If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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)" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Todd,
Where is all of this coming from? I haven't noticed anything lately about cord clamping. Coming out of left field? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | November 28th 04 05:16 AM |
CCELL trading in ill-gotten baby blood (attn: Securities & Exchange Commission) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | September 9th 04 01:33 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Nursing Strikes | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | August 29th 04 05:28 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | August 29th 04 05:28 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 28th 04 07:41 PM |