Act Acting » Acting School » Bruce Forest buries his head in the sand

Bruce Forest buries his head in the sand

Question:

Another letter causing Bruce to bury his head in the sand, killfiling me and banning me from his mailbox. ~Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:04:17 -0400 ~From: Peter Nyikos <nyikos> ~Message-Id: <199606042004.QAA24…@milo.math.sc.edu> ~To: bfor…@interramp.com ~CC: nyi…@math.sc.edu, bel…@usit.net, wmn4…@ns.net, amor…@ix.netcom.com,         mi…@sonic.net ~Subject: Followup to non-abortion groups on CLINTON FOUNDERS…thread Here is the post: Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.feminism.individualism,alt.feminazis Subject: Re: CLINTON FOUNDERS ON PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION References: <bforest-2305962131180001@usenet.interramp.com> <4ofs90$h8d@redwood.cs.sc.edu> <bforest-3005961132070001@usenet.interramp.com> CC: Bruce, because I have cut out all the abortion newsgroups as promised.  Also Amar, Melanie, Joe, and MINXS with the query: are you indeed a practicing physician like Bruce says? bfor…@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) writes: >In article <4ofs90$…@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, nyi…@math.scarolina.edu >(Peter Nyikos) wrote: >> bfor…@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) lies to cover up for >> Chris Owens, apparently. >> >> From: Peter Nyikos <nyi…@math.SC.EDU> >> >> CC: bfor…@interramp.com (Bruce Forest), because this corrects >> >> some misinformation he has posted recently. >> >> More mis/disinformation: Chris Owens claims PBA is done to remove >> >> a fatally malformed baby, usually anencephalic.  The truth is >> >> quite otherwise.  

And she made it sound like that was the ONLY way it is used. >> >Only if you have a warped concept of medical terminology. >> You stand by Chris Owens’s claim???  even the "anencephalic" >> part??? >That D&X is performed to remove a fatally malformed baby? That is indeed >the usual case.

Sheer unsupported garbage. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >>         And I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective >> >>         in that 20-24 week range. … In my particular case, probably >> >>         20% are for genetic reasons.  And the other 80% are >> >>         purely elective. >> >>                 –Dr. Martin Haskell, developer of D&X procedure, >> >>                   in tape recorded interview with _AMNews_. >> >Since you obviously know squat about genetic illness, and ‘elective’ >> >procedures, we’ll just chalk it up to lack of education, ok? For the >> >hundreth time…elective means ‘non emergent.’ If you can provide evidence >> >to prove this wrong, do so. Otherwise, stop acting so damned ignorant! >> Since you are not refuting anything I’ve said either here or elsewhere, >> I’ll just chalk it up to a pathological desire to set up strawmen >> all over the landscape when you are called on your bullshit. >Called by whom? You? LOL. >Every first year text describes elective as non-emergent.

Did I ever suggest otherwise?  No.  All I said was that McMahon did NOT use "elective" that way.  I’m not sure about Haskell, but if you stir your brain cells a little you will see that the "purely elective" does not cover ANY genetic reasons, and are you really suggesting that ALL genetic reasons are fatal? Note to people who might not be familiar with the word "emergent" in this setting: it means urgent, emergency, etc. as well as things having to do with evolution. But, just for the record, please name me a first year text that does describe elective as synonymous with non-emergent.  It is so basic a >medical tenet that I doubt any specialist text would even discuss it. If >you can find something to discount that, please present it.

Did I ever suggest I could?  No.  I didn’t even TOUCH the issue.  All three >medically trained posters here (me, Mark, and MINXS) have repeatedly told >you that elective is non-emergent. Have you proven otherwise? Not a >chance.

What a magnificent strawman!  Now tell me how something five months after a rape equates to "emergent", how a teenager being underage is "emergent", etc. in reference to what I said next: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> The late Dr. James McMahon, a developer of a slight variant >> >> which he called "intact dilation and evacuation", wrote >> >> in a report submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution >> >> Subcommittee, >> >>         After 26 weeks, those pregnancies that are >> >>         not flawed are still non-elective.  They are >> >>         interrupted because of maternal risk, rape, incest, >> >>         psychiatric or pediatric indications. >> >> "Pediatric indications" was Dr. McMahon’s term for young >> >> teenagers.   >> >More stupidity. A ‘flawed pregnancy’ has nothing to do with a deformed >> >fetus. >> Indeed not.  Whom are you accusing of stupidity?  Chris Owens? >I am accusing you of stupidity by assuming that ‘flawed pregnancy’ means >’deformed fetus.’

Where do you get that quaint notion?  I wasn’t quoting myself just now, I was quoting McMahon.  In reference to Chris’s strong suggestion that ALL partial birth abortions are due to the fetus being deformed.  Does "rape" equate to "deformed fetus" in your singular brain?  Does "psychiatric indications" equate to "deformed fetus"?  Get the picture? >> > A hydatiform mole is a flawed pregnancy; there is no deformed >> >fetus. Choriocarcinoma is a ‘flawed pregnancy,’ yet often, there is no >> >fetus. >> *Yawn* you DO have a point, don’t you?  You obviously aren’t >> crazy enough to think partial birth abortions are done on >> hydatidiform moles or choriocarcinomas, are you? >No braindrain, I am giving examples of flawed pregnancies with no fetus at >all, much less a deformed one.

Just as I thought–the *Yawn* indicated sarcasm for the humor-impaired: you have no point and are just strutting some high school level knowledge about what can go wrong with a zygote. [Note to others: "high school" is an allusion to Bruce Forest calling Keith L. Moore's _Before We Are Born_, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH his _The Developing Human_, a book on the high school level.] >> I guess you must be saying all this because you are such >> a fine Cochran-clone.  He too used to love to talk about >> hydatidiform moles at the most irrelevant times. >Just when I was thinking you could actually have a rational discussion >without your usual reference to other posters.

You licked his net.boots on the subject of fetal hearts.  By the way, did you ever reply to THAT issue on the "’Cletus V…" thread? Until I see something from you on that, I’ll just continue comparing you to him. >> >> Dr. Pamela E. Smith, director of Medical Education, Department of >> >> Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Chicago, gave >> >> the Senate Judiciary Committee her analysis of the 175 cases >> >> which Dr. McMahon had presented in his report that came under >> >> the heading of "maternal indications".  Of these, 22% were for >> >> "depression" >> >And severe clinical depression is not an indication for abortion? Are you >> >uneducated in psychiatry too? >> Where do you see any mention of "severe clinical"? >I see ‘depression’ which as a term, includes ’severe clinical.’

Yeah, and McMahon had his practice in California, where over 90 percent of all abortions for "health" reasons in 1967-72 were for "mental health".  Since he did not say "severe clinical" the default assumption should  that he was just continuing this fine old tradition. >> >> while another 16% were "for conditions consistent >> >> with the birth of a normal child (e.g. sickle cell trait, prolapsed >> >> uterus, small pelvis)," as Dr. Smith put it. >> >Once again, who are you, a complete layman, to decide what is suitable >> >indication for abortion? >> I wasn’t making any decisions for anyone, you shameless >> obfuscator.  I was just correcting Christine Owens. >Correcting with out of context quotes, shaped to support your argument is >not ‘correction.’

You love to lick her net.boots too, I see. >> >> McMahon’s sample of "fetal indicators" that he submitted to >> >> the House subcommittee included nine for cleft palate. >> Additional Cochranese bullshit deleted.  When will a practicing >> physician post to this newsgroup again? >MINXS is a practicing physician. Do you think she, or any other clinician >would do anything but laugh at your attempts at physiological discussion?

I think she’d laugh at your assumption that 2 cm dilation is enough to breech deliver a 25 week fetus except for the head.  That is assuming she is a practicing physician.  I don’t recall her calling herself that, but I could have easily missed something. You once thought Mark Cochran was a practicing physician, didn’t you? Peter Nyikos                      – standard disclaimer —   Professor, Dept. of Mathematics University of South Carolina Columbia,  SC  29208 =================== end of included letter By the way, MINXS never replied, and I believe her recent hostility to me is due to the fact that I have so effectively exposed Bruce Forest, and she’s afraid she will be next in line. Well, if so, she reacted prematurely, because I take a very long time looking people over before accusing them of rampant dishonesty and hypocrisy, as I now accuse Bruce. Peter Nyikos                     — standard disclaimer —

Response:

Another letter from which Bruce ran away. Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:38:46 -0400 From: Peter Nyikos <nyikos> Message-Id: <199606042038.QAA24660@milo.math.sc.edu> To: bfor…@interramp.com CC: nyi…@math.sc.edu, bel…@usit.net, wmn4…@ns.net, amor…@ix.netcom.com,         mi…@sonic.net, ta…@panix.com Subject: Re: Bruce "Chameleon" Forest shows his true colors Newsgroups: talk.abortion References: <bforest-3105960014470001@usenet.interramp.com> Status: RO Usual permission to Bruce and CC’d people. In talk.abortion you, Bruce Forest, write: >Why is it that I get far more email from Nyikos than ever appears on my >newsservers?

Are you saying these posts never showed up?  Could it be that none of my posts on the PRO-CHOICE MIS/DISINFORMATION ON PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS ever showed up in your netserver? >> From: Peter Nyikos <nyi…@math.SC.EDU> >> Subject: Bruce "Chameleon" Forest shows his true colors >> References: <bforest-2305962132040…@usenet.interramp.com> >> CC: Bruce, because of the change in thread title from: >> ‘Cletus’ Vidrine returns! (was:Re: What the Hell is this news group about?) >> and to Joe Belk, bel…@usit.net, who should have no trouble handling Bruce >> once I get through with him. >LOL >When I’m done with this post, and your medical fantasies, you’ll be glad >to escape…er, I mean…enjoy your ‘posting break.’

Dream on, Brucie baby.  I plan to keep lurking until YOU stop posting medical fantasies. >> It often takes some pressure to really show a person’s true >> colors.  Two weeks ago, I noted that Bruce was an enigmatic >> person whom I would like to understand better, >This after my posting here daily for over a year.

Right.  I pulled my punches with you all the time because you seemed like a reasonable person.  Once I started to apply the pressure, you outdid even Mountebank Cochran: it wasn’t for over half a year that he showed as much of his mountebank side as you have in half a month. Of course, I’ve learned a lot about what sorts of things to look for in dealing with him.  That’s why only someone who is NOT a Cochran clone has a chance of performing well under pressure from me. [...] >> I soon started calling him "Chameleon" as more and more facets >> of his personality, hidden from me before, started to come out.  I turned >> up the pressure on him, and these facets became more and more >> pronouced to the point where it is now clear the the mature, basically >> honest Bruce Forest I once thought to be posting to talk.abortion >> was an illusion. >Why’s that? Because you can’t run your crap past me?

Dream on, Brucie baby.  You’ve got it all backwards. > Peter, I really >couldn’t care less what you think of me.

The feeling is mutual.  I also couldn’t care less about what you feel about yourself.  What concerns me is the damage you do the cause of truth and justice on talk.abortion.  Nor will anything you say be >taken as anything more than the ranting of a quasi-prolifer, who thinks >abortion is just fine till 8 weeks. You are no more a ‘prolifer’ than I >am.

There you go again.  Thanks for the circumstantial evidence that morality is something you have no real concept of. >You cannot change my mind, nor denigrate me to the point where I command >no respect for my physiological references.

Oh, you’ll always command respect from the Keegan "Tweed" Ring. Maybe as much as Keegan himself.  You achieve nothing by posting >mammoth ‘insult Bruce’ posts, because they are merely ad hominem replies,

Glass houses…stones…you know the rest. >liberally peppered with adolescent references to usenet people, many of >whom I’ve never heard of,

You don’t post in a vacuum, Bruce.  The way you lick the net.boots of Chris Lyman, Mark Cochran, and Chris Owens tells me just the kind of people you are to be compared with. So, which people have you NOT heard of?  and couldn’t care less about. Comparing me to >people who last posted three years ago is like comparing breadfruit to >cupracu. Who the hell cares?

I care, as do all people with a sense of history.  You would like for talk.abortion to continue as it has, with one new shill on the pro-choice side after another, each one given every benefit of the doubt and never compared with the long line of shills that went before, don’t you?  Meanwhile, old-time pro-choicers get to hit new pro-life posters with every dirty debating trick in the book, and then some, comparing them to me and Rasmussen and Taite at the flimsiest pretext. >> Only Nora Peal has fallen more in my estimation in the time I’ve >> been with talk.abortion–since July 1992.

She was one of the most successful shills of all.  Taite caught on to her long before I did. >Nora does not have newsgroups named after her, with the only controversy >being whether the second heirarchy word should be ‘moron’ or stupidity.’ >Take the hint.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm on Yeah, I’ll get Amar and Joe to join me in setting up alt.paranoia.bruce-forest, alt.bruce-forest.snake-oil-salesman, alt.crybaby.bruce-forest, and many others. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm off Last I checked, it only takes three votes to set up an alt. newsgroup. Lucky for you I have more class than to do that at this point, with you reeling from one blow to the abortion-substantive chin after another.  I would have a lot more on-topic stuff for it than you do for that newsgroup whose existence you are gloating over. On-topic stuff saved for tomorrow. Peter Nyikos                     — standard disclaimer — ==================== end of enclosed letter By the way, Bruce claimed that if he had a newsgroup with a derogatory title named after him, he could get it canceled in a jiffy.  If anyone knows whether he is telling the truth, I’d appreciate hearing about it, because I would like to get the newsgroup alt.moron.peter-nyikos abolished. Peter Nyikos                      – standard disclaimer —   Professor, Dept. of Mathematics University of South Carolina Columbia,  SC  29208

Response:

Peter Nyikos <nyi…@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >This is one example of a letter over which Bruce Forest buried his >head in the sand.  Time permitting, I will post several others.

Get a life, Nyikos.  None of the newsgroups are alt.nyikos.vendettas and so your message is probably off-topic. — Ray Fischer r…@netcom.com

Response:

All Peter Nyikos did here was post evidence showing why he has been banned from so many people’s mail boxes. And why is he posting non-threatening, non-harassing email without the author’s permission? Btw, Nyikos has permission to post my email to him, only if he posts the entire message, unedited. — Chris Lyman      |     chr…@minn.net     |     #include <blue-ribbon.h> "One of humankind’s greater idiocies is the notion that there’s  something admirable about looking grim – that the faces of hard  work and virtue do not wear smiles." — Walter B. Hailey

Response:

In article <chrisl-0907961906310…@news.minn.net>, chr…@minn.net (Chris Lyman) wrote:

: All Peter Nyikos did here was post evidence showing why : he has been banned from so many people’s mail boxes. : : And why is he posting non-threatening, non-harassing : email without the author’s permission? : : Btw, Nyikos has permission to post my email to him, only : if he posts the entire message, unedited. hasn’t nyikos previously posted that he’s post any e-mail he received? i expect one of his toadies, probably hausmann to be defending him here again.

Response:

This is one example of a letter over which Bruce Forest buried his head in the sand.  Time permitting, I will post several others. ================= begin included letter ~Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 17:11:39 -0400 ~From: Peter Nyikos <nyikos> ~Message-Id: <199606042111.RAA25…@milo.math.sc.edu> ~To: bfor…@interramp.com ~CC: nyi…@math.sc.edu, bel…@usit.net, wmn4…@ns.net, amor…@ix.netcom.com,         mi…@sonic.net ~Subject: Reply along the "Chameleon" thread, newsgroups trimmed Newsgroups: alt.flame.bill-clinton.abortion.partial-birth,alt.feminism,soc.women Subject: Re: Bruce "Chameleon" Forest shows his true colors References: <bforest-2305962132040001@usenet.interramp.com> <4ol7u3$hjc@redwood.cs.sc.edu> <bforest-0306961113180001@usenet.interramp.com> CC: Usual people, usual permission to post to the regular abortion newsgroups–a.f.b-c.a.p-b. is not one of them. I’ve deleted the regular abortion newsgroups. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -bfor…@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) writes: >In article <4ol7u3$…@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, nyi…@math.scarolina.edu >(Peter Nyikos) wrote: >> This is the second follow-up to this new thread title, and the >> third overall, to a post by Forest on >> ‘Cletus’ Vidrine returns! (was:Re: What the Hell is this news group about?) >> bfor…@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) writes: >> > From: Peter Nyikos <nyi…@math.SC.EDU> >> [deletia of things covered in earlier follow-ups] >> Bruce has alleged that general anesthesia is fatal to the fetus >> in partial birth abortions.   >I said if general anesthesia is used, it can indeed be fatal to the fetus.

Nice backpedal.  How come you didn’t correct Peter Vidrine in the following sequence: _____________________begin excerpt from post, names added in brackets_____ ["Linus" or "Cletus" or Peter V.:] >> To be sure, Mr. Forest, I have read nothing which would even suggest a >> claim by any writer that "…anesthesia doesn’t affect the fetus." >> WIthout a doubt, it does.  To reiterate, however, your claim was that >> "…the fetus dies from the general anesthetic used."  Clearly, whatever >> it is you have "learned," is inaccurate.

[Forest:] >Guess I’ll send that sheepskin back, eh? ;-) >What I ‘learned’ I learned in medical school.

[Nyikos:] Here’s a compromise: mail the sheepskin to the above-mentioned President of ASA, and let HIM contact the people who allegedly taught you that disinformation. You wouldn’t happen to remember their names, would you? ["Linus" or whomever:] >> In response to the unequivocal evisceration of your argument, you suggest >> that we "…look at an equally, or perhaps more illustrious source:"

[Forest:] >What ‘evisceration’ was that?  Some crap about drugs not crossing the >placental membrane?

[Nyikos:] Nope.  I’ve restored the viscera above.  Deal with them like a man. If you don’t, don’t expect me to refer to you as "Mr. Forest,"     let alone "Dr. Forest," you Mountebank-Cochran-clone. >> From your pathetic reliance on the above passage to discredit your >> undoers, I can l only assume that, for you, "…a severe depressant effect >> on the fetus or newborn" is the equivalent of "death." >Pathetic reliance? On the most respected obstetrics text in the world? Um, >that is how people debate. Perhaps you should lose the pedantry and try >referencing your argument.

He doesn’t need to, prevaricator.  You were guilty of grossly unwarranted extrapolation from what you posted. _________________end of excerpt___________________________________ The "viscera" in question was the following, which you shamelessly deleted, in order to knock down your strawman about "anesthesia does not affect the fetus":    According  to  president  of the American Society of    Anesthesiologists  (ASA),  Dr.  Norig  Ellison,  the    anesthesia  administered to the mother in connection    with such a procedure does not kill the fetus. >Haskell uses local, and you still haven’t proven to me that anyone else >uses the procedure.

I’ve given powerful evidence that you were blowing smoke out of your ass when you claimed that he was the only one.   >>He still hasn’t come clean on what >> his sources are, falsely claiming that his allegation is supported >> by DeCherney Obstetrics and even blustering,

[whine like the following by Bruce, deleted] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >How many times must I retype this goddam quote? >> >"All analgesics and anesthetics given to the mother will cross the >> >placenta. Many drugs have CNS depressant effects. Although they may afford >> >the desired effect in the mother, they may exert a severe depressant >> >effect on the fetus or newborn. >> >The ideal drug would have optimal beneficial effect on the mother, and >> >minimal depressant effect on the fetus. However, none of the presently >> >available narcotic and sedative medications has a selective maternal >> >effect." >> >DeCherney 8th Edition p520 >> Of course, there is no mention of fetal death here.  I suspect his >> real source is in the pro-choice propaganda machine. >Ah, so now DeCherney is a ‘pro-choice propaganda’ source?

No, YOUR real source.  Are you really as deficient in reading comprehension as you make it look here?  And, if you are >so ignorant, to still think ’severe depressant effect’ does not include >the strong possibility of death, you have much to learn. Might I suggest a >few biology courses.

And if you are so ignorant as to think that "severe depressant effect" is the same as CERTAIN DEATH, as the bit Peter V. quoted from you indicated and you did NOT deny having said, then you are almost certainly a mountebank pretending to be an MD. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> As I said >> earlier: >> >> The late Dr. McMahon did indeed claim, in a June 23, 1995 submission >> >> to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, >> >>         Due to the enormous weight difference, a medical coma >> >>         is induced in the fetus.  There is a neurological fetal >> >>         demise.  There is never a live birth. >> >> But "neurological fetal demise" could just be McMahonese for >> >> the sucking out of brain tissue; if he really meant to say >> >> that the fetus is killed by the anesthetic, that is absolutely >> >> wrong. >> >Bullshit. You have no evidence, nor the education necessary to make that >> >assumption.

It is evident from what you posted next that I misunderstood the referent for "assumption".  Yes, as it turns out, it was NOT McMahonese for sucking out of brain tissue, but rather what laymen call "brain death".  And as such, it was refuted by Norig Ellison, President, American Society of Anesthesiologists: >> I have testimony by leading anesthesiologists, some the best in >> the country, to the United States Congress, some of which >> I’ve posted to >> PRO-CHOICE MIS/DISINFORMATION ON PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS >> another spinoff to the "Cletus V…" thread to which I’ve >> seen NO posts by you, even though you are the superstar of >> the thread, and the mainstay of its title. >Once again, you fail to mention that your newsserver is incompetent. You >sent me TEN emails of articles you planned to post; I have seen only three >of them, and my newsserver is great.

Is this masterpiece of illogic the only excuse you have?  By your account, your netserver would seem to be a lot worse than mine. >I have responded to everything you have posted.

I posted three things to that thread last week and a fourth this week.  I am even contemplating reposting them in the face of the fact that Melanie and Joe Belk were both away when this happened, and they are the only pro-lifers who seem to have time for these posts. The posts did show up in my newsreader, so I’ll be reposting them with headers if I do take this route.   >> >> Where did you get your misinformation from–PPFA and NARAL? >> >Very funny. When your sources approch the eminence of mine, we can talk. >> You LIED about what your sources showed.  I might as well claim >> the entire medical literature is my source, and I still wouldn’t >> approach the audacity of your lie. >What lie is that?

See above about certain fetal death. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Did I ever tell you how one of your role models, Mark A. "Mountebank" >> Cochran, claimed in January 1994 that (1) the pregnancy rate >> for rape is the same as for consensual intercourse and (2) nothing >> known to medical science can be a reason for the rates >> being different?  And how he ran away, >> over and over again, from a follow-up to him by Donovan Verrill, >> which listed 7 reasons, the most telling of which was backed >> up by a pair of tables from _The New England Journal of Medicine_, >> arguably the most prestigious medical journal in the world? >> If not, I’ll be glad to give you the gory details.  By the way, >> those tables were painstakingly typed by me and e-mailed to >> him for insertion in the post with which he put Mark Cochran >> to final, utter, complete, ignominious rout. >As I said before, you cannot resist posting irrelevant material about >other posters, can you?

You licked his net.boots over his perverse posts about fetal hearts. Until I see a retraction, you can expect more and more comparisons with him. >I won’t respond to these adolescent rants, because >they are completely irrelevant, and demonstrate your true agenda; to >ridicule people, not to discuss the issues.

This from someone who massively ridiculed Joe Belk.  Shall I trot out that "Chianti" piece of yours again, hypocrite? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> Or did you get it from a "Fact Sheet" prepared by Mary >> >> Campbell, M.D. and circulated among the House of Representatives >> >> as "H.R. 1833, Medical Questions and Answers"?  It contained >> >> the following passage: >> >>         Q: When does the fetus die? >> >>         A: The fetus dies of an overdose of anesthesia given >> >>         to the mother intravenously.  A dose is calculated for the >> >>         mother’s weight which is 50 to 100 times the weight

… read more »

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply