curlcoat...yet again.

curlcoat, your obsession with all things pregnancy, baby or parenthood has become pathological. Your blatant refusal to acknowlege responses in threads that dispute your (erroneous) premises renders you no more than a fool.

(If you want more curlcoat entertainment there is no shortage of threads devoted to her lunacy…hit ‘search’)

But c’mon curlcoat, haven’t you grown tired of this spiel yet?

Yes, we know you feel that your life has been disadvantaged by the fact that there’s all these kids being born into poor families…but you’re not the mum nor the kid are you?

Yes, we know that your taxpayer dollars are helping to feed and house these mums and kids…but you’re not a taxpayer anymore, are you?

Yes, we know that your advice would be that all of these useless mothers should terminate their pregnancies…but you’re not them are you?

Yes, we know that it’s the offspring of these errant mothers who are responsible for all the crime and corruption in the world…except it’s not really. The GFC and major monetary crime (that affects EVERYONE) is perpetrated by WASPkids who wore fine leather shoes and went to good schools. And while we’re about it, many of your tax-dollars (the ones you don’t pay anyway) are helping to prop up the financial institutions who created this furore in the first place. It’s not the poor families who are making you suffer…it’s those decent, upstanding banks who are screwing you royally. Oh, and the insurance companies too…they’re just rainbows and sunshine all the way down they are!!

I’m so over your condemnation, your refusal to listen to reason and your outright fucktardedness.

Get a new bee in your bonnet please?

I do have to say, I’d never encountered anyone I’d describe as pro-abortion before. I mean not pro-choice.

If only her parents had shared that opinion…

It has a very good chance to an epic trainwreck with both CC and ZPG weighing in.

I support this pitting. she almost makes me want to vote Republican on the chance that her benefits will be eliminated and I won’t have to support her sorry ass with my taxes any more.

It became quite obvious to me quite a while ago that she posts purely to provoke reaction. I don’t know whether or not she believes what she says, and I don’t really care. But she knows perfectly well that she’s pressing people’s buttons, and she loves it.

As I said in some other thread, one of the most reliable SDMB rules is “if curlcoat agrees with me, I must be wrong.”

Well, I read a couple pages of the linked thread and came away with two things.

  1. even sven is awfully smug


  1. curlcoat wasn’t being very annoying for, you know, curlcoat

Does it pick up later?

:blink: Ummm… I really don’t see anything wrong with the OP in that thead.

I pretty much agree. If somebody I knew got pregnant at a really bad time, I would find it hard to be happy for them.

A pointless pit IMHO.

Did you get the sense that the OP in this thread was complaining specifically and only about the OP of the other thread? Because there are three pages in that other thread and it seems to me that with the number of details given in the OP of this thread, many of which don’t seem to be based on anything in curlcoat’s OP, that perhaps kambuckta was referencing the thread in its entirety, and not just the OP. I mean, that’s just a possibility that I’m throwing out there for you.

Edit: OK, those details don’t seem to be actually based on that specific thread at all BUT STILL. MY POINT STANDS.

But do you find it utterly inexplicable that other people might find some measure of joy in an irrevocable situation? Or that they might temper their public reactions to focus on the positive, instead of only and entirely discussing what a bad idea it is and how horrible it will be and how it’s a terrible shame?

Temper their pulic reation? Of course. Finding ‘joy’? No.

Hear, hear! Very well said. I, for one, endorse this pitting. curlcoat doesn’t strike me as being a very nice person…

I didn’t see anything contentious in any of curlcoats responses. Some of the other folks where putting words in her mouth though.

Really? You don’t find a problem with:

You really think the law should not allow women to decide whether or not to bear a child?

OK, I’ll admit I did skim the thread. I didn’t see that. But I understand her point. I’m not so sure a 16 year old or drug addict (for instance) has the capabilities to raise a child. It may be best to put it up for adoption. It should certainly be an option brought to the table and discussed.

I think you missed the point, or you have a different definition of “allowed” than I do.

Your point is reasonable. Hers, as stated in the quote you’re responding to, is not.

Your correct. Still think this is a pretty lame pitting.

“you’re” dammit.

There’s little left to say about curlcoat that hasn’t already been snarled.