A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dr. Sarah shrugs as little penises are ripped and sliced en masse.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 2nd 05, 08:03 AM
Mamma Mia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"anyone4tea" wrote in message
ups.com...
That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about
trivial things.

Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is
misconstrued.

Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your
efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned.
Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not
wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after
them after miscommunication.

Take a chill pill


well said

c


  #12  
Old January 2nd 05, 06:38 PM
Todd Gastaldo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

WELL SAID?

Lucy "anyone4tea" said "Well said" to British GP
Sarah Vaughan's response to me...

I replied with good-humored inflexibility: "I disagree. : )"

Lucy then wrote:

That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about
trivial things.

Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is
misconstrued.

Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your
efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned.
Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not
wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after
them after miscommunication.

Take a chill pill



Lucy,

Sarah and I are both against routine infant
circumcision - but even there there are significant points of
disagreement - for example Sarah ignores the lies of her fellow medical
doctors.

Sarah does NOT agree with me in regard to OBs lying and closing birth canals
up to 30%
and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck.

Sarah ignores the OB lies - indicates it's legal for OBs to lie and close
birth
canals up to 30% and keep birth canals closed when babies get stuck.

I concede that OBs lying and closing birth canals is "legal" - as long as
medical doctors like Sarah don't speak out - but even there - it appears
that it is NOT legal for medical doctors to lie and close birth canals.
Sarah once challenged me to "find a better system" - and I found one - right
there in Britain!

I wrote:
SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway further:


"...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences
might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice
that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a


Sarah ignores unexplained brain bleeds and unexplained paralyses and
unexplained deaths and says (in effect) that women don't need to be informed
that OBs are lying and closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth
canals closed when babies get stuck.

Sarah says she needs OUTCOMES before she can comment on the crazy notion of
simply informing women that OBs are lying and closing birth canals up to 30%
and keeping birth canals closed when babies get stuck.

Sarah is spewing blatant anti-science.

"It is established obstetric teaching that a narrow pelvic outlet
predisposes to a difficult vaginal delivery..."
--Ass-Ärztin Dr. Andrea Froschauer-Frudinger et al. [Br J Obstet Gynaecol
2002;109(11):1207-12]

And OBs themselves have indicated that closing the birth canal FAR LESS than
30% can kill.

MOST BIZARRELY, Sarah publicly indicated in her "no **** Sherlock" post that
even if the OB
lies about birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to
anyone's birth position."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa

Sacre bleu!

Again, Lucy, Sarah and I are both against routine infant
circumcision - but even there there are significant points of
disagreement - for example - Sarah ignores the lies of her fellow medical
doctors.

As noted above, I will discuss this latter matter in another post.

Todd

PS1 Lucy, for further response to your post...

See Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill pill' -
bitter poison for some babies)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108

PS2 Christine echoed Lucy's "Well said."

Christine: The substance of Lucy's post was that Sarah and I are in
agreement.

Sarah and I are NOT in agreement.

Women are having to ASK for the "extra" up to 30%.

Lucy writes: "I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The
doctors
ignore my request at their peril."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1ba84ccfd9cede

Arrgghhh!! Most women don't even *know* to ask (or demand)!!

Sarah is a medical doctor. She should be interested in this simple
preventive measure - especially since her employer "spends" on prevention.

Medical doctor Sarah and her employer are bizarrely ignoring some SIMPLE
prevention.

If pregnant women in Britain DO routinely book with GPs - I'm really
wondering now about Sarah's claim that she can't do anything because she is
a GP...

Sarah's employer, Tendring Primary Care Trust, should not wait for an email
from her...

See again: Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill
pill' -
bitter poison for some babies)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108

Again...

MOST BIZARRELY, Sarah publicly indicated in her "no **** Sherlock" post that
even if the OB
lies about birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to
anyone's birth position."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa

I am still astonished.

The two smug "Well saids" also astonish.

Sigh.

Todd ("Sherlock")


  #13  
Old January 2nd 05, 10:36 PM
Todd Gastaldo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A SINGLE DETAIL?

"[Y]ou [are] taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise
supports your position."
--Larry to Todd


Larry,

1. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of other medical doctors as
infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their penises,
it is not a trivial point. (Fortunately, death and loss of penis are rare -
but most infants scream and writhe and bleed through the American medical
religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.)

2. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of medical doctors who are
closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies
get stuck, that isn't a trivial point either.

Medical doctor Sarah is doing this - and worse - and you people are saying
she agrees with me.

YES, there are points of agreement - but medical doctor Sarah publicly
indicated (in her "no **** Sherlock" post) that even if the OB lies about
birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to
anyone's birth position." (!)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa

If you support her in this Larry, so be it; but Sarah and I are NOT in
agreement on the most important points.

Women need to know about the MD lies when making decisions - say - about
whether they want their birth canal closed the "extra" up to 30%.

Most women aren't even being TOLD about the "extra" up to 30% - and as I
just indicated in my "Well said?" response to Lucy and Christine...

Women who ARE told (by me for example) are having to ASK for the "extra" up
to 30% - with some women being DENIED their request!

Lucy writes: "I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The
doctors
ignore my request at their peril."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1ba84ccfd9cede

Arrgghhh!! Most women don't even *know* to ask (or demand)!!

Sarah is a medical doctor. She should be interested in this simple
preventive measure - especially since her employer "spends" on prevention.

Medical doctor Sarah and her employer are bizarrely ignoring some SIMPLE
prevention.

If pregnant women in Britain DO routinely book with GPs - I'm really
wondering now about Sarah's claim that she can't do anything because she is
a GP...

Sarah's employer, Tendring Primary Care Trust, should not wait for an email
from her...

See Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill
pill' -
bitter poison for some babies)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108

Thanks for writing, Larry.

Todd

SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway...

"...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences
might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice
that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a

Larry, Sarah and I say we are both "vehemently" opposed to routine infant
circumcision - but I question her "vehemence" when she ignores the history
of MD lies in discussing the issue.

I don't think it can be said that Sarah is really opposed to her fellow
medical doctors closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals
closed when babies get stuck.

I do get kind of vehement when I am "no **** Sherlocked" by a medical doctor
who is ignoring her fellow medical doctors' lies - babies be damned -
sometimes fatally so.

A MASSIVE spinal manipulation crime is taking place - and it is being
committed by Sarah's fellow medical doctors.

SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway...

"...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences
might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice
that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a

I don't think Sarah is being a reasonably prudent medical doctor.

An email to Tendring Primary Care Trust saying "Dr. Gastaldo is right" is
NOT too much to ask of medical doctor Sarah.

I hope Sarah copies me - and misc.kids.pregnancy.

It could be the start of something big - esp. if Sarah recruits other GPs to
help stop OBs from closing birth canals, etc.

DO women in Britain commonly book with GPs when they get pregnant?

What did Sarah mean when she initially protested there was nothing she could
do because she is a GP?

Again, thanks for writing Larry.

Sarah, here (again) is the email for Tendring Primary Care Trust:


Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely - with a bit of vehemence : )

Todd ("Sherlock")

"Your goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson


"Larry McMahan" wrote in message
...
Todd,

You know that as much as I support many of the same positions that you
do, that I have to agree with anyone4tea that you are doing yourself a
disservice by mounting what appears to be a vehement attack on someone
who, in general, agrees with you by taking issue with a single detail in
a post that otherwise supports your position.

If it wasn't an vehement attack, you need to proofread your post to see
HOW they will be perceived. If you correctly assessed the situation that
she had agreed with you 90% and you wanted to take issue with the 10%
where she did not, you need to revisit both your strategy and tactics. It
is better to get a 100 people from 10% agreement to 60% agreement that
to **** off someone who is already at 90% if you want to change the
world for the better.

What you said was unnecessarily hostile, ignored her points of agreement
with you, was easily perceived as a personal ad-holmium attack, and
risked losing whatever good will you had with her. This is not the style
of
communication that will win the hearts and minds of others, especially
their
hearts. :-)

These words are written in kindness in an attempt to help you communicate
your important message more effectively.

Do with them what you will.
Larry

"anyone4tea" wrote in message
ups.com...
That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about
trivial things.

Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is
misconstrued.

Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your
efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned.
Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not
wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after
them after miscommunication.

Take a chill pill





  #14  
Old January 3rd 05, 04:35 AM
Kelly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Todd,
I wonder how often you are working in labor and delivery and in a newborn
nursery? Do you in person see all these things you claim? Also, are
doctors doing circs without consent? I highly doubt it-it is a choice of
parents, so the parents are requesting this to be done. You are currently
driving me crazy, and just when I was sort of softening up to you


"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
nk.net...
A SINGLE DETAIL?

"[Y]ou [are] taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise
supports your position."
--Larry to Todd


Larry,

1. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of other medical doctors as
infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their
penises, it is not a trivial point. (Fortunately, death and loss of penis
are rare - but most infants scream and writhe and bleed through the
American medical religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.)

2. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of medical doctors who are
closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies
get stuck, that isn't a trivial point either.

Medical doctor Sarah is doing this - and worse - and you people are saying
she agrees with me.

YES, there are points of agreement - but medical doctor Sarah publicly
indicated (in her "no **** Sherlock" post) that even if the OB lies about
birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to
anyone's birth position." (!)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa

If you support her in this Larry, so be it; but Sarah and I are NOT in
agreement on the most important points.

Women need to know about the MD lies when making decisions - say - about
whether they want their birth canal closed the "extra" up to 30%.

Most women aren't even being TOLD about the "extra" up to 30% - and as I
just indicated in my "Well said?" response to Lucy and Christine...

Women who ARE told (by me for example) are having to ASK for the "extra"
up to 30% - with some women being DENIED their request!

Lucy writes: "I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The
doctors
ignore my request at their peril."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1ba84ccfd9cede

Arrgghhh!! Most women don't even *know* to ask (or demand)!!

Sarah is a medical doctor. She should be interested in this simple
preventive measure - especially since her employer "spends" on prevention.

Medical doctor Sarah and her employer are bizarrely ignoring some SIMPLE
prevention.

If pregnant women in Britain DO routinely book with GPs - I'm really
wondering now about Sarah's claim that she can't do anything because she
is
a GP...

Sarah's employer, Tendring Primary Care Trust, should not wait for an
email
from her...

See Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill
pill' -
bitter poison for some babies)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108

Thanks for writing, Larry.

Todd

SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway...

"...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences
might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice
that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a

Larry, Sarah and I say we are both "vehemently" opposed to routine infant
circumcision - but I question her "vehemence" when she ignores the history
of MD lies in discussing the issue.

I don't think it can be said that Sarah is really opposed to her fellow
medical doctors closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals
closed when babies get stuck.

I do get kind of vehement when I am "no **** Sherlocked" by a medical
doctor who is ignoring her fellow medical doctors' lies - babies be
damned - sometimes fatally so.

A MASSIVE spinal manipulation crime is taking place - and it is being
committed by Sarah's fellow medical doctors.

SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway...

"...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences
might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice
that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a

I don't think Sarah is being a reasonably prudent medical doctor.

An email to Tendring Primary Care Trust saying "Dr. Gastaldo is right" is
NOT too much to ask of medical doctor Sarah.

I hope Sarah copies me - and misc.kids.pregnancy.

It could be the start of something big - esp. if Sarah recruits other GPs
to help stop OBs from closing birth canals, etc.

DO women in Britain commonly book with GPs when they get pregnant?

What did Sarah mean when she initially protested there was nothing she
could do because she is a GP?

Again, thanks for writing Larry.

Sarah, here (again) is the email for Tendring Primary Care Trust:


Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely - with a bit of vehemence : )

Todd ("Sherlock")

"Your goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson


"Larry McMahan" wrote in message
...
Todd,

You know that as much as I support many of the same positions that you
do, that I have to agree with anyone4tea that you are doing yourself a
disservice by mounting what appears to be a vehement attack on someone
who, in general, agrees with you by taking issue with a single detail in
a post that otherwise supports your position.

If it wasn't an vehement attack, you need to proofread your post to see
HOW they will be perceived. If you correctly assessed the situation that
she had agreed with you 90% and you wanted to take issue with the 10%
where she did not, you need to revisit both your strategy and tactics.
It
is better to get a 100 people from 10% agreement to 60% agreement that
to **** off someone who is already at 90% if you want to change the
world for the better.

What you said was unnecessarily hostile, ignored her points of agreement
with you, was easily perceived as a personal ad-holmium attack, and
risked losing whatever good will you had with her. This is not the style
of
communication that will win the hearts and minds of others, especially
their
hearts. :-)

These words are written in kindness in an attempt to help you communicate
your important message more effectively.

Do with them what you will.
Larry

"anyone4tea" wrote in message
ups.com...
That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about
trivial things.

Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is
misconstrued.

Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your
efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned.
Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not
wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after
them after miscommunication.

Take a chill pill







  #15  
Old January 3rd 05, 08:01 AM
Larry McMahan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sigh,

Todd, I am trying to help you state your case in a less antagonistic way so
that more undecided people will listen to you. However you seem to be
impervious to suggestions to tone down your rhetoric so that you can reach
a larger audience and have more impact on the thinking of birthing women,
which, I would hope is your goal.

If you continue to attack all people who are sometimes right and sometimes
wrong as if they were 100% wrong, you will alienate not only them, but also
all the undecideds who are listening to the conversation. You seem not to
be
able to comprehend this either.

This is exactly what you are doing on your personal attack on Sarah. If you
would simply pick each point on which you disagree with her and say "Why
do you think that? Here is some information to show the other side, and
simply
provide some cites, I would bet that she would listen. Calling her a bully
for
supporting the "other side" when you haven't tried to gently and
informatively
convince her of the "correctness" of you view is bullying in itself.

'Nough said, this is my final post on the subject, particularly if you
insist
on pursuing the issue with personal attacks.

Larry

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
nk.net...
A SINGLE DETAIL?

"[Y]ou [are] taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise
supports your position."
--Larry to Todd


Larry,

1. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of other medical doctors as
infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their

penises,
it is not a trivial point. (Fortunately, death and loss of penis are

rare -
but most infants scream and writhe and bleed through the American medical
religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.)

2. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of medical doctors who are
closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies
get stuck, that isn't a trivial point either.

Medical doctor Sarah is doing this - and worse - and you people are saying
she agrees with me.

YES, there are points of agreement - but medical doctor Sarah publicly
indicated (in her "no **** Sherlock" post) that even if the OB lies about
birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to
anyone's birth position." (!)

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa

If you support her in this Larry, so be it; but Sarah and I are NOT in
agreement on the most important points.

Women need to know about the MD lies when making decisions - say - about
whether they want their birth canal closed the "extra" up to 30%.

Most women aren't even being TOLD about the "extra" up to 30% - and as I
just indicated in my "Well said?" response to Lucy and Christine...

Women who ARE told (by me for example) are having to ASK for the "extra"

up
to 30% - with some women being DENIED their request!

Lucy writes: "I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The
doctors
ignore my request at their peril."

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1ba84ccfd9cede

Arrgghhh!! Most women don't even *know* to ask (or demand)!!

Sarah is a medical doctor. She should be interested in this simple
preventive measure - especially since her employer "spends" on prevention.

Medical doctor Sarah and her employer are bizarrely ignoring some SIMPLE
prevention.

If pregnant women in Britain DO routinely book with GPs - I'm really
wondering now about Sarah's claim that she can't do anything because she

is
a GP...

Sarah's employer, Tendring Primary Care Trust, should not wait for an

email
from her...

See Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill
pill' -
bitter poison for some babies)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108

Thanks for writing, Larry.

Todd

SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway...

"...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences
might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice
that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a

Larry, Sarah and I say we are both "vehemently" opposed to routine infant
circumcision - but I question her "vehemence" when she ignores the history
of MD lies in discussing the issue.

I don't think it can be said that Sarah is really opposed to her fellow
medical doctors closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals
closed when babies get stuck.

I do get kind of vehement when I am "no **** Sherlocked" by a medical

doctor
who is ignoring her fellow medical doctors' lies - babies be damned -
sometimes fatally so.

A MASSIVE spinal manipulation crime is taking place - and it is being
committed by Sarah's fellow medical doctors.

SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway...

"...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences
might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice
that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a

I don't think Sarah is being a reasonably prudent medical doctor.

An email to Tendring Primary Care Trust saying "Dr. Gastaldo is right" is
NOT too much to ask of medical doctor Sarah.

I hope Sarah copies me - and misc.kids.pregnancy.

It could be the start of something big - esp. if Sarah recruits other GPs

to
help stop OBs from closing birth canals, etc.

DO women in Britain commonly book with GPs when they get pregnant?

What did Sarah mean when she initially protested there was nothing she

could
do because she is a GP?

Again, thanks for writing Larry.

Sarah, here (again) is the email for Tendring Primary Care Trust:


Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely - with a bit of vehemence : )

Todd ("Sherlock")

"Your goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson


"Larry McMahan" wrote in message
...
Todd,

You know that as much as I support many of the same positions that you
do, that I have to agree with anyone4tea that you are doing yourself a
disservice by mounting what appears to be a vehement attack on someone
who, in general, agrees with you by taking issue with a single detail in
a post that otherwise supports your position.

If it wasn't an vehement attack, you need to proofread your post to see
HOW they will be perceived. If you correctly assessed the situation

that
she had agreed with you 90% and you wanted to take issue with the 10%
where she did not, you need to revisit both your strategy and tactics.

It
is better to get a 100 people from 10% agreement to 60% agreement that
to **** off someone who is already at 90% if you want to change the
world for the better.

What you said was unnecessarily hostile, ignored her points of agreement
with you, was easily perceived as a personal ad-holmium attack, and
risked losing whatever good will you had with her. This is not the

style
of
communication that will win the hearts and minds of others, especially
their
hearts. :-)

These words are written in kindness in an attempt to help you

communicate
your important message more effectively.

Do with them what you will.
Larry

"anyone4tea" wrote in message
ups.com...
That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about
trivial things.

Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is
misconstrued.

Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your
efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned.
Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not
wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after
them after miscommunication.

Take a chill pill







  #16  
Old January 3rd 05, 08:11 AM
Todd Gastaldo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I DON'T NEED TO SEE THE MD FELONIES...

"Kelly" wrote in message
...
Todd,
I wonder how often you are working in labor and delivery and in a newborn
nursery?


I don't need to work in labor and delivery to know that OBs are lying and
closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies
get stuck.

Do you in person see all these things you claim?


I don't NEED to be there in person. The grisly biomechanics are as simple
as the OB lies are obvious (see The Four OB Lies below)..

OHSU, the local medical school PROMOTES semisitting/closing the birth canal
up to 30%.

"...With semi-sitting positions, gravity can help the mother in pushing the
baby through the birth canal..."
http://www.ohsuhealth.com/cwh/health...r/deliver.html

DR. GASTALDO CORRECTS OHSU: With semi-sitting positions, the birth canal is
closed up to 30% and closing birth canals sometimes causes "failure to
progress" which can "necessitate" performing a cesarean section as indicated
in this quote from the same OHSU website:

"There are several conditions which may necessitate performing a cesarean
section...[including]...a labor that fails to progress or does not progress
normally..."
http://www.ohsuhealth.com/cwh/health...r/deliver.html

See Birth child abuse: Oregon's only medical school (OHSU)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2986

Also, are doctors doing circs without consent?


Yes.

Your word "circs" is euphemism for mass ripping and slicing of infant
penises as infant scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose
their penises. Fortunately, death and loss of penis are rare - but even
"just" partial loss of penis ("circ") is still illegal - as is trying to
anesthetize the child abuse with child abuse (sticking a needle-full of
anesthetic into the penis for a no-medical-indications procedure that can
cause death).

Doctors NEVER obtain consent. They perform the surgery amid baby screams of
agony/protest.

Doctors themselves are against infant penis ripping and slicing (they've
made about 5 statements to this effect in the last 30 years) - and it
clearly violates their own stated ethics:

"[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist
independent of parental desires...


"...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes the -
TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG] should...carry
considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not
essential to his or her welfare and/or can be deferred without substantial
risk...

"[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit
assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children when
ethical conflicts occur."
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric
Practice(RE9510)
Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317
http://www.aap.org/policy/00662.html


INFANT SCREAMS...


Here two nurses discussed the screams...


"After years of strapping babies down for this brutal procedure and
listening to their screams, we couldn't take it any longer." [Sperlich
BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/]


Here's a nurse calling it "barbaric"...


"Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a
surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric
practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of
Pediatric Nursing [1997]


Here's an MD calling it "barbaric"...



"[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never allow older
childrenor adults to be subjected to such practices, nor would they submit
to it
themselves..." [Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Thomas E. Wiswell,
MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal of
Medicine]

In 1980, one pediatrician wrote:


"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980]


In 1986, another wrote:


"What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have
chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse.
AJDC, 1986;140:329-330]


It is simply wrong to rip and slice infant penises - and MDs know it...


That is why in 1987 - when I exposed their phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology they suddenly declared infant penis ripping and slicing "an
effective public health measure."

That is why in 1987 - when I called for a religious exemption for the
ancient Jewish ritual MDs (in Jan/Feb 1988) opposed all religious exemptions
and came out in favor of anonymity for perpetrators of child abuse.

The MD lies keep rolling in...

American MDs recently [2004] perpetuated the false notion that their TOTAL
foreskin amputation ritual is the same as the ancient Jewish ritual that
leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.

See Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2908

American MDs got rid of their "Leave it alone" advice in 1989 - and offered
the penile cancer scare tactic - which will likely have parents retracting
infant foreskins, cleaning "to prevent cancer" - thereby causing the need
for circumcision...

See Infant penis cleaning 'to prevent cancer'?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3072


I highly doubt...[that doctors aren't obtaining consent]..


Kelly, it's a FACT. Doctors (and CNMwives) are NOT obtaining consent.
Babies scream in protest when they are strapped down and have their penises
ripped and sliced.

it is a choice of parents,


Not according to stated pediatrician ethics - see above.

so the parents are requesting this to be done.


This is true. But parents are not guilty of child abuse. They heard
everything from "babies can't feel pain" to the penile cancer scare tactic
for years - and from powerful cultural authorities (MDs). As usual, I am in
favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As med students they are TRAINED to
perform felonies.

You are currently driving me crazy, and just when I was sort of softening
up to you


Kelly, while I *love* that you were "sort of softening up" to me - it is OK
if you must harden back up toward me.

I think Christine and Lucy and Larry are doing the same thing.

It is OK.

I can take it.

I persist in my good-humored inflexibility because - well - I can SORT of
imagine what it must feel like to have an MD ripping and slicing my penis
(perhaps there is a latent memory somewhere?).

I can also sort of imagine what it feels like to have an MD wrenching my
neck with hands, forceps or vacuum - with my mom's birth canal closed up to
30%.

I wonder what it feels like to have a spinal nerve ripped out of the spinal
cord. (My heart actually got a sinking feeling just now when I thought about
it.)

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

And women lucky enough to learn about the "extra" up to 30% are sometimes
DENIED it when they ask.

Most women never learn about it.

Some of these women had babies who died in childbirth - or got paralyzed in
childbirth - and I think some of those deaths/paralyses might have been
prevented.

So I persist in my good-humored inflexibility.

It is NOT unreasonable of me to expect British general practitioner Dr.
Sarah Vaughan to email her employer Tendring Primary Care Trust and say "Dr.
Gastaldo is right - the OB lies are as obvious as the grisly biomechanics
are simple" - or words to that effect.

Here are the OB lies again...

I noted some of the OB lies in an Open Letter to the FTC years ago...
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html
THE FOUR OB LIES...

OB LIE #1. After MASSIVE change in the AP pelvic outlet diameter was
clinically demonstrated in 1911 and radiographically demonstrated in 1957,
the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that pelvic
diamaters DON'T CHANGE at delivery.

OB LIE #2. After Ohlsen pointed out in 1973 that pelvic diameters DO
change - the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that
their most frequent delivery position - dorsal - widens the outlet.

OB LIE #3. After I pointed out in 1992 that dorsal CLOSES - and so does
semisitting - the authors of Williams Obstetrics - put the correct
biomechanics in their 1993 edition - but kept in their text (in the same
paragraph!) - the dorsal widens bald lie that first called my attention to
their text...

OB LIE #4. OBs are actually KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get
stuck - and claiming they are doing everything to allow the birth canal open
maximally. (ACOG Shoulder Dystocia video - also forceps and vacuum births
are performed with the mother in lithotomy.)

See Make birth better: Dan Rather, before you leave CBS...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2983

UNNECESSARY SURGERIES

Stopping hospital obstetricians from placing women semisitting or dorsal and
closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30% will likely prevent many
unnecessary EXPENSIVE surgeries:

Hospital obstetricians are slicing vaginas and abdomens en masse
(episiotomies and c-sections) - surgically/fraudulently inferring they are
doing/have done everything possible to open birth canals - even as they
close birth canals - up to 30%.

NOTE: Of course, allowing birth canals to open the "extra" up to 30% is not
going to prevent all episiotomies or c-sections - but regardless - hospital
obstetricians should not be closing birth canals - or KEEPING them closed
when babies get stuck.

PREGNANT WOMEN: It is easy to offer your baby the "extra" up to 30% of
outlet area by simply rolling onto your side as you push your baby out.

JUST BEWA Some OBs and CNMwives let you "try" alternative delivery
positions - but move you back to semisitting or dorsal (close your birth
canal) for
the actual delivery.

ALSO BEWA It is STANDARD PRACTICE for OBs to keep birth canals closed
when babies get stuck - i.e. - OBs are pulling with forceps and vacuums -
with
birth canals senselessly closed...

LADIES: Talk to your OB or CNMwife about this today.

WHITE ELEPHANT FACT: Pregnant women should not have to ASK obstetricians
for the "extra" up to 30%.

Thanks for reading, Kelly, but I will understand if you killfile me.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo



  #17  
Old January 3rd 05, 09:13 AM
Todd Gastaldo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

SARAH...

See below.

ALSO: **ACTUAL** PERSONAL ATTACKS - BY MEDICAL DOCTORS...

"'Nough said, this is my final post on the subject, particularly if you
insist on pursuing the issue with personal attacks."
--Larry to Todd

Larry,

Medical doctors are making ACTUAL personal attacks - on babies - en masse.

Medical doctors are LYING about it.

Medical doctor Sarah Vaughan IGNORES the lies of her fellow medical doctors
as she indicates that exposing the lies (see The Four OB Lies below) has no
effect on anyone's birth position!

And you continue to pretend that medical doctor Sarah is in substantial
agreement with me!

Sacre bleu!

Women who are lucky enough to learn about the "extra" up to 30% have to ask
for it and are sometimes DENIED it.

MOST women never learn about it!

And medical doctor Sarah doesn't think all pregnant women should be told
that OBs are lying and closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth
canals closed when babies get stuck.

A baby with his skull gripped by forceps gripped by an OB pulling with the
birth canal closed up to 30% is being ACTUALLY personally attacked.

I submit that babies being so personally attacked would be UNANIMOUS in
their agreement that medical doctors should be moving NOW to stop this mass
grisly obstetric travesty.

If babies could protest - if babies were demanding that Sarah speak out and
stop ignoring the OB lies - would you tell THEM not to personally attack
those "nice" medical doctors?

It's only their brains and brachial nerves at stake - not to mention "just"
gruesomely wrenched spines.

ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal senselessly closed
up to 30%.

Thanks again for writing, Larry.

Sincerely,

Todd

PS Letting the birth canal open maximally is not going to prevent all birth
trauma - but babies with nerves ripped out of their spinal cords MIGHT like
to have had the benefit of the "extra" up to 30%.

A few further comments interspersed ######

"Larry McMahan" wrote in message
...
Sigh,

Todd, I am trying to help you state your case in a less antagonistic way
so
that more undecided people will listen to you.


##### Larry, this is not "my" project...

##### Prof. Stanley Milgram (Obedience to Authority) once said,
"Of all moral principles, the one that comes closest to being universally
accepted is this: One should not inflict suffering on a helpless person..."

##### When innocents are being harmed it is EVERYONE'S responsibility to
speak up. ANYONE can make the case that OBs should IMMEDIATELY stop closing
birth canals up to 30%.

##### Babies are being born RIGHT NOW through birth canals senselessly
closed up to 30% by OBs who are senselessly KEEPING birth canals closed when
babies get stuck.

##### If you feel you have a better way - DO it. It would be EASY AS PIE
for medical doctor Sarah Vaughan to email her employer and say "Dr. Gastaldo
is right - the OB lies are as obvious as the grisly biomechanics are
simple."

However you seem to be
impervious to suggestions to tone down your rhetoric so that you can reach
a larger audience and have more impact on the thinking of birthing women,
which, I would hope is your goal.


##### I state the facts plainly.

If you continue to attack all people who are sometimes right and sometimes
wrong as if they were 100% wrong, you will alienate not only them, but
also
all the undecideds who are listening to the conversation. You seem not to
be
able to comprehend this either.


##### Larry, Sarah does NOT agree with me - yet you publicly pretended (with
Lucy and Christine) that she agrees with me. That alienates me - so I
respond.

This is exactly what you are doing on your personal attack on Sarah.


##### Medical doctors are making ACTUAL personal attacks on babies - en
masse - and lying about it - and Sarah is ignoring those lies - indirectly
helping to perpetuate ACTUAL personal attacks on babies by her fellow
medical doctors.

If you
would simply pick each point on which you disagree with her and say "Why
do you think that? Here is some information to show the other side, and
simply
provide some cites, I would bet that she would listen.


##### Larry, I have REPEATEDLY called attention to The Four OB Lies. They
are NOT that hard to see. Sarah is ignoring.

##### Here are The Four OB Lies yet again, just in case Sarah is reading...

I noted some of the OB lies in an Open Letter to the FTC years ago...
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html
THE FOUR OB LIES...

OB LIE #1. After MASSIVE change in the AP pelvic outlet diameter was
clinically demonstrated in 1911 and radiographically demonstrated in 1957,
the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that pelvic
diamaters DON'T CHANGE at delivery.

OB LIE #2. After Ohlsen pointed out in 1973 that pelvic diameters DO
change - the authors of Williams Obstetrics began erroneously claiming that
their most frequent delivery position - dorsal - widens the outlet.

OB LIE #3. After I pointed out in 1992 that dorsal CLOSES - and so does
semisitting - the authors of Williams Obstetrics - put the correct
biomechanics in their 1993 edition - but kept in their text (in the same
paragraph!) - the dorsal widens bald lie that first called my attention to
their text...

OB LIE #4. OBs are actually KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get
stuck - and claiming they are doing everything to allow the birth canal open
maximally. (ACOG Shoulder Dystocia video - also forceps and vacuum births
are performed with the mother in lithotomy.)

See Make birth better: Dan Rather, before you leave CBS...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2983




Calling her a bully
for
supporting the "other side" when you haven't tried to gently and
informatively
convince her of the "correctness" of you view is bullying in itself.


I never called her a bully. I would say she is a coward.

She could EASILY end her cowardice and email her employer and say "Dr.
Gastaldo is right - the OB lies are as obvious as the grisly biomechanics
are simple."

As I just wrote in response to Kelly...

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

And women lucky enough to learn about the "extra" up to 30% are sometimes
DENIED it when they ask.

Most women never learn about it. (Sarah indicates there is no need for OBs
to tell them!)

Some of these women had babies who died in childbirth - or got paralyzed in
childbirth - and I think some of those deaths/paralyses might have been
prevented.

So I persist in my good-humored inflexibility.


'Nough said, this is my final post on the subject, particularly if you
insist
on pursuing the issue with personal attacks.


Larry, I think you have things backwards...

I am PROTESTING personal attacks; that is...

Medical doctors are making ACTUAL personal attacks - on babies - en masse.

Medical doctors are LYING about it.

Medical doctor Sarah Vaughan is cowardly ignoring the lies of her fellow
medical doctors - pretending (in regard to the "extra" up to 30%) that
exposing the OB lies would have no effect on anyone's choice of birth
position!

And I am protesting. Simple, no?

Defend Sarah's cowardice if you must - but prevention is part of her JOB -
and she is ignoring a SIMPLE preventive measure.

SARAH...

Sarah if you are reading, say you want me to stop discussing your
cowardice/inaction and I will stop - if you stop posting in reply to my
posts.

I hope you take action though.

You have a GOLDEN opportunity here to end your cowardice and do the right
thing so that ALL women can hear about the "extra" up to 30%.

You could get the ball rolling to stimulate Tendring Primary Care Trust to
"steer" its GPs to TELL all women about the "extra" up to 30%.

Perhaps Tendring Primary Care Trust could tell OBs to stop the grisly
obstetric tomfoolery.

You first told me that you couldn't do anything because you are a GP.

Whatever Tendring Primary Care Trust does...

If British GPs see pregnant women, as a GP you could influence those GPs who
do see pregnant women.

If your fellow British GPs do nothing - at least you would have tried.

That is all I ask.

Todd

Larry

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
nk.net...
A SINGLE DETAIL?

"[Y]ou [are] taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise
supports your position."
--Larry to Todd


Larry,

1. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of other medical doctors as
infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their

penises,
it is not a trivial point. (Fortunately, death and loss of penis are

rare -
but most infants scream and writhe and bleed through the American medical
religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.)

2. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of medical doctors who are
closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when
babies
get stuck, that isn't a trivial point either.

Medical doctor Sarah is doing this - and worse - and you people are
saying
she agrees with me.

YES, there are points of agreement - but medical doctor Sarah publicly
indicated (in her "no **** Sherlock" post) that even if the OB lies about
birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to
anyone's birth position." (!)

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa

If you support her in this Larry, so be it; but Sarah and I are NOT in
agreement on the most important points.

Women need to know about the MD lies when making decisions - say - about
whether they want their birth canal closed the "extra" up to 30%.

Most women aren't even being TOLD about the "extra" up to 30% - and as I
just indicated in my "Well said?" response to Lucy and Christine...

Women who ARE told (by me for example) are having to ASK for the "extra"

up
to 30% - with some women being DENIED their request!

Lucy writes: "I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The
doctors
ignore my request at their peril."

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1ba84ccfd9cede

Arrgghhh!! Most women don't even *know* to ask (or demand)!!

Sarah is a medical doctor. She should be interested in this simple
preventive measure - especially since her employer "spends" on
prevention.

Medical doctor Sarah and her employer are bizarrely ignoring some SIMPLE
prevention.

If pregnant women in Britain DO routinely book with GPs - I'm really
wondering now about Sarah's claim that she can't do anything because she

is
a GP...

Sarah's employer, Tendring Primary Care Trust, should not wait for an

email
from her...

See Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill
pill' -
bitter poison for some babies)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108

Thanks for writing, Larry.

Todd

SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway...

"...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences
might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed
choice
that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a

Larry, Sarah and I say we are both "vehemently" opposed to routine infant
circumcision - but I question her "vehemence" when she ignores the
history
of MD lies in discussing the issue.

I don't think it can be said that Sarah is really opposed to her fellow
medical doctors closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals
closed when babies get stuck.

I do get kind of vehement when I am "no **** Sherlocked" by a medical

doctor
who is ignoring her fellow medical doctors' lies - babies be damned -
sometimes fatally so.

A MASSIVE spinal manipulation crime is taking place - and it is being
committed by Sarah's fellow medical doctors.

SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway...

"...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences
might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed
choice
that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a

I don't think Sarah is being a reasonably prudent medical doctor.

An email to Tendring Primary Care Trust saying "Dr. Gastaldo is right" is
NOT too much to ask of medical doctor Sarah.

I hope Sarah copies me - and misc.kids.pregnancy.

It could be the start of something big - esp. if Sarah recruits other GPs

to
help stop OBs from closing birth canals, etc.

DO women in Britain commonly book with GPs when they get pregnant?

What did Sarah mean when she initially protested there was nothing she

could
do because she is a GP?

Again, thanks for writing Larry.

Sarah, here (again) is the email for Tendring Primary Care Trust:


Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely - with a bit of vehemence : )

Todd ("Sherlock")

"Your goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson


"Larry McMahan" wrote in message
...
Todd,

You know that as much as I support many of the same positions that you
do, that I have to agree with anyone4tea that you are doing yourself a
disservice by mounting what appears to be a vehement attack on someone
who, in general, agrees with you by taking issue with a single detail
in
a post that otherwise supports your position.

If it wasn't an vehement attack, you need to proofread your post to
see
HOW they will be perceived. If you correctly assessed the situation

that
she had agreed with you 90% and you wanted to take issue with the 10%
where she did not, you need to revisit both your strategy and tactics.

It
is better to get a 100 people from 10% agreement to 60% agreement that
to **** off someone who is already at 90% if you want to change the
world for the better.

What you said was unnecessarily hostile, ignored her points of
agreement
with you, was easily perceived as a personal ad-holmium attack, and
risked losing whatever good will you had with her. This is not the

style
of
communication that will win the hearts and minds of others, especially
their
hearts. :-)

These words are written in kindness in an attempt to help you

communicate
your important message more effectively.

Do with them what you will.
Larry

"anyone4tea" wrote in message
ups.com...
That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about
trivial things.

Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication
is
misconstrued.

Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your
efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned.
Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not
wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after
them after miscommunication.

Take a chill pill









  #18  
Old January 3rd 05, 05:25 PM
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message et, Todd
Gastaldo writes
A SINGLE DETAIL?

"[Y]ou [are] taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise
supports your position."
--Larry to Todd


Larry,

1. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of other medical doctors as
infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their penises,
it is not a trivial point. (Fortunately, death and loss of penis are rare -
but most infants scream and writhe and bleed through the American medical
religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.)


I'm not quite sure which specific lies you feel I've ignored, but it's
true that, in the posts I made recently opposing routine infant
circumcision, I didn't cover the many reasons why it's a bad thing, or
discuss the various lies that have been told on the subject. This is
because I wasn't trying to write a comprehensive essay on the subject,
nor was I claiming to do so. I was responding specifically to a poster
who was also anti-circumcision but who wanted some help in dealing with
the arguments of her husband who was trying to arrange circumcision for
their son. Since this was her concern, I dealt specifically with the
arguments her husband had been using and discussed what
counter-arguments she could use to those.

So, you're objecting to my anti-circumcision posts because I didn't
include all the anti-circumcision arguments that exist out there to be
used. That's OK - you're perfectly entitled to believe that I should
include more stuff in my posts. Hell, I might even give your opinion
some weight once you've tried typing posts one-handed while
breastfeeding a fussy baby and seen how much detail you feel like typing
out under those circumstances. What is not OK, however, is for you to
quote me out of context in a way that makes it look as if I hold the
view that I was, in fact, arguing against.

2. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of medical doctors who are
closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies
get stuck, that isn't a trivial point either.


So what are you saying, Todd? That because I don't take up your crusade
in this matter, it's fine for you to misrepresent my opinion on a
different subject?

Medical doctor Sarah is doing this - and worse - and you people are saying
she agrees with me.


Larry was saying that I agree with you *about circumcision*, Todd.
Which I do. But because I wasn't as vehement on the subject as you
think I should have been, you've quoted me out of context and made it
look as if I support routine circumcision when you know perfectly well I
oppose it. Does that fall into the category of 'obvious lies', Todd?
Because it sure as hell doesn't strike me as very honest.


Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

  #19  
Old January 3rd 05, 05:26 PM
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Larry McMahan
writes
This is exactly what you are doing on your personal attack on Sarah.
If you would simply pick each point on which you disagree with her and
say "Why do you think that? Here is some information to show the other
side, and simply provide some cites, I would bet that she would listen.
Calling her a bully for supporting the "other side" when you haven't
tried to gently and informatively convince her of the "correctness" of
you view is bullying in itself.


Thanks, Larry. ;-)


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

  #20  
Old January 4th 05, 07:43 AM
Larry McMahan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sarah Vaughan" wrote in message
...
In message , Larry McMahan
writes

Thanks, Larry. ;-)

Let's get this straight. I am just defending you from ad-hominims, that
does not
mean that I agree with you! :-)

I also agree with a lot of Todd's rhetoric. I just think that it is stated
in an
inflammatory manner. :-(

Larry


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and... Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 3 April 16th 04 06:09 PM
Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 6 April 7th 04 04:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.