Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 20, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

PLAN B....The Biting Beaver tells a harrowing story of trying to obtain emergency contraception in rural Ohio. First her doctor told her to call the ER, then a parade of nurses hemmed and hawed over the phone, until finally a fourth nurse told her what was going on:

"Well, ummm....*clears throat*...So you haven't been raped?" he asks again.

"No. I have not been raped. The condom broke". I state, becoming very frustrated at this point and wondering what the hell is going on.

"Ok, well ummm....Are you married?" he mumbles the words so low I can barely hear them.

Suddenly I get this image of the poor nurse standing at the hospital reading from a cue card that was given to him by a doctor.

"No." I state plainly. "I am not married. I've been in a relationship for several years and I have three children, I don't want a fourth." I respond tersely.

"Oh, I see." He says and then he hurries on, "Well, see. *I* understand. I want you to know that I understand what you're saying. But see, the problem is that we have 4 doctors here right now but only one of them ever writes EC prescriptions. But see, the thing is that he'll interview you and see if you meet his criteria. Now, I called the pharmacy but I also talked to him and well....*clears throat*....you can come down and try to get it. You know, if you meet his criteria he'll give you a prescription, I mean, there's really no harm in trying." the nurse trails off, his voice falters as I realize what I'm being told.

....I was told by every urgent care I called and every emergency room that I was shit out of luck. I was asked my age. My marital status. How many children I had. If I had been raped and when I became uncomfortable with the questions I was told, "Well Ma'am, try to understand that you will be interviewed and the doctor has 'criteria' that you need to meet before he will prescribe it for you."

The good news is that she finally found a clinic an hour away that would prescribe Plan B. The other good news is that Plan B will finally be available without a prescription on January 1st after two years of broken promises and political base pandering from the FDA. That's assuming your local pharmacy carries it, of course.

There is no other good news in this story.

Kevin Drum 7:36 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (159)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

But the good news is that you can buy Viagra over the internet without ever having to see a doctor to get a prescription.

Posted by: J Bean on September 20, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

She said they'll be stocking it OTC January 1st where she lives. That's good news.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 20, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a liberal man who is anti-abortion. Personally, I think it would actually be better for feminism if we didn't have Roe v. Wade. Maybe you think I'm a total psycho...

...but we both agree that this is fucking stupid.

Posted by: mmy on September 20, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

Slut.

Posted by: Another Fake Al on September 20, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

Every one of those 'doctors' and pharmacies that deny legal drugs should have their licenses revoked.

And she should sue them.

Posted by: cld on September 20, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

I guess I would be a little more outraged by all of this if the person this supposedly happened to didn't author a blog (Biting Beaver) that has as its mascot a picture of a beaver gnawing throug a penis.

I'm sort of amazed that - with an attitude like that - that the author could find some guy willing to pork her. Takes all kinds, I guess.

Posted by: td on September 20, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

cld >"...should have their licenses revoked..."

Should be automatic

cld >"...And she should sue them."

No, her state should sue them (beyond pulling their license); she shouldn`t have to

Looks like "the future" is here now

"The future will be a struggle between huge competing systems of psychopathology." - J. G. Ballard

Posted by: daCascadian on September 20, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

The doctor's responsibility ends at determining there is no medical reason not to give her a prescription. Mental problems associated with his religious aesthetic are between him and his psychiatrist. Somebody with a condition like this probably shouldn't have been allowed a medical license in the first place since he is incapable of reasoned judgement.

Posted by: cld on September 20, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Every one of those 'doctors' and pharmacies that deny legal drugs should have their licenses revoked.

Hear, hear.

It simply boggles the mind that this is occuring in the year 2006 in a supposedly developed Western country.

Posted by: Stefan on September 20, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

The staff at that ER? Reason number one why people hate doctors.

And any pharmacist that refuses to fill a legal prescription should immediately be transfered to the cosmetics department. With the coresponding pay decrease.

Seriously, didn't the author of that blog know that she could use ordinary birth control pills in high dosage to the same effect?

My daughter had a similar expereince, but the ER staff at KU Med were accomodating and didn't give her grief. But maybe they didn't hassle her because they know her mother? (I have pulled a lot of shifts at KU Med over the last seven years.) Three days after that "close call" she called her fiance and told him she had plans and he wasn't in them any more.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

Only a looney lib would worry about stuff like this. Why shouldn't you be made to bear the consequences if your behavior is irresponsible?

Posted by: egbert on September 20, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

First Amendment guarantees do not extend to 'doctors' and 'pharmacists'?


Not when it comes to violating the civil rights of someone else they don't.

Posted by: cld on September 20, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, I really don't care what anyone looks like, or how they secured a relationship. (If you want to see some ugly people, drive by an abortion clinic protest.)

And what is "irresponsible" about a broken condom? And if she "suffers the consequences" isn't it, in the long run any resulting child who is going to suffer equally, if not more?

Now that it had obtained OTC status, I can feel the desperation coming off the forced-reproduction crowd. They could intimidate people walking into clinics. Not so much in the privacy of their own homes.

Suck it up.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if those providers demand the marital status of men seeking Viagra or Cialis or Levitra? If not, they are mysoginistic hypocrites and should have their licenses yanked.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Why shouldn't you be made to bear the consequences if your behavior is irresponsible?
Posted by: egbert

condom breaking in a longterm monogamous relationship is her fault?

so the responsible thing would be ... what? ... sue trojan for Ob/gyn and pediatric costs, and child-rearing until age 18?

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

States license doctors, and the board of healing arts can revoke any physicians license for failing to provide essential and appropriate care.

Preventing an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy qualifies as essential in my book.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

First Amendment guarantees do not extend to 'doctors' and 'pharmacists'?
Posted by: Thomas1

what the hell are you babbling on about the 1st ammendment for? this is medical malpractice.

charlie, being conservative and therefore probably scientifically (and definately ethically) illiterate, knows not of what he speaks.

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

Refusing to participate in abortion is every doctor's right.
Posted by: Thomas1

much like iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, plan B is nowhere near abortion.

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

The forced-reproduction idiots - yes, I said idiots, I stand by it and I would say it again becaue they are, at best, idiots - have selective reading - kinda like my kids had selective hearing during the teenage years.

In my local newspaper, a columnist wrote a "Plan B" piece a couple of weeks ago, and relayed the story of a friend who took Plan B after being raped, and quoted that friend as being relieved that "some measure of control was restored to my life."

A few days later, there was a letter to the editor assailing the columnist and the rape victim, claiming that she should have controlled herself in the first place. The paper never printed the letters that threw one up-side that morons empty head.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

Unless they are a State actor, "Doctors" cannot "violate" someone's civil rights, cld.


Whatever dubious shred of truth may be behind that, it splits an irrelevent hair. The physical integrity of your own body is central to the whole idea of civil rights.

Posted by: cld on September 20, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK
Every one of those 'doctors' and pharmacies that deny legal drugs should have their licenses revoked.

Well, yes, and no. Yes, they should lose their license, but not for denying legal drugs. Legal prescription drugs are not, and should not be, open to all comers, they ought to be prescribed based on reasonable medical criteria.

The problem is that the things they used to screen are not reasonable medical criteria.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 20, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

Because they are licensed by the State, Doctors and Pharmacists have a legal responsibility to provide care. Because Plan B is legal, and assuming the hospitals did not have a policy prohibiting its use, these ER Doctors violated did not live up to their obligation.

If the Doctors feel that prescribing Plan B is violates their moral limits, they can move to private practice or give up the medical license.

Posted by: Dan on September 20, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, lets get this straight right now fertilization does not a pregnancy make HCG (Human Chorionic Gonadotropin) levels do not rise until implantation has taken place. Implantation is the first stage of pregnancy. All over the world, fertilized eggs fail to implant every day and pass from the womans body during her next menstrual cycle. Are we going to start collenting a womans bathroom trash after her period and holding funerals? That makes about as much sense as protesting Plan B because it might stop a potentially fertilized egg from implanting?

Plan B is not an abortion, especially when you consider that the odds of a pregnancy resulting are real, but they are not great unless the accident or assault occurs on very specific days of the cycle.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

The unborn child, to the extent it could be called a 'child', and to the extent it could have been shown to exist in the case above, is in a wholly parasitic relation to the woman's host body.

If you attached yourself like this to someone what would the law call it?

Posted by: cld on September 20, 2006 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

Although spermatazoons are some long-lived little bastards sometimes...

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

It has no life and no liberty it can claim as its own.

Posted by: cld on September 20, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

The scientific community has not been able to rule out Plan B acting as as abortifacient if taken after conception.
Posted by: Thomas1

absolutely the last thing needed on this board is some random scientific illiterate trying to educate me about the scientific consensus on plan B or yutzpe.

the sperm hasn't even made it anywhere near the egg at the time this woman was asking for plan B ... relax ... your precious little snowflake was never created.

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

Wike isn't peer-reviewed. It holds no sway with me. Find the same thing in JAMA or the ASCP jopurnal, and I will read it.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

Wiki isn't peer-reviewed. Any damn fool can put anything they want on Wikipedia. Therefore it holds no sway with me. Find the same thing in JAMA or the ASCP jopurnal, and I will read it.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

Damn! Sorry about that double post.

And why is it that this board will allow a double post like that, but if I try to post two comments quickly I get the "malicious content" warning?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1,

How are you referencing force majeure?

Posted by: cld on September 20, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

And why is it that this board will allow a double post like that, but if I try to post two comments quickly I get the "malicious content" warning?
Posted by: Global Citizen

sunspots?

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

You bought that story?

And if it does happen to be true, tell Ms. "three kids and I don't want a fourth" to tell her idiot live-in boyfriend to step up to the plate and get a goddam vasectomy.

Posted by: margie on September 20, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

I used to work in a fertility clinic. I was the med tech who did the sperm washing (first you get a teeny tiny bath brush) and then isolated the sperm and cozied them up to the oocytes. If they took, we implanted them.

If the HCG levels didn't rise and the menstrual cycle started, was the woman pregnant?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, the absolutely last thing needed on this board is me to "cut and paste" every scientific article evidencing Plan B's post-conception properties.
Posted by: Thomas1

do it. I'd have more respect for your position of you did.

make sure you're qualified to play this game, however, since from what I can tell, conscientious reading of the scientific literature is not your strong point.

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

You know, Thomas1, I'm honestly suprised at your reaction. Why, when I was banging your mother the other day she seemed perfectly fine with contraceptives. At least that's what I think she said ... to be candid, it was kind of hard to understand what she was saying with her with her bent over the sofa and all ...

Posted by: Paul on September 20, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

And if it does happen to be true, tell Ms. "three kids and I don't want a fourth" to tell her idiot live-in boyfriend to step up to the plate and get a goddam vasectomy.
Posted by: margie

I suggest you let the rape victims know they were asking for it, too, the way they were dressed. ... make sure you let the 10 year old incest victims what little sluts they are, too.

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

Two doctors (Nads and JBean) and a masters degree med tech (me) have already posted, and we all share a viewpoint. Maybe, just maybe, we know something that the rest of you don't, and it is based on science rather than emotion or opinion or what the priest says.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, now that I think about it, she may not have been talking about contraceptives. Who needs contraceptives for anal intercourse?

Posted by: Paul on September 20, 2006 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

And I, and the rest of the scientific community say no.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

Nads:

The woman in the story was not a rape victim. Neither was anyone else who has told a story like this on the internet.

I don't think ten year olds have to worry about Plan B birth control.

Try to focus. I'm on the woman's side, here. She shouldn't have to carry all the responsibility of this problem. If cost is an issue, there are ways around that.

Posted by: margie on September 20, 2006 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, 'splain the fertilization process to us. We wrote that book, or could have.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Ten year olds quite frequently are menstruating. (Endocrine impact due to hormones in the food supply is another thread) I have seen pregnant ten year olds, so do not troll on this board and dismiss them out of hand. We will hand you your ass on a stick.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1

We would not have that problem if everyone minded his own business, most of all the he types.

Posted by: Renate on September 20, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1, I was answering your prior question about what the law would call it if I suddenly became an embryo and implanted myself in a womb.


The law would call it attempted enslavement, or enforced servitude.

Old people or others on full life support who might be subject to euthanasia are in the position of losing something they have gained, something a blastocyst has not yet gained.

If you were to accidentally run over and kill an eight-year-old you might be charged with homicide, but you can't be said to have prevented her from voting. An eight-year-old has gained life, but not adult rights and privileges.

Posted by: cld on September 20, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie, when did you start calling yourself "Thomas1"? It must be your 30th alias or so.

Posted by: grh on September 20, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

sorry charlie, I hadn't read the whole piece ... I thought she called after intercourse when she was denied, whereas it was the next morning. I would concede that IF she had ovulated that day, the egg could have been fertilized.

... as for your articles ... nice try, but try referncing something more recent than obsolete 20 year old data.

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Emergency contraceptive pill - referred to simply as "emergency contraception," "ECPs," or "ECs", or "morning-after pill" - are hormones that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilisation, or possibly, post-fertilisation, subsequent implantation of a blastocyst

That does not refute any of my argument. Implantation is what makes a pregnancy, so anything that disrupts that is by definition not "terminating a pregnancy."

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Anything more than three to five years old is not considered credible data for academic or scientific research.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

Christ, the more I think about it Thomas1's Mom might have been loudly yelping "Bang me! Bang me!" not "Plan B" "Plan B," It's so damn hard to understand her when she has that ball gag in ... Anyway, Charlie, what were you saying, dear?

Posted by: Paul on September 20, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

I will concede that she should consider a sterilization procedure if she doesn't want more children.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

Don't wax philosophical on me. And the same physics takes place whether there is anyone to perceive the "sound" or not.

If a man is alone in the forest and no women are around, is he still wrong?

I say yes.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

This is the only blog I read every day, I don't have time for all-day surfing. I have a life that requires my attention sometimes.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

Fot the last god-damned time - fertilization is not what makes a pregnancy. Implantation does.

And I can do this for exactly one more hour, then I have to go study.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

try these charlie:

Swahn M-L, Westlund P, Johannisson E, Bygdeman M. Effect of post-coital contraceptive methods on the endometrium and the menstrual cycle. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996;75:738-744

... which essentially showed that ECs had minimal effects on human endometrial lining, and that there was no evidence to suggest that they work by preventing implantation. ... and since ECs DO work, the data suggest the mechanism does not involve implantation.

nicely and authoritatively reviewed here:

Committee on Adolescence, (2005). Emergency Contraception. Pediatrics 116: 1026-1035

and

Glasier A. Emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 9;337(15):1058-64.

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

Implanted or not - if it's less cognitively developed than a cow (and embryos have about ths same cognitive development as any amoeba), why exactly should I treat it with any more respect than the beef stew I had last night?

citing religious dogma I don't adhere to is a pretty weak answer.

Posted by: Shinobi on September 20, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

If a man is alone in the forest and no women are around, is he still wrong?

Now you are quoting me Globe?

I am going to have to throw my lot in with Nads and Globe on this issue.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 20, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

Many on the religious right feel that a bun in the oven is a fitting punishment for sexual misbehavior. What a bunch of asses.

Posted by: Keith G on September 20, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

Anything more than three to five years old is not considered credible data for academic or scientific research.

Really? Who made that rule?

Posted by: albert on September 20, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

I'm back! Did you miss me?

Posted by: Tbrosz on September 20, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

The three to five year rule is the standard at the university where I am pursuing a PhD.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

Is this the real tbrosz? Or a Sears tbrosz?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Did anyone else catfch that Zappa homage?

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 20, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus said exactly nothing about both homosexuality or abortion, but both were practiced in ancient Judea. He had a lot to say about feeding the poor and healing the sick and how wrong war is and how the peacemakers are blessed and how hard it is for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven.

Do you think Jesus would support the modern American conservative agenda?

Posted by: A Cynic's Cynic on September 20, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

fuck the right

Posted by: cleek on September 20, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

I have to go to work. Maybe the census is down and I can do this all night. I'll check back in in an hour or so if time and workload permits.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 20, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

It's me, Tom. I feel much better now. Sorry I left in a huff. You guys wouldn't beleive the stress level in the aerospace industry these days. Phew! Those Chinese fellas are kicking our heinies. By the way, what are we talking about here?

Posted by: Tbrosz on September 20, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Later, oh subversive one. Tell my former co-workers that I said "bite me bitches" 'kay?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

In examining the refernces within the existing reviews, it becomes clearer that there has been NO DATA since 1986 supporting the idea that ECs have postfetilization effects, and that the controversy is kept alive by review articles referencing these older studies (much like charlie did above).

ALL subsequent studies, probably the best of which I've listed below (best IMO because they actually involve endometrial biopsies or examine biomarkers of endometrial function, and thus address the specific postfertilization concerns voiced by the wingnuts):

Marions L, Hultenby K, Lindell I, Sun X, Stabi B, Gemzell Danielsson K. Emergency contraception with mifepristone and levonorgestrel: mechanism of action. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:6571

Swahn ML, Westlund P, Johannisson E, Bygdeman M. Effect of postcoital contraceptive methods on the endometrium and the menstrual cycle. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1996;75:738744

Taskin O, Brown RW, Young DC, Poindexter AN, Wiehle RD. High doses of oral contraceptives do not alter endometrial 1 and v3 integrins in the late implantation window. Fertil Steril. 1994;61:850855

Landgren BM, Johannisson E, Aedo AR, Kumar A, Shi YE. The effect of levonorgestrel administered in large doses at different stages of the cycle on ovarian function and endometrial morphology. Contraception. 1989;39:275289

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

So long as the Doctor and the Pharmacist allow themselves to be listed on the birth certificate as father, I am totally okay with their denying her emergency contraception.

Posted by: jerry on September 20, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Two posts and not a single link. I'm doubting the authenticity...

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Joyfully Subversive and I are lab rats. We rarely see patients.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

... ooops, didn't finish that thought above ...

anyways, ALL subsequent studies, probably the best of which I've listed ABOVE, claim minimal if any effect on human endometrial lining. ... and that ECs likely do NOT function via preventing implantation. and even the wingnuts concede that there is no effect on an implanted embryo ... which is consistent with it being unfairly characterized as an abortifacent.

There is one rat study which suggested high dose Plan B may have a postfertilization effect, which has not been replicated in 4 human studies.

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen: "I have seen pregnant ten year olds, so do not troll on this board and dismiss them out of hand. We will hand you your ass on a stick."

You may have seen one, with luck. An eleven-year-old pregnant girl in England made the newspapers. If pregnant ten year olds are routine where you live, you might want to check the water supply. "Nads" was dragging a red herring. It isn't relevant to the controversy.

Anecdotal evidence on the internet isn't worth much anyway.

Posted by: margie on September 20, 2006 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

In twenty years, I have seen two, both impregnated by their fathers, and those fathers went to prison for a long time, and I didn't weep for them. Where the hell did I say pregnant ten year olds were routine? I didn't.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

For the record, I've got no problem with Plan B being over the counter for adults, or for minors with adult supervision (a doctor or parent). I just think a lot of people screaming about it aren't using their options effectively, especially when the man in the picture seems to be sitting back and letting the woman dangle in the breeze.

Posted by: margie on September 20, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

And I am saying this right now, so no nutters can say I ran away from this particular food-fight...I have a half hour left, then I will have to say goodnight and go do some homework.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

"Nads" was dragging a red herring. It isn't relevant to the controversy.
Posted by: margie

I sympathize with you regarding men taking more responsibility for contraception. However, this is what you said:

And if it does happen to be true, tell Ms. "three kids and I don't want a fourth" to tell her idiot live-in boyfriend to step up to the plate and get a goddam vasectomy.
Posted by: margie

... and this kind of blame-the-woman mentality is emblematic of the wingnuts and old, white conservatives who think they own the property rights to all uteri in america.

she wore a fucking condom. it broke. it happens. she went from OCPs, to Depo, to POPs, to condoms. she was more responsible the most people, and something still fucked up. ... and your first instinct was to blame her for not being proactive.

frankly, you came off like a woman-hating bitch. sorry if I misinterpreted that ... I'm sure you can see how I would have made the mistake.

Posted by: Nads on September 20, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Abramoff-linked duo visited White House dozens of times

Drip, drip, drip . . .

Thomas1: Kevin, how much does Washington Monthly obtain from the abortion industry . . . /em>

Thomas1, how much do you obtain from pedophiles and the kiddie porn industry?


Posted by: Advocate for God on September 20, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, our new 'friend' margie does kinda come off like a self-loathing female, doesn't she?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

This whole debate on when we decide that a zygote becomes a person is ridiculous. Maybe it's fertilization, maybe it's implantation, maybe it's viability. Heck, maybe it's obtaining a driving license.

The simple fact is that it is a religious and not a scientific argument; there is no conceivable scientific argument until some sort of brain is present at the very least. And remember that many zygotes, perhaps a majority, never implant.

If one starts deciding that each zygote has a soul from the point of fertilization, and thereby should be protected, how does one assess twins? Should it be legal to kill one of them, as a sort of retroactive form of amniocentesis?

You can always tell these nuts are insincere because they don't campaign against IVF, which as practiced results in the generation of excess embryos that are never used, and in each of these cases a lot of planning and forethought is involved.

P.S. Thomas1, please tell those Klan members who were, sometimes decades late, prosecuted in Federal court for depriving victims of their civil rights, that only a state actor can deprive someone of their civil rights.

Posted by: Warren Terra on September 20, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

While I usually try to make it a rule to ignore the attempts of Thomas1 to sidetrack the thread -- every thread -- something interesting just happened which I think casts some new light on his craziness and his technique.

Joyfully Subversive, above, signed off posting, saying she had to go to work. In doing so, she used some jargon about "the census being down" at work might permit her to post again later. I didn't understand this jargon, but assumed it was some kind of slang used by healthcare workers (if I'm wrong about that someone tell me.) So I Googled the term. What comes up? The only thing is someone on a nursing website posting to other nurses in January,2006 here: http://www.nursetown.com/view_discussion/?d_id=21

That person said, verbatum, "When census is down.... that's one of the luxury's of the job... being able to spend extra time with the patients." Which is exactly what Thomas1 (Charlie) posted above.

Every topic that comes up, he Googles it and then cuts and pastes comments in as his own, in a sick and feeble attempt to sound like he knows what he is talking. What a sad, pathetic loon.

Care to explain why this is not true, Charlie?

Posted by: Nuts on September 20, 2006 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

I have heard from a lot of women who have decided not to have children, or not to have any more, who spend a lot of their time sweating blood over tests, getting their bodies loused up on hormones, struggling with diaphragms, or having to go in to get tubes tied (major surgery) just because the Man Of The House doesn't want to go in for a simple cheap outpatient procedure.

The situation in that story seemed to be that the decision not to have more children was at least a few years old, and that this woman had been struggling like hell with various birth control ever since. Not to mention that she seems to be in a situation where a pregnancy could actually be hazardous to her health.

The guy needs to get the job done. That he can't afford the procedure sounds a bit lame. A good stereo system costs more.

Posted by: margie on September 20, 2006 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: Nothing. You see how easy that was, AOG?

Which likely means something, since you are a known liar - about virtually everything.

Now, if you had said "something" in the first place, we might have believed you.

Spend your pedophile money well, Thomas1, but get rid of that kiddie porn, please.

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 20, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Nuts, you nailed it - the subversive one is a former coworker of mine in a hospital lab. When the census is down, we have fewer specimens to process and analyze. And now that summer is over, we get fewer traumas. And in September, flu season hasn't struck yet, so this time of year the census, or number of inpatients, is usually at a low point.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

You'll have to forgive Thomas/Don P./Charlie/Cheney/Chuckles, everyone. See, Plan B in this case means fewer potential kids. Fewer kids means fewer dead kids for him to make jokes about. He like to joke about dead kids.

Sick bastard.

Posted by: Vladi on September 20, 2006 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

A tubal is no longer major surgery. It can be done in the doctors office. ten years ago I had a Gynecologist who did them that way, and the women walked out and went back to work the next day. Now 19 years ago, when I had mine done, that was not an option and I had the three days of agony as the gasses worked their way out through my shoulder muscles. But I wanted assurances that I would never be pregnant again, and vasectomies fail more often than tubals do.

I have friends in Wichita who both "went to the vet" after the birth of their third child. They really didn't want any more.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

Heh... the header alone told me this one would bring out the crazies. I read the story a couple of days ago & vowed never to live outside a decent-sized city-- one with lots and lots of providers to choose from, etc.-- ever again.

Posted by: latts on September 20, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

And another Doctor joins the fray

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

I'm going to go now. See you all in the funny papers.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

"If one starts deciding that each zygote has a soul from the point of fertilization, and thereby should be protected, how does one assess twins? Should it be legal to kill one of them, as a sort of retroactive form of amniocentesis?"

I've never seen a right-winger deal with this simple, logical conclusion. However, instead of discussing killing one of them, it's better to ask if ANY religion on earth treats a pair of twins as having a single soul.

That alone shows that there's no religious basis for claiming that ensoulment occurs at conception or anytime before twinning can occur.

Posted by: John on September 20, 2006 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

One last thing before I go - I knew that wasn't the real tbrosz.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 20, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK


Thomas1, dear:

What's your position on involuntary abortions performed via laser-guided missile?

Posted by: 6 on September 20, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

IT'S ME TOO!!! I'M BACK TOO. CLINTON'S PENIS! CLINTON! PENIS! SOLD OUT THE THE CHINESE! TREASON! PENIS!!!!
Posted by: Alice

I remember when Alice called itself "KEISER." Or sometimes "KIESER."

As for Charlie, nothing gets him more wound up than a good old fashioned abortion debate.

Hey, Chuckles...my wife had an abortion today. We took home the aborted fetus and fried it up with mushrooms, onions and green peppers.

Now that's some good eatin'. Tastes like chicken. Makes me wish we'd had triplets so we could have had you over, Thomas, I mean, Charlie. Maybe next time, okay?

Posted by: Reprobate on September 20, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

...good news is that Plan B will finally be available without a prescription

I can see the very same scenario playing out, except this all happens at the drug store, in plain public view, rather than privately on her home phone to the ER.

Posted by: Cheryl on September 20, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Cheryl, I would imagine that she could call up the pharmacies in her area and make those inquiries.

I would imagine that the word will circulate pretty god-damned quick as to what pharmacies or pharmacists refuse to stock or dispense the drug.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 20, 2006 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

Everytime a woman menstruates that's another egg down the drain. Men don't have to masturbate, but every month, like it or not, a woman automatically executes another little soul. That's why true religions keep women in bondage as the font of original sin. When men do it it's an act of free will and speaks to the natural inclination toward evil in men, while for women that inclination is just their natural state.

Could Yahweh have made it any clearer?

Posted by: cld on September 20, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK


Snappy comeback when asked an inappropriate question:

Why do you want to know?

Posted by: 6 on September 20, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

I think, when you become a healthcare practitioner -- doctor, nurse, EMT, receptionist, whatever -- you give up certain personal rights, just like police and firemen, or any person serving the public.

You don't get to interject your personal judgement and preferences when you like.

There are racists, homophobics, sexists, religious maniacs, etc. in all ptofessions. We have laws prohibiting bias, but prejudicial actions still happen. It all depends if you can call them on it.

As healthcare practitioners you are advisors -- capable adults can decline treatment, ask for second opinions -- and providers. You don't get to moralize or choose based on your own personal preferences.

All doctors swear to do no harm. Their oath does not ask them to act as god or apply their morals to others, nor are they trained to do so.

All healthcare workers and pharmacists should sign an agreement to apply their skills without favor under the law, or, at the very least, hang a shingle professing their prejudices.

"I'm sorry. Homosexuality is an unnatural act against the laws of my god. You must first fill out this questionnaire and successfully negotiate this lie-detector before I will treat any sexually related diseases I associate with this unnatural act."

"All sexual acts outside of marriage are deemed unacceptable by my church. I shall not prescribe any methods of birth-control, allow any abortion, or participate in any pre-natal medicine with any person unmarried."

Rediculous. These people need to be pulled up by their collars and shaken silly.

Posted by: notthere on September 20, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe you don't have to masturbate, but I suspect Thomas1 does.

Posted by: Pat on September 20, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

GC wrote

Seriously, didn't the author of that blog know that she could use ordinary birth control pills in high dosage to the same effect?

If you read her blog, you'll find out that she does know that and did indeed consider self-medication. See her blog for the details.

Posted by: Disputo on September 20, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. to td -- she's not that good-looking either:

More evidence that Thomas1 is gay....

Posted by: Disputo on September 20, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

GC is gone to study. She said up thread that she hadn't read the blog, it's a time thing. (She never has time to shoot pool anymore either, which kinda irritates me, since she is one of the few people I actually like.)

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 20, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo wrote: "More evidence that Thomas1 is gay...."

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 20, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Normally, no, but Thomas could find a way to even fuck up being gay.

Posted by: wish you were here on September 20, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

I don't doubt that one bit, wywh. Not the freshest sandwich in the picnic basket, is he?

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 20, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever is in that pill should be put in the water. Only people approved by a board of fertility and figured to be good parents should be allowed to drink bottled water when trying to get pregnant.

Posted by: e7 on September 20, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

The whole world sucks. This is how things get just before the lid blows completely off.

Things that can and might well happen.

Market crash

Terrorist attack

Nathral disaster, earthquake, tornado, volcano

All the above

We need to make sacrifices to the gods. How about all the leaders in the whole freaking world? They are all a pack of money grubbing crooks. The saintly Ayatollahs that run Iran are described as rich. How did they get that way? Working? On what?

Posted by: BGone on September 21, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

>Could Yahweh have made it any clearer?

Well, actually yes. The authors who made up the Yahweh story could have done better. They should have gone to a good liberal arts school to learn how to write good fairy tales.

Zeus stories are way better.

Q is also pretty good. Dangerous as all get out.

Posted by: James on September 21, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen wrote, "Anything more than three to five years old is not considered credible data for academic or scientific research."

Global Citizen wrote, "The three to five year rule is the standard at the university where I am pursuing a PhD."

Completely at random, I did a Google search for "insect journal" (without the quotes) and the very first hit is Journal of Insect Science. Is that academic and scientific enough for you? I clicked on Papers and the very first paper just happens to be Mortality rates and division of labor in the leaf-cutting ant, Atta colombica, which is dated 19 September 2006. This article references 44 articles. The oldest referenced article is from 1972, which was 34 years ago. Of the 44 referenced articles, 8 (18%) are dated 2001 or later, and 36 (82%) are dated 2000 or earlier and are thus over five years old.

Just out of curiosity, Global Citizen, what field of research are you in, where everything written prior to 2001 is now thoroughly discredited?

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on September 21, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

Climate Sciences. Switched from Neuro a few months ago. Both are rapidly changing fields. Five years is the blink of an eye in geologic time, but a hell of a lot changes in both of the areas I have studied, at a rapid enough rate that anything I wish to use that is over five years old must be vetted by the instructor of the class, and sometimes more than one member of the department.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 21, 2006 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINK

By the way - I did not say that anything over five years old was "thoroughly discredited." I said that souces I cite must mot be more than three to five years old. Nowhere did I detract from the credibility of the earlier work. I simply stated the policy of the graduate school where I study that I must follow in submitting work.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 21, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

And if they do prevent implantation, they prevent pregnancy.

And that is my final comment on this thread. I have to go to school now. See you guys on other threads this afternoon/evening.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 21, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

If the doctor in question was willing to prescribe Plan B to a married woman but not to a single woman, then I say he was acting not out of a concern for the unborn, but punitively. He is enforcing cohesion to a certain set of social rules, his rules.

The First Amendment does not protect this; it isn't just speech. He can talk till he's blue in the face for all I care. Prescribing (or not prescribing) medicine is well beyond just talking.

Furthermore, his behavior has a material negative effect on the mother and her 3 children. Since he's willing to provide it for married women, there's apparently no great principle involved. Sounds like a violation of the Hippocratic Oath to me.

Posted by: Doctor Jay on September 21, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK
Implantation is what makes a pregnancy, so anything that disrupts that is by definition not "terminating a pregnancy."

You do realize that that definition by the AMA was adopted during the controversy over birth control for the express purpose of defining procedures that would otherwise have been considered abortifacient as contraceptive?


Posted by: cmdicely on September 21, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK
Jesus said exactly nothing about both homosexuality or abortion, but both were practiced in ancient Judea. He had a lot to say about feeding the poor and healing the sick and how wrong war is and how the peacemakers are blessed and how hard it is for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven.

He also, it might be noted, said quite a bit about blind adherence to formal religious behavioral codes without proper consideration of the people involved.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 21, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Several states have passed laws requiring pharmacies to carry all prescription drugs. Walmart doesn't want to carry this drug, so they purchase a ruling from the FDA converting this to OTC, so that walmart will no longer be required by law to carry it.

Posted by: Peter on September 21, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

By the way, what are the remedies if a doctor refuses to prescribe a med I need or pharmacist refuses to dispense a med for which I have a valid prescription?

Is it a violation of the conditions of their being licensed for which I ask that they be sanctioned?

Posted by: Auto on September 21, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

First Amendment guarantees do not extend to 'doctors' and 'pharmacists'?

If they don't believe in modern fucking medicine they have a right to not practice it! If I'm Amish, can I go work at a Ford dealership and refuse to do tune-ups?

Posted by: mister pedantic (irate) on September 21, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 wrote:

"I agree -- when census is down, that's one of the luxury's of the job -- being able to spend extra time with the patients."

Then Nuts wrote:

"Joyfully Subversive, above, signed off posting, saying she had to go to work. In doing so, she used some jargon about "the census being down" at work might permit her to post again later. I didn't understand this jargon, but assumed it was some kind of slang used by healthcare workers (if I'm wrong about that someone tell me.) So I Googled the term. What comes up? The only thing is someone on a nursing website posting to other nurses in January,2006 here: http://www.nursetown.com/view_discussion/?d_id=21

That person said, verbatum, "When census is down.... that's one of the luxury's of the job... being able to spend extra time with the patients." Which is exactly what Thomas1 (Charlie) posted above.

Every topic that comes up, he Googles it and then cuts and pastes comments in as his own, in a sick and feeble attempt to sound like he knows what he is talking. What a sad, pathetic loon."


Just for clarity's sake, this is the passage that Thomas1 plagerized in an attempt to lend his anonymous opinion some gravitas--right down to the mis-application of the possessive "luxury's" instead of the plural "luxuries":

"These are just a few of the special memories of my years in nursing. Probably the ones that stand out the most. I've truely enjoyed the patients/residents I've had the privilege of caring for. It is the most rewarding aspect in nursing, for me.
I worked small town medical surgical units most of my seventeen years as a registered nurse. When census is down.... that's one of the luxury's of the job... being able to spend extra time with the patients.
I've heard that something good most usually comes from something bad. Guess this would be it.... "

Nothing more to add, I guess. Other than that I love seeing someone get their fucking head handed to them. At this point, if I were Thomas1, I'd be so ashamed, I'd probably sell the computer and live an off-line existence. Of course, the *real* Thomas1 isn't embarrassed in the least--in fact never bothers to address it. Thanks for making my day. (Cue Thomas1 claiming "It wasn't me! It was the 'fake' me!")

Posted by: ibc on September 21, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK
(Cue Thomas1 claiming "It wasn't me! It was the 'fake' me!")

Right on cue.

I see the current thread's moved on to a "Ford dealership/tune-up analogy." Word to the wise: If you want to burnish your cred in all things automotive, here's a good source:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/latest.html

Don't worry, I won't tell anybody. Shhh.

--ibc

Posted by: ibc on September 21, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie posting as "Thomas1" wrote: I'm not "Charlie".

You are Charlie, and you are a liar.

Your continued inane denials that you are Charlie only serve to demonstrate to all readers that you are a liar, and give all readers of your comments every reason to believe that everything you write is a lie.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 21, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

The AMA position was determined 40 years ago.

I maintain that if the hormones that support pregnancy are not present in the bloodstream - and they are detectable within a few days of implantation, but they are not detectable after feretilization and before implantation - no pregnancy has occured.

That is the conclusion the science I have practiced in clinical labs and even a fertility clinic for twenty years has led me to.

As for that "taking innocent human life" crack - grow up, Charlie. That is a debate for the philosophy lab - er wait - there is no lab in philosophy...That is why philosophical "truths" are subjective. Now do I have to keep doing this, or have I made my fucking point? If I haven't you are uneducable.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 21, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

And I addressed the tree falls argument too - the same physics take place whether an auditory canal is there or not.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 21, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

We also now have evidence that Bob/ rmck1 posted above as "Cheney", "Shinobi", and "Thomas1".

No-one has posted as Shinobi but me.

I was disagreeing with rmck1 in the other thread, you dumb shit.

Posted by: Shinobi on September 21, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

You tipped your hand as a scientific illiterate Charlie, you dumbfuck, when you dismissed a chemistry analyzer as a "fancy machine."

Suffice it to say that you have your philosophical stance on the issue and I have mine. Mine is based on science I understand, not that has been misreperesented to me by the baptist minister.

Trying to have a discussion with you is pointless. Even when you know you will get busted, you cherry-pick quotes. It is tiresome. And annoying. Can't forget annoying. (You got that covered in spades, dude.) You persistently use a starategy in this forum that you know will be shot down. You are either a spoof, or you are insane. I can think of no other reason for your persistence at employing tactics that have not proven successful in the past.

Are you just a strawman, or are you certifiably insane?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 21, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Verify that I was disagreeing with rmck1? And agreeing with cmdicely? Not hard - check the previous thread, mr. none@none.com.

Posted by: Shinobi on September 21, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

strategy, asshole.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 21, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen,

FWIW, thanks for defending science and Plan B. Your patience and steadfastness in dealing with charlie...whoops, I mean, Thomas1, is impressive. Have a great night.

Posted by: Edo on September 21, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

Edo; Thanks. Charlie is a tiresome bore.

Charlie, read the fucking punctuation - I am not afraid God will smite me if I say "fuck" - I corrected the misspelling that your lame brain could not figure out, then I called you an asshole. Asshole.

Your level of intellect is why I only taught middle-school science for one year.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 21, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

If I was a young woman who could possibly need back up contraception, I would know the exact dose of birth control pills I would need to take immediately and/or have Plan B pills in the medicine cabinet. Actually the former solution is probably cheaper. One's physician can help with both choices now.

Those of us who choose to control our fertility must be in control of the methodology available for back up contraception. That means being informed about what to do in case of accidents and having it ON HAND to use. Otherwise, we allow others to control us.....never a good idea!

Posted by: rain39 on September 21, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

I think SOCK PUPPET covered this fairly well already. Also, if you don't think I get accused of being other people because of my fake e-mail address too, just keep reading.

I read his accusations - god, there's 5 minutes of my life I want back. Apparently we both stick smilies on the end of some sentences. Since no-one else on the internet, anywhere, uses smilies, I can see how that can be damning.

However, sock puppet didn't deal with the point that I was actually disagreeing with rmck. Considering the point of sock puppets is to, y'know, bolster your argument, having a sock puppet which undermines it would be besides the point. If you want mileage out of that accusation, accuse me of being cmdicely's sock puppet. I'm not, but at least then I'd fit the basic definition. Or maybe, seeing as how long this post is getting, I could be Scotian's sock puppet! That would be high praise.

I'm sorry that all these other people think you're Charlie posting under a different name, but much as an occasionally well-articulated sentence leads to accusations of me being rmck's sock puppet, continually regurgitating the same republican talking points, inarticulate unfunny snark and fundamentalist christian dogma leads to accusations of being the same as Charlie and Cheney. If you didn't want them, try actually showing the capacity for doing something original once in a while - maybe try some of the incoherent ranting of a Jay or an rdw. You might be surprised by the results.

Posted by: Shinobi on September 21, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

No thiomas1, but if I had a time machine I would go back and perform the abortion on your mother myself.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 21, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

Also, I thought SOCK PUPPET floated the theory you were just trying to throw him of your trail by disagreeing with yourself -- kinda like reverse sock puppetry?

For me to throw him off the trail, there would need to be a trail first - a set of posts complementary of rmck1. I didn't - I made one post disagreeing with him.

rmck1's meant to be so clever that he creates sock puppets that do nothing but criticise him, so they don't look like sock puppets? I'm starting to wish I was his sock puppet - the guy's a fricken genius.

Man, you and sock puppet do a great job, making sure the rest of the readers here get there daily delivery of stupid.

Posted by: Shinobi on September 21, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

Oh well, at least I never resort to cursing.

That's a lie:

Not at all, you MOTHER-FUCKING ASSHOLE! I'm just not going to be nice about it anymore. Thank God you are going straight to HELL, SecularAnimist!

Posted by: Thomas/Cheney on March 9, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Mmm, sweet sweet crazy. That's some pretty bad language there. What a poor example of Christian behavior. What would all the snowflake babies say?

Well...probably nothing because they're just microscopic clumps of frozen cells and not real babies.

Posted by: trex on September 21, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

You lose when you resort to invoking nazis with a Jew, Charlie.

We are done here.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 21, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

trex, you funny.

How well I remember the first time Charlie pitched an F-bomb at me. It was a simpler--although not gentler--time, evidenced by Charlie still posting as...Charlie. Even now, I hesitate to use this name as though it's his real one, since by now it's pretty clear he stole the identity of a hapless Irvine lawyer who probably still doesn't know he's being represented online as a batshit crazy troll. I'll bet the guy even votes Democratic.

But I have wandered off the path. Anyway, I recall this evening's exchange because it so closely mirrored tonight's Charlie-cleek conversation. Charlie accuses cleek of saying something cleek didn't say. cleek naturally demands evidence. Charlie flings out would-be clever ripostes that would get him an F in any freshman debate class.

It all started to seem so familiar...but then no one ever accused Charlie of having a large repertoire.

Anyway, the night in question, Charlie was busy accusing me of "imposing" a "four-post limit per thread" on his...er, contributions. I'd never said anything of the kind, nor even suggested it--although it wasn't a bad idea if the prescribed number had been zero instead of four. So I demanded that Charlie pony up the post in which I'd allegedly said this. Charlie danced, slithered, but couldn't come up with an excuse. I became more insistent (and amused). Charlie became more defensive, growing angry--whether for real or as an attempted distraction, I can't say. Eventually, the top of his head blew off and he shouted something like, "Fucking find it yourself!" then flounced off to his I-hate-Kevin closet shrine (god, I love that, OBF; it's my favorite part) and lit a fresh batch of anti-catnip, muttering curses directed at the Drum felines.

Hell, Charlie swears all the time. He just doesn't do it any more artfully than he does anything else.

Posted by: shortstop on September 21, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Globe, darling, don't wear yourself out with Chuckles. His only goal is to lead you around in a circle and make you go through the whole non-debate all over again.

Posted by: shortstop on September 21, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Hell, Charlie swears all the time. He just doesn't do it any more artfully than he does anything else

It's right after a line like that that you say, "Thank you -- and good night!" and the house lights go down as you walk off the stage to thunderous applause.

Posted by: trex on September 21, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, Charlie/Cheney/Doug/Thomas famously told me to go fuck myself as well in that same thread I referenced -- and just because I posted information disproving some jackass point he was trying to make.

Tad sensitive, I'd say.

Posted by: trex on September 21, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not "Cheney", trex.

Now that's classic reverse-psych puppetry.

And we've never seen an argument between Charlie and Thomas1..

Posted by: Shinobi on September 21, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

And we've never seen an argument between Charlie and Thomas1...

Not only that, oddly enough we've never seen agreement between them, even though they have the same very, VERY unusual belief that doctors and mothers should suffer the death for participating in abortions.

You'd think one would at least weigh in and give the other a little support.

Also, they're both against gay marriage, and the Cheney personality would like constitutional amendments banning homosexuality and divorce.

Such wacky shared beliefs, and yet -- no shout outs from one to the other...or from the other to the other to the other.

Sad, really.

Posted by: trex on September 21, 2006 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

I heard they had a falling-out about a girl once. That's probably it, don't you think?

P.S. Thanks for the snaps.

Posted by: shortstop on September 21, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

You may be all up in arms about Dr. Mengele's experiments, but maybe you need to look in the mirror, babe. I'm not the one who posted: "if I had a time machine I would go back and perform the abortion on your mother myself."

What the devil does this have to to do with anything?

Silly libs--the government owns the uterus of all women. It is in the Constitution! By thunder, there it is. The government shall set aside all powers not delegated to the States and the ownership of all uteruses shall be made by a deliberative body of one Representative and one Senator per state.

Just seeing if you were paying attention. Alas, even though I support the President, I must deviate from him on the issue of abortion. Nothing gets a fellow out of trouble faster than a visit to the doctor with the non-English speaking maid hidden under a good coat. In the days before my marriage to Peng Li, I was a bit of a raconteur, and if not for the access to a good clinic, I might be calling some swarthy child my own, courtesy of the seductive charms of Esme, the girl from El Salvador who stole my heart.

I should say-to my utter embarrassment-she was not pregnant. I guess both Bill Clinton and I have been lied to by a fat girl. Ah, but unlike him, I was able to escape prosecution and impeachment.

And you wonder why I think you should all bow down and worship me.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on September 21, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

In the days before my marriage to Peng Li, I was a bit of a raconteur, and if not for the access to a good clinic, I might be calling some swarthy child my own, courtesy of the seductive charms of Esme, the girl from El Salvador who stole my heart.

Ah, if only the real Norman were so charming and eccentric.

Loved the Kipling poem in the other thread, btw. All very British Colonial, very 19th century, very "pip pip, cheerio" and all that rot.

Posted by: trex on September 21, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, if only the real Norman were so charming and eccentric.

Keep dreaming, lib. You can't wait for the Government to hand you a fifty dollar bill and a free plane ticket to see the next Hootie and the Blowfish concert with your hippie-dippy friends.

The Republican Party should co-opt the lib message of free abortions for all. After all, you've won every election by being on the wrong side of history, haven't you?

Pardon me while I snicker helplessly at your predicament.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on September 21, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

No Chuckles, I declared victory and went home. You are McMarthy and i am Murrow.

Good night, and good luck.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 21, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

Science gave us Dr. Mengele, etc.

Wrong. Fascism gave us Dr. Mengele.

Posted by: Edo on September 22, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Shinobi:

You know, I *really* shouldn't be posting this, because it will doubtless become FURTHER PROOF THAT SHINOBI AND RMCK1 ARE SOCK PUPPETS !!!, but I did want to chime in with a shout-out; I enjoyed your posts here.

I think it's really hysterical that a smiley after a one-sentence paragraph is all the EVIDENCE they needed. I guess maybe because you weren't snarking at me, but just trying to explain cmidcely's point as you understood it. And you noticed, I'm sure, that I was still inclined to disagree, as I responded to both of you.

Sock puppets *civily debating* with each other (not either flaming or hivfiving) has got to be a first :) Boy, talk about throwing them off our trail ...

I dunno if it was you on that thread posting as Shinobi (the email was different), who said that you weren't Bob. But that you were rmck1. And that Bob and rmck1 are the same people, but you were the rmck1 side of his personality.

I thought that was freakin' hysterical ...

I only wish I were a good enough writer to be able to construct a persona like Shinobi, whose posts are helping my case but whose writing style is different in such subtle but noticible ways. That would be quite a trick. But sadly ... my writing quirks are pretty solidly embedded at this point. I'll bet ya'll instantly knew that Ann Coulter's twelve-speed dildo is me, too :(

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 22, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

I just figured out the perfect sock puppet accusation psychout. And since I find false accusations of sock puppetry annoying and tiresome, I'll simply state the strategy for all to see, preemptively. Because this is what they'll have to expect from me from now on.

If I'm accused that Poster X is my sock puppet, I'm simply going to agree with it. Yes, of course Poster X is my sock puppet. And you know Thomas1 -- who everybody thinks is Cheney/Charley? -- he's mine, too. Betcha didn't know that, huh.

And not only that, but you -- Mr. Accuser -- are my sock puppet as well. I'm sock puppeting you because I'm a really weird and annoying person who loves nothing so much as to have heated arguments with myself on a blog.

So g'head. Make the nastiest accustions you care to -- but remember, I approve of them! I'm writing them, after all ...

Boy, talk about twisting a troll's head into pulpy mass of writhing decapitated snakes :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 22, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1:

Yes, of course it was, Thomas. Shinobi and I are the same person, silly goose ... *winking at Shinobi*.

In fact, Thomas, you're my sock puppet as well. What "you" just wrote up there? Uh-uh. *I* did, of course. Oh sure, there's a *real* Thomas1 floating around somewhere. But over half the Thomas1 posts on this blog are written by me.

I've fooled a lot of people into thinking I run this really old, text-only gear. I actually post in a room full of state-of-the-art boxes with several ISPs and many windows open. More than a few "regulars" here are actually the work of, that's right, yours truly.

Rmck1, the Political Animal Svengali :)

Hehe, can you guess which ones?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 22, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

The technical term for what I'm doing to you, Thomas, is called "busting your chops" :)

Truthfully, I may have spoofed you once -- or possibly twice. But it was a long time ago. After the spoofing attacks on me, I lost all interest in doing it, because to continue would be highly hypocritical.

I don't remember what I said exactly -- but you can be sure that the spoofs were totally over-the-top satirical and not intended to fool anybody into thinking it was actually you.

As for sock puppetry -- that's never remotely occured to me. You've gotta be a world-class retard to defend your own arguments with a sock puppet.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 22, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Mmmmmmmmmmm. Me.

Can't. Get. Enough.

Posted by: Bobbbbbbb on September 22, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Rmck1, the Political Animal Svengali :)

that's really funny.

Posted by: Edo on September 22, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Careful, Edo.

Somebody will accuse you of being my sock puppet :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 22, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

Somebody will accuse you of being my sock puppet :)

Someone would be wrong. You use "Shinobi" as your alter ego when you post.

This is an off topic public announcement:

rmck1/Bob a sock puppet? You decide.
WARNING: this shit is WEIRD.

1. Evidence rmck1 is a SockPuppet

2. Chris' words touch me...


BONUS: This is what another blogger posted about rmck1's "STYLE"

Kevin Drum is another blogger Ive met and am personally fond of, and someone I have a great deal of respect for. Sadly, his comments are as bad or I really think, worse, than Charles.

Why worse, you ask?
Well, first, because were not talking about a random website started by a musician/web designer (who became an aspiring media mogul later on) and a bunch of people who have gravitated to him; instead, were talking about the web presence in fact, the home page of the web presence of one of the leading partisan magazines in the country. Dont believe me? Ask them:

Who Reads The Washington Monthly?

Time says our magazine is "must reading at the White House and on Capitol Hill," and and The Washington Post says our magazine is "setting off the Beltway buzzmeter." Even the conservative Weekly Standard calls us "smart." If you subscribe, you'll join people like Tom Brokaw, Dick Cheney, Tom Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Joe Klein, Ellen Goodman, and thousands of others who want the inside stories weeks or months before they appear in the mainstream media. That's why James Carville says, "If you only get one magazine subscription this year, buy The Washington Monthly. If you're getting another, buy two."

This week, guest blogger Steve Waldman riffed off of an interesting question about the antipathy liberals seem to have for the religious actually an important question to anyone whos serious about seeing liberal values get greater political traction and things go just nuts. A few examples:

McAristotle: You need a SacRete enema, dude, is what you need.
Bob
Posted by: rmck1 on March 13, 2006 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Public Service Announcement on September 22, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

1) Why should anybody trust your editing? That post was in response to a doubtless off-the-wall rant by McA. There are any number of posters who've said worse in those threads.

"SacRete enema," though, you have to admit is kind of a colorful phrase :)

2) Blame Kevin for his laissez-faire comment policy. Blame the lack of registration and the lack of posted rules of preferred rhetorical decorum. It's his blog, and his message -- implicitly and explicitly -- is, have at it. I don't have the time or the inclination to play nanny.

Until you quote an exchange in fair context, you really haven't said anything. Sorry if such colorful phraseology has so much trouble rolling off your fingers you need to mount pointless attacks like these on archived threads nobody is reading any longer.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 22, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

How can you be certain that I use Shinobi as my alter ego when I post?

You can't. You just think if you lie about it enough, that people will start believing you.

Which is, truthfully, a criminal mentality.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 22, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

hot wet asian pussy tits nmm hot wet asian pussy tits nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/hot-wet-asian-pussy-tits.htmlnmm
free asian shaved pussy picture nmm free asian shaved pussy picture nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/free-asian-shaved-pussy-picture.htmlnmm
naked asian woman nmm naked asian woman nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/naked-asian-woman.htmlnmm
chubby asian sex nmm chubby asian sex nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/chubby-asian-sex.htmlnmm
asian transexual pussy nmm asian transexual pussy nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-transexual-pussy.htmlnmm
busty asians nmm busty asians nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/busty-asians.htmlnmm
free nfl picks nmm free nfl picks nmm http://FREE-NFL-PICKS.ORGnmm
big boob asian sex nmm big boob asian sex nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/big-boob-asian-sex.htmlnmm
asian sexy teen nmm asian sexy teen nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-sexy-teen.htmlnmm
asian uniform group sex nmm asian uniform group sex nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-uniform-group-sex.htmlnmm
asian geisha pussy nmm asian geisha pussy nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-geisha-pussy.htmlnmm
extreme asian sex nmm extreme asian sex nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/extreme-asian-sex.htmlnmm
asian fucking nmm asian fucking nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-fucking.htmlnmm
best football picks nmm best football picks nmm http://BESTFOOTBALLPICKS.US nmm
asian sex vids nmm asian sex vids nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-sex-vids.htmlnmm
asian women in miniskirt nmm asian women in miniskirt nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-women-in-miniskirt.htmlnmm
asian sucking sex nmm asian sucking sex nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-sucking-sex.htmlnmm
asian pussy and big cocks nmm asian pussy and big cocks nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-pussy-and-big-cocks.htmlnmm
asian cum pussy nmm asian cum pussy nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-cum-pussy.htmlnmm
asian bukkake nmm asian bukkake nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-bukkake.htmlnmm
online sports betting nmm online sports betting nmm http://www.threadbomb.com/sportsbook/online-sports-betting.htmlnmm
free porn asian nmm free porn asian nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/free-porn-asian.htmlnmm
asian fetish nmm asian fetish nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-fetish.htmlnmm
asian porn free vids nmm asian porn free vids nmm http://www.guymagazines.com/asian-porn-free-vids.htmlnmm

Posted by: hot wet asian pussy titsnmm on September 23, 2006 at 8:24 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly