REAL information on abortion.

[Doc_Brown]

I think the main point of confusion is the definition of abortion. Yes, abortion can include anything, natural or unnatural, that terminates a fetus. "Natural abortions" are typically just referred to as miscarriages. No one that I know of has ever suggesting banning of miscarriages (apart from an intentional harming of the mother with the intent of causing her to miscarry). The statistics that have been used are all in regards to the motivations resulting in the choice to engage in an "unnatural abortion." Of those unnatural abortions, <10% (more or less depending on the exact set of statistics) are motivated by the life or health of mother or infant.

If you want to say that 90% of abortions are miscarriages, fine. It's irrelevant to any policy discussions. For the sake of clarity, all future references to "abortion" in any of my posts can be read as "abortion by unnatural means, not including miscarriages."

Also, in your first post here you included this line: (italics added)

#1. Other than the 9 out of 10 being done in the first trimester, this is just a list of top 5 reasons.
They are NOT in any order. In particular, failure to use birth control often overlaps with inability to care for a child., physical or mental conditions that endanger the health of the woman, etc.

This is not what the article said. This was a list of the motivations for any abortion, not just ones outside of the first trimester.

[Doc_Brown]

That last pretending "debate" on whether a newborn could be aborted was among the more digusting and I launched into this because greekdog tried to pretend it was a fully legitimate debate. (and I provide a lengthy set of quotes showing that this is hardly an irrelevant and isolated "question".. but is really just one more attack on legal abortion).

That discussion was motivated by a peer-reviewed article in a respected scientific journal by doctors that accepted abortion as a common and acceptable choice. To reiterate, pro-choice people started that discussion. You're quite right that their logic can be used by pro-life people as an argument against abortion, but in order for that to even be a possibility, the validity of their logic has to be evaluated. That was what our discussion was about. Until you came trolling, we were simply discussion the logic and arguments used in a scientific paper without regards to the political implications.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ultimately, does it matter how many voluntary abortions are performed? Every single one of them artificially kills a human life, which should be unacceptable to society. The removal of miscarriages from the body is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not voluntarily killing the unborn should be allowed. A debate that you, player, ALWAYS try to distort with continually throwing out that we're debating miscarriages instead of abortions.

It seems that miscarriages are partly due to the mother's stress and other health effects. If this is true, then should women be held accountable for leading a lifestyle which increases the chances of a miscarriage? In other words, assuming that "fetus = person" is true, should they be held accountable for causing the death of a person?

Then the question becomes: What's the optimal trade-off between reducing the risk of a miscarriage and increasing the satisfaction of one's life?

[Night Strike]

Ultimately, does it matter how many voluntary abortions are performed? Every single one of them artificially kills a human life, which should be unacceptable to society. The removal of miscarriages from the body is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not voluntarily killing the unborn should be allowed. A debate that you, player, ALWAYS try to distort with continually throwing out that we're debating miscarriages instead of abortions.

It seems that miscarriages are partly due to the mother's stress and other health effects. If this is true, then should women be held accountable for leading a lifestyle which increases the chances of a miscarriage? In other words, assuming that "fetus = person" is true, should they be held accountable for causing the death of a person?

Then the question becomes: What's the optimal trade-off between reducing the risk of a miscarriage and increasing the satisfaction of one's life?

Actually, the better question is, if the fetus is not a person, why are there laws punishing mothers who drink while pregnant and cause fetal alcohol syndrome? Remember, it's just a lump of cells that are a part of the woman's body. And you can't use some vague term of "stress" to determine what activities should or should not be allowed. Heck, pregnancy itself is stressful on the woman's body. However, it is very easy to delineate between a procedure that kills a living fetus and a procedure that removes an already-dead fetus from the body.

[thegreekdog]

Actually, more than just your own data, because I have repeatedly said that to know I am correct means look at more than just the top ten google citations, requires delving into where any statistics cited are from,e tc.

That is EXACTLY what I did... those are the only "extra" links I provided...t he ones you claim to be "political garbage". They are quotes from the papers referenced by the articles to which you linked.

They are political garbage because they don't address the data, they address why the data is not relevant (which is a political decision to make).

Well, like I said.. then you posted garbage.

Not only that, but the data and links do not refute what I said. The links do explain why some of that data is actually wrong.
But go ahead and keep claiming otherwise.

And, one that I happen to agree with - The reason why women have abortions is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to have abortions or whether the government pays for them or whether insurance pays for them.

Nope, that's what you claim. I say they ARE related.

The issue is that you're defending your position that the government and insurance should pay for abortions with the proposition that women who have elective abortions are doing so for reasons other than social reasons.

I have not said that, precisely because there is no clear definition of the term "social reasons". I HAVE said they are not just having abortions because having a child is "inconvenient" and a few other statements.. some of which you reposted above.

That's not a valid argument when the data shows that women who have elective abortions do so for social reasons. And oh, by the way, all of the websites I linked to say that... the pro-choice website, the neutral website, and the pro-life website... they all say women have abortions mostly, most commonly, for social reasons.

You have not shown that, at all. And you continue to use that term "social" reasons" as if it were a real meaningful term.

START by defining what you mean by that term, because so far you have given several definitions.

In fact, every one shows that medical reasons are a primary reason for having abortions. Your "data" though doesn't give real numbers, except the first site. That gives it in very loose, relative terms, not facts. The one posting supposed to have real data was blatantly false.. blatantly meaning that when you followed the link in the article that claimed to support its data, its either absent or refutes the original data.

The data is, by-the-way missing for a very important reason. It is VERY difficult to find real data, which was another of my points.

So, once again, you "refute" a point I never made, never will make.

This is not about honesty, truth or anything other than you trying to post as much garbage as you can until I get tired of refuting it.
Pretty much sums up the whole right wing side of this debate... dishonesty.

I am not making a right wing or any other wing argument.

I'm putting forward data... numbers, number-like statements such as "most" or "most common."

Here are the items that fall under the definition of "social reasons" (which you can find in any of the four links I've provided): (1) feels unready for child/responsiblity; (2) feels she can't afford baby; (3) has all the children she wants/other family responsibilities; (4) relationship problem/single motherhood; (5) feels she isn't mature enough; (6) interference with education/career plans; (7) parents/partner wants abortion.

Here, let's start with this premise before we go anywhere else. Just please answer these two questions only. I don't need another schpiel about misogyny or right wing values.

(1) Why do you think women have abortions, Player?

(2) Once you answer that question - Where did you get that data supporting your answer to (1)? Please provide a link to a website with data (either percentages or numbers or words like "most" or "most common").

Over the course of today, I've looked at 14 websites. None of them indicate that non-social reasons account for abortions. None.

[pmchugh]

I think you could sum up all my life's morals and points of view purely by taking the exact opposite of what player says.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ultimately, does it matter how many voluntary abortions are performed? Every single one of them artificially kills a human life, which should be unacceptable to society. The removal of miscarriages from the body is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not voluntarily killing the unborn should be allowed. A debate that you, player, ALWAYS try to distort with continually throwing out that we're debating miscarriages instead of abortions.

It seems that miscarriages are partly due to the mother's stress and other health effects. If this is true, then should women be held accountable for leading a lifestyle which increases the chances of a miscarriage? In other words, assuming that "fetus = person" is true, should they be held accountable for causing the death of a person?

Then the question becomes: What's the optimal trade-off between reducing the risk of a miscarriage and increasing the satisfaction of one's life?

Actually, the better question is, if the fetus is not a person, why are there laws punishing mothers who drink while pregnant and cause fetal alcohol syndrome? Remember, it's just a lump of cells that are a part of the woman's body. And you can't use some vague term of "stress" to determine what activities should or should not be allowed. Heck, pregnancy itself is stressful on the woman's body. However, it is very easy to delineate between a procedure that kills a living fetus and a procedure that removes an already-dead fetus from the body.

It's not just stress, hence "... and other health effects" and "...being held accountable for leading a lifestyle which increases the chances of a miscarriage."

If the "fetus = person" proponents want to be logically consistent, then they have to deal with "negligent homicides" from miscarriages due to the mother's lack of taking full precautions in mitigating the risks of a miscarriage.

What's the optimal trade-off between decreased chances of miscarriage and increases in satisfaction for the mother? At what point is the mother relinquished from being held accountable for accidentally "murdering someone?

[natty dread]

Actually, the better question is, if the fetus is not a person, why are there laws punishing mothers who drink while pregnant and cause fetal alcohol syndrome? Remember, it's just a lump of cells that are a part of the woman's body. And you can't use some vague term of "stress" to determine what activities should or should not be allowed. Heck, pregnancy itself is stressful on the woman's body. However, it is very easy to delineate between a procedure that kills a living fetus and a procedure that removes an already-dead fetus from the body.

No, that's a pretty stupid question, even coming from you.

Obviously, fetal alcohol syndrome affects the child that is born. Therefore the mother is committing a crime against the born child, not a fetus.

[PLAYER57832]

Ultimately, does it matter how many voluntary abortions are performed?

Truth ALWAYS matters. Christians are not taught to lie. That is Satan's tool. The Bible makes that clear over and over. In fact, using half truths.. giving partial truth and ignoring the rest, like claiming that there are 1.37 million "abortions" and not mentioning that "gee, about 1/3 of those numbers are miscarriages" is a lie, is actually worse than a flat lie, because it is harder to detect. That particular type of lie is prominent as being one of Satan's tools.

Sooo.. begin there. If this is, as so many claim a Christian debate, a debate about morality and following the Bible/God, then why the need to lie?

Even for those who don't use the "Christianity" argument (and yes, I realize you mostly have not), honesty and truth matters.

So, using your numbers, approximately 915,000 abortions are performed every year on fetuses that are still alive when the procedure takes place.

Try again. MY figures are that at the very most only about 20% even have a real chance at surviving through birth. (in THAT figure you do have to include the fully natural miscarriages, because often an abortion preemptive to prevent complications from a pending miscarriage, even if the baby has not yet miscarried).

That is still WAY too many.

Of course it is! ONE abortion of any kind is too many! But, are laws the best way to preven this? There are 2 ironies in your debate.

The first is that you have to subtract future siblings - -fully healthy, prepared for and very wanted siblings who would not be born if the first child (with the slim chance of survival) were not aborted.

Second, to illustrate exactly how hypocritical you are here, you ALSO have to recognize that the number one reason women have miscarriages, stillbirths and children with very serious issues is plain lack of medical care. Right now, you don't see that here in the US, because ALL prenatal care is still mandated coverage. But, hey, you, in your "brilliance" decide such coverage is just "not necessary" since the government has "no right to tell other people to get healthcare coverage".

And YES.. THAT absolutely is at risk. It is at risk directly and indirectly, because as I stated before, part of a woman getting the care she needs is the ability to freely see a gynecologist WITHOUT having to go through "gatekeepers" and the like. ALL of that is very much part of what is at risk here.

There are approximately 5 homicides per 100,000 people in the United States, which comes out to about 15,000 homicides every year. We as a society legally in the name of abortion kill 61 times per people every year than criminals kill illegally. Yet abortions should be condoned and even extolled? But that's ok. It's allowed because it's a woman's right to kill. This has nothing to do with the right to life.

It is allowed because in the first trimester, there is not enough of humanity there to be anything. That is so based on science and even most religions. There are, of course, a few exceptions.. groups that want to use their own defition. But, guess what. There are people who think that sperm and eggs alone are "life". the Roman Catholic Church is pretty close to that, in fact and may actually revise its thinking. (that is one of the reasons why masturbation is condemned, because it is "spilling seed").

You want freedom, but ONLY when the views agree with you. That is not real freedom, it is bullying.

[PLAYER57832]

Note how nothing you posted says what you claim. I made NO reference to social reasons. Again, I would not because its a meaningless term. You don't even provide a consistant definition.


ALL of those quotes are very much supported by the very links you provided in "dispute" of my comments... and yet you still want to claim a "win".

Player, this might be the quote of your claims that by all available data makes you completely wrong-

Oh.. the real number of women having a real and true wholly voluntary "i cannot be bothered to have this kid" is far less than 30%. By many its less than 10%.

You claim that less than 10% of abortions are for reasons other than rape/incest/health of the baby/health of the mother It seems that only 7% or so of ALL abortions are for those reasons.

NOPE, not really. I added quite a few more reasons to that. Also not sure where you get the 7% figure, but it is absolutely wrong. If it was from greekdog's posting... read through my post and you will see that the paper referenced by that link, where the data supposedly came from said no such thing. In fact, one of their links to a blog was flat out empty. So, it was just an incendiary title to make people THINK there was a real article there.

First, understand that the 1.3 million or 1.2 million (the difference depends on the year, not the way the data was collected), includes all dilation and Extraction procedures, D & C, etc. those are procedures often used to remove early miscarried children. You WON'T find those statistics because most people in this debate don't even acknowledge that fact. There just are not reliable statistics on the number of those that are living, technically living but doomed to die naturally, or actually already dead. The figures I use, are based on miscarriage rates for pregnancies overall.. from 30-50%, combined with data accumulated through questionaire surveys and such. The medical data just gives procedures and some specific reasons. THAT is why so many figures vary so widely... the person collecting the data has a lot of control over how the questions are worded, etc.

Then, as I also said, you have to recognize that the lowest figures used
The other 93% or so of abortions are for "I don't have enough money/I don't have a partner/I don't want a baby/it's not a good time" or such. All of which boils down to "I can't be bothered to have a kid".

Even if your 7% figure were correct, which it absolutely is NOT, you neglect a LOT of categories.

For example, you completely ignore where I said that in most cases, threatens the life/health of the mother is very specific, meaning that the mother's life is immediately at risk if the abortion does not happen immediately. That was not even the case for me, when my child was already dead. i could have let it go natural, but would have risked getting an allergic reaction (that's the problem with rH.. you can be allergic to your child's blood and then will spontaneously abort any future children), nto having any other children. It was therefore classified as a scheduled, voluntary or "at will" abortion in most statistics. ONLY if the statistics involve actual interviews with patients do you get other information. For a lot of reasons, this is very difficult to do.
Its even harder now, with HEPA than in the past.

Your statement in red (so you don't miss it) is completely false. I know you won't admit you are wrong, but I'm sure just about everyone else knows you're wrong.

No, its not.. even greekdog's information (the first 4 links, not that garbage fraud he posted the second time) concure with my figures.

YOU make many claims here, but have not given one single citation. I have repeatedly done so. i went through greekdog's information piece by piece. If you have data.. show it, but be aware that unless you are willing to actually track down where that data came from, you will likely wind up with something utterly false, because one thing the so-called "right to life" movement could care less about is real honesty and integrity in their data. Scientists, by contrast.. very much DO.

[PLAYER57832]

I think you could sum up all my life's morals and points of view purely by taking the exact opposite of what player says.

Funny, because you don't seem to have any sort of understanding of what my positions really ARE.

If you did, you would know that I abhore abortion, but still think it NEEDS to be legal. I think the way to prevent abortions is to educate and to provide consistant and good overall healthcare to men and women, but particularly to women.

I also think that most of you in this debate insist that your positions are correct, but even when challenged are just too lazy to do any kind of real research to see if your "facts" are actually correct. You claim I am incorrect, because you find some unverified or actually proven false link somewhere... and don't seem to understand that that means you are a party to the lies being presented by the right wing.

[Symmetry]

There's also a third reason why the argument against legalised abortions is hypocritical- that making them illegal does not appear to actually reduce the rate of abortions. It simply makes them more dangerous, and, in some cases seems to actually increase national rates of abortion. Makes sense if you're willing to think of abortion providers as providing more than just abortions, but also advice on adoptions and general contraception- that is, long term family planning.

How, precisely, NS proposes to deal with a murder rate (assuming he does want to make abortion an offense equivalent to murder) 61 times greater than the rate the overburdened prison system in the US already deals with, and given that there would likely be multiple offenders for each abortion (say, the potential mother, members of the family, the abortionist...), well... how he thinks the US will soak up the cost of investigating, trying, and incarcerating all those people, is quite beyond me.

[bradleybadly]

Player should have her own REAL show on MSNBC where REAL facts are presented, and everyone who disagrees is just not being REAL but rather part of an elaborate right wing conspiracy.

[patches70]

Player, there are two types of abortions, induced and spontaneous.
Spontaneous is miscarriages. Lots of miscarriages go unreported because most happen before a woman even knows she's pregnant.

Induced abortions however, are all reported and recorded. Unless of course the woman is going to a black market abortion doctor.
Those figures are all well documented and collected.

Do you understand we are talking about induced abortions, right?
Are you maintaining that no one can figure out how many induced abortions are done each year in the US?

[Phatscotty]

abortion isn't ready to dominate a week in the news cycle yet in another attempt to draw discussion away from the economy.

[PLAYER57832]

Player should have her own REAL show on MSNBC where REAL facts are presented, and everyone who disagrees is just not being REAL but rather part of an elaborate right wing conspiracy.

Find the data to refute what I say.

You want to "walk the talk" then "walk the walk". BUT.. like I said, be sure of your sources! Greekdog made a pretty disgusting mess of that part.

but oh... I won't have this much time for probably a week or so. Possibly not then (depends on the snow fall)

[Symmetry]

Player, there are two types of abortions, induced and spontaneous.
Spontaneous is miscarriages. Lots of miscarriages go unreported because most happen before a woman even knows she's pregnant.

Induced abortions however, are all reported and recorded. Unless of course the woman is going to a black market abortion doctor.
Those figures are all well documented and collected.

Do you understand we are talking about induced abortions, right?
Are you maintaining that no one can figure out how many induced abortions are done each year in the US?

NS is suggesting that women who drink alcohol be included in terms of induced abortions, I think Player has a point that the line has been blurred.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/19/utah-passes-bill-that-charges-women-for-illegal-abortion-or-miscarriage

[PLAYER57832]

Player, there are two types of abortions, induced and spontaneous.
Spontaneous is miscarriages. Lots of miscarriages go unreported because most happen before a woman even knows she's pregnant.

Induced abortions however, are all reported and recorded. Unless of course the woman is going to a black market abortion doctor.
Those figures are all well documented and collected.

Do you understand we are talking about induced abortions, right?
Are you maintaining that no one can figure out how many induced abortions are done each year in the US?

EXCEPT.. "induced abortions" include surgical removal of miscarried children. (not to mention those who are doomed to die in vitro despite the most advanced medical care and those who if left to go would seriously threaten the mother's life).

IF you had bothered to follow up on those links, to read through the data I have presented more than once, you would already know that.

AND, actually as Symmetry indicated, if NS said that drinking too much alchohol could be considered "inducing" an abortion, he's actually correct. Any chemical that causes an abortion is considered to be inducing one.

The thing is that evidence on alchohol and pregnancy is a bit muddied. Research does link some problems, but the amount needed, etc is all up to question. To drink tenough to induce an immediate abortion much alchohol is likely to do serious harm to the mother as well. (though there are too many variables here to be certain of that). Fetal alcohol (metioned above), by contrast, is about long term and perhaps minor exposures. (that is, it may be smaller amounts but over a long time that cuase the problem) A lot is not understood yet about fetal alchohol syndrom. Some doctors suggest that a small amount of alchohol at specific stages might even be good.. or at least not so bad, but that is VERY controversial. (I just mention it to show exactly how muddied all this can get).

[bradleybadly]

Player should have her own REAL show on MSNBC where REAL facts are presented, and everyone who disagrees is just not being REAL but rather part of an elaborate right wing conspiracy.

Find the data to refute what I say.

You want to "walk the talk" then "walk the walk". BUT.. like I said, be sure of your sources! Greekdog made a pretty disgusting mess of that part.

but oh... I won't have this much time for probably a week or so. Possibly not then (depends on the snow fall)

I've played that game with you before only to have you hoot and howl over how the REAL issue is something other than what's been cited that you don't like. This thread is just the latest in a long line of your ideological sermons. That first page was an absolute classic - writing so much as to not only convince yourself that you're right, but to also drown out dissent. I'm content to sit back and watch tgd kick your rherorical ass

[Symmetry]

Player should have her own REAL show on MSNBC where REAL facts are presented, and everyone who disagrees is just not being REAL but rather part of an elaborate right wing conspiracy.

Find the data to refute what I say.

You want to "walk the talk" then "walk the walk". BUT.. like I said, be sure of your sources! Greekdog made a pretty disgusting mess of that part.

but oh... I won't have this much time for probably a week or so. Possibly not then (depends on the snow fall)

I've played that game with you before only to have you hoot and howl over how the REAL issue is something other than what's been cited that you don't like. This thread is just the latest in a long line of your ideological sermons. That first page was an absolute classic - writing so much as to not only convince yourself that you're right, but to also drown out dissent. I'm content to sit back and watch tgd kick your rherorical ass

Alas, TGD, much as I disagree with both him and Player fairly often, listens to reason when it's presented and doesn't have quite the persecution complex you employ in virtually all of your posts. Try talking rather than drowning out arguments with droll posts about how you tried arguing before and can't be bothered anymore, because, of course, you're right and anyone who disagrees is simply trying to drown out dissent.

[thegreekdog]

It would be helpful if someone who Player thinks is pro-choice tried to reason with her. I'm pro-choice, but she doesn't seem to believe I am. Symmetry? Neoteny? Frigidus? Anyone? Help?

[Symmetry]

It would be helpful if someone who Player thinks is pro-choice tried to reason with her. I'm pro-choice, but she doesn't seem to believe I am. Symmetry? Neoteny? Frigidus? Anyone? Help?

Part of the problem here is that you let yourself get lumped in with other posters when you're disagreeing with a certain point of view. It's often difficult to discern or address a unique set of points when three or four posters attack a single post, but never show disagreement with one another.

I've found it difficult to discuss a point with you when your response follows or is mixed with those of BBS and Saxi, and you don't engage with their posts at all. Default is to think that you're pretty much ok with their messages, but it will distort your own message.

Basically, it comes across as only disagreeing to the points you disagree with. The sad corollary is that you also come across as being in general agreement with the rest, or at least, not at a point where you think the points are worth disagreement.

[tkr4lf]

Player should have her own REAL show on MSNBC where REAL facts are presented, and everyone who disagrees is just not being REAL but rather part of an elaborate right wing conspiracy.

Find the data to refute what I say.

You want to "walk the talk" then "walk the walk". BUT.. like I said, be sure of your sources! Greekdog made a pretty disgusting mess of that part.

but oh... I won't have this much time for probably a week or so. Possibly not then (depends on the snow fall)

I've played that game with you before only to have you hoot and howl over how the REAL issue is something other than what's been cited that you don't like. This thread is just the latest in a long line of your ideological sermons. That first page was an absolute classic - writing so much as to not only convince yourself that you're right, but to also drown out dissent. I'm content to sit back and watch tgd kick your rherorical ass

Alas, TGD, much as I disagree with both him and Player fairly often, listens to reason when it's presented and doesn't have quite the persecution complex you employ in virtually all of your posts. Try talking rather than drowning out arguments with droll posts about how you tried arguing before and can't be bothered anymore, because, of course, you're right and anyone who disagrees is simply trying to drown out dissent.

Sorry, but I have to agree with bradley. I can't be bothered anymore either trying to talk with player, it's like trying to talk to a brick wall. There is no point. Nothing gets through to her. You may as well try to teach calculus to an 8 year old kid with Down's Syndrome.

[Symmetry]

Player should have her own REAL show on MSNBC where REAL facts are presented, and everyone who disagrees is just not being REAL but rather part of an elaborate right wing conspiracy.

Find the data to refute what I say.

You want to "walk the talk" then "walk the walk". BUT.. like I said, be sure of your sources! Greekdog made a pretty disgusting mess of that part.

but oh... I won't have this much time for probably a week or so. Possibly not then (depends on the snow fall)

I've played that game with you before only to have you hoot and howl over how the REAL issue is something other than what's been cited that you don't like. This thread is just the latest in a long line of your ideological sermons. That first page was an absolute classic - writing so much as to not only convince yourself that you're right, but to also drown out dissent. I'm content to sit back and watch tgd kick your rherorical ass

Alas, TGD, much as I disagree with both him and Player fairly often, listens to reason when it's presented and doesn't have quite the persecution complex you employ in virtually all of your posts. Try talking rather than drowning out arguments with droll posts about how you tried arguing before and can't be bothered anymore, because, of course, you're right and anyone who disagrees is simply trying to drown out dissent.

Sorry, but I have to agree with bradley. I can't be bothered anymore either trying to talk with player, it's like trying to talk to a brick wall. There is no point. Nothing gets through to her. You may as well try to teach calculus to an 8 year old kid with Down's Syndrome.

And yet you post replies about how above replying you are.

[thegreekdog]

It would be helpful if someone who Player thinks is pro-choice tried to reason with her. I'm pro-choice, but she doesn't seem to believe I am. Symmetry? Neoteny? Frigidus? Anyone? Help?

Part of the problem here is that you let yourself get lumped in with other posters when you're disagreeing with a certain point of view. It's often difficult to discern or address a unique set of points when three or four posters attack a single post, but never show disagreement with one another.

I've found it difficult to discuss a point with you when your response follows or is mixed with those of BBS and Saxi, and you don't engage with their posts at all. Default is to think that you're pretty much ok with their messages, but it will distort your own message.

Basically, it comes across as only disagreeing to the points you disagree with. The sad corollary is that you also come across as being in general agreement with the rest, or at least, not at a point where you think the points are worth disagreement.

Two things:

(1) I acknowledge your point, agree with it, and am trying to rectify it on an ongoing basis.
(2) To be fair, most posters do that. Why would you argue with Player if you agree with her overall message? At least in the other thread, natty dread posted that graph (which apparently Player didn't look at).