User:Jack Hughes/archive1

Mm
To quote-mine you, then "greater minds than some adolescent from Estonia" sounds nice, although I do not believe you have any evidence about my age. I just thought I let you know. --Earthland (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your user page says you're in school. Q.E.D. 10:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So? School does not only mean high school or college. School is "any institution designed to allow students to learn, under the supervision of teachers."
 * Bob was actually quite close. But it's still irrelevant. (And yes, I'm just trying to present myself as someone who is misunderstood.) --Earthland (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
 * EL, your "191 facts" screams your identity - along with your desperate need to be different. I'll wager good money that your under 25, my guess is somewhere in the 20 - 22 region, which counts as adolescent in my book (I'm more than twice your age). As for that being an ad-hominem - well, that only goes to prove the point. Only an adolescent would feel it an insult to be called one. It also doesn't detract from my point. We all feel that we know the truth and want to change the world when we're your age. For me, as a hippie back in the sixties, it was a fervent belief that "all you need is love". How convinced I was then, how wrong I find I was now. Your crusading zeal is quite commendable. However, when it comes to the eternal verities and the ongoing search for moral absolutes, when it comes to moral dilemmas, this is one area where experience counts. Sure, you've been through the mill a bit, coming out is never easy (you are out in real life, aren't you?) and, as I know only too well, having someone close to you suicide is not a barrel of laughs, but wait until you've got a few more decades behind you and, perhaps, you'll find that moral absolutes aren't and that even abortionists might be caring, moral people who just see the world differently.
 * So, if I'm pulling the 'older and wiser' card why don't I answer your arguments in a 'serious discussion' - the point is that I feel I have but, just as you feel I haven't read your essay (I have), I feel you don't read my answers. Then we come down to the fact that we live in different moral worlds, speak different moral languages. You feel I never answer your points, I feel you never answer mine and, as I pointed out some considerable time ago, we quickly degenerate into schoolyard 'tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't' and then to name calling. I feel that you've been guilty of every crime you've called me for but obviously you feel differently. Similarly I'm flabbergasted that you don't consider your essay controversial and seem completely unable to credit 'the other side' with having any credence whatsoever. By your comments, by your attitude, by everything you've written, you see those who disagree as moral degenerates or ignoramuses. You seem to feel that a woman who has an abortion cannot possibly understand what she is doing, or, if she does, then she is morally depraved beyond redemption. The possibility that the other side of the argument might have any credibility never crosses your mind. Such certainty, such zeal, such fervour - such arrogance.
 * What I've been trying to say for a while but what you simply won't hear is that I do understand where you're coming from. Pictures of foetuses torn limb from limb are certainly distressing and a simple, not to say simplistic, "all abortion is murder" viewpoint makes the world an easier place to live in - until it isn't. Try, just for a while, to accept that it's not quite that simple, that various experts in various fields have been agonising over this one for many, many years and their conclusions are not to be taken lightly. You don't like abortions, fine, as a homosexual male it's never going to affect you. But if you're going to persuade the rest of the world that you're right you're going to have to come up with far, far better than you've done so far. I won't say PRATT because you would say they've not been refuted but I will say PHATT - points heard a thousand times. I haven't been persuaded before and, to be sure, I won't be persuaded by your repetition. Moreover, if you want to change peoples minds, calling them moral degenerates if not a good place to start.
 * One final point whilst I'm here - you got on your high horse because I use multiple user names. Look around, I'm far from alone and some of the most senior and respected members of this site are on their second or third reincarnations (hi Susan). It's part of the fun, not subterfuge. If you want to know JH is my third incarnation, Bob Soles was my second, and part of the fun is not revealing the first. I still keep all three ticking over - different names for different purposes. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Hi Jack) Thanks for the namecheck &mdash; Unsigned, by: SusanG / talk / contribs

I didn't expect you to be such psychologist. However, you still got my age wrong. And I didn't feel "insulted", but simply pointed out that my age is absolutely irrelevant.

You seem to feel that a woman who has an abortion cannot possibly understand what she is doing, or, if she does, then she is morally depraved beyond redemption.

Quite right. Although, not "cannot possibly understand" but simply "doesn't know".

Such certainty, such zeal, such fervour - such arrogance. - I take it as a compliment. My deeper nature is indeed something like this, but it doesn't mean I couldn't be "open-minded".

As for your socks, I simply meant to mock you for making sockpuppets, not to make a big deal out of it. Don't take me too seriously. --Earthland (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly please indent properly.
 * If I got your age wrong then I over estimated, or are you still at school in whatever form after 25? If so isn't it about time you grew up and got a job. It's about time you grew up anyway. Pissing people off left right and centre isn't big and it isn't clever. That's why you keep getting accused of trolling.
 * Again with the arrogance. If someone disagrees with you then they must be either evil or ignorant. Do you never allow the remotest possibility you might be wrong? If you don't you have some nasty lessons coming your way further on down the line.
 * Looks like you take arrogance as a compliment. You poor soul. The real pity of it all is that, in your arrogance, you think you're open minded. Oh, dear. You're open minded in the same way that Andy Schlafly is open minded.
 * As for the socks thing, it was you who made the big deal out of it; and as for taking you seriously... Oh, you poor deluded little boy. Find a lover for everyone's sake. If ever there was someone in need of a cuddle it's you.
 * Jack Hughes (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As you clearly can see, I didn't understand your first line.

Any rational human being considers the possibility of being wrong regarding any position they take. But this question is better suited for you. It is, at least, better to be pro-life and wrong than pro-choice and wrong. (But no, that's not why I'm pro-life).

Why so much about my age? You could just ask my birth date. I'm probably going to upload a picture of myself so you could see I'm just an ordinary guy. That probably can't be said about you. You need professional help. You like to spit on my face (dressed up as someone caring and open-minded) whenever you yourself feel hurted because you've ran out of smart or at least normal things to say. --Earthland (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Quoted from above - ''You feel I never answer your points, I feel you never answer mine and, as I pointed out some considerable time ago, we quickly degenerate into schoolyard 'tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't' and then to name calling. I feel that you've been guilty of every crime you've called me for but obviously you feel differently.''

And nothing has changed. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mm 2
I reverted your humorless vandalism. You didn't even put the line breaks to the right places. --Earthland (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tartuffe
This is very much copy-paste from "Tartuffe". I paraphrased it a little, but it's still overly religious. I'm sure you can transfer it into our context.

It's really just an illustration. I do want to mock you for thinking that if I'm sure about something and don't regard every position as equally valid I must be "closed-minded". I have not stated that something is objectively not valid, but simply expressed my own position (which, I believe to be true). Your last comment on my talk page was also a kind of inspiration.

BOB SOLES

Brother, your language smacks of atheism; And I suspect your soul's a little tainted Therewith. I've preached to you a score of times That you'll draw down some judgment on your head.

EARTHLAND

That is the usual strain of all your kind; They must have every one as blind as they. They call you atheist if you have good eyes; And if you don't adore their vain grimaces, You've neither faith nor care for sacred things.

BOB SOLES

(Ooh, you fucking teenager) '''You are the sole expounder of the doctrine; Wisdom shall die with you, no doubt, good brother, You are the only wise, the sole enlightened, The oracle, the Cato, of our age. All men, compared to you, are downright fools.'''

EARTHLAND

I'm not the sole expounder of the doctrine, And wisdom shall not die with me, good brother. But this I know, though it be all my knowledge, That there's a difference 'twixt false and true. Those barefaced charlatans, those hireling zealots, Whose sacrilegious, treacherous pretence Deceives at will, and with impunity Makes mockery of all that men hold sacred. And, to destroy a man, will have the boldness To call their private grudge the cause of heaven

BOB SOLES

My dear good friend, have you quite done?

EARTHLAND

Yes.

BOB SOLES

Then buzz off.

Comment: I'm sure you'd like to say that the line "To call their private grudge the cause of heaven" should be said about me. Not really. It may not be that clear at the first moment, but it fits perfectly the pro-choice views.

--Earthland (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A little notice
It seems that you are much more interested in me than issues we are actually talking about (my arrogance "knows no bounds", 191 facts "screams my identity", all those quotes and so on). I hope you acknowledge that my personality is an irrelevant factor. Even if you think you have the duty to show me how "arrogant" I really am... --Earthland (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think your personality is a very important factor and far from irrelevant - it has nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of you position but everything to do with the way you hold it, and possibly with the reasons why you do so. You hold pretty extreme views with an intensity that is almost scary. Furthermore there's your point blank refusal to compromise. There is absolutely no grey in your spectrum, it's black or it's white. You flatly refuse to accept any possibility that I might be a 'good' person, that I might have any moral integrity, that I might have thought things through, that my opinions might have some worth.


 * And no, I don't feel the need (or even duty) to show how arrogant you are, it's just that sometimes I'm blown away by your self belief, the intensity of your conviction that you are right and all who disagree are wrong. When you hold views that are counter to the general consensus and hold that those who think otherwise are inferior by dint of ignorance or moral degradation then you place yourself on a pedestal, you claim moral and/or intellectual superiority. Such faith in oneself with so little room for self doubt is quite remarkable and, coming back to where we came in, very much part of your personality. From time to time I'm so amazed by it I feel I have to comment.


 * Really, think about it, your a gay man. Abortion is never going to affect you directly and there are so many other things that do. What made you pick this issue to get so worked up about? Jack Hughes (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I dare question the "consensus". In USA, it is really about 50:50. In civilized world, however, I'm not sure - yes, surely people don't want to make it illegal, but I dare say most of people assert something like they are personally opposed to abortion and they even acknowledge that it is killing of another person, which just shows that they haven't thought it trough. Abortion is the biggest lie easily taken in by general public. The most usual arguments that an average person (not even pro-choice person, but someone who simply doesn't think about abortion) presents in favor of abortion are absolutely refuted for thousands of times. Public ignorance about fetal development and abortion and its methodology is necessary if abortion is to remain legal. Most people who favor legal abortion are absolutely sure that life does not begin at conception.


 * I know that pro-life is such extreme in RW that you can point me out as something "extraordinary". I don't really care.


 * If the most defensless kind of human beings are killed, legally killed, every day, then sooner or later it's going to affect me. For example, maybe my best friend is a woman who chose abortion. You can believe Planned Parenthood's claim that women who have chosen abortion feel only relief. I have little knowledge about it also, and it's not one or two personal cases. And I dare say that most women who have chosen abortion know that abortion almost always stops one and brokes another heart.


 * Yes, there are, at least currently, issues that affect me more directly than abortion. Especially if I'm a gay man. Most Estonians believe that homosexuality is a disease and that homosexuals should die slowly in some kind of special junk yard. But I have little interest in other people's opinions, as you may have personally experienced. But abortion is what one person does to another person, and it is a very serious question.


 * And no, I don't have to undergo abortion myself to know it is immoral. I don't even need to have potential for that. For example, if a mother of four suffers from stress and screams at her children, I don't need to be a mother myself to know that she's not doing a right thing - although as a mother myself I would probably feel more empathy for her. Or take murder (a murder that you recognize as a murder). I don't have to murder someone or to be murdered myself to know it is immoral. Or take slavery. It wouldn't make any sense for me to say that a black man can not possibly know that his white slaveholder is an evil man because this black man is not himself a slaveholder and he can't be one, since he's not white.


 * --Earthland (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And, as ever, you're so keen to propagate your views you completely miss my point. End of. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and will you never, ever understand that you do not KNOW abortion is wrong - you BELIEVE abortion is wrong. Surely even you cannot believe that you have resolved one of the biggest moral arguments of the age. Your belief is so strong it looks like knowledge to you but, at the end of the day, it rests on absolute presuppositions that are very controversial. By far the biggest is your unshakable BELIEF that human rights begin at conception. That's a belief, NOT a fact. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmm
It's not particularly nice to archive my edits as soon as they are made, especially if you give such bad name to this archive. I'm not even sure that you are allowed to do it. I mean, if I did such it...

On the other hand, it's nice to see that you are getting bored also. I'm still not sure why I'm here myself. --Earthland (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggested ....
I know this is an appeal to emotion, not an argument. I'm just doing it because your "suggested reading" was also a direct appeal to emotion.

You know that very little, actually no arguments at all have validity if the unborn is a human being. And he undeniably is.

--Earthland (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

one more quote video

And this one has at least nice lyrics, mostly....

Dragged on a table in factory / Illegitimate place to be

In a packet in a lavatory / Die little baby screaming f***ing bloody mess

Its not an animal its an abortion

Body Im not animal / Mummy Im not an abortion....

--Earthland (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Doctors and abortion
Doctors who perform abortions are not necessarily motivated by what is best for women. They are motivated by the choice of the woman in question, a woman who is often confused, often pressurized by other people, often in extremely difficult situation. However, doctors are subject to ideological influences in the same way as other members of society. Gynecologist differ only in that they know how to perform abortions. Unfortunately, it is not rare that doctors and advisers are in favor of abortion. "Consultations" are carried out by the same people who perform the abortion, and of course there is no interest to explain to women that abortion is the killing of a living person.

Although it is possible that doctors believe that by abortion they help women to realize their best possible choice, the fact that doctors do not offer real alternatives to a woman who is considering abortion means that the woman is often left with alternatives that none of which are really satisfactory or consistent with her real intentions. --Earthland (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seventeen and still an arsehole. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for constructive replay. By the way, can you explain your fairly strange e-mail address? --Earthland (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wtf, "replay"? What was I thinking of? I probably meant "answer", whatever.... --Earthland (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it said 'reply' until you mentioned the typo. --  = w =  19:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I was momentarily disoriented ... and I thought that I can speak English. --Earthland (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * there's no point in trying to explain to you why I put the reasoning of highly trained medical personnel before the musings of someone whit very limited life experience because we've been round that loop many, many times to no avail. As for explaining my email address, no, I won't. Jack Hughes (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You make me suspect that you have a harem and that you are hiding yourself behind different english aliases in order to hide your arabic origin. Your real name is something like Abdul-Aliyy, isn't it?
 * I'm just doing it (writing the overly childish message above) to remind you (and highlight) the fact that it was you who degenerated into schoolyard 'tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't'. Short memory is a common characteristic of old age. --Earthland (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A friendly advice
It seems that you suffer under impression that I care about what you think. Contrary to your belief, there are much better ways to spend your time; read a book or go running. It always helps. --Earthland (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ? I had to deliver you my friendly advice, after all. So I also mentioned that I don't care about your opinion, in hope that you won't demonstrate it any more, although I should have added that I don't care about your opinion as long as it concerns me or my personality. However, I can't deny that, observing how obsessed you are with me,I'm getting a little bit proud (in sense of becoming vain). --Earthland (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And that's why you call me earthtroll
you have to stir up another sacred cow. is not an explanation. Don't you think that you just don't like it if someone has a different point of view, and it's not just some minor difference? Even more, if the person who has different point of view believes his point of view and is ready to defend it, then won't you call him "troll" anyway? That troll template was very nice. I won't forget it.

And no, I still don't care about your opinion, even if I'm interested to hear all your excuses. --Earthland (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should ask it another way, to use the words of Jack London: Do you feel that your outlook is very wide indeed, and that where your views conflict with my views mark my limitations; so you dream of helping me to see as you see, of widening my horizon until it is identified with yours? --Earthland (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit point
I just realized that I don't know exactly what is an edit point and why it is called this way. Enlighten me, please. --Earthland (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A "typical debate"
You get it wrong just at the beginning. There are opposing views, but not many - those who acknowledge the fact of when life begins (A) and those who don't acknowledge it or acknowledge it but don't think that it should be protected from the beginning (B). The B people are all the same, simply some think that the life should be protected a bit earlier than others. But there are not "many" views. And this is not "highly controversial" and "narrow definition" that life begins at conception - there is only one definition of biological life! Questions such "what it means to be alive" has nothing to do with biology, because biological life and the beginning of the biological life of every organism has been defined long ago and almost everyone accepts these definitions. You can also define "human life" as actually being a monkey life or a goat life, but it wouldn't really make it "more controversial". The fact that there are opposing views does not mean that there are opposing truths - simply some people are more ignorant than others. --Earthland (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ--are you STILL beating that dead horse? P-Foster (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello once again
Hello Jack...

I hope that you can, for this one time, switch your "Earthland's a troll" off and won't ignore me or archive\delete my comments or make them smaller, as you may feel you have the right to do according to new rules.

I'm writing to you in regards to a fairly minor thing - you repeatedly said that my definition of life is somehow "narrow". It is quite strange, given that by any standard my definition includes much more organisms than your definition. There is only one definition of biological life. Said in the simplest way; if an organism as a whole is functioning, then it is alive. Biologically. I hope I don't have to cite Wikipedia'as article for the characteristics of life. Self-consciousness is not a characteristic of biological life.

Such "moments" like gastrulation or "when a distinct EEG pattern can be detected" only highlight notable characteristics along a continuum of human life already biologically existing. These “views” are scientifically incoherent and biologically inaccurate. The defining characteristic of mammalian life, including human life, is the continuous process of development, which starts at fertilization and ends at death. At any point in time, during the continuum of life, there exists a whole, integrated human being! This is because over time from the one-celled embryo to a 100-year-old senior, all of the characteristics of life change, albeit at different rates at different times: size, form, content, function, appearance, etc. "Marker events" occur all throughout life. But the fact remains; the single-celled embryo is the scientific equivalent of a 100 year-old senior.

I know you hate these quotes and you think they "prove nothing", but it just says it so well:

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote) ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or the ontogeny, of the individual"

(Carlson, Bruce M. Patton's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p 3)

This is one of the most widely used embryology textbooks at all.

Thank you for listening,

Heido

--Earthland (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote) ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or the ontogeny, of the individual The fertilization of the ovum is, undeniably, the point where an individuals life cycle starts. No one disputes that. However, this postulates that life, in the wider sense, is defined by genetic individuality.


 * However, for the sake of the debate, let us consider as a thought experiment, taking a fertilized ovum and removing it from the uterus, allowing it to split several times, lets say five times, and replacing the thirty two separate cells in separate mothers. I doubt this is technically possible with today's technology but this is, after all, a thought experiment.


 * Now then, are all these thirty two individuals the same person? Surely they are identical twins but it would be hard to define them as the same person. When, then, did their individuality start? If the start of individuality is the start of life, where did these identical twins lives start? You, of course, will answer that for each of them the unique - or not so unique - genetic code that was created when the ovum was fertilized defines the start of their life but now their uniqueness, the thing that makes them different, starts elsewhere, possibly when the cells were re-implanted.


 * And then, using this definition of life has problems with end of life scenarios. Consider if you will the person with irreversible and major brain damage who is only kept "alive" by extensive intervention from life support systems. Is the doctor who orders the life support systems to be switched off guilty of murder? Generally it is thought not because, in a very real sense, there is no "life" left to take. What is it that is crucial in these decisions - the dependence on life support systems? No, it is the irreversible brain damage. Does this mean that I "die" every time I fall asleep, or when I was anaesthetized when I recently underwent surgery? No, in both cases the brain was not damaged, brain activity had not ceased, I was fully alive. However, those who have had brain activity cease and then restart are described as having died and then come back to life. Life is very closely tied to brain activity.


 * So, if in end of life scenarios, the definition of life is strongly tied to brain activity and the start of life is tied to genetic individuality. When does this definition change? If the fertilized ovum is sacred why not the brain dead coma victim?


 * Now you will want to talk about potential. I can hear you say that my analogies are invalid because a comatose body with irrepressible brain damage has no potential whereas a fertilized ovum does. Fine, except that the unfertilized ovum also has potential, as do the millions of spermatozoa released every time the male ejaculates. There is no magic jump in potential that is gained at fertilization, in a very real sense it’s just another step on the way. Does the baby start with fertilization or with the twinkle in the parent’s eyes? Biologically the first is undeniable but in a much wider sense he later is also true. Again your definition is narrow and tied to the biological.


 * And this brings us to the nub of the matter. I have accused you of having a narrow definition of the start of life. I still stand by this. On the one hand the life that is me, that is you, began back in the primordial ooze. We are just the current carriers of this set of genes. On the other hand the life that is defined by my birth certificate is defined as starting when the umbilical cord was cut, when I was separated from my mother. Both are valid definitions depending on their use. When asking how old I am to determine whether, for example, I should be allowed to vote, it is the time since my birth that is used, not since conception. By that definition I have been determined to be alive for fifty seven years.


 * So, we have different definitions of life depending on the reason. The doctor considering end of life scenarios considers a combination of brain activity and self sustainability, the Driving License centre considers the time since birth.


 * And now we come to the nub of the question - which definition of life should we use when discussing abortion. This was the thinking behind the article "When Does Life Begin" which you felt should be deleted. I strongly dispute this. When considering abortion we need to consider the various definitions of when life begins and reason as to how applicable they are. We need to stop looking at emotive pictures of foetuses, however distressing they may be, and calmly and coldly consider, when it comes to abortion, which definition we should use.


 * And now it becomes controversial. Now we have strongly held views with little room for compromise. You unswervingly stand by "genetic individuality is the start of the life cycle, therefore it is the start of life for every consideration.", so, by your book, I'm 58, not 57. My preferred option for abortion purposes is the start of brain activity which ties in neatly with the end of life scenarios. Most legal definitions rely on viability. Each definition has its reasons and its weaknesses; each definition has its supporters and detractors. We can argue ‘till the cows come home but, at the end of the day, there is no simple answer that will satisfy everyone.


 * What is unhelpful are those who fail to understand that their position is not the only tenable one. Those who say "I'm right and anyone who disagrees is wrong". Furthermore calling those who disagree "immoral" or "ignorant" adds nothing to the debate. Why should we give you, or your views, any respect when you fail to give us, or our views any. When you even refuse to admit that there's a controversy you make yourself out to be a zealot who has no interest in the debate but only wants to preach. Sure there is no controversy over conception being the start of the biological life cycle but there is massive and heated controversy as to whether this definition of life is applicable to abortion.


 * So, I repeat, you have taken a very narrow definition, one which is biologically true but of debatable relevance, and used it to tell the vast majority of the members of this site that they are immoral ignoramuses. In short the comedy sketch I wrote about trying to debate with you is, from where I stand, very accurate.


 * The worst part of all this is I know I'm wasting my time. You won’t concede an inch. You'll still stand there on your soap box shouting out that because I disagree with you I, and most of the rest of this site, are worthless scum (Ok, so you wont use those words but how else do you interpret immoral ignoramus - and you have called me both) and then, when we get annoyed by your preaching you somehow get offended.


 * If you want to debate you need to learn some manners.


 * Jack Hughes (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the effort of writing such a long answer. In order to avoid a complete mess, I'll answer you trough different points. There are four things I want to talk about, namely the misrepresentation of the so-called "genetic view", what is wrong with the "neurological view", what is wrong with defining life "legally" and what gives me the right to call you "immoral ignorants", if I indeed have said that.


 * A) The so called "genetic view" as misrepresented by you, would be biologically inaccurate. There is no such thing like "genetic view" at all. If I claimed that unique genome is the only thing that makes one human and alive, the "logical conclusion" should be that identical twins are not alive since they don’t have a unique genome, but a human corpse should be considered alive because it has one.


 * The thing is rather that the human embryo is a physical being who is developing as a distinct, individual organism from his mother, produces specifically human proteins and enzymes and directs his/her own further growth and development as human. Human genome (which 997 times out of 1000 is completely unique) determines to which species a being belongs to.


 * The "twinning argument" does not refute the fact that human zygote is a living human being. A human embryo (younger than 14 days) can't be separated into different pieces so that every piece would maintain the identity of the original embryo. In this sense it is indivisible, individual being, a single organism. By "indivisible" I don't mean an organism who has lost the biological ability to split so that another physical being is asexually created. This is quite a mess since I can't translate some nice words we have in Estonian language to english, so that I could make you understand it better. However, the ability to split so that another organism is created does not mean that "individuality" starts only if such ability is lost, or dead. If it were otherwise, we should say that there is no such thing like "individual cell" at all, since most cells have the ability to split, it is their method of reproduction.


 * B) Your argument that "real" life starts with brain activity has several problems (besides the fact that it is arbitrary). First of all, brain activity starts much earlier than 25th week of development. It can be measured as early as 8th week from conception. The youngest premature baby to have survived was 21 weeks and 6 days old. If life does not begin until there is a specific EEG pattern, could someone have killed the youngest premie on the basis that it was not yet alive? Strangely, I hardly think you would argue for that. I might be wrong, of course.


 * The reason you argue for the so-called "neurological view" (in actual science, there is also no such thing as "neurological view") is your conviction that we indeed have to define the beginning of life trough the end of life. But these are very different things, since the organism at the beginning of life differs very much from the adult human being who is dying. (They are the same beings, biological equivalents, but their size, form, content, function, appearance, etc. nevertheless differ very much). We can't use the same criteria when describing them. And there is no such thing like "brain birth". "Brain death" is the gradual or rapid cessation of the functions of a brain. "Brain birth" is rather a gradual acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system, which is not a brain. The alleged symmetry between brain death and "beginning of brain activity" is not as strong as is sometimes assumed.


 * My simplified definition of "how to make sure if someone's alive" was that "If the organism as whole is functioning, then it is alive". This distinction is very important. The embryo, even before its brain has started to function, is alive, because he is a whole organism and his whole organism is functioning. The "distinct EEG pattern" does not make him "more alive", it simply makes him more complicated and from that point on there's another criteria by which we make sure if he's dead. If the brain is dead, the organism is not functioning as whole, because brain is the center of the nervous system that controls the other organ systems of the body.


 * True, it is possible to keep the body artificially alive. I think that brain-dead patients who are kept alive with machines are alive, alive and human, but I nevertheless think that disconnecting them is not "killing" but rather "letting die", and I don't oppose that. It would be completely natural death and still something different from "passive euthanasia".


 * C) Other "definitions" of life. You wrote that, "On the one hand the life that is me, that is you, began back in the primordial ooze." Wrong. Your life did not start centuries, or millions of years ago, or when the Big Bang "happened". You as an individual being started your life at a very neat moment, that is fertilization. Similarly, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth. The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25.


 * You argue that, "So, we have different definitions of life depending on the reason." This is not true. These are not "definitions of life", but simply convenient points from which to measure something. For example, birth is not a "definition of life", simply a very convenient point from which to measure one's "legal" age. First of all, it is the only "neat and exact" date we know, since we almost never know when fertilization actually takes place. Secondly, birth is definitely very important day in everyone's life, because it is the day we joined with other human beings around us.


 * But when we're considering to kill someone, there is no place for such arbitrary definitions that have nothing to do with actual life. And even if you really doubt if someone is alive... well, if you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it.


 * D) While telling someone that they are ignorant or immoral is probably not the best way how to win an argument, it is sometimes the only honest thing to say. By all the criteria and by all facts that are in my use, I know that life is present from the moment of conception, life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life. Now, if I were saying "Oh, I'm not sure...", it would be lying. If I was trying to be "neutral", saying that it's not my thing to "judge" people who are killing human beings or who are propagating the killing of human beings, well, it would be like death to me... kind of.


 * In hope that you won't simply cite Godwin's law, I'd like to bring a parallel with nazis killing Yews. Nazis claim that Jews are "unter-mensch" wasn't pulled out of nowhere. It was, actually, very scientific claim - nazis carried out real research, measured the heads of Jewish people etc. It doesn't mean that it was an actual science; actually it was just as "scientific" as your "When does life begin?" article. Now consider the following dialogue.


 * A human rights defender: You shouldn't kill and torture Jews. They are human beings.
 * A nazi guy: This is very narrow definition of beings who should not be killed.
 * A human rights defender: No, it isn't. All humans are endowed with certain entitlements merely by reason of being human.
 * A nazi guy: This is much more complicated than that. This is very controversial issue and you're just trying to impose your morality on me.
 * A human rights defender: Jews are just as much human beings as Germans.
 * A nazi guy: Oh, nobody denies that. But it's not the correct definition to follow if we're considering who are we going to kill next.
 * A human rights defender: German people are no better than Jewish people by any objective criteria.
 * A nazi guy: You're just following your narrow definition. Here, take a look at our scientific data.
 * A human rights defender: This is arbitrary and not scientific. You are either evil or ignorant.
 * A nazi guy: You just oppose our choice to kill Jewish people and hate German nation. You are closed-minded and I won't talk to you any more.


 * --Earthland (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So once again you totally fail to understand my arguments and end up calling me immoral,ignorant, and, to cap it off, a Nazi. Your blinkered stupidity is so far beyond reason as to be unbelievable. Fuck off and never talk to me again. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You make it impossible for me to answer you without being really really arrogant, since you asked me not to talk to you again. (I actually predicted it... ) On the other hand, even if I am unbelievably stupid, my response was fairly calm and polite, but you simply told me to fuck off and shut up. So I allow myself to edit your talk page once more.


 * I did not call you a Nazi, I simply ... well, used an analogy. There was, obviously, much more evil in Nazis than in you. And well, it's you who makes me saying such thing, if you ask in every other edit: "So ya think I'm immoral?! So ya think I'm ignorant?! Answer me!" My opinion about your qualities really isn't important, and I'd like to discuss only the subject itself. I of course respect the obvious interest you have about my opinion.


 * I don't believe that I've totally failed to understand your arguments. There well might be some paragraphs that seem to talk about things you did not want to say. All in all, however, I answered your arguments as you presented them. That my "blinkered stupidity is so far beyond reason as to be unbelievable" is clear and obvious, provocative and harsh overreaction. --Earthland (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointless
The bitterness, futility, and self-righteousness of most moral arguments can now be explicated. In a debate on abortion, politics, consensual incest, or on what my friend did to your friend, both sides believe that their positions are based on reasoning about the facts and issues involved (the wag-the-dog illusion). Both sides present what they take to be excellent arguments in support of their positions. Both sides expect the other side to be responsive to such reasons (the wag-the-other-dog’s-tail illusion). When the other side fails to be affected by such good reasons, each side concludes that the other side must be insincere, closed-minded, or even devious…. In this way the culture wars over issues such as homosexuality and abortion can generate morally motivated players on both sides who believe that their opponents are not morally motivated

How will people in the grip of such projections be inclined to express their views? Answer: with a language as forceful and absolute as their moral intuitions. Thus, an ardent liberal, one whose liberal judgments stem from deeply felt moral intuitions, will say that capital punishment is a clear violation of human rights and that abortion is a clear violation of a woman’s right to choose. Likewise, an ardent conservative will say that family members of murder victims have a right to see justice served in the form of an execution and that abortion is a clear violation of a fetus’ right to life. Of course, both sides will appeal to consequences when it serves them. Liberals will argue that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent and that making abortion illegal will only result in more backroom butchery and unwanted children. Likewise, conservatives will defend capital punishment’s effectiveness as a deterrent and argue that illegal abortions and unwanted children can be replaced by adoptions. But the more honest members of either camp will admit that their commitments are not beholden to these sorts of contingent claims about the consequences of capital punishment and abortion. Once again, liberals—the more ardent ones, anyway—oppose capital punishment because they feel that it is just plain wrong, likewise for conservatives and their opposition to abortion. This is why talk of rights is such a natural expression for these powerful commitments. It captures the clarity and absoluteness of the conviction, its insensitivity to the empirical calculus of costs and benefits. In other words, the notion of rights epitomizes the practical failure of moral realism, the stubbornness, rigidity, and irreconcilable differences that emerge when people believe that they, unlike their perverse opponents, clearly have the moral truth on their side. And so it goes. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bob, you know these quotes add nothing to this debate. All such quotes add nothing to any debate. Besides that they are overgeneralized and absolutely irrelevant (saying nothing about the topic itself), they pretend to be neutral but are just pushing moral relativism, the overarching dogma of today's liberal West. And I wonder why did you have to put your quote on Nx's talk page - is it your way of keeping your word that you "will never talk to me again"? --Earthland (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Moontroll - These quotes add everything to the debate. They put in a nutshell exactly why we each think the other is morally lacking. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I see you will not discuss this thing seriously, I'll just ask what do you mean by "moontroll"? Is it some new internet term? --Earthland (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's my pet name for my love object. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that was creepy. --Earthland (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not yet, but I'm working up to it. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Euro Rounders
This reminded me of you. Its the european version of the movie Rounders Euro Rounders --MJMelcher (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My bad
I thought you were that one idiot because the page was recreated with his content first. If I had actually been paying attention, I never would have blocked you in the first place. Me needs more sleep... *snore* -- 12:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - I sussed what you had thought. He's a wanker but I felt it better to belittle than delete. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You begged for it
This section here will be filled with my marvelous pottery soon. I can't even think even of rhyming, I have horrible headache, plus I don't know who you are and that really kills the inspiration. But don't worry, you will have your pottery some day, like everyone else here. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you had a nice summer
As socially inept as I might be, and as fake you might think I am, I'm just trying to be friendly. --Earthland (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Our bickering is love play by another name. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer one of your previous questions
You wrote that

''Now you will want to talk about potential. I can hear you say that my analogies are invalid because a comatose body with irrepressible brain damage has no potential whereas a fertilized ovum does. Fine, except that the unfertilized ovum also has potential, as do the millions of spermatozoa released every time the male ejaculates. There is no magic jump in potential that is gained at fertilization, in a very real sense it’s just another step on the way.''

I wouldn't use the word "potential" myself, but I'll go your way. And even in your own terms you are incorrect. The answer lies in the difference between potential and possible.

A zygote has the potential to develop, in the normal course of events, into a full-fledged human being. No egg cell by itself has this potentiality. It might be its possible destiny, that's true. But roughly anything is possible if it is not ruled out by the laws of logic or by the laws of nature. It is possible for every unfertilized egg in the body of a nun to be penetrated by a sperm cell and that the resulting zygote develop into what we would unhesitatingly call a full-fledged human being. But an unfertilized egg cell itself lacks the potentiality to devolop into what we would unhesitatingly call a full-fledged human being. The same goes for a sperm cell by itself.

Bill Vallicella proposes a simple analogy: When you make pizza, you begin by making the dough. You mix together flour, water, eggs, and yeast. Then you have a blob of stuff with the potential to rise. But surely no one will say that the flour itself, or the water or eggs or yeast by themselves, have the potential to rise. It is obviously meaningless to say, of a quantity of water, that it has a potential to rise if 'rise' is being used in the same sense as when we apply it to blobs of dough. Of course it is possible that a certain portion of flour (water, etc.) become an ingredient in a risen mass of dough. But I don't have to worry about the flour in my pantry turning into a mass of wet and moldy dough on its own.

In short; not every possibility is a potentiality.

--Earthland (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You still don't get the point
Rather than answer your point above and end up going round another endless loop here's a very serious question for you.

You obviously feel that you have put forward well debated, well supported, and coherent arguments to support your "life begins at conception" viewpoint. Why then, and this is the nub of it all, why then have you failed to persuade anyone. Why, when your points are so well made - in your eyes - do we all fail to take them on board and remain unconvinced.

Now, before you answer that with your usual list that we must be a combination of ignorant, immoral or have an axe to grind, go back and read the Haidt & Hersh quote again. Really read it. Then read the last sentence of the Joshua Greene quote. Is there not a whiff, a smidgen of the stubbornness, rigidity, and irreconcilable differences that emerge when people believe that they, unlike their perverse opponents, clearly have the moral truth on their side whenever we debate?

So, I ask again, why is it that your arguments have failed, as far as I am aware, to persuade even one person to change their stance? If you're so right why has your evangelism failed so badly?

Jack Hughes (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than trying to answer my question you simply state that I have failed to convince anyone and therefore my arguments have also failed. Take this, for example: noone has ever managed to convince Andrew Schlafly and most other CP editors that they are wrong at something, therefore all arguments that have ever been put forward against their beliefs have always failed.


 * My eyesight is bad enough even without reading your quotes over and over again. I know what they say: some people believe that A is moral, some other people don't. They fail to convince each other, probably because believing that moral truth exists or that what you believe is moral actually might be moral is itself a very rigid way of thinking. Accept that everything is relative and stop imposing "your" morals on other people.


 * Maybe we could do better if people would actually answer me rather than just claiming that I'm wrong. --Earthland (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could do better if you would actually answer instead of claiming that we're wrong. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Answering your point
Of course flour has the potential to rise - all that it needs is to be mixed with a little water, oil and yeast - I'd leave out the eggs - they ruin the mix. Whilst the dough is a step further towards being able to rise there are still stringent conditions that need to be met. In both cases simply being is not enough. Putting to one side your stupid analogy the ovum or, for that matter the sperm, has the same potential as the zygote - the potential to become a human being. The zygote is just further down the road.
 * You just repeated your old argument. Don't you think that after being mixed with water, oil and yeast the flour ceases to be flour, or do you actually worry about the flour in your pantry turning into a mass of wet and moldy dough on its own? By the way, there is a reason why I used italics.


 * Surely you can answer that both zygote and the dough still need certain conditions to either rise or become a human being. But are you sure that mixing flour with water, oil and yeast is just creating necessary condition for the flour to rise? Or for the water of for the oil? Or isn't it just that the mixture of flour, oil and water is something very different from the flour, oil and water separately? For that it is possible for a certain portion of water to become an ingredient in a risen mass of dough, but it has zero potentiality to become a risen mass of dough. --Earthland (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * By a zygote doesn't turn into a human beiing on its own - it needs very specific actions to happen to it, as specific as beig mixed with oil, water and yeast. As ever your analogy is bollocks. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't need any actions to happen to it. It simply needs very specific environment that allows him or her to grow and develop. The environment must be specific because the being itself is in its earliest stage of development and is very helpless. The same goes for you, atlhough you don't show any signs of development. I think I'll just ignore you from now on. --Earthland (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, so the flour doesn't need any actions doing to it as long as it's in a very specific environment - an environment where it's mixed with water, oil and yeast. And, oh, sweetie, I do so love it when you're so mean to me. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you feel bitter you could just cry out loud without falling into Britney's "ooh baby one more time" ... --Earthland (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Answering my point
Why do I endlessly claim that you're wrong - for just the same reason that you endlessly claim that I'm wrong - and once again we're back to the quote that you despise so much. Why don't I answer your points - I do but you are INCAPABLE of hearing my answers. Let me say that again - we are INCAPABLE of hearing each others arguments. You certainly aren't hearing mine and, given the way you bang on and on and on and on over the same old ground you feel I'm not hearing yours. We are both locked into the stubbornness, rigidity, and irreconcilable differences that emerge when people believe that they, unlike their perverse opponents, clearly have the moral truth on their side. Now reread the quote and try and actually understand it - you have failed so far. What it says is that in moral arguments the truth is seen from such different perspectives that what, to one side, looks like a moral certainty looks, to the other side, like arrant nonsense. As we are INCAPABLE of seeing the others viewpoint we see the other side as immoral, stupid or just plain wrong.
 * Irrelevant blabling. If you yourself think that you are incapable of hearing my arguments, then surely you want to become a better person and must try harder. --Earthland (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't answer so you duck the question AGAIN. 21:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dodging the question
Do you see how you fail to answer my question by simply asserting that I failed to answer yours. I ask again

"Why do you feel that no one out of the entire RW community has been sufficiently convinced by your - according to you completely scientific and rational - arguments so as to change their mind on the morality of abortion?"

Go on, tell me why.


 * Why do I have to worry about that? Many people do not want to face the reality, they have already cast their careers and reputations with the opposition, etc. I only pay attention to how pro-choice people try to refute my arguments. RW community has turned out to be quite bad at it. --Earthland (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Add yes, EL, our champion question ducker scores another one for the team. Note the supreme arrogance with which he avoids answering - AGAIN. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pointless redux
The only reasonable conclusion is that our conversation is as pointless as it is futile. The only reason I persist is that I enjoy playing with you - my little lover boy. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are sick. Just to make it sure; I don't love you, not according to any meaningful definition of "love". And I don't enjoy talking to you, because you are childish and incapable of rational discussion. I've forgot how old you are - was it 68 or 86 - but it really seems that you are already getting senile. Please tell me when you decide that old age should add some dignity to a person, not just greater right to life. --Earthland (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh baby, I love it when you talk like that. Ooh, please, do it to me one more time. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help me with this.....
You've been talking about different definitions of "life" without actually giving any. So maybe you can fill out the boxes I've made for you? I did the first one myself.

The question is obviously, when does individual human life begin?

Oh, and please do something with those boxes. They look ugly but I'm not enough wikiwise to make them look fancier. But they MUST be boxes, not just some dull lines that won't work for you anyway.

Etc, etc

--Earthland (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why bother. We've been over this time and time and time again. I make what I feel are very valid well argued points and you either ignore them or misunderstand them. Then I came across those quotes which explain why we fail to understand each other and you fail to understand them as well. There is really no point in us debating abortion or anything else any more. Let's just stick to love talk.


 * Oh, and as you're so fond of saying, if you want answers to your questions read the article I wrote. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, you ignore my tables... but there are no definitions in your article, or they are really vague and not useful. Take a look at neurology, for example. The only thing it says that since death is defined by the cessation of brain activity, we should use something similar to define the beginning of life. But where is the definition of life itself? Is the definition "die-able life" or other such nonsense?


 * You know your whole definition-story is bullshit and you can't defend it. --Earthland (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why bother. We've been over this time and time and time again. I make what I feel are very valid well argued points and you either ignore them or misunderstand them. Then I came across those quotes which explain why we fail to understand each other and you fail to understand them as well. There is really no point in us debating abortion or anything else any more. Let's just stick to love talk.


 * Oh, and as you're so fond of saying, if you want answers to your questions read the article I wrote. Jack Hughes (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Blah blah blah.... that wasn't funny, Bob. I think you should find someone else to love. How about Lisa and Judy? --Earthland (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, now you've got me all hot and bothered with your sex talk. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it's not because of your bitterness, old man? --Earthland (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes! Yes! More like that! Ooh please! Jack Hughes (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't use Britney's lyrics without her permission, you know. --Earthland (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I love the way you keep coming back to castigate me. For all your denial your actions say that my love is returned - you just don't know it yet. Oh, baby! Jack Hughes (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To castigate you? Are you sure? I'm just trying to speak on the same level with you. I thought you like it, since I'm your lover boy, after all, am I not? I know it's kinda stupid, but I believe you like that also. --Earthland (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do hope you continue making your "ooh, aah" comments, my sweet old man. They're funny. --Earthland (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

DRAMA's IN THE AIR keep doing er, whatever you're doing. You are definitely progressive and ethical. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, crisis in the data centre. I'll come back to our cyber-love as soon as it's fixed. Maybe Idiot #57 wishes to join us. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone pass the popcorn. This has all the erotic tension of Bacall and Bogart at their best. Bondurant (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To you mean like threesome, Hughes? I'm not yet that progressive and ethical. I'll better write a poem!


 * Chicks and sluts
 * Boobs and butts
 * I like that somewhat
 * Especially uncut


 * But sex with gays?
 * No way!
 * Go away!


 * Jack, you got your poem
 * Only rhyme is "jeroboam"


 * --Idiot number 57 (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * EL, you know how to whistle, don't you. You just put your lips together and .... blow. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are all crazy. --Earthland (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those others, yes... But I... I am a Christian! --Idiot number 58 (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No you're not, you're an important archaeological horizon around 5500 to 4500 BCE. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, Rainy Day Idiots #57 & #58, what's your problem with gay sex? Seriously, don't knock it unless you've tried it. Only another man really understands what to do with a penis. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid (< is it with two f's?) I'll have to dump you, honey
I decided that a senile pro-abortion British pensioner with two wives is not what I'm interested in. So you'll have to do with Lisa and Judy or just Jack off (I believe this is the expression you, native speakers, use?). Also, I think I'll have my mental orgasmes in some more suitable places than this largely anti-intellectual and overwhelmingly boring website.

Maybe I'll visit you some time, honey, but I doubt that. Bye. --Earthland (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind, we'll always have Paris. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)