Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
5. If x has more than one definition, than to say "y is not x" is the same as claiming that y does not meet any of the definitions of x. --- Huh? Anyone able to make sense of that?
I get it. You don't like variables. You're incapable of abstract thought. I'll consider this the next time. The whole moon discussion proves that you have troubles when it comes to scientific terminology.
But still not a lie on my part.
29. I've proven you wrong on your claim: "DS men are infertile." --- Saying and proving are 2 different things. See Item 21. I said In General...
You said in general but not in connection to "DS men", but to the source of DS:
So in general, 97% of DS comes from RANDOM events in cell formation and reproduction.
The 3% of DS comes from largely from unaffected people.
DS men are infertile. DS women have a high chance of miscarriage if they do opt to have a child and they rarely do.
It would have been inconvenient for you to mention it, wouldn't it? But to be fair I won't claim that you lied in 29.
13. I never claimed anything about males. --- Straw Man. No one said he did. The title of the study in his link in Item 12 - Fertility in a male with trisomy 21.
No lie on my but one on your part. You said I did.
NOW. Back up what YOU said. Prove that any male from this study passed a form of Down Syndrome OTHER than Translocation DS.
BTW: Reading problems? This study was about exactly one male with DS.
You linked to an article, failed to quote from it, and then expected us to fish out something that backed YOUR point. I simply said what was the TITLE of the study.
YOU LIED. Live with it.
You don't like your lies to be pointed out in public. Poor vettie. Perhaps if you whine a little more I'll stop.
And I'm sorry that you are incapable of following simple instructions like "read the first paragraph after the summary".
Force everyone to keep clicking back and forth, back and forth because someone new to this forum has no clue what you are talking about. But that would be an honest way of posting now wouldn't it? And little suck trollie can't have honest because he has to cover for his stupid.
Let's see. I have been posting here oh, going on 4 years now. And I learned on day 2 of posting that if I want someone to read what I post, and continue to read more of my posts, I will MAKE IT EASY ON THEM. I will make it as short as possible so as not to waste their time. I will tell the truth because no one wants to listen to a liar. I will back up what I say by linking to someone more famous, or more smarter, or much more visible. AND I WILL BRING FORWARD ANY QUOTES SO PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO WASTE TIME SEARCHING FOR WHAT I WANT THEM TO READ.
But I told you that little trollie. And for a while there, I started to ignore you. I got busy with bigger game. I thought you were learning. But no, you post and no one reads your piffle because it is boring, and dishonest, and quibbling. And worst of all UNREAD. No one wants to read garbage from some unknown idiot. But that is not enough for you. Instead of writing things people are interested in reading, you found it quicker and easier to get read by riding the coat tails of others. Get their goat by quibbling, nitpicking, and lying so you will get a little attention.
And here you are again, back riding my coat tails because you can't even troll properly. Real trolls that get troll attention get themselves banned. YOU FAILED AT THAT.
And here I am again schooling someone I really doubt will learn. And why is that? Because I have spent over a year that I can remember schooling you and you still have not learned anything I have tried to teach you. I taught you to separate your quotes from others. And you did for a while. But now we have the New NewsBusters and instead of adapting you are right back where you started. Just one example of what I have tried to teach you.
What, am I some kind of superbeing packed with all the smarts? I look at the write-ups of the contributors. I look at posts of others. I look at other blogs. And do I need it browbeat into me that people will not read posts when I FORCE them to click on a link and search out some tiny few words that will show them I know what I am talking about. IS IT THAT HIGH OF A CONCEPT? It seems courteous to me. It seems polite. IS IT THAT DIFFICULT TO SEE IT?
Cut out exactly the few sentences that support what I say, copy it in, and then link it back in case someone wants to go check.
I do that and they may want to engage me. Maybe even show me something I don't know. Maybe keep spreading knowledge around to whatever other users look. This is something that somehow only I have managed to learn while out the surfing the intertubes?
You are an intellectually lazy, physically lazy little snit of an ass that has no respect for others and yet you keep DEMANDING it from everyone here..
PACK SAND AGAIN. THERE IS THE RESPECT YOUR RELLY DESERVE.
AND I WILL BRING FORWARD ANY QUOTES SO PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO WASTE TIME SEARCHING FOR WHAT I WANT THEM TO READ.
That's what I'm criticizing about your conduct. That you omit exactly the sources you don't want anybody to read, because they contradict you. Or to be more polite, that you don't look for a different opinion on the same subject matter. You find one source you think is authoritative and then you will dismiss anything else, always linking back to this one source. You don't scrutinize what you read. You take it as a tool that serves you. That is basically how your intellectual dishonesty plays out around here. And now comes...
We admitted you were right all along. We lied like our lives depended on it.
30 DS women had 30 pregnancies.
10 resulted in a DS child.
5 resulted in a normal child.
4 resulted in a child with circus freak deformities.
4 resulted in a child with such severe retardation, some of them did not know how to breath
7 resulted in fetuses with such horrible circus freak deformities they could not be brought to term.
1 resembled a tribble from Star Trek, it may have in fact been a tribble.
1 burst from the belly of the mother, scurried out of the room and could be identified.
Conclusion from the wicked smart suck Retardimus Trollicus --- DS is inherited! Flash! Brain! Smarties!
Is "circus freak" the only phrase you know to describe such deformities?
You won. We lied. We lied about it all. Half of my links are to sites about the various brands of apples and the other half don't even work. You were truffies. WE LIED. Why are you pushing it. I ANNOUNED IT HERE. We lied and you did nothing but show of those wicked smart muscle brains of yours.
X +Y is the same as the definition of dust - 4 and that equals Z when the temperature is above 70.
30 DS Women had 4 normal children. Normal children are hereditary. YOU PROVED IT. WE GET IT. WE ADMITTED IT. STOP PUSHING US. IQ! BRAIN! SMARTIES! THINKIES!
DS WOMEN HAVE THE CHROMOSOMAL EQUIVALENT OF SWISS CHEESE IN EVERY SINGLE CELL IN THEIR BODY. WE UNDERSTAND NOW. THAT MAKES ANY CHILD THEY HAVE HEREDITARY AND GENETIC.
FRELL. YOU ARE SO SMART IT HURTS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LIGHT YEARS YOU ARE AHEAD OF US IN BRAIN POWER.
Please suck trollie. Solve world hunger and keep the squirrels out of our bird feeders. You can do it. You are that smart.
There is nothing that stops you.
23. There exist DS mothers without Translocation DS who gave birth to children with DS without Translocation DS. Period. --- Again. A mother with DS is at higher risk of Down Syndrom spontaneously arising during the cell division. This does not mean it is inherited.
So you admit it is not a lie then? Fine with me.
Why is such a mother at higher risk of spontaneously arising problems during cell division? How does that exclude the possibility that it can be inherited? Come on source your statements.
Ok. Ok. We got it. You just keep posting one horsedren post after another until we just throw our hands in the air and walk away. Then you can claim victory! YAY!
OK. We learned it now!
DS mothers gave birth to DS children. That proves it is inherited.
DS mothers gave birth to normal children. That proves it is inherited.
DS mothers gave birth to boy children. That proves it is inherited.
DS mothers gave birth to girl children. That proves it is inherited.
DS mothers gave birth to deformed children. That proves is is inherited.
DS mothers gave birth to Trisomy 18 children. That proves it is inherited.
DS mothers did not give birth, they miscarreid. That proves it is inherited.
Your mother give birth to you. Retard is inherited after all.
Oh wait, the only thing proved is that your are full of horsedung.
Now SHUT UP or find someone else that SAYS THE SAME THING AS YOU, YOU FRELLING RETARD.
It is frelling pathetic the way you treat other people here thinking they will buy your idiotic numbnuts drivel.
That you don't even consider the possibility that I might be right. That you don't think about why the risk is elevated.
And then it is only "shut up" there "shut up" here. What you tell me all over again applies to yourself too: You don't tell me what to do.
Frell. What do you want a medal? We lied. You just have flashes of genious you inherited from your Retard German Mom. That is how you discovered hereticals at age 4.
Covering your lies in a huge pile of stupid, I mean. And learn something from MD about mocking. But nevermind you are probably too stupid for that anyway.
Go for it last word troll. You think you can piss on 100 years of genitic research because a woman had a child and we will all kneel in awe at your brilliance.
You won't shut up no matter what kind of fool I make you look so go ahead and spam up the joint with your last word horseshit. It is all you have ever done.
Pack sand. Pack it tight. Pack it hard last word Sissy.
I quit. The Sissy last word Retard suck troll wins. Last word is the equivalent to intelligence in trollytown. Because he can spew more drivel than we can possibly ever reply.
Spam up the joint suck troll. It is all you have ever done.
that you make me look foolish serves only your ego. Please give me more. Please. The ominous whatever tells it all.
This is great, this is where trog claims that Down's Syndrome should be seen as representing inheritable genetic disorders, in general!
To recap: Half of the cases of inheritable translocation DS are actually inherited, and translocation DS accounts for 4% of DS cases. So roughly 2% of DS cases are inherited, but it should be the poster child for inherited genetic disorders. According to the wisdom of troglodyt.
Most cases of Down syndrome aren't inherited. They're caused by a mistake in cell division during the development of the egg, sperm or embryo.
Translocation Down syndrome is the only form of the disorder that can be passed from parent to child. However, only about 4 percent of children with Down syndrome have translocation. And only about half of these cases are inherited from one of the parents.
I looked it up and couldn't figure how to fit it in.
39. DS should be seen as pars pro toto for every genetic disorder that is inheritable
Pars pro toto is Latin for "(taking) a part for the whole"; it is a kind of synecdoche. When used in a context of language it means that something is named after a part of it (or after a limited characteristic, in itself not necessarily representative for the whole). E.g. "glasses" is a "pars pro toto" name for something that consists of more than just two pieces of glass. The opposite of a pars pro toto is a totum pro parte, in which the whole is used to describe a part. -- source
I don't think he understands the phrase. Maybe that was why I got confused. It makes little sense the way he used it.
DS is the poster child for inherited genetic disorders.
is where he brought Down's Syndrome into a discussion on inherited genetic disorders caused by incest.
Down's Syndrome has nothing whatsover to do with incest, and the vast majority (95%) of DS cases are classic trisomy 21 type, which has nothing to do with genetic inheritance from the mother or father.
Trog has since tried to cover his protuberant flabby ass by focusing on the half of 4% of DS cases that have translocation DS inherited from a balanced carrier unaffected by signs or symptoms of DS. Alas, this 2% don't bear his premise out either, as he didn't specify unaffected balanced carriers, he simply said people with DS.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:12pm.
people with genetic disorders like Down-Syndrome to abstain from procreating?
Show of hands. Who thinks he meant:
A. The 95% of DS cases with trisomy 21
B. The unaffected (utterly asymptomatic) people who have to have a test in order to confirm they're carriers?
I believe it was Hoosier Conservative who actually introduced Down's Syndrome into the discussion.
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:48pm.
Don't you understand that incest creates babies with limited gene pools and they are more likely to have issues like down's syndrome? It's really not a good idea to let incestuous idiots propagate their species. That's why it's illegal, not just because it's gross. Besides, you can't seriously think a father willing to sleep with his daughter is guilty of anything less than domestic abuse.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/erin-r-brown/2011/02/03/glee-sex-songs-and-sleaze#comment-1430593#ixzz1DLPTkHXR to the discussion.
Trog brought it up to me in conversation. I'm discussing my exchanges with him, which is why my links go to his responses to me.
I am just randomly clicking on things and posting replies to others.
Had to rock the baby so I amused myself by reading poor troggy's idiocy again. That's gold, Jerry. Gold!
This one or the two below about your FUBAR moments. Whatsamatta, chicken?
After he claimed the Mayo Clinic was wrong I told him to contact them about it.
Go ahead, contact them and call them liars, trog. Do it. DO IT.
I wanted his reply and not yours. But it's no surprise that he chickens out when cornered. What a coward.
WTF? So, The Vet is the Mayo Clinic, now? Trog's response not only doesn't make sense, it isn't in the same galaxy with sense. I think he was smoking weed while he was posting on that thread.
Media Research Center
L. Brent Bozell III, President
Editor at Large
P. J. Gladnick
Julia A. Seymour
Copyright © 2005-2014 NewsBusters.