Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

School? You're still a student? Thought you were 30ish? Professional student?

Florda_mike said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

School? You're still a student? Thought you were 30ish? Professional student?

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with your bachelors from tceh in pizza delivery but some people go back to school for advanced degrees.

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

School? You're still a student? Thought you were 30ish? Professional student?

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with your bachelors from tceh in pizza delivery but some people go back to school for advanced degrees.

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with flunking out from pot after attempted degree in smartass, but most all are finished with advanced degrees by mid to late 20s max

He's a pro student isn't he? That connects dots of this BBL character

Florda_mike said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

School? You're still a student? Thought you were 30ish? Professional student?

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with your bachelors from tceh in pizza delivery but some people go back to school for advanced degrees.

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with flunking out from pot after attempted degree in smartass, but most all are finished with advanced degrees by mid to late 20s max

He's a pro student isn't he? That connects dots of this BBL character

---

Not if you graduate, work for a while, and then decide to go back to school for your advanced degree, dip***** Math is hard.

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

School? You're still a student? Thought you were 30ish? Professional student?

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with your bachelors from tceh in pizza delivery but some people go back to school for advanced degrees.

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with flunking out from pot after attempted degree in smartass, but most all are finished with advanced degrees by mid to late 20s max

He's a pro student isn't he? That connects dots of this BBL character

---

Not if you graduate, work for a while, and then decide to go back to school for your advanced degree, dip***** Math is hard.

---

Yeah right, sure thing

Small % go that route

BBL = pro student and you know it

Spoon fed rich kid

Go finish your joint to medicate your anger and ADD

Florda_mike said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

School? You're still a student? Thought you were 30ish? Professional student?

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with your bachelors from tceh in pizza delivery but some people go back to school for advanced degrees.

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with flunking out from pot after attempted degree in smartass, but most all are finished with advanced degrees by mid to late 20s max

He's a pro student isn't he? That connects dots of this BBL character

---

Not if you graduate, work for a while, and then decide to go back to school for your advanced degree, dip***** Math is hard.

---

Yeah right, sure thing

Small % go that route

BBL = pro student and you know it

Spoon fed rich kid

Go finish your joint to medicate your anger and ADD

---

I just operated on a patient who delayed her procedure because she was graduating from her PhD program in her 60s. I've worked with multiple nurses who have gone back to get masters degrees while working in their 30s and 40s. This practice isn't unusual at all. But it must seem foreign to you since no degree is required to run a trailer park.

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

School? You're still a student? Thought you were 30ish? Professional student?

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with your bachelors from tceh in pizza delivery but some people go back to school for advanced degrees.

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with flunking out from pot after attempted degree in smartass, but most all are finished with advanced degrees by mid to late 20s max

He's a pro student isn't he? That connects dots of this BBL character

---

Not if you graduate, work for a while, and then decide to go back to school for your advanced degree, dip***** Math is hard.

---

Yeah right, sure thing

Small % go that route

BBL = pro student and you know it

Spoon fed rich kid

Go finish your joint to medicate your anger and ADD

---

I just operated on a patient who delayed her procedure because she was graduating from her PhD program in her 60s. I've worked with multiple nurses who have gone back to get masters degrees while working in their 30s and 40s. This practice isn't unusual at all. But it must seem foreign to you since no degree is required to run a trailer park.

---

Mike could not be more wrong about me if he tried to be, lol.

I mean... wow. If my parents were rich, I'm sure it'd be news to them. If he has issues with me, he can talk to people who know me. I'm not sure we should expect much from a guy who can't spell Florida.

People from Florida can spell Florida.

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

School? You're still a student? Thought you were 30ish? Professional student?

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with your bachelors from tceh in pizza delivery but some people go back to school for advanced degrees.

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with flunking out from pot after attempted degree in smartass, but most all are finished with advanced degrees by mid to late 20s max

He's a pro student isn't he? That connects dots of this BBL character

---

Not if you graduate, work for a while, and then decide to go back to school for your advanced degree, dip***** Math is hard.

---

Yeah right, sure thing

Small % go that route

BBL = pro student and you know it

Spoon fed rich kid

Go finish your joint to medicate your anger and ADD

---

I just operated on a patient who delayed her procedure because she was graduating from her PhD program in her 60s. .

---

What kind of surgery do you specialize in ?

Florda_mike said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with flunking out from pot after attempted degree in smartass, but most all are finished with advanced degrees by mid to late 20s max

He's a pro student isn't he? That connects dots of this BBL character

---

Not if you graduate, work for a while, and then decide to go back to school for your advanced degree, dip***** Math is hard.

---

Yeah right, sure thing

Small % go that route

BBL = pro student and you know it

Spoon fed rich kid

Go finish your joint to medicate your anger and ADD

---

Well, for the record I went back and got my MBA after working in management for two decades plus, class of 2009.

Hint: I was well past my 20's.

And I ain't rich.

Folks can disagree on opinion without disparaging personal improvement.

Just saying.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

I know this is hard for you to understand with flunking out from pot after attempted degree in smartass, but most all are finished with advanced degrees by mid to late 20s max

He's a pro student isn't he? That connects dots of this BBL character

---

Not if you graduate, work for a while, and then decide to go back to school for your advanced degree, dip***** Math is hard.

---

Yeah right, sure thing

Small % go that route

BBL = pro student and you know it

Spoon fed rich kid

Go finish your joint to medicate your anger and ADD

---

Well, for the record I went back and got my MBA after working in management for two decades plus, class of 2009.

Hint: I was well past my 20's.

And I ain't rich.

Folks can disagree on opinion without disparaging personal improvement.

Just saying.

---

Yep

I've got 2 friends did same

And like you, they ain't rich

I respect that

Plenty stay in school as pro students to avoid real world

Whatever though

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

Your extensive research is twitter

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

Your extensive research is twitter

---

Lol. If it makes you feel better. Though I'm not sure the guy misquoting a snopes article has standing to criticize anyone else's sources.

But no. I'm lucky in that I have access to more than a few legal minds and general counsel (I have two in my classes and am taught by a third, as well). This specific topic came up unrelated to me last week. I was able to ask some others via email and text.

It was a fun couple of conversations as I was able to ask them opinions raised by others. They did all agree that, operationally, it wasn't a different standard.

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

Your extensive research is twitter

---

Lol. If it makes you feel better. Though I'm not sure the guy misquoting a snopes article has standing to criticize anyone else's sources.

But no. I'm lucky in that I have access to more than a few legal minds and general counsel (I have two in my classes and am taught by a third, as well). This specific topic came up unrelated to me last week. I was able to ask some others via email and text.

It was a fun couple of conversations as I was able to ask them opinions raised by others. They did all agree that, operationally, it wasn't a different standard.

---

Your research is twitter and conversations with other people you quote authoritatively.
I posted a link. You post your remembrance of private conversations we are supposed to accept without question.

I'm not sure what your field of study is, but imagine a bibliography of nothing but personal twitter recollections and conversations that only you heard.

FAIL

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

---

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that there were abortions performed under one standard vs the other?

I feel like you're making my case for me.

There isn't an operational difference.

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

Your extensive research is twitter

---

Lol. If it makes you feel better. Though I'm not sure the guy misquoting a snopes article has standing to criticize anyone else's sources.

But no. I'm lucky in that I have access to more than a few legal minds and general counsel (I have two in my classes and am taught by a third, as well). This specific topic came up unrelated to me last week. I was able to ask some others via email and text.

It was a fun couple of conversations as I was able to ask them opinions raised by others. They did all agree that, operationally, it wasn't a different standard.

---

Your research is twitter and conversations with other people you quote authoritatively.
I posted a link. You post your remembrance of private conversations we are supposed to accept without question.

I'm not sure what your field of study is, but imagine a bibliography of nothing but personal twitter recollections and conversations that only you heard.

FAIL

---

Lol. Okay. Only snopes counts for you.

Quit pretending you're serious.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Lol. Okay. Only snopes counts for you.

Quit pretending you're serious.

---

Seriously, BBL, the first sentence in your last post forfeits any right to make the second sentence.

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

---

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that there were abortions performed under one standard vs the other?

I feel like you're making my case for me.

There isn't an operational difference.

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Lol. Okay. Only snopes counts for you.

Quit pretending you're serious.

---

Seriously, BBL, the first sentence in your last post forfeits any right to make the second sentence.

---

He quoted the part of a snopes article that the author listed as biased and hoped no one would notice. He posted a bad source knowing it was a bad source, just hoping no one would call him on it.

I was genuinely interested in his opinion so I wanted to see where he was coming from. I was disappointed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

---

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that there were abortions performed under one standard vs the other?

I feel like you're making my case for me.

There isn't an operational difference.

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

---

You're saying there were cases that should have been prosecuted, but werent?

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

No, I was referring to a snopes article he posted in bad faith. I was questioning whether he had standing to critique anyone else's sources.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Lol. Okay. Only snopes counts for you.

Quit pretending you're serious.

---

Seriously, BBL, the first sentence in your last post forfeits any right to make the second sentence.

---

He quoted the part of a snopes article that the author listed as biased and hoped no one would notice. He posted a bad source knowing it was a bad source, just hoping no one would call him on it.

I was genuinely interested in his opinion so I wanted to see where he was coming from. I was disappointed.

---

I was disappointed when you abandoned the discussion we were having.

These things happen.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

Your extensive research is twitter

---

Lol. If it makes you feel better. Though I'm not sure the guy misquoting a snopes article has standing to criticize anyone else's sources.

But no. I'm lucky in that I have access to more than a few legal minds and general counsel (I have two in my classes and am taught by a third, as well). This specific topic came up unrelated to me last week. I was able to ask some others via email and text.

It was a fun couple of conversations as I was able to ask them opinions raised by others. They did all agree that, operationally, it wasn't a different standard.

---

Your research is twitter and conversations with other people you quote authoritatively.
I posted a link. You post your remembrance of private conversations we are supposed to accept without question.

I'm not sure what your field of study is, but imagine a bibliography of nothing but personal twitter recollections and conversations that only you heard.

FAIL

---

Lol. Okay. Only snopes counts for you.

Quit pretending you're serious.

---

You convinced me. I'm doing twitter research and talking to MANY OBs (of course, I can't reveal to y'all any sources, but just take my word for it). They all are on my side. So there, I win.

I linked you to Snopes; you have linked us to your opinions.

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

Your extensive research is twitter

---

Lol. If it makes you feel better. Though I'm not sure the guy misquoting a snopes article has standing to criticize anyone else's sources.

But no. I'm lucky in that I have access to more than a few legal minds and general counsel (I have two in my classes and am taught by a third, as well). This specific topic came up unrelated to me last week. I was able to ask some others via email and text.

It was a fun couple of conversations as I was able to ask them opinions raised by others. They did all agree that, operationally, it wasn't a different standard.

---

Your research is twitter and conversations with other people you quote authoritatively.
I posted a link. You post your remembrance of private conversations we are supposed to accept without question.

I'm not sure what your field of study is, but imagine a bibliography of nothing but personal twitter recollections and conversations that only you heard.

FAIL

---

Lol. Okay. Only snopes counts for you.

Quit pretending you're serious.

---

You convinced me. I'm doing twitter research and talking to MANY OBs (of course, I can't reveal to y'all any sources, but just take my word for it). They all are on my side. So there, I win.

I linked you to Snopes; you have linked us to your opinions.

---

You linked is to the "what not to do" section of a snopes article.

You're arguing a genetic fallacy because it's twitter. Are you saying there are no experts on Twitter? ( I might agree with you that most people on Twitter are dumb, but that's another discussion.)

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

I've shared twitter threads with OB's who work in this area. I also stated I've personally asked more than one general counsel their opinion on it.

I doubt there's much legal posting on it, but I'll search WestLaw this week. I'm slammed with school.

---

Your extensive research is twitter

---

Lol. If it makes you feel better. Though I'm not sure the guy misquoting a snopes article has standing to criticize anyone else's sources.

But no. I'm lucky in that I have access to more than a few legal minds and general counsel (I have two in my classes and am taught by a third, as well). This specific topic came up unrelated to me last week. I was able to ask some others via email and text.

It was a fun couple of conversations as I was able to ask them opinions raised by others. They did all agree that, operationally, it wasn't a different standard.

---

Your research is twitter and conversations with other people you quote authoritatively.
I posted a link. You post your remembrance of private conversations we are supposed to accept without question.

I'm not sure what your field of study is, but imagine a bibliography of nothing but personal twitter recollections and conversations that only you heard.

FAIL

---

Lol. Okay. Only snopes counts for you.

Quit pretending you're serious.

---

You convinced me. I'm doing twitter research and talking to MANY OBs (of course, I can't reveal to y'all any sources, but just take my word for it). They all are on my side. So there, I win.

I linked you to Snopes; you have linked us to your opinions.

---

You linked is to the "what not to do" section of a snopes article.

You're arguing a genetic fallacy because it's twitter. Are you saying there are no experts on Twitter? ( I might agree with you that most people on Twitter are dumb, but that's another discussion.)

---

You quote "sources" that only you see. You interpret them and then relate to us opinions of people to whom you speak.

Do you have any sources beyond your opinions or anecdotes? Please provide a link to your "sources"

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

If "the new law isn't any different, really," then the new law doesn't make anything "safer." Really.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

If "the new law isn't any different, really," then the new law doesn't make anything "safer." Really.

---

Touch. Things are exactly as safe as they were.

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

Maybe you will answer the third time I ask you:

Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

No, I was referring to a snopes article he posted in bad faith. I was questioning whether he had standing to critique anyone else's sources.

---

Link us to your sources