Reminders: Things We All Know But Which Tend To Get Lost

[Joe Guy]

After reading & re-reading a few of quad's arguments and having given much thought to the issue, I have diagnosed that he is mentally disabled.

It was fun for a while to have a laugh at him when I believed that he was a somewhat intelligent person with a large ego who completely misunderstood a few issues.

But I now I have begun to feel sorry for him.

I've recently realized that quad is unable to understand many ideas & concepts and cannot communicate at an adult level. Further, he is incapable of separating his own invented reality from the obvious truth.

However, he does seem to have a masochistic tendency to place himself into embarrassing situations in a public format, therefore, he very likely enjoys being corrected in front of other people and seems to crave the attention given him when he is exposed for his lack of substance.

Therefore, I would like to make a request to all BBS participants;

Please continue to call quad on his lies & fantasies. But be gentle and realize that he is very sensitive and needs to be embarrassed with tender critique.

thanks in advance for your consideration.

[Grim Reaper]

Notice how Quad uses population growth (births + deaths + immigration) while arguing over women giving birth. What does the number of people dying and immigrating have to do with the number of people giving birth? It's just adding distracting bits of data to try and prop up your argument.

Although I have to admit being at a loss as to why you're arguing so vehemently over whether or not women get depressed after giving birth. What does it matter to you if they do get depressed? Obviously it doesn't apply equally to every woman because every person is different. And it's not like the birth rate cares how many women involved were depressed afterwards, it only cares about how many babies were born.

[Gob]

Ok Joe, here's one for you...

Quaddy states;

I clear stated thrice 'population growth of births - deaths' which for everyone means 'new live people minus the dead ones'

I never claimed ANYTHING with respect to live births. I did claim however (using the 2009 CIA world factbook as a source) the population growths of the countries of births-deaths which of course proves beyond any argument, the fact that women continue to have children even tho most of them are suffering major depression as your wife claimed and you defended.


Start: the Oz growth rate due to births-deaths is (according to wiki, not all that hard to find) is 1.2%. the US is .98%. The UK is .47 and NEw Zealand is .94. PRoving every word I said and disproving yours. source: 2009 CIA world factbook

and worse yet, rudimentary investigation shows that the Austrailian, UK, new zealand and US populations are experiencing positive growth rate due to births. Oz, much more so than the US.

So Quady is claiming that Aus is experiencing a greater growth than the USA due to the births vs deaths ratio.

This he claims has something to do with women enjoying giving birth, a nonsense, but bear with me.

I prove that Aus has a lower birth rate than the USA using Quaddys favourite source the CIA factbook (with a link, the courtsey of providing these is alien to Quaddy of course.)

Here is is again...

Fertility rates...

123 United States 2.06 2011 est.

139 United Kingdom 1.91 2011 est.

157 Australia 1.78 2011 est.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 7rank.html

Now using Quaddy's source I have again proved that Aus women produce less children than the women of USA. So what could explain the greater expansion rate due to births-deaths which Quaddy believes is due to the joy of Aussie women at getting pregnant, if they actually do less of it?

Come on..


...it doesn't take a genius...



...really simple isn't it....



...a five year old could work it out.....


...if Aus women give birth less frequently than American ones, yet the Aus population grows due Quaddy's beloved birth / death ratio....


....big clue there birth / death ratio..


...it's not due to Aus women giving birth at a greater rate out of sheer joy of pregancy, as this has already been disproved using Quaddy's own source....


it's due to AUSSIES LIVING LONGER, Quaddy you fucking moron

Life expectancy

Australia total population: 81.81 years male: 79.4 years female: 84.35 years (2011 est.)


United States total population: 78.37 years male: 75.92 years female: 80.93 years (2011 est.)

Hey Quaddy here's the link! https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... gionCode=r

[Scooter]

and worse yet, rudimentary investigation shows that the Austrailian, UK, new zealand and US populations are experiencing positive growth rate due to births. Oz, much more so than the US.

I never claimed ANYTHING with respect to live births.

An administrator needs to conduct an investigation. Someone must have been tampering with quad's posts since one of them clearly says something he emphatically claims not to have said.

Unless there is another explanation...

[Joe Guy]

Please quad...

Explain how you are right and everyone else is wrong even though your own words are the best evidence that exists to disprove your argument.

I'm (gently) looking forward to your next post.

[quaddriver]

Again Gob you offer only a strawman, and a non-sequitor strawman at that.

Since I ALSO clearly stated that either someone is raping women in abortion free zones or women are freely chosing to have more children.

Whether you want to argue a fertility rates vs my live births vs dead deaths is irrelevant. You blindly (and stupidly - if your goal was to win the argument) proved my point: either women are being raped en masse and denied abortion or are FREELY choosing to have more children. A concept that flies in the face of Hens argument.

to which no one picked up on: she has 2. Why did she decide to have the 2nd if the first sucked so bad? Is she a rape victim? Oz has outlawed abortions?

(sidebar: Id like to see a 3 sentence - no more - coherent, researched statement as to why the US life expectancy number is as low as it is - this will prove you actually read and understand the material)

My arguments as stated stand, having been proven out by real world experience and factual data. the vast majority of women - worldwide - remember pregnancy fondly enough to engage in it over and over. How hard is it to search womens oriented websites dealing with the subject and find statements like:

The majority of women love being pregnant

. And I do not know the author of that one.

Hens arguments will also stand: she is 1 in a 1000 and knows many many many of the same, since she insists its true.

[The Hen]

My first child died inutero at 32 weeks gestation.

That is why I had a second child Quad.

If I had not lost her I would never have been pregnant a second time.

The funeral was not something i wanted, but by law was something I had to have.

I never was pregnant a third time. I have my only child now.

Not one aspect of the pregnancy was pleasant and I will never go through it again. My second pregnancy was even worse than my first.

Now what were you saying about every woman you talked to revelling in her pregnancy, especially after?

Is this not talking, or am I writing words you are unable to understand?

[Gob]

Right, having demolished Quaddy's assertion, using his own sources of information, that;

"and worse yet, rudimentary investigation shows that the Austrailian, UK, new zealand and US populations are experiencing positive growth rate due to births (they are not, it's due to birth/death ratio) . Oz, much more so than the US (they aren't)"

Let's move onto another humdinger;

quad, I did not revel in either of my pregnancies, before or after. Especially after.

I was hit badly with post natal depression. I know many, many, many women who felt exactly the same way.

So Hen gives us her personal experience, and states that a proportion, not all, women she knows, may have had a similar experience. This does not in any way deny that women may want to get pregnant/give birth. A fair and reasonable personal perspective, from a person who has had the experience.

Quaddy then after proving himself wrong on the relative birth rates of the USA Austrailian[sic] new zealand[sic] and UK populations, (stop giggling at the back), he then gives us this gem of wisdom;

So unless you contend that men are repeatedly raping women in abortion free zones, not only did you get the overall analysis wrong, you got it way wrong for every country you lived in or could reasonably be expexcted to live in.

So, do I need to point out the total and absolute stupidity betrayed here? (Put your hands down, it's too easy.)

Dear Quaddy, no one has, nor would posit that women getting raped in abortion free zones is anything to do with this argument. (hint to the Quaddiot; no country has "abortion free zones".) That is what we call a "Strawman".

Now then boys and girls, ignoring Quaddiots stupid assumption that there is a population increase due to "women being raped in abortion free zones" (he said it, no one else has) let's look at the discrepancy between his ideas and Hen's

Quadiot thinks that if we believe Hen's reasonable assertion that some women may not enjoy the experience of pregnancy, then we believe that population growth is due to women being raped in areas etc

Can anyone here give a reason why some women, who may not find the experience of pregnancy particularly enjoyable, may want to go through it, maybe even more than one time?

Or are the hundreds of reasons, personal, social, cultural, accidental, and excluding the fact that there's a first time to experience anything, far to blindingly obvious for anyone with an IQ above that of frog spawn, (this obviously does not include the Quaddiot) that they do not need stating?

Ok, hands down, yes we all know that they are.

I'll leave those of you who can see through your tears of mirth at the sheer dumbfuckery of Quaddy's statements, to ponder this quote.

Its so cute when people who cannot have children, chime in how it is.

Indeed.

[Grim Reaper]

Whether you want to argue a fertility rates vs my live births vs dead deaths is irrelevant. You blindly (and stupidly - if your goal was to win the argument) proved my point: either women are being raped en masse and denied abortion or are FREELY choosing to have more children. A concept that flies in the face of Hens argument

Except you're not arguing live births vs. dead births. Your statistic that you keep using is live births vs deaths (any and all) vs immigration vs emigration. It's meaningless when comparing actual fertility.

You want an example of a lie? That right there is you lying. You're bringing up data that is irrelevant and then parroting it again and again and saying that it is relevant. It's not. It's additional information that doesn't matter.

to which no one picked up on: she has 2. Why did she decide to have the 2nd if the first sucked so bad? Is she a rape victim? Oz has outlawed abortions?

You're acting like she was pregnant immediately after losing the first one.

My arguments as stated stand, having been proven out by real world experience and factual data. the vast majority of women - worldwide - remember pregnancy fondly enough to engage in it over and over. How hard is it to search womens oriented websites dealing with the subject and find statements like:

The factual data that you used was irrelevant for the purpose of this argument. Also, fertility rates don't necessarily mean the same women are having children over and over again, just look at people like the Duggars, enough of those can skew data.

Here's some information to chew on:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/S ... eryear.jpg

Average number of births in the US each year is around 4 million. The total population of the US is 300 million, that means about 150 million females. Now let's say that only a quarter are capable of giving birth, that's still 37.5 million. And the females in the fertile range change each year as people mature and age, so it's not a static set of women giving birth every single year, it's a constantly shifting population. Some will give birth multiple times, some won't. The data you've used so far doesn't cover the reality of the situation at all.

[quaddriver]

My first child died inutero at 32 weeks gestation.

That is why I had a second child Quad.

If I had not lost her I would never have been pregnant a second time.

The funeral was not something i wanted, but by law was something I had to have.

I never was pregnant a third time. I have my only child now.

Not one aspect of the pregnancy was pleasant and I will never go through it again. My second pregnancy was even worse than my first.

Now what were you saying about every woman you talked to revelling in her pregnancy, especially after?

Is this not talking, or am I writing words you are unable to understand?

ok, first my condolences, and now I can add a '1' to the count. and while situation is off the norm, it is still off the norm.

none of this conversation would have occured if you had bothered to read what I wrote, instead of trying to pick apart phrases or partial statements 'just to be right'.

for the record, the only parents I know of personally who have had a child die, did so when it was a teen. It generally involved a car.

[Grim Reaper]

So you didn't write this then?

All, without exception, all women I have ever spoken to who have given birth, have revelled in the process, even the long labor natural ones. They also seem to like the pregnancy, especially AFTER.

And then try to back it up with irrelevant facts?

Or was that a different quaddriver?

[The Hen]

I do beleive he can't remember what he has written.

[Crackpot]

Getting a point off of quad is sort of putting a dollar in the change machine and getting 4 whole quarters in return.

[quaddriver]

they are not, it's due to birth/death ratio)[/i][/size] ."

editorials aside, if a country did NOT have birth rates that exceeded the death rate, would the population 'figure' associated with 'births-deaths' be positive or negative.

thnk hard now. they must use the new maths down there. Not only did I quote the source, I qouted the source. Ascii character for ascii character. It is as printed. Asserting I am somehow 'wrong' is just, well idiotic. If you want to calle me 'quadiot' or whatever, fine, but that does not change that fact that you are the dumbass. And as I said earlier, your use of the stats you decided to use only proved my point still. ANY positive rate is going to prove my point. Hint: if you are quoting stats to win an argument, make sure they bolster your side. Since you never really HAD a side other than to assert "he called my wife wrong therefore he must be wrong", you failed. We only need one lord Jim here (you know, Andrew says he asserts something is true simply because he wants it to be true). It aint working for you. Or if you wanna be another Chelsea Handler - go ahead.

Let's move onto another humdinger;

and states that a proportion, not all, women she knows, may have had a similar experience.

Why lie to cover it up? she said, and I quote "many many many women HAD". Not a percentage and not maybe. How much is many? How much is many vs. the number of people she ius likely to talk to? For my example I assumed nothing outside of the realm that I had actually encountered. If she wanted to state a percentage and wanted to state 'may have' I am sure she would have stated a percentage and would have stated may have. But since 2 posters (myself and scooter) put a face on the actual probability, which made it pale - you have engaged in ad hominem ad naseum and continual strawmen. (as lo put it CORRECTLY, I used an analogy, not a strawman) You did it why? Because I said you wife might be wrong therefore I must be wrong? Dumb assed way to run a railroad.

Quaddy then after proving himself wrong on the relative birth rates of the USA Austrailian[sic] new zealand[sic] and UK populations, (stop giggling at the back), he then gives us this gem of wisdom;

Again, incredibly stupid for you to remain on this track. The data I quoted exists. Since you cannot possibly refute it, are not involved with the publishers in anyway - why continue? HERE, to a select few people you might think you are scoring points. In the real world, you are the dumbass. You really need to get over yourself.

Quadiot thinks that if we believe Hen's reasonable assertion that some

If hen had asserted that, I guess we could debate it. but since her exact words were 'many many many'....why not take issue with that?

You dont heistate to take phrases or partial statements from what I write without consideration to the meaning (or maybe you do, which is why you refuse to quote me accurately), and I was pretty clear and concise and most importantly RIGHT. I note that you no longer assert that MOST women this and MOST treatments involve that....why is that Gob? Is this your way of running away from your error? You starting to see how and why Edi and co were RIGHT? You adopt as your own, the behaviour you accuse them of. How does that work for you offline, you know, where you dont have your posse? If Gwen had the troll trio you have the troll sextuplets? You win thru numbers?

Just out of curiousity Gob, how many children do YOU have? You and your wife and others might have questioned my stke in the child rearing game - I have 2 - mine, fathered, raising, involved. I talk to other parents as ADULTS and the activities involved with being an active participant. Here is another statistic you can easily look up: worldwide, MOST fathers are lesser involved in the day to day raising of their children - oft to the point of being minimal. I aint one of them. Are you? Remember how I keep talking about the REAL world...not this bullshit fantasy land that you think has relevance.

[quaddriver]

So you didn't write this then?

All, without exception, all women I have ever spoken to who have given birth, have revelled in the process, even the long labor natural ones. They also seem to like the pregnancy, especially AFTER.

And then try to back it up with irrelevant facts?

Or was that a different quaddriver?

Care to show some evidence or are you one of the dipshit synchophants?

Irrelevant facts (that no one has disputed) like that out of every 1000 women we might encounter, 800-900 will not have a PPD tale to tell, let alone the 999 who will not have a PPD horror story to tell?

Irrelevant facts as in at least 2 posters have shown that women continue to freely have children despite the dire statements of 'fact' about the experience?

Do you have anything to add ANYWHERE? Do you actively participate or just ride along to smell your own farts? Answer carefully. show us what your character is REALLY like....

[quaddriver]

I do beleive he can't remember what he has written.

considering I am the only one who quotes myself....is this another one of your whoopsies? Seriously....

[Grim Reaper]

Care to show some evidence or are you one of the dipshit synchophants?

Care to act like an adult or continue to throw a tantrum?

Irrelevant facts (that no one has disputed) like that out of every 1000 women we might encounter, 800-900 will not have a PPD tale to tell, let alone the 999 who will not have a PPD horror story to tell?

You haven't given any facts like that. You just keep quoting population growth. And you seem to not understand that population growth is more than just births. It also includes all deaths, immigration, and emigration. It's fairly useless for determining fertility. What you can look at is the four million births each year out of tens of millions of women who can give birth. It's almost like only a fraction of the population gives birth and not every single woman every year.

Irrelevant facts as in at least 2 posters have shown that women continue to freely have children despite the dire statements of 'fact' about the experience?

More ignorance. You keep drastically oversimplifying reality in order to pretend you have a point.

Do you have anything to add ANYWHERE? Do you actively participate or just ride along to smell your own farts? Answer carefully. show us what your character is REALLY like....

Try looking at what I wrote instead of babbling childish nonsense.

[quaddriver]

Try looking at what I wrote instead of babbling childish nonsense

ok, dipshit syncophant it is.

Irrelevant facts (that no one has disputed) like that out of every 1000 women we might encounter, 800-900 will not have a PPD tale to tell, let alone the 999 who will not have a PPD horror story to tell?

You haven't given any facts like that. You just keep quoting population growth.

fantasy land? not only have I quoted multiple times a statistic that would lead one to believe a 800/900 out of 1000 number, so has scooter. you read these. you did not dispute them. therefore you lie, in front of everyone. I doubt anyone HERE will call you on it, integrity being displayed as it is. But it is nonetheless a lie and you know it was a lie when you uttered it. I asked you to expose your TRUE character. I will accept this as your answer. similar to the charges Andrew had levelled and proven at another poster, you exhibit the same. A pattern? I am really interested in hearing notheing else from you because quite frankly, you have nothing interesting to say. But I will let you try to defend your lack of integrity.

[Grim Reaper]

ok, dipshit syncophant it is.

I'm leaning more toward you being a childish crybaby whining over being called a liar. Grow the hell up.

You still refuse to acknowledge that your usage of population growth is meaningless.

[Gob]

I'm sorry Quaddiot, but as I have refuted your points using stats from the source you used (but didn't link to) there seems little point in reposting them. If you cannot accept that what you said was at best ill considered, at worse pure bullshit, then why should I be bothered to repost them?

Everyone here has seen how you shot yourself i the foot innumerable times here, shooting more holes won't make your gait any less wobbly..

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.