sense that normal, reasonable, intelligent people use the word
"have" in the context of babies.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#7004
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the
'discrimination' here.
> >>
> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> gays from marrying?
> >
> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved.
Clearly
> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for
sibling
> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those
legal
> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the
'discrimination' here.
> >>
> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> gays from marrying?
> >
> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved.
Clearly
> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for
sibling
> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those
legal
> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
#7005
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the
'discrimination' here.
> >>
> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> gays from marrying?
> >
> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved.
Clearly
> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for
sibling
> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those
legal
> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the
'discrimination' here.
> >>
> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> gays from marrying?
> >
> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved.
Clearly
> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for
sibling
> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those
legal
> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
#7006
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the
'discrimination' here.
> >>
> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> gays from marrying?
> >
> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved.
Clearly
> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for
sibling
> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those
legal
> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the
'discrimination' here.
> >>
> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> gays from marrying?
> >
> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved.
Clearly
> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for
sibling
> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those
legal
> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
#7007
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
#7008
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
#7009
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
#7010
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"