Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood (also: Amy's ongoing intellectual dishonesty)

AMY: OBs ARE ROBBING **LOTS** OF BABY BLOOD...

(Up to 50%! See below. Attn: Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers
.)

ALSO: AMY'S ONGOING INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

(Anyone know the answer to the question at the very end of this post? Maybe
medical doctor Sarah Vaughan knows?)

(Note: It's not just Amy's baby blood robbery intellectual dishonesty I
discuss herein. I also discuss Amy's opium alkaloid/codeine intellectual
dishonesty. Definitely, if the risks of not taking this narcotic outweigh
the risk of taking it - TAKE it. I still though take issue with Amy's
doctor's opinion that it only makes babies "tired." When women take the
narcotic codeine, their babies MAY be getting as much as 40 times the
"usual" dose for children - but check my math and assumptions below.)

BABY BLOOD

OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL HARDY MYERS...

Should babies have to "donate" up to 50% of their blood volume at birth?

Since obstetricians do this daily, why don't WE all donate 50% of OUR blood
volumes!?

An obvious obstetric crime is occuring...

PREGNANT WOMEN: Do NOT let the obstetrician or CNMwife clamp your baby's
cord until it has stopped pulsating and your baby is pink and breathing and
not in need of resuscitation. Women shouldn't have to make sure their OBs
don't rob baby blood - that's just the way it is - so talk to your OB or
CNMwife today.

WARNING According to retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB
FACOG, immediate cord clamping (robbing baby of up to 50% of his/her blood
volume) may be causing some cases of AUTISM and CEREBRAL PALSY...

See "Peter's dodge" discussion in "If Amy's baby is born blue..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...3a4c9b6d827f7a

Note: "Peter's dodge" involves the false notion that TIMING of umbilical
cord clamping has nothing whatsoever to do with cord blood "donation." Due
in part to this sordid timing dodge, some babies are being robbed of up to
50% of their blood volume by immediate cord clamping.

See Linderkamp et al. 1992 below.

Amy engaged in intellectual dishonesty in discussion of
baby-blood-robbery/"Peter's dodge"...

Amy later blithely PROMOTED baby-blood-robbery/"Peter's dodge"...

She wrote:

"[My doctor]...assured me that donating the cord blood would be done in such
a
way so that it would not reduce the baby's blood volume at all. The
collection is done after the cord is clamped and cut, as I thought. I
said, 'Collecting the cord blood isn't going to affect the baby's blood
volume, is it? Because I read on the internet that it can rob the baby
of its blood...' and he said, 'Absolutely not'..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...20d279ba3c6067

OF COURSE "donating" what has been ALREADY ROBBED is not going to further
reduce the baby's blood volume...

THIS IS GRUESOME...

In 2001, CNMwife Judy Mercer wrote that early cord clamping behavior "can
reduce the red
blood cells an infant receives at birth by more than 50%." (!)

In the same paper, she wrote that she reviewed the medical literature from
1980 to 2001...

See Mercer JS^^^. Current best evidence: a review of the literature on
umbilical cord
clamping.J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001 Nov-Dec;46(6):402-14. PubMed
abstract

^^^Nurse-Midwifery Program, University of Rhode Island College of Nursing,
Kingston 02881-2021, USA.

HERE'S A 1992 STUDY THAT CNMwife MERCER MUST HAVE SEEN...

"Neonatal blood volume...was 50% higher in the late cord-clamped infants
than in the early cord-clamped infants. [Linderkamp et al. ^^^Acta Paediatr.
1992 Oct;81(10):745-50. PubMed abstract]

(Early clamping was 10 seconds and and late clamping was 3 min.)

^^^ Linderkamp O, Nelle M, Kraus M, Zilow EP Department of Pediatrics,
University of Heidelberg, Germany.


30 SECONDS IS "DELAYED" CORD CLAMPING?


I RECENTLY WROTE (as above)...

How about we all go out and "donate" 50% of *our* blood volumes!

Donna Young replied:

Today, Todd, the new delayed is 30-second clamping. did you read Judith S.
Mercer's article...she counted, 10, 20, 30 seconds clamp. The mothers were
given the choice delayed clamping (30-second) or instant.......tricky eh.
NO informed choice for no clamping, ever, primal birth rights... Why
not?...snip


My thanks to Donna Young (www.lotusbirth.com) for calling my attention to
the immediate cord clamping child abuse.

It's BIZARRE that 30 seconds was defined as "delayed" cord clamping.

It's almost as if the cord blood banking interests RECRUITED the CNMwives to
help "scientifically" DEFINE "delayed" to mean IT'S OK TO ROB BLOOD FROM
BABIES.


In 2002: Judith Mercer, CNM (and Skovgaard) suggested early cord clamping
can cause DEATH...

"Early clamping of the umbilical cord at birth...causes neonatal blood
volume to vary 25% to 40%. Such a massive change occurs at no other time in
one's life without serious consequences, even death."
[J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2002 Mar;15(4):56-75. PubMed abstract]

In 2003: Judith Mercer, CNM et al. REPORTED ON (participated in?) early cord
clamping...

HERE'S THE ABSTRACT EXCERPT:

....A randomized controlled trial recruited 32 infants between 24 and 32
weeks. Immediately before delivery, mothers were randomized to ICC (cord
clamped at 5 to 10 seconds) or DCC (30- to 45-second delay in cord clamping)
groups. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analyses revealed that the DCC group
were more likely to have higher initial mean blood pressures (adjusted OR
3.4) and less likely to be discharged on oxygen (adjusted OR 8.6). DCC group
infants had higher initial glucose levels (ICC=36 mg/dl, DCC=73.1 mg/dl;
p=0.02). CONCLUSION: The research design is feasible. The immediate benefit
of improved blood pressure was confirmed and other findings deserve
consideration for further study.

Mercer et al.^^^J Perinatol. 2003 Sep;23(6):466-72. PubMed Abstract

^^^Mercer JS, McGrath MM, Hensman A, Silver H, Oh W. College of Nursing,
University of Rhode Island, White Hall, 2 Heathman Road, Kingston, RI
02881-2021, USA.

PREGNANT WOMEN: PLEASE don't let the OB or CNMwife immediately clamp your
baby's umbilical cord!! Talk to him or her today.


AMY AND "THIS PETER DUDE"...

Amy blithely snipped my discussion of "Peter's dodge" and wrote:

"Ok, you know what, this Peter dude is NOT my doctor..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...74a2efaa85aecf

Then, later, she had her doctor STATING part of "Peter's dodge"!!

Again, she wrote:

"[My doctor]...assured me that donating the cord blood would be done in such
a
way so that it would not reduce the baby's blood volume at all. The
collection is done after the cord is clamped and cut, as I thought. I
said, 'Collecting the cord blood isn't going to affect the baby's blood
volume, is it? Because I read on the internet that it can rob the baby
of its blood...' and he said, 'Absolutely not'..."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...20d279ba3c6067

Babies ARE being robbed of up to 50% of their blood volume and (again
quoting CNMwife Mercer):

"Such a massive change [in blood volume] occurs at no other time in
one's life without serious consequences, EVEN DEATH."
[J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2002 Mar;15(4):56-75. PubMed abstract, emphasis
added]

AMY (I know you have me filtered - but just in case someone quotes this back
and you are reading):

FIRST YOU **SNIPPED** "PETER'S DODGE" (IN ORDER TO PROMOTE BLIND TRUST IN
DOCTORS)...

THEN YOU **PROMOTED* "PETER'S DODGE"...AFTER VISITING YOUR DOCTOR!


MORE OF AMY'S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY...

Amy recently suggested that **I** have bad "netiquette"...

To be sure, I am not the politest person online - LOL!

But Amy's intellectual dishonesty - as babies are robbed of blood - is the
pinnacle of bad "netiquette"

wrote in message
oups.com...

Jenrose wrote:

Todd, I snip *everything* down to the barest minimum, generally, to
conserve
bandwidth.

I do too. It's good netiquette in general.

Good netiquette is to be intellectually honest.


Amy has been intellectually dishonest.

Good netiquette is to SAY one has snipped when one has snipped.

Amy failed to do this. See below.

Good netiquette is not to snip key information.

Amy snipped key information. See above.

When I pointed out Amy's intellectual dishonesty, she engaged in MORE
intellectual dishonesty, including telling me screw myself (in Latin : ) -
then threatening to report me to my ISP for "harassment"...

See Umbilical assault (also: Amy: Futue te ipsum et caballum tuum : )
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...14c118d25df8fa

Amy now continues her intellectual dishonesty.

Additionally, I figure
that the people who read Todd have read his main point 5 or 6 times by
the time they get to my reply to a reply to him, so there's no reason
for me to allow him to continue shouting in my posts, too.


Amy's intellectual dishonesty: There was NOTHING about my "main point" in
what Amy snipped.

%%%%%%%%%%%% [BEGIN: Todd's text that Amy snipped]

Amy,

I am sorry you are in pain and hope you feel better soon.

It is good that codeine is there to help us...

But Amy, for the benefit of other pregnant women reading...

I suspect there are no studies which demonstrate - as your obstetrician so
breezily opined - that babies only get "tired" due to the alkaloid of
opium called codeine and then "wake up fine" afterwards.

The amount of codeine to cause pain relief in an adult mother has got to
be major dose for her tiny fetus.


%%%%%%%%%%%%% [END: Todd's text that Amy snipped]


So yet again, Amy has taken yet another intellectually dishonest public
swipe.

snip

Again...

OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL HARDY MYERS...

Should babies have to "donate" up to 50% of their blood volume at birth?

Since obstetricians do this daily, why don't WE all donate 50% of OUR blood
volumes!?

An obvious obstetric crime is occuring...

PREGNANT WOMEN: Do NOT let the obstetrician or CNMwife clamp your baby's
cord until it has stopped pulsating and your baby is pink and breathing and
not in need of resuscitation. Women shouldn't have to make sure their OBs
don't rob baby blood - that's just the way it is - so talk to your OB or
CNMwife today.


Amy mentioned my "main point"...

Some pregnant women reading may not know what my "main point" is...

OBs are closing birth canals up to 30% and KEEPING birth canals closed when
babies get stuck...

OBs are pulling with hands, forceps and vacuums - with birth canals closed
up to 30%.

OBs are slicing vaginas/abdomens en masse (episiotomy/c-section) -
surgically/fraudulently inferring they are doing/have done everything
possible to open the birth canal - even as they close the birth canal up to
30%.

OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL HARDY MYERS WHERE ARE YOU?

THE TINIEST OREGON RESIDENTS ARE NEEDLESSLY SUFFERING...

CNMwives (MEDwives) are helping with the mass child abuse....

See Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i''s John A Burns School of Medicine...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...65e8f1a78c19da

CNMwives are NURSES - they are still MD handmaidens. As such, their
"science" is highly suspect.

CNMwives are promoting KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30%
when babies get stuck!

Arrrrgggghhhh....

BTW, my all-time favorite MD fraud is British obstetrician Jason Gardosi's
1989 Lancet "randomised controlled trial of squatting" - where nobody
squatted.

See Britain's 1982 Squatting Rally (also: Dr. Gardosi's squatting fraud)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...d237bb39ca6e29

Note: Before his 1989 squatting fraud, Gardosi published a study wherein in
he stated the grisly biomechanics of semisitting delivery - but said he had
to "compromise" with midwives and allow semisitting!

He in effect blamed midwives for obvious obstetric crime.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo




CODEINE DISCUSSION...


PREGNANT WOMEN

Codeine is a narcotic. If you have to take it - if the risk of not taking
it outweighs the risk to the fetus...

Then - of course - take it...

Amy's obstetrician breezily opined that babies only get "tired" due to the
alkaloid of opium called codeine and then "wake up fine" afterwards.

I don't think there is any evidence for that.

(Amy, if you are reading, I say again, I am interested to know if your
obstetrician has evidence that the alkaloid of opium called codeine only
makes babies "tired.")



IF I WERE A FETUS

If I were a fetus, unless my mother HAD to give me 40 times the "usual" dose
for children of the alkaloid of opium called codeine - I wouldn't want her
to dose me with it....

Here (again) are my calculations. Perhaps my math or my assumptions are
wrong?



BEGIN Todd's response to Amy's reply to Jennifer regarding codeine
dose...


CODEINE (ALKALOID OF OPIUM): FETUS GETS HOW MUCH OF MOM'S DOSE?

Amy says, "I don't read Todd."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...55d3e022f22ee4

snip

Amy indicated to Jennifer that she could be taking "the maximum dose of two
pills" over a few hour period, as in,

I also plan to take half a tablet, wait half and hour to
see if it worked, another half if it didn't, wait 30 minutes, another
half if I still am in pain, wait again, and a final half (to get me up
to the maximum dose of two pills) 30 minutes later. I'm not going to
take a huge dose, certainly not what a dependent person would take!


Amy didn't give the dose in her pills...

Assuming Tylenol 3, there are apparently two codeine doses available - 30 mg
and 60 mg codeine doses/per tablet...

300 mg/30 mg -- Each white, round, scored tablet imprinted R001/3
contains 300 mg of Acetaminophen and 30 mg of
Codeine Phosphate. Tablets are supplied in bottles
of 100 (NDC 0228-2001-10) and 1000 (NDC 0228-2001-96).

300 mg/60 mg -- Each white, round, scored tablet imprinted R001/4
contains 300 mg of Acetaminophen and 60 mg of
Codeine Phosphate. Tablets are supplied in bottles
of 100 (NDC 0228-2003-10) and 500 (NDC 0228-2003-50).

CODEINE DOSES: MOTHER/FETUS

The usual adult codeine dosage is: 15 mg to 60 mg - Single Dose (360 mg
maximum 24 Hour Doses)

The usual child codeine dose is 0.5 mg/kg
http://www.druginfonet.com/index.php...D=acetamin.htm

I think there are 2.2 lb per kg. Using the 0.5 mg/kg "usual dose" for
children factor...

The "usual dose" for 6.6 lb fetus would be 1.5 mg, right?

The mother is taking roughly 10 times that - 20 times that if a [6]0 mg
tablet
is taken.

AMY'S FETUS...

If Amy takes two 30 mg tablets of codeine, it appears that she is giving her
fetus (assuming a 6.6 lb fetus) roughly 40 times "the usual child dose."

My math might be wrong though.

And maybe the placental blood does not have as much as
the mother's blood.



Here again are the abstracts I originally posted - and my the rest of my
original comments to Amy...

CODEINE DURING PREGNANCY: MORPHOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL CHANGES IN RAT
PROGENY

Interestingly,Slamberova [2004] mention "morphological and behavioral
changes in the progeny of mothers that received or abused opioides during
pregnancy," as in,

"[Exogenous o]pioides [the alkaloids of opium, such as morphine and codeine]
may...induce long-term changes in the numbers and binding activities of
opioid receptors. Some of our studies in fact demonstrate that prenatal
morphine exposure can alter opioid receptors of adult rats. This may begin
to provide insight into the sources of some of the morphological and
behavioral changes in the progeny of mothers that received or abused
opioides during pregnancy." [Cesk Fysiol. 2004;53(4):159-66. PubMed abstract
excerpt]


The term "opiate-dependent" appears in the some of the following abstracts -
but was not defined in the abstract...


CODEINE DURING PREGNANCY AND NEUROBLASTOMA...

Cook et al [2004] say it might just be bias, confounding or chance but...

"Mothers of cases [of neuroblastoma] were more likely to report using
medications containing opioid agonists while they were pregnant or nursing
than were mothers of controls (odds ratio=2.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.3,
4.3). Specifically, more mothers of cases reported using medications
containing codeine while pregnant or nursing than did mothers of controls
(odds ratio=3.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.4, 8.4). This preliminary
finding may be due to bias, confounding, or chance, and additional studies
are needed for confirmation." [Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr 15;159(8):721-31.
PubMed abstract]



CODEINE AND NEONATAL ABSTINENCE SYNDROME (POTENTIALLY LIFE THREATENING)

The neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is a potentially life threatening
illness associated with significant morbidity especially in the neonatal
period. A case of NAS due to codeine prescribed for pain relief during
pregnancy is reported. Clinicians should be aware that narcotic derivatives
prescribed in late pregnancy can give rise to this type of problem.

[Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1997 Jan;76(1):F59-60. PubMed abstract]



CODEINE DURING PREGNANCY AND STRABISMUS


Gill et al. [2003] write:

"The rate of strabismus in infants of opiate-dependent mothers was at least
10 times that in the general population." [Acta Paediatr. 2003;92(3):379-85.
PubMed abstract excerpt]

(Strabismus at www.dictionary.com: A visual defect in which one eye cannot
focus with the other on an object because of imbalance of the eye muscles.
Also called squint.)

Again Amy, the amount of codeine to cause pain relief in an adult mother has
got to be major dose for her tiny fetus.

Who knows how many kids don't show overt effects?

I suspect there are no studies which demonstrate - as your obstetrician so
breezily opined - that babies only get "tired" due to the alkaloid of opium
called codeine and then "wake up fine" afterwards.

If your obstetrician has such studies, I hope you will share the cites.

Thanks

Todd

PS In a reply to Jennifer, I wrote...

No question that a woman should take it if she's got to have it - if the
risk of not taking it exceeds the risk of taking it...

I posted only because fetus-getting-"tired" was blithe assurance by the OB.

There is more to it than that.

I hope Amy's headaches are better.

Todd

END Todd's response to Amy's reply to Jennifer regarding codeine
dose...


EARLY ON...
Amy snipped the remarks of retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB
ChB, FACOG...


She said of Dr. Morley's remarks, "I'm so bored with this."


I continue to be FASCINATED by Dr. Morley's remarks...


According to Dr. Morley, immediate cord clamping creates "asphyxiated,
hypovolemic" babies - perhaps causing some cases of AUTISM and CEREBRAL
PALSY, as in,


"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is
immediate cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies. The child's only
functioning source of oxygen - the placenta - is amputated together with 30%
to 50+% of its natural blood volume. Total asphyxia is imposed until the
lungs function...[as]...the depressed (asphyxiated, hypovolemic) child
starts its extra-uterine life in hypovolemic shock...


"B138 was first published in 1993. Every cesarean section baby, every
depressed child, every premie, and every child born with a neonatal team
in the delivery room has its cord clamped immediately to facilitate the
panicked rush to the resuscitation table. The current epidemic of
immediate cord clamping coincides with an epidemic of autism.


"For the trial lawyers, it is essential that the 'true genesis' of
cerebral palsy remains unknown, because that 'true genesis' (B.138) is a
standard of medico-legal care..."
http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm


IF THE CHILD IS NOT BREATHING...

Amy wrote:

"It seems to me that if the baby isn't breathing, it makes sense to get
him or her to start breathing as quickly as possible, and that they
can't well do that if they can't get access to his little body because
he's still attached to me. What would you have them do? Wait, and
watch the baby get bluer and bluer, until your precious blood has been
transfused (even though the total volume of blood isn't transfused -
see below, meat)? What if by then irreperable damage has been
done? You just love your hypotheticals... What if by waiting, you do
more harm than would've been done if you had cut the frigging cord and
gotten that baby to breathe? "
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...74a2efaa85aecf



POSSIBLE AGREEMENT WITH AMY...


If as Amy indicates, it is impossible to bring the resuscitation machinery
to mother and baby, then I have to agree with her that if the child is not
breathing it is necessary to "[amputate] the child's only functioning source
of oxygen - the placenta...together with 30% to 50+% of its natural blood
volume." (Quote is from Dr. Morley.)


THEN AGAIN...


There is this fascinating article from Dr. Morley:


"Asphyxia does not injure the brain."
http://www.cordclamping.com/ZAsphyxNotInjBrain.doc


It seems likely that most babies who are immediately clamped ARE
breathing...


Again quoting Dr. Morley:


"ACOG's routine treatment (B138) of these depressed neonates is
immediate cord clamping to obtain cord blood pH studies...Every cesarean
section baby, every depressed child, every premie, and every child born with
a neonatal team in the delivery room has its cord clamped immediately to
facilitate the panicked rush to the resuscitation table. The current
epidemic of immediate cord clamping coincides with an epidemic of autism."


Surely all can agree that robbing the baby of massive amounts of blood
volume to obtain cord blood pH is wrong?



As I wrote to Amy...
This discussion stimulated me to think more about babies born not
breathing - it is a good point you make.


I do like the idea of wheeling mother and baby UNDER resuscitation equipment
with baby still attached to nature's oxygenation/transfusion device (mother
and placenta).


It's such a simple idea - it's no doubt been thought of - and perhaps
discarded - or maybe not?

Anyone know?

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "Amy: OBs are robbing LOTS of baby blood
(also: Amy's ongoing intellectual dishonesty)"

I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not to
heed that warning.

You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross. However, you
continue to attack me.

Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to you.
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God that
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.

wrote:
I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not to
heed that warning.

You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross. However,
you
continue to attack me.

Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to you.
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God that
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.

Todd, I generally respect you and your opinions (in fact, I've been
known to solicit your opinions!), but I cringe now every time I see you
use Amy's name in a post. It's dirty pool. It's not cricket. It's
hitting below the belt. And every other sports and recreation cliche
going. I feel, and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this, that you
are letting a juvenile grudge cloud your mission, and it's compromising
your perceived integrity. And don't haul out some kind of "but she
started it . . ." excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, "I
don't care who started it, you finish it."

Please leave Amy alone.

Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)

Todd Gastaldo is mentally unbalanced, perhaps more now than before. Any
communication with him is a big mistake. I encourage you to take whatever
steps necessary to stop his harassment of you.


"Melania" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not to
heed that warning.

You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross. However,
you
continue to attack me.

Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to you.
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God that
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.

Todd, I generally respect you and your opinions (in fact, I've been
known to solicit your opinions!), but I cringe now every time I see you
use Amy's name in a post. It's dirty pool. It's not cricket. It's
hitting below the belt. And every other sports and recreation cliche
going. I feel, and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this, that you
are letting a juvenile grudge cloud your mission, and it's compromising
your perceived integrity. And don't haul out some kind of "but she
started it . . ." excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, "I
don't care who started it, you finish it."

Please leave Amy alone.

Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)

tech27 wrote:
Todd Gastaldo is mentally unbalanced, perhaps more now than before.
Any
communication with him is a big mistake. I encourage you to take
whatever
steps necessary to stop his harassment of you.

I did. Thank you. I'm glad to know that others see things my way, and
that I'm not just overreacting to a troll. I find his behavior
abusive.

I came to this group (misc.kids.pregnancy) to talk to other women about
being pregnant - not to talk to kooks about whatever agenda they're
pushing today. Unfortunately, Mr. Gastaldo has become a very dark spot
in an otherwise wonderful pregnancy, in spite of my best efforts to
ignore him. You can't exactly ignore someone who uses your name in the
subject line (which is exactly why he does it, I know).

We now return you to your regularly scheduled newsgroup...

Sincerely,
Amy

On 23 Feb 2005 12:45:16 -0800, "
scribbled:


I warned you before that if you didn't stop using my name in your
posts, I'd report you to your ISP. I'm sorry that you chose not to
heed that warning.

You are harassing me. I have asked you to stop and have taken
reasonable measures to ensure that our paths don't cross. However, you
continue to attack me.

Frankly, I think that you're a complete nutjob, and I would sooner
listen to Pee Wee Herman about how to have a baby than listen to you.
You are totally wasting bandwidth addressing me. I hope to God that
your service provider has had enough complaints to TOS you.

Typical Todd. Disagree with him and he goes on the warpath against
you.
He'll stop as soon as someone else says something he doesn't like,
then he'll target them.
Nutjob is putting it mildly.

Nan

Nan wrote:

Typical Todd. Disagree with him and he goes on the warpath against
you.
He'll stop as soon as someone else says something he doesn't like,
then he'll target them.
Nutjob is putting it mildly.

My original plan was to keep reporting him to Earthlink until they
TOS'd him, but I did a little homework and he has been doing this for
YEARS. I can't be the first person to have thought of that...

Besides, he would just go out and get a new ISP within 10 minutes.

My next plan was to fight fire with fire, but I hate to subject the
rest of the newsgroup to that.

For now, I'm going to go back to ignoring him... although the thought
of tracking down his address and mailing him something nasty, yet
legal, like a dead fish, has crossed my mind.

Amy

Todd,

Where is all of this coming from? I haven't noticed anything lately
about cord clamping. Coming out of left field?

On 23 Feb 2005 15:31:40 -0800, "
scribbled:

My original plan was to keep reporting him to Earthlink until they
TOS'd him, but I did a little homework and he has been doing this for
YEARS. I can't be the first person to have thought of that...

Besides, he would just go out and get a new ISP within 10 minutes.

My next plan was to fight fire with fire, but I hate to subject the
rest of the newsgroup to that.

For now, I'm going to go back to ignoring him... although the thought
of tracking down his address and mailing him something nasty, yet
legal, like a dead fish, has crossed my mind.

He's been in my killfile since the first time he attacked someone in
mkp.
The pathetic part of it all is that he's got some valid issues to
point out, but he ends up losing so many people he *could* have
reached, had he not resorted to the attacks.

Nan

In misc.kids.pregnancy Melania wrote:


: Todd, I generally respect you and your opinions (in fact, I've been
: known to solicit your opinions!), but I cringe now every time I see you
: use Amy's name in a post. It's dirty pool. It's not cricket. It's
: hitting below the belt. And every other sports and recreation cliche
: going. I feel, and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this, that you
: are letting a juvenile grudge cloud your mission, and it's compromising
: your perceived integrity. And don't haul out some kind of "but she
: started it . . ." excuse. As my mom said to me when I was five, "I
: don't care who started it, you finish it."

What she said! Your just starting to become at least semi-respected
for your well researched views, and an ability to state them in a
less antagonistic way. Don't spoil it with personal attacks on
a birthing member of the community.

And don't tell me the bad things she did that she hasn't repented
for or owned up to! Your intolerant attack of her perceived
inability to see the light is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than her
actual views.

You will convert more people faster and PROTECT MORE BABIES (your
stated goal) if you leave her alone! Stick to presenting your good
information. Do not attack those who disagree with you even if
you think they personally deserve it. It may make you feel better,
but it reduces your credibility.

Larry