On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdghrbr@4ax .com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives
people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on
born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised
only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls, so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never made
that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed by
me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates
if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say that
my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's
dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else. If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with
choice
of the words you used to ask it.


Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.


The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the question. If you
disagree, explain why you asked the question.


Which question?

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:33:26 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:8tivl49tkmr0pt76p07cupret6cc5kut23@4ax. com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:jkhvl4l2c866mss9n3g83o0ia253kh6vqc@4a x.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdghrbr@ 4ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that
even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in
unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives
people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One
of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on
born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains
comprised
only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per
1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In
other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls,
so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that
you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never
made
that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed
by
me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy
rates
if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a
problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say
that
my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's
dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't
said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else.
If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for
them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with
choice
of the words you used to ask it.


Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.


The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the question. If
you
disagree, explain why you asked the question.


Which question?


Step backward 3-4 messages (of yours) to where it says (typed by you) "I
asked you this..."


This question?

"You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?"

The reason for that question was purely to solicit your opinion.


This time, you left out the pathetic second question, which was the reason
that both questions were lame and had no honorable purpose.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:33:26 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:jkhvl4l2c866mss9n3g83o0ia253kh6vqc@4ax .com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdghrbr@4 ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that
even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in
unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives
people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One
of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on
born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised
only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In
other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls,
so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never made
that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed
by
me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy
rates
if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say
that
my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's
dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't
said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else. If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for
them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with
choice
of the words you used to ask it.


Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.


The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the question. If
you
disagree, explain why you asked the question.


Which question?


Step backward 3-4 messages (of yours) to where it says (typed by you) "I
asked you this..."


This question?

"You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?"

The reason for that question was purely to solicit your opinion.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:40:32 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:33:26 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:8tivl49tkmr0pt76p07cupret6cc5kut23@4ax .com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:jkhvl4l2c866mss9n3g83o0ia253kh6vqc@4 ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdghrbr @4ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that
even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in
unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives
people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One
of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on
born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains
comprised
only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per
1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In
other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls,
so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that
you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never
made
that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed
by
me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy
rates
if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a
problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say
that
my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's
dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't
said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else.
If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for
them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with
choice
of the words you used to ask it.


Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.


The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the question. If
you
disagree, explain why you asked the question.


Which question?


Step backward 3-4 messages (of yours) to where it says (typed by you) "I
asked you this..."


This question?

"You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?"

The reason for that question was purely to solicit your opinion.


This time, you left out the pathetic second question, which was the reason
that both questions were lame and had no honorable purpose.


Goodness, you *are* a seeker of ulterior motives.

The purpose of the second was the same as that of the first.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:40:32 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:33:26 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:6msvl4d1e6c4a7hhp0qs000dm5gbvme3po@4ax. com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:8tivl49tkmr0pt76p07cupret6cc5kut23@4a x.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:jkhvl4l2c866mss9n3g83o0ia253kh6vqc@ 4ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdghrb ...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was
that
even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in
unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully
gives
people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way.
One
of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on
born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains
comprised
only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per
1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes,
live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In
other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare
rolls,
so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that
you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never
made
that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something
typed
by
me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy
rates
if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a
problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say
that
my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's
dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't
said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else.
If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for
them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with
choice
of the words you used to ask it.


Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.


The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the question.
If
you
disagree, explain why you asked the question.


Which question?


Step backward 3-4 messages (of yours) to where it says (typed by you)
"I
asked you this..."


This question?

"You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?"

The reason for that question was purely to solicit your opinion.


This time, you left out the pathetic second question, which was the reason
that both questions were lame and had no honorable purpose.


Goodness, you *are* a seeker of ulterior motives.

The purpose of the second was the same as that of the first.


No it wasn't, John. Know any English teachers? Show the pair of questions
(which you asked simultaneously) to the teacher and ask for help
understanding your own intent.

On Jan 3, 6:56*pm, John H wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:40:32 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:33:26 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:8tivl49tkmr0pt76p07cupret6cc5kut23@4ax .com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:jkhvl4l2c866mss9n3g83o0ia253kh6vqc@4 ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdghrbr @4ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that
even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in
unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives
people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One
of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on
born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains
comprised
only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.

You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per
1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In
other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls,
so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.

You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that
you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never
made
that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed
by
me,
which supports your claim.

I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy
rates
if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a
problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?

I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say
that
my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea..

Good luck with that.

Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's
dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't
said.
Don't you?

John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else.
If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for
them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with
choice
of the words you used to ask it.

Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.

The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the question.. If
you
disagree, explain why you asked the question.

Which question?

Step backward 3-4 messages (of yours) to where it says (typed by you) *"I
asked you this..."

This question?

"You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?"

The reason for that question was purely to solicit your opinion.

This time, you left out the pathetic second question, which was the reason
that both questions were lame and had no honorable purpose.

Goodness, you *are* a seeker of ulterior motives.

The purpose of the second was the same as that of the first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ever notice how the most informed folks pretend... er uh, I mean have
difficulty understanding questions they don't want to answer? snerk.

wrote:


Ever notice how the most informed folks pretend... er uh, I mean have
difficulty understanding questions they don't want to answer? snerk.


What I have noticed is some of the dumbest posters here get so confused
in their posts that it simply is not worth the time to try to figure out
what it is they are trying to say.

wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 6:56 pm, John H wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:40:32 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:33:26 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:8tivl49tkmr0pt76p07cupret6cc5kut23@4ax .com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:jkhvl4l2c866mss9n3g83o0ia253kh6vqc@4 ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdghrbr @4ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was
that
even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in
unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully
gives
people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way.
One
of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on
born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains
comprised
only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at
all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.

You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they
wait
longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per
1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes,
live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In
other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare
rolls,
so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.

You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim,
that
you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never
made
that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something
typed
by
me,
which supports your claim.

I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy
rates
if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a
problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think
it's
dishonest,
don't you?

I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and
say
that
my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.

Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's
dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't
said.
Don't you?

John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone
else.
If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall
for
them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question
with
choice
of the words you used to ask it.

Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.

The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the question.
If
you
disagree, explain why you asked the question.

Which question?

Step backward 3-4 messages (of yours) to where it says (typed by you)
"I
asked you this..."

This question?

"You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?"

The reason for that question was purely to solicit your opinion.

This time, you left out the pathetic second question, which was the
reason
that both questions were lame and had no honorable purpose.

Goodness, you *are* a seeker of ulterior motives.

The purpose of the second was the same as that of the first.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Ever notice how the most informed folks pretend... er uh, I mean have
difficulty understanding questions they don't want to answer? snerk.

================


What I've noticed is that some people, like John for instance, post things
they wish they'd never posted, after they've been called out about what
they've written. You are seeing a perfect example in John's current attempts
to disown the entirety of his TWO questions, which he asked simultaneously
for reasons he's embarrassed to admit.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 19:05:54 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:40:32 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:33:26 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:shtvl4tjevd6lcqicqbidk0a9ga65j67q6@4ax. com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:6msvl4d1e6c4a7hhp0qs000dm5gbvme3po@4a x.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:8tivl49tkmr0pt76p07cupret6cc5kut23@ 4ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:jkhvl4l2c866mss9n3g83o0ia253kh6vq ...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdgh ...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was
that
even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in
unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully
gives
people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way.
One
of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on
born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since
it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains
comprised
only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at
all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they
wait
longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per
1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes,
live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions.
In
other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare
rolls,
so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim,
that
you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never
made
that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something
typed
by
me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen
pregnancy
rates
if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a
problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think
it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and
say
that
my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good
idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's
dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that
weren't
said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone
else.
If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall
for
them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question
with
choice
of the words you used to ask it.


Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.


The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the
question.
If
you
disagree, explain why you asked the question.


Which question?


Step backward 3-4 messages (of yours) to where it says (typed by you)
"I
asked you this..."


This question?

"You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?"

The reason for that question was purely to solicit your opinion.


This time, you left out the pathetic second question, which was the
reason
that both questions were lame and had no honorable purpose.


Goodness, you *are* a seeker of ulterior motives.

The purpose of the second was the same as that of the first.


No it wasn't, John. Know any English teachers? Show the pair of questions
(which you asked simultaneously) to the teacher and ask for help
understanding your own intent.


Actually it was.

In that case, you failed in your attempt to do whatever the phuque it was
you were trying to do.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 19:05:54 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:40:32 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:33:26 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:6msvl4d1e6c4a7hhp0qs000dm5gbvme3po@4ax .com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:8tivl49tkmr0pt76p07cupret6cc5kut23@4 ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:jkhvl4l2c866mss9n3g83o0ia253kh6vqc @4ax.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdghr ...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was
that
even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in
unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully
gives
people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way.
One
of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on
born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains
comprised
only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per
1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes,
live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In
other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare
rolls,
so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that
you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never
made
that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something
typed
by
me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy
rates
if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a
problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say
that
my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's
dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't
said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else.
If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for
them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with
choice
of the words you used to ask it.


Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.


The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the question.
If
you
disagree, explain why you asked the question.


Which question?


Step backward 3-4 messages (of yours) to where it says (typed by you)
"I
asked you this..."


This question?

"You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?"

The reason for that question was purely to solicit your opinion.


This time, you left out the pathetic second question, which was the reason
that both questions were lame and had no honorable purpose.


Goodness, you *are* a seeker of ulterior motives.

The purpose of the second was the same as that of the first.


No it wasn't, John. Know any English teachers? Show the pair of questions
(which you asked simultaneously) to the teacher and ask for help
understanding your own intent.


Actually it was.