max headroom, looking for his long lost brain
> Ördög
>> max headroom, looking for his long lost brain
>>> Ördög
>>>> max headroom, looking for his long lost brain
>
>>>>> Testimony based on hearsay is not admissible in a court of law but it is
>>>>> admissible before a partisan Congressional committee.

YAWN! Testimonies given so far under oath are quite convincing...apart
from the mountains of other supporting evidence collected so far.

And you can stick up your arse your typical alt-right cyber-sewer MAGA
insurrection apologist sources.

>> YAWN! Grabbing for straws.
>
> Posting citations...
...to MAGA insurrectionist apologist sources. LOL!
>
>>>> FOAD lowlife gun-fucker Trumpist creep.
>
>>> Sorry to disturb you with facts.
>
>> You have never ever posted anything factual nor rational to Usenet in
>> your sorry good for nothing gunfucked life.
>
> Ooops. Looks like you just lied again.

Another YAWN!. For all lowlife MAGA/Trump-cultist/white
supremacist/gun-fanatic creeps like you facts and reality are lies. As
expected.

>> Get lost troll from aus.politics. FOAD!
>
> You first.
>

No can do. Aus.politics is my home group you fucking know nothing septic
trash scumbag who somehow escaped the confines of the talk.politics.guns
mental asylum septic newsgroup.

FOAD!

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

Max wrote:
> On 3/07/2022 10:00 am, Ördög wrote:
>> Max
>>
>>> Fran
>>>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have human
>>>> DNA.
>>>>
>>> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a
>>> normal growing fetus which will become a baby.
>>>
>>> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby?  I think not.
>>
>> Have you ever seen a still birth or any form other form of birth defect?
>> There are spontaneous mutations which are compatible with life and
>> there are ones which ain't. And that is the same at the cellular level.
>>
>> Look, I do understand that you want so desperately to win this debate
>> here but if you do stay away from the science part. Stick to the your
>> "moral" (whatever that might might to you), social and legal
>> arguments. Of course, I also know why you have attempted to argue the
>> science angle: it is harder to refute than the subjective moral and
>> social ones.
>>
>> However! Progressive leftist like me or even political centrist like
>> Fran you will never convince of anything if you deny the women's full
>> autonomy over what happens to their bodies.
>>
>
> Why are you such a rabid, agressive lefie, always telling people to FOAD
> all the time?

Did I?
Telling everyone?
C'me on.You do know or should know that is really NOT the case.

But I fully admit, I am merciless towards aggressive and unrepentant
trolls, specially the 'know nothing about Australia' septic ones and
those home grown mis-educated, brain-washed/brain dead creeps who spew
mindless far-right and often religious loon propaganda into the
newsgroup rubbishing and abusing all who try to argue a more moderate
position while denying openly all facts and reality not supporting their
extremist causes.

I shall never apologies for taking a far-left's position on cultural,
political and social issues. Someone has to put up the contrasting
opinions representing the Left into the public domain which is currently
so heavily overrun by hard-right/alt-right propaganda warriors.
>
> Are you just nuts from posting in this newsgroup for so long?

YAWN! That was just a very pathetic comment coming from you.

I respond to every post on its merits mirroring the exact degree of
aggressiveness and quality (or the lack thereof) of content.

That applies to you too. If you bite me I bite back. HARD!
And I shall never apologise for that.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

On 3/07/2022 3:18 pm, Ördög wrote:
> Max wrote:
>> On 3/07/2022 10:00 am, Ördög wrote:
>>> Max
>>>
>>>> Fran
>>>>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have human
>>>>> DNA.
>>>>>
>>>> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a
>>>> normal growing fetus which will become a baby.
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby?  I think not.
>>>
>>> Have you ever seen a still birth or any form other form of birth defect?
>>> There are spontaneous mutations which are compatible with life and
>>> there are ones which ain't. And that is the same at the cellular level.
>>>
>>> Look, I do understand that you want so desperately to win this debate
>>> here but if you do stay away from the science part. Stick to the your
>>> "moral" (whatever that might might to you), social and legal
>>> arguments. Of course, I also know why you have attempted to argue the
>>> science angle: it is harder to refute than the subjective moral and
>>> social ones.
>>>
>>> However! Progressive leftist like me or even political centrist like
>>> Fran you will never convince of anything if you deny the women's full
>>> autonomy over what happens to their bodies.
>>>
>>
>> Why are you such a rabid, agressive lefie, always telling people to
>> FOAD all the time?
>
> Did I?
> Telling everyone?
> C'me on.You do know or should know that is really NOT the case.
>
> But I fully admit, I am merciless towards aggressive and unrepentant
> trolls, specially the 'know nothing about Australia' septic ones and
> those home grown mis-educated, brain-washed/brain dead creeps who spew
> mindless far-right and often religious loon propaganda into the
> newsgroup rubbishing and abusing all who try to argue a more moderate
> position while denying openly all facts and reality not supporting their
> extremist causes.
>
> I shall never apologies for taking a far-left's position on cultural,
> political and social issues. Someone has to put up the contrasting
> opinions representing the Left into the public domain which is currently
> so heavily overrun by hard-right/alt-right propaganda warriors.

Would you like it if Labor was in power for the next 100 years?

>>
>> Are you just nuts from posting in this newsgroup for so long?
>
> YAWN! That was just a very pathetic comment coming from you.
>
> I respond to every post on its merits mirroring the exact degree of
> aggressiveness and quality (or the lack thereof) of content.
>
> That applies to you too. If you bite me I bite back. HARD!
> And I shall never apologise for that.
>

On 3/07/2022 1:12 pm, Fran wrote:
> On 2/07/2022 1:53 pm, Max wrote:
>> On 2/07/2022 12:08 pm, Ördög wrote:
>>> Max on his trolling tour of aus.politics.\
>>>
>>>> Ördög wrote:
>>>>> Max just  keeps on trolling
>>>>>
>>>>> /Autosnip all virulent trolling crap/
>>>>>
>>>>> /and snip some more manually/
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>> That is just a bullshit strawman.  MY  'premise' (as opposed to
>>>>>>> your strawman claim) is that survival of the fetus depends on the
>>>>>>> placenta!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything I wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly has no
>>>>>>> idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the fetus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human DNA
>>>>>> and a tumor does not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA.
>>>>> But you do!
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses the
>>>>> full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the
>>>> fetus.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming your scientific semi literacy.
>>>
>>> Point mutations are also possible in the cells of a developing fetus.
>>> What do you thinks birth defects and many of the spontaneous
>>> miscarriages are due to, eh?
>>>
>>
>> The difference between tumor DNA and fetus DNA would be clear to any
>> scientist.
>
> Ordog IS a scientist!!!!!!!    He's given you all the information needed
> to figure out how and why you are wrong.
>
>> Why are you even suggesting they could be the same, which is what Fran
>> was disputing?
>
> Learn to read for comprehension as he did NOT not suggest they are the
> same!!!!!!!
> In short, both Ordog and I have told you (multiple times and in multiple
> ways) that the DNA (ie the genetic material) in both a fetus and a
> cancer/tumour is HUMAN but for some reason you seem to have trouble
> accepting that applies. Neither Ordog nor myself said it's the SAME DNA
> in both a fetus and/or a cancer because we both know that is NOT
> possible  BUT it IS human DNA in both a fetus and a cancer/tumour.
>

The point is that a tumor can be identified as mutant by seeing that its
DNA is different to fetus DNA.

So if a tumor was growing in the uterus you could quite easily identify
it as not being a fetus and therefore cut it out and throw it in the
hosptial incinerator.

If it is a fetus then you know it is a human life and you don't kill it.

It really is that simple. I'm amazed that people like you and Ordog
can't see it this way.

You are too busy thinking of the latest leftist bandwagon to jump on.

>>> Even more significantly not all point mutations are defects of
>>> importance.
>>>
>>> Please do try catching up on the science of genetics before you spew
>>> cooked up semi-literate pretend scientific crap supporting your own
>>> political bigotry.
>>>
>>> NEXT!
>>
>> I bow down to your knowledge of science.  I didn't know you were a
>> scientist.
>
> There are many things you don't know and here you've demonstrated that
> you don't know how to read for comprehension.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:37:26 +1000, Ördög
<newsgroup.devil@Hell.Incorporated.biz> wrote:

>/snip
>> Fran is the "best" septic in this group
>
>Alas the village idiot has no idea what "septic" in aus.politics usage
>means.
>
<reams of your stinking shit flushed where it belongs>
>
Septic is for "septic tank"
Fran and Ordogs head is so full of shit you duo know nothing!
--
Petzl
Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

On 7/2/2022 1:57 PM, Max wrote:
> On 2/07/2022 11:15 am, Fran wrote:
>> On 1/07/2022 9:15 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>>> On 28/06/2022 1:02 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2022 10:08 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/06/2022 11:02 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/06/2022 4:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 26/06/2022 8:14 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 26/06/2022 7:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> shandows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a
>>>>>>>>>> woman what she may do with HER body. You should realise that
>>>>>>>>>> giving birth is one of the most deadly acts a woman can engage
>>>>>>>>>> in.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an
>>>>>>>>>> abortion, if she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right
>>>>>>>>>> to have a safe abortion, should she wish.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your
>>>>>>>>>> opinion where the Sun don't shine. This is a woman's choice,
>>>>>>>>>> not a male's. If a woman chooses not to engage in the
>>>>>>>>>> potentially deadly act of giving birth, then she should be
>>>>>>>>>> supported for her choice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What about the rights of the unborn child?  When do they get a
>>>>>>>>> say in what happens?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **I will say once more:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are a male, then stick your opinions up your arse. This
>>>>>>>> is a matter for women. The foetus cannot survive without a
>>>>>>>> woman. Therefore, it is part of a woman's body. Therefore, it is
>>>>>>>> a WOMAN'S choice. Not your and not mine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not an 'unborn child'. It is a foetus. It is a WOMAN'S
>>>>>>>> choice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not against abortions within reason but your arguments are
>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are they?  Explain how a fetus can survive without a woman's body?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's irrelevant and that argument relies on the false premise that
>>>>> the fetus is part of the woman.
>>>>
>>>> That is just a bullshit strawman.  MY  'premise' (as opposed to your
>>>> strawman claim) is that survival of the fetus depends on the placenta!
>>>>
>>>> It's not. Scientifically, logically and
>>>>> biologically the fetus is growing inside of the woman but not part
>>>>> of the woman...
>>>>
>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything I wrote
>>>>
>>>> in spades because the genetic code of a fetus is unique,
>>>>> not *shared* with the woman as it would be if the fetus was part of
>>>>> the woman.
>>>>
>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>
>>>>> This is an undisputed scientific and biological fact.
>>>>
>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly has no
>>>> idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the fetus.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human DNA and a
>>> tumor does not?
>>
>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have human DNA.
>>
>>
>
> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a normal
> growing fetus which will become a baby.
>
> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby?  I think not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You *think not*? That`s the truest words you`ve ever uttered!!.

On 3/07/2022 4:34 pm, Petzl wrote:
> Petzl
> Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
> the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
> Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
> --
> Petzl
> Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
> the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
> Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

This is so true. Socialists want everyone to be dragged down to the
level of the weakest people in society.

Under socialism, there is no reward for talent and effort.

On Sunday, 3 July 2022 at 18:15:39 UTC+10, Max wrote:
> On 3/07/2022 4:34 pm, Petzl wrote:
> > Petzl
> > Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
> > the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
> > Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
> > --
> > Petzl
> > Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
> > the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
> > Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
> This is so true. Socialists want everyone to be dragged down to the
> level of the weakest people in society.

So capitalism is bullying and piracy.
>
> Under socialism, there is no reward for talent and effort.

Fran wrote on 3/7/22 12:53 pm:
> On 2/07/2022 10:15 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Max wrote on 2/7/22 2:05 pm:
>>> On 2/07/2022 11:24 am, Fran wrote:
>>>> On 2/07/2022 10:38 am, Max wrote:
>>>>> On 2/07/2022 9:53 am, Ördög wrote:
>>>>>> Max just  keeps on trolling
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Autosnip all virulent trolling crap/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /and snip some more manually/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>>> That is just a bullshit strawman.  MY  'premise' (as
>>>>>>>> opposed to your strawman claim) is that survival of the
>>>>>>>> fetus depends on the placenta!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything
>>>>>>>> I wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly
>>>>>>>> has no idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the
>>>>>>>> fetus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human
>>>>>>> DNA and a tumor does not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA. But you
>>>>>> do!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses
>>>>>> the full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the
>>>>> fetus.
>>>>
>>>> Fuck you are dumb!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> He's confirming that the DNA of cells IS human but it's mutated.
>>>> The clue is in Ordog's first sentence "cancer cells also possess
>>>> the full genetic info OF THE HOST"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> So dumbo, if the host that has the cancer/tumour is a human, it's a
>>>>  cancer/tumour that has HUMAN DNA.  Not duck DNA, not Babboon DNA
>>>> or any other sort of DNA, it's human DNA.
>>>
>>> It is a different DNA to the host, otherwise it wouldn't be a mutant
>>> tumor?
>>>
>>> One set of cells is growing into a baby, the other is growing into a
>>>  disgusting mutant tumor.  Can you see the difference, or are you
>>> totally thick between the ears ?!
>>
>> ... and what if it's the DNA of the unborn baby that has mutated due to
>> the cancer/tumour??
>
> Hmmm  Do you mean the fetus has turned cancerous, or that the fetus has
> some mutations?  I don't think the latter is all that uncommon but I've
> never heard of a cancerous fetus but I guess that may be possible.
>
"foetus has some mutations" .... so some might 'auto-abort' .... or
actually be born and die very shortly there-after (i.e. possibly my
brother, who I never met/saw.) or those who might live on with some sort
of mutation/deformation!!
--
Daniel

Ördög wrote on 3/7/22 10:12 am:
> Daniel65
>
>> Max
>>> Fran
>>>> Max
>>>>> Ördög
>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>> Fran
>>>>>>>> That is just a bullshit strawman.  MY  'premise' (as
>>>>>>>> opposed to your strawman claim) is that survival of the
>>>>>>>> fetus depends on the placenta!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything
>>>>>>>> I wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly
>>>>>>>> has no idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the
>>>>>>>> fetus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human
>>>>>>> DNA and a tumor does not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA. But you
>>>>>> do!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses
>>>>>> the full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the
>>>>> fetus.
>>>>
>>>> Fuck you are dumb!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> He's confirming that the DNA of cells IS human but it's mutated.
>>>> The clue is in Ordog's first sentence "cancer cells also possess
>>>> the full genetic info OF THE HOST"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> So dumbo, if the host that has the cancer/tumour is a human, it's a
>>>>  cancer/tumour that has HUMAN DNA.  Not duck DNA, not Babboon DNA
>>>> or any other sort of DNA, it's human DNA.
>>>
>>> It is a different DNA to the host, otherwise it wouldn't be a mutant
>>> tumor?
>>>
>>> One set of cells is growing into a baby, the other is growing into a
>>>  disgusting mutant tumor.  Can you see the difference, or are you
>>> totally thick between the ears ?!
>>
>> ... and what if it's the DNA of the unborn baby that has mutated due to
>> the cancer/tumour??
>
> Hey Daniel, are you playing the "Devil's advocate here? He-he-he. ;)

Thinking about it ... yes, I think I am.

> Anyhow, I am greatly irritated when I see people trying to construct
> crazy arguments based on their own misunderstanding of science when in
> fact actually their actual aim is winning the subjective moral and
> social debate on the issue of contention.

UMMM!! Don't know if that's my aim or not ..... As I replied to Fran,
not all babies are born, and not all are born 'perfect' whatever
'perfect' might mean.
--
Daniel

Ördög wrote on 3/7/22 10:00 am:
> Max
>
>> Fran
>>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have
>>> human DNA.
>>>
>> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a
>> normal growing fetus which will become a baby.
>>
>> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby? I think not.
>
> Have you ever seen a still birth or any form other form of birth
> defect? There are spontaneous mutations which are compatible with
> life and there are ones which ain't. And that is the same at the
> cellular level.

If there weren't 'spontaneous mutations which are compatible with life",
we would all look exactly the same as our brothers/sisters, which, with
limited exceptions, we don't!!
--
Daniel

Ördög wrote on 3/7/22 10:32 am:
> Petz, the certifiable village idiot has spoken
>
> /snip/
>> Ordog is just capable of lying bullshit.
>
> Yet, you have never been able to factually pin any lies on me,

Hey!! Settle down, Ordog, Petzl isn't suggesting that you lied .... just
that, like everyone, you are CAPABLE of lying!! ;-)

Sure, he's never actually caught you lying, but that doesn't mean you
are incapable!! ;-)

Least that's the way I'm reading his response!!
--
Daniel

On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 14:20:56 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 3/07/2022 10:00 am, Ördög wrote:
>> Max
>>
>>> Fran
>>>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have human
>>>> DNA.
>>>>
>>> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a
>>> normal growing fetus which will become a baby.
>>>
>>> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby? I think not.
>> Have you ever seen a still birth or any form other form of birth
>> defect?
>> There are spontaneous mutations which are compatible with life and
>> there are ones which ain't. And that is the same at the cellular level.
>> Look, I do understand that you want so desperately to win this debate
>> here but if you do stay away from the science part. Stick to the your
>> "moral" (whatever that might might to you), social and legal arguments.
>> Of course, I also know why you have attempted to argue the science
>> angle: it is harder to refute than the subjective moral and social ones.
>> However! Progressive leftist like me or even political centrist like
>> Fran you will never convince of anything if you deny the women's full
>> autonomy over what happens to their bodies.
>>
>
> Why are you such a rabid, agressive lefie, always telling people to FOAD
> all the time?
>
> Are you just nuts from posting in this newsgroup for so long?

It was born nuts, just like all wogs, dagos etc.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 16:14:34 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 3/07/2022 3:18 pm, Ördög wrote:
>> Max wrote:
>>> On 3/07/2022 10:00 am, Ördög wrote:
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>>> Fran
>>>>>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have human
>>>>>> DNA.
>>>>>>
>>>>> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a
>>>>> normal growing fetus which will become a baby.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby? I think not.
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever seen a still birth or any form other form of birth
>>>> defect?
>>>> There are spontaneous mutations which are compatible with life and
>>>> there are ones which ain't. And that is the same at the cellular
>>>> level.
>>>>
>>>> Look, I do understand that you want so desperately to win this debate
>>>> here but if you do stay away from the science part. Stick to the your
>>>> "moral" (whatever that might might to you), social and legal
>>>> arguments. Of course, I also know why you have attempted to argue the
>>>> science angle: it is harder to refute than the subjective moral and
>>>> social ones.
>>>>
>>>> However! Progressive leftist like me or even political centrist like
>>>> Fran you will never convince of anything if you deny the women's full
>>>> autonomy over what happens to their bodies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you such a rabid, agressive lefie, always telling people to
>>> FOAD all the time?
>> Did I?
>> Telling everyone?
>> C'me on.You do know or should know that is really NOT the case.
>> But I fully admit, I am merciless towards aggressive and unrepentant
>> trolls, specially the 'know nothing about Australia' septic ones and
>> those home grown mis-educated, brain-washed/brain dead creeps who spew
>> mindless far-right and often religious loon propaganda into the
>> newsgroup rubbishing and abusing all who try to argue a more moderate
>> position while denying openly all facts and reality not supporting
>> their extremist causes.
>> I shall never apologies for taking a far-left's position on cultural,
>> political and social issues. Someone has to put up the contrasting
>> opinions representing the Left into the public domain which is
>> currently so heavily overrun by hard-right/alt-right propaganda
>> warriors.
>
> Would you like it if Labor was in power for the next 100 years?

Federal Labor isnt left most of the time.

>>> Are you just nuts from posting in this newsgroup for so long?
>> YAWN! That was just a very pathetic comment coming from you.
>> I respond to every post on its merits mirroring the exact degree of
>> aggressiveness and quality (or the lack thereof) of content.
>> That applies to you too. If you bite me I bite back. HARD!
>> And I shall never apologise for that.
>>

On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 21:05:23 +1000, Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:

> Ördög wrote on 3/7/22 10:00 am:
>> Max
>>
>>> Fran
>>>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have
>>>> human DNA.
>>>>
>>> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a
>>> normal growing fetus which will become a baby.
>>> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby? I think not.
>> Have you ever seen a still birth or any form other form of birth
>> defect? There are spontaneous mutations which are compatible with
>> life and there are ones which ain't. And that is the same at the
>> cellular level.
>
> If there weren't 'spontaneous mutations which are compatible with life",
> we would all look exactly the same as our brothers/sisters,

That utterly mangles the real story. Mutations aren't the reason for
natural variation.

> which, with limited exceptions, we don't!!

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

> Socialism is a philosophy of failure,

Bullshit.

> the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,

More mindless bullshit.

> Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

No misery involved with Medicare instead of an insurance system.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Petzl respouted mindless yankee crap

>> Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
>> the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
>> Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

> This is so true.

Nope, none of it is.

> Socialists want everyone to be dragged downto the level of the weakest
> people in society.

More mindless bullshit, most obviously with Medicare.

> Under socialism, there is no reward for talent and effort.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage and that's
saying something.

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote
> Max wrote
>> Petzl wrote

>>> Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
>>> the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
>>> Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

>> This is so true. Socialists want everyone to be dragged down to the
>> level of the weakest people in society.

> So capitalism is bullying and piracy.

Nope, the most effective way of producing what matters to most of us.

>> Under socialism, there is no reward for talent and effort.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 20:27:50 +1000, Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:

> Fran wrote on 3/7/22 12:53 pm:
>> On 2/07/2022 10:15 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Max wrote on 2/7/22 2:05 pm:
>>>> On 2/07/2022 11:24 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>> On 2/07/2022 10:38 am, Max wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/07/2022 9:53 am, Ördög wrote:
>>>>>>> Max just keeps on trolling
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Autosnip all virulent trolling crap/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /and snip some more manually/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That is just a bullshit strawman. MY 'premise' (as
>>>>>>>>> opposed to your strawman claim) is that survival of the
>>>>>>>>> fetus depends on the placenta!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yawn. You're answering your own strawman and not anything
>>>>>>>>> I wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So? Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly
>>>>>>>>> has no idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the
>>>>>>>>> fetus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human
>>>>>>>> DNA and a tumor does not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA. But you
>>>>>>> do!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses
>>>>>>> the full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the
>>>>>> fetus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuck you are dumb!!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> He's confirming that the DNA of cells IS human but it's mutated.
>>>>> The clue is in Ordog's first sentence "cancer cells also possess
>>>>> the full genetic info OF THE HOST"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> So dumbo, if the host that has the cancer/tumour is a human, it's a
>>>>> cancer/tumour that has HUMAN DNA. Not duck DNA, not Babboon DNA
>>>>> or any other sort of DNA, it's human DNA.
>>>>
>>>> It is a different DNA to the host, otherwise it wouldn't be a mutant
>>>> tumor?
>>>>
>>>> One set of cells is growing into a baby, the other is growing into a
>>>> disgusting mutant tumor. Can you see the difference, or are you
>>>> totally thick between the ears ?!
>>>
>>> ... and what if it's the DNA of the unborn baby that has mutated due to
>>> the cancer/tumour??
>> Hmmm Do you mean the fetus has turned cancerous, or that the fetus
>> has some mutations? I don't think the latter is all that uncommon but
>> I've never heard of a cancerous fetus but I guess that may be possible.

> "foetus has some mutations" .... so some might 'auto-abort' ....

It isn't just mutations that cause miscarriages.

> or actually be born and die very shortly there-after

Or be born and die of their genetic deficiencys much earlier than others..

> (i.e. possibly my brother, who I never met/saw.)

Or the miscarraige before me, sex unknown.

> or those who might live on with some sort of mutation/deformation!!

Or die earlier due to it.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 06:21:47 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 21:05:23 +1000, Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org>
>wrote:
>
>> Ördög wrote on 3/7/22 10:00 am:
>>> Max
>>>
>>>> Fran
>>>>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have
>>>>> human DNA.
>>>>>
>>>> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a
>>>> normal growing fetus which will become a baby.
>>>> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby? I think not.
>>> Have you ever seen a still birth or any form other form of birth
>>> defect? There are spontaneous mutations which are compatible with
>>> life and there are ones which ain't. And that is the same at the
>>> cellular level.
>>
>> If there weren't 'spontaneous mutations which are compatible with life",
>> we would all look exactly the same as our brothers/sisters,
>
>That utterly mangles the real story. Mutations aren't the reason for
>natural variation.

Yes they are. It's called evolution. Natural nuclides emit DNA-
altering radiation of various sorts.

On a related point, why don't we screen breeding pairs for
disease-causing recessive genes and chromosomal disorders?

In fact why don't babies (the born ones) have a genetic fingerprint
attached to their birth certificate? Who wants to marry someone with
a toxic recessive gene?

>
>> which, with limited exceptions, we don't!!

On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 07:10:36 +1000, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 06:21:47 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 21:05:23 +1000, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ördög wrote on 3/7/22 10:00 am:
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>>> Fran
>>>>>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have
>>>>>> human DNA.
>>>>>>
>>>>> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a
>>>>> normal growing fetus which will become a baby.
>>>>> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby? I think not.
>>>> Have you ever seen a still birth or any form other form of birth
>>>> defect? There are spontaneous mutations which are compatible with
>>>> life and there are ones which ain't. And that is the same at the
>>>> cellular level.
>>>
>>> If there weren't 'spontaneous mutations which are compatible with
>>> life",
>>> we would all look exactly the same as our brothers/sisters,
>>
>> That utterly mangles the real story. Mutations aren't the reason for
>> natural variation.

> Yes they are.

No they are not. The whole point of sexual reproduction
as opposed to asexual reproduction is to get lots more
natural variation so that natural selection has something
more than mutation which isn't that common, to work on.

> It's called evolution.

Sexual reproduction is FAR more significant to evolution.

> Natural nuclides emit DNA-
> altering radiation of various sorts.

That is a tiny part of evolution.

> On a related point, why don't we screen breeding pairs for
> disease-causing recessive genes and chromosomal disorders?

In fact we actually do that exact opposite with those who fail to
breed naturally with IVF etc and not letting unviable premature
babys just die.

> In fact why don't babies (the born ones) have agenetic fingerprint
> attached to their birth certificate?

For the same reason we don't attach their normal fingerprint either.

> Who wants to marry someone with a toxic recessive gene?

Plenty go even further and deliberately breed with those and take their
chances.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 06:26:58 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
>
>Bullshit.
>
>> the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
>
>More mindless bullshit.
>
>> Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
>
>Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>
>No misery involved with Medicare instead of an insurance system.
>
Always had medical insurance, before Medicare (1984) no queues in
waiting rooms, cost of insurance real low now a pricey near broken
scam. The hospitals over flowing and run like a battle ground.
--
Petzl
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money. #Sir Ronald Millar

All governments lie about some things, but Biden's totalitarian run
government lie's about everything.

On March fourteenth, in the year of our Lord. Eighteen eighty three
Karl Marx made his most important contribution to mankind...
He died

There is no difference between communism and socialism,
except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end:
communism proposes to enslave men by force,
socialism - by vote.
It is merely the difference between murder and suicide
#Margaret Thatcher

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> respewed mindless yankee bullshit

>>> Socialism is a philosophy of failure,

>> Bullshit.

>>> the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,

>> More mindless bullshit.

>>> Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

>> No misery involved with Medicare instead of an insurance system.

> Always had medical insurance,

More fool you at that age.

> before Medicare (1984) no queues in waiting rooms,

BULLSHIT.

> cost of insurance real low

BULLSHIT.

> now a pricey near broken scam.

Because we can do far more medically than we used to in those days.

If you had heart attack, you get to die.

> The hospitals over flowing

They did during the spanish flu too.

> and run like a battle ground.

BULLSHIT.

Pity about the roads, airports, cops, defense of the country, electricity,
gas, schools, postal service etc etc etc, ALL due to socialism.

On 25/6/22 08:13, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **So you say, but history proves you wrong (again):
>
> https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-australia-blew-its-future-gas-supplies-20170928-gyqg0f.html
>
>
> https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6027806/gas-crisis-is-partly-of-the-coalitions-own-making/
>
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2003-10-24/howard-hails-potential-gas-export-deal-with-china/1498650
>

That SMH article by Tony Wright on its own is devastating.

Who are these government leaders, a bunch of international crooks or
just complete morons?

The fairest thing one could say is that they truly believed "markets
should rule" rather than having the government acting in the interests
of the country and the people.

Will we ever be rid of neoliberal market economics?

Those contracts should be torn up.

Max wrote:

/snip/

> Would you like it if Labor was in power for the next 100 years?

It could not be worse than having the LNP in power for the next 100 years.

But in any case, just to clarify: I am no mindless Labor party
supporter. I do not usually support parties which tolerate and/or
implement ruthless right-wing policies, not even Labor!
It is quite another matter, how I vote at elections as I usually cast my
vote very tactically in order to maximize the damage to the far right in
every possible aspect of its existence.

Hint: as a communist I can live with a properly functioning progressive
mild capitalist social democracy as the socio- and econopolitical system
of governance in a country (if I must).
But capitalist-conservative-libertarian, neo-liberal/neocon and/or
religious fundamentalist hard-right nepotistic corporate plutocracies I
find intolerable and quite unfit for continuing human existence on this
planet.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.