Thread: Re: Rec: Laundry Detergent, Stain Treater & Fabric Softener

i don't see bryan's posts unless someone replys, and after reading this
tirade... he is so angry that you have children, i begin to wonder if its
envy that you have them and he doesn't have or doesn't have as many as he
wants... i find that often when people have such a violent reaction its
because they are jealous/enviios because they lack whatever quality they are
disrespecting... fact is i can't begin to conmprehend caring for that many
and i can't understand how my sister did/does it, but since i was in control
of my choices i guess that makes all the difference... Lee
"Ranée at Arabian Knits" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Jul 20, 1:54 pm, Miche <michei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <3f24a358-b2a3-4e1f-a89f-e128480a3...@m8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Bryan<bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On top of that, she breeds more like an
>> > animal than like a civilized human, while wanting to deny reproductive
>> > rights to other American women who don't want to fill the planet with
>> > as many souls as possible, no matter the extra suffering and
>> > environmental destruction.
>>
>> It's her right to believe and vote as she wishes, just as it is for you.
>
> Sorry to reply out of thread order. I marked this read and didn't
> want to try to retrieve it.
>
> I find it more than a little ironic that someone who claims, by
> implication anyway, that it is wrong to deny reproductive rights to
> women seems to have a problem with a woman exercising that right to have
> more than the approved number of children. If I were a wagering woman,
> I'd bet that he supports legal limits on number of children, government
> led sterilization and the like. I also find it hilarious that he cites
> environmental damage in defense of his position, when our family has a
> smaller carbon footprint than most childless couples in the U.S., in
> part because we do things such as make our own detergents, aren't huge
> consumers or purchasers of items with loads of packaging and do as much
> as we can on our own.
>
> Rest assured, though, that I am an only child from my parents, Rich
> is one of two, but his brother was adopted. That gives us two extras,
> right? So, now we're up to four. Our children's godparents, though,
> have not had biological children, but adopted, and offered us their
> share of biological children, so that gets us up to six. Rich's brother
> only had one, that leaves us with another extra, bringing us to seven.
> Phew!
>
> There's still room for more, though, as many of our friends have
> either had no children or only one.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee @ Arabian Knits
>
> "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13
>
> http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

On Jul 20, 7:58*pm, "Storrmmee" <rgr...@consolidated.net> wrote:
> i don't see bryan's posts unless someone replys, and after reading this
> tirade... *he is so angry that you have children

I'm angry at these "pro-life" ****s who think that they have more
right to drop puppy after puppy, than other women who do not share
their opinion do to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

> Lee
> "Ran e at Arabian Knits" <arabiankn...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]..
>
>
On Jul 20, 4:26*pm, Ran e at Arabian Knits <arabiankn...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 20, 1:54 pm, Miche <michei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <3f24a358-b2a3-4e1f-a89f-e128480a3...@m8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Bryan<bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On top of that, she breeds more like an
> > > animal than like a civilized human, while wanting to deny reproductive
> > > rights to other American women who don't want to fill the planet with
> > > as many souls as possible, no matter the extra suffering and
> > > environmental destruction.
>
> > It's her right to believe and vote as she wishes, just as it is for you..
>
> * *Sorry to reply out of thread order. *I marked this read and didn't
> want to try to retrieve it. *
>
> * *I find it more than a little ironic that someone who claims, by
> implication anyway, that it is wrong to deny reproductive rights to
> women seems to have a problem with a woman exercising that right to have
> more than the approved number of children. *If I were a wagering woman,
> I'd bet that he supports legal limits on number of children, government
> led sterilization and the like.

No, Ranee, only one of us is a brute. I am truly pro-choice in that I
would never support forcing a woman to either terminate a pregnancy,
nor carry one to term. I only challenged you after seeing that pro-
life crap on your website. A person can advocate, "choose life," but
the overwhelming majority of folks who put that phrase on their car
bumpers are not supporting choice, but laws forcing women to carry
unwanted pregnancies to term. Do you advocate merely shunning, or
harassing women who choose to terminate? Do you? If you really
aren't someone who supports laws prohibiting abortion, and merely
wants to make abortions a less common *choice*, then I drew the wrong
conclusions about your link on your website. Is that the case?


>*I also find it hilarious that he cites
> environmental damage in defense of his position, when our family has a
> smaller carbon footprint than most childless couples in the U.S., in
> part because we do things such as make our own detergents, aren't huge
> consumers or purchasers of items with loads of packaging and do as much
> as we can on our own. *

The ingredients in your concoctions are manufactured and shipped, and
your mixing of those ingredients has little positive impact on your
"carbon footprint." Transportation costs alone to the hinterland
negate any reduction in carbon impact.
>
> * *Rest assured, though, that I am an only child from my parents, Rich
> is one of two, but his brother was adopted. *That gives us two extras,
> right? *So, now we're up to four. *Our children's godparents, though,
> have not had biological children, but adopted, and offered us their
> share of biological children, so that gets us up to six. *Rich's brother
> only had one, that leaves us with another extra, bringing us to seven. *
> Phew! *
>
> * *There's still room for more, though, as many of our friends have
> either had no children or only one.

I wasn't questioning the rights of your children to exist. I am,
myself, a fifth child, but reaching back to previous generations
doesn't justify either your fecundity, or your position that others
who are culturally or religiously different from you should be FORCED
to give birth. You would lose your wager. I'd fight against forced
abortion even more strongly than I oppose prohibitions on abortion.

Again, I'd fight against forced abortion even more strongly than I
oppose prohibitions on abortion because I really do support choice as
a legal option. I once loaned a girl money for an abortion back in
the 1970s. She felt like she needed to make that choice. If she'd
chosen otherwise, I'd have supported that choice as well, and I've
bought her a baby shower gift, and if there had been a child born, I'd
have tried to help her out then too. If I'd thought that her
boyfriend was bullying her to get an abortion, I'd have kicked his
ass. Very few pro-choicers are pro-abortion, and many of us would try
to discourage that choice. Do you want to dictate a woman's choice?
I respect those who are morally opposed to abortion, as long as their
goal is to make abortion safe, legal and rare.

I also support income tax deduction and child tax credits because
those benefit children, and because I think that using the tax laws to
discourage large families would have a negligible effect on decisions
to have a bunch of babies, and would just result in depriving the
children of resources.

I'm not the brute.
>
--Bryan

On Jul 21, 8:15*am, Bryan <bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 7:58*pm, "Storrmmee" <rgr...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
> > i don't see bryan's posts unless someone replys, and after reading this
> > tirade... *he is so angry that you have children
>
> I'm angry at these "pro-life" ****s who think that they have more
> right to drop puppy after puppy, than other women who do not share
> their opinion do to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
>
> > Lee
> > "Ran e at Arabian Knits" <arabiankn...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]..
>
> On Jul 20, 4:26*pm, Ran e at Arabian Knits <arabiankn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 1:54 pm, Miche <michei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <3f24a358-b2a3-4e1f-a89f-e128480a3...@m8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Bryan<bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On top of that, she breeds more like an
> > > > animal than like a civilized human, while wanting to deny reproductive
> > > > rights to other American women who don't want to fill the planet with
> > > > as many souls as possible, no matter the extra suffering and
> > > > environmental destruction.
>
> > > It's her right to believe and vote as she wishes, just as it is for you.
>
> > * *Sorry to reply out of thread order. *I marked this read and didn't
> > want to try to retrieve it. *
>
> > * *I find it more than a little ironic that someone who claims, by
> > implication anyway, that it is wrong to deny reproductive rights to
> > women seems to have a problem with a woman exercising that right to have
> > more than the approved number of children. *If I were a wagering woman,
> > I'd bet that he supports legal limits on number of children, government
> > led sterilization and the like.
>
> No, Ranee, only one of us is a brute. *I am truly pro-choice in that I
> would never support forcing a woman to either terminate a pregnancy,
> nor carry one to term. *I only challenged you after seeing that pro-
> life crap on your website. *A person can advocate, "choose life," but
> the overwhelming majority of folks who put that phrase on their car
> bumpers are not supporting choice, but laws forcing women to carry
> unwanted pregnancies to term. *Do you advocate merely shunning, or
> harassing women who choose to terminate? *Do you? *If you really
> aren't someone who supports laws prohibiting abortion, and merely
> wants to make abortions a less common *choice*, then I drew the wrong
> conclusions about your link on your website. *Is that the case?
>
> >*I also find it hilarious that he cites
> > environmental damage in defense of his position, when our family has a
> > smaller carbon footprint than most childless couples in the U.S., in
> > part because we do things such as make our own detergents, aren't huge
> > consumers or purchasers of items with loads of packaging and do as much
> > as we can on our own. *
>
> The ingredients in your concoctions are manufactured and shipped, and
> your mixing of those ingredients has little positive impact on your
> "carbon footprint." *Transportation costs alone to the hinterland
> negate any reduction in carbon impact.
>
>
>
> > * *Rest assured, though, that I am an only child from my parents, Rich
> > is one of two, but his brother was adopted. *That gives us two extras,
> > right? *So, now we're up to four. *Our children's godparents, though,
> > have not had biological children, but adopted, and offered us their
> > share of biological children, so that gets us up to six. *Rich's brother
> > only had one, that leaves us with another extra, bringing us to seven. *
> > Phew! *
>
> > * *There's still room for more, though, as many of our friends have
> > either had no children or only one.
>
> I wasn't questioning the rights of your children to exist. *I am,
> myself, a fifth child, but reaching back to previous generations
> doesn't justify either your fecundity, or your position that others
> who are culturally or religiously different from you should be FORCED
> to give birth. *You would lose your wager. *I'd fight against forced
> abortion even more strongly than I oppose prohibitions on abortion.
>
> Again, *I'd fight against forced abortion even more strongly than I
> oppose prohibitions on abortion because I really do support choice as
> a legal option. *I once loaned a girl money for an abortion back in
> the 1970s. *She felt like she needed to make that choice. *If she'd
> chosen otherwise, I'd have supported that choice as well, and I've
> bought her a baby shower gift, and if there had been a child born, I'd
> have tried to help her out then too. * If I'd thought that her
> boyfriend was bullying her to get an abortion, I'd have kicked his
> ass. *Very few pro-choicers are pro-abortion, and many of us would try
> to discourage that choice. *Do you want to dictate a woman's choice?
> I respect those who are morally opposed to abortion, as long as their
> goal is to make abortion safe, legal and rare.
>
> I also support income tax deduction and child tax credits because
> those benefit children, and because I think that using the tax laws to
> discourage large families would have a negligible effect on decisions
> to have a bunch of babies, and would just result in depriving the
> children of resources.
>
> I'm not the brute.
>
> --Bryan

==
Although you are a potty-mouthed dork in lots of ways, I agree with
your position on pro-choice. Women must have the choice over their
reproduction and their own bodies...forcing women to give birth is
reprehensible.
==

In article
<[email protected]>,
Bryan <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jul 20, 7:58*pm, "Storrmmee" <rgr...@consolidated.net> wrote:
> > i don't see bryan's posts unless someone replys, and after reading this
> > tirade... *he is so angry that you have children
>
> I'm angry at these "pro-life" ****s who think that they have more
> right to drop puppy after puppy,

They are not "puppies". They are children. So much for respect!

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

On Jul 21, 7:15*am, Bryan <bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 7:58*pm, "Storrmmee" <rgr...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
> > i don't see bryan's posts unless someone replys, and after reading this
> > tirade... *he is so angry that you have children
>
> I'm angry at these "pro-life" ****s

So Bryan reduces women in his mind to their reproductive organs --
walking talking vaginas in other words.

and is not pro choice after all because he says he supports choice for
everyone err except for renee, lol, just shows the weakness of mind... as to
soap, my grandmother used it for years, Lee
"spamtrap1888" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 21, 7:15 am, Bryan <bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 7:58 pm, "Storrmmee" <rgr...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
> > i don't see bryan's posts unless someone replys, and after reading this
> > tirade... he is so angry that you have children
>
> I'm angry at these "pro-life" ****s

So Bryan reduces women in his mind to their reproductive organs --
walking talking vaginas in other words.

Lee wrote:

>> So Bryan reduces women in his mind to their reproductive organs --
>> walking talking vaginas in other words.
>
> and is not pro choice after all because he says he supports choice for
> everyone err except for renee, lol, just shows the weakness of mind...

Where did Bryan write that he does not support freedom of choice for Ranee?
He specifically stated that he *does* support Ranee's right to choose. What
he's ranting about is his impression that Ranee herself wants other women
*not* to have the choice on whether to carry a child to term or not, i.e.,
that abortion should not be available for women who want to terminate their
pregnancy. (That impression came about because Ranee's web site allegedly
contains a link to an anti-abortion site. I haven't looked at Ranee's web
site to verify.)

Bob

i might have read it wrong, but wasn't he the one that changed the subject
insinuating renee was a selfless cow? if i am wrong i will apologise, but
most of what i have read seems from bryan is a rant on using too many
resourses, if its her choice does that choice come with his right to rant
about tit? Lee
"Bob Terwilliger" <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote in message
news:4e28fd66$0$936$c3e8da3$[email protected] .com...
> Lee wrote:
>
>>> So Bryan reduces women in his mind to their reproductive organs --
>>> walking talking vaginas in other words.
>>
>> and is not pro choice after all because he says he supports choice for
>> everyone err except for renee, lol, just shows the weakness of mind...
>
> Where did Bryan write that he does not support freedom of choice for
> Ranee?
> He specifically stated that he *does* support Ranee's right to choose.
> What
> he's ranting about is his impression that Ranee herself wants other women
> *not* to have the choice on whether to carry a child to term or not, i.e.,
> that abortion should not be available for women who want to terminate
> their pregnancy. (That impression came about because Ranee's web site
> allegedly contains a link to an anti-abortion site. I haven't looked at
> Ranee's web site to verify.)
>
> Bob
>

Lee wrote:

>>>> So Bryan reduces women in his mind to their reproductive organs --
>>>> walking talking vaginas in other words.
>>>
>>> and is not pro choice after all because he says he supports choice for
>>> everyone err except for renee, lol, just shows the weakness of mind...
>>
>> Where did Bryan write that he does not support freedom of choice for
>> Ranee? He specifically stated that he *does* support Ranee's right to
>> choose. What he's ranting about is his impression that Ranee herself
>> wants other women *not* to have the choice on whether to carry a child to
>> term or not, i.e., that abortion should not be available for women who
>> want to terminate their pregnancy. (That impression came about because
>> Ranee's web site allegedly contains a link to an anti-abortion site. I
>> haven't looked at Ranee's web site to verify.)
>>
>
> i might have read it wrong, but wasn't he the one that changed the subject
> insinuating renee was a selfless cow? if i am wrong i will apologise, but
> most of what i have read seems from bryan is a rant on using too many
> resourses, if its her choice does that choice come with his right to rant
> about tit? Lee

Those are two separate issues, and Bryan weighed in on both of them
separately. Yes, Bryan changed the Subject line to express his disapproval
of large families. But that was separate from his posts about a woman's
right to choose how to handle pregnancy. Here's what he wrote about the
right to choose:

"I am truly pro-choice in that I would never support forcing a woman to
either terminate a pregnancy, nor carry one to term. I only challenged you
after seeing that pro-life crap on your website. A person can advocate,
"choose life," but the overwhelming majority of folks who put that phrase on
their car bumpers are not supporting choice, but laws forcing women to carry
unwanted pregnancies to term."

That stance is at odds with his obvious belief that Ranee should have made
DIFFERENT choices after her first or second child. It's like a parent
saying, "You get to choose what we have for dinner tonight. But if you
choose the wrong thing I'm going to punish you for it."

His "sow" thread was a response to the assertion that Ranee has a tiny
carbon footprint. Bryan claims that it is impossible to have a tiny carbon
footprint when you have a large family, but that's only vaguely connected to
the discussion about reproductive rights. As happens so often, it's a
discussion about the difference between what you CAN do (legally) and what
you SHOULD do.

Bob

i understand your point but i don't agree, what a woman, or man for that
matter wants to do in reproducing or not is fully their choice, but saying
she is free to choose but then taking the oppertunity to tellher how wrong
she is for making that choice is degrading and not honest, if you are in
favor of reproductive rights, then you must accept the consequences of what
peopel in fact choose, one has to be more important, as you said he is
attempting to degrade her for her choices after he has so magnamaously given
it to her...

if we are going to seperate things lets seperate it like this

choosing to become pregnant is a right, and that is a choice, we can only
hope that those who do so are able to afford said children and behave in a
responsible manner.

being pregnant, without planning or wanting the baby, is an entirely
different situation, ecology i would think rarely plays into the decision to
have the pregnancy or terminate it, and that again is a choice that only the
woman, and hopefully the man will also make in a responsible manner.

and since we are in this kettle, where does the right of the man come in?
Lee
"Bob Terwilliger" <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote in message
news:4e290afc$0$28089$c3e8da3$[email protected] eb.com...
> Lee wrote:
>
>>>>> So Bryan reduces women in his mind to their reproductive organs --
>>>>> walking talking vaginas in other words.
>>>>
>>>> and is not pro choice after all because he says he supports choice for
>>>> everyone err except for renee, lol, just shows the weakness of mind...
>>>
>>> Where did Bryan write that he does not support freedom of choice for
>>> Ranee? He specifically stated that he *does* support Ranee's right to
>>> choose. What he's ranting about is his impression that Ranee herself
>>> wants other women *not* to have the choice on whether to carry a child
>>> to
>>> term or not, i.e., that abortion should not be available for women who
>>> want to terminate their pregnancy. (That impression came about because
>>> Ranee's web site allegedly contains a link to an anti-abortion site. I
>>> haven't looked at Ranee's web site to verify.)
>>>
>>
>> i might have read it wrong, but wasn't he the one that changed the
>> subject
>> insinuating renee was a selfless cow? if i am wrong i will apologise, but
>> most of what i have read seems from bryan is a rant on using too many
>> resourses, if its her choice does that choice come with his right to rant
>> about tit? Lee
>
> Those are two separate issues, and Bryan weighed in on both of them
> separately. Yes, Bryan changed the Subject line to express his disapproval
> of large families. But that was separate from his posts about a woman's
> right to choose how to handle pregnancy. Here's what he wrote about the
> right to choose:
>
> "I am truly pro-choice in that I would never support forcing a woman to
> either terminate a pregnancy, nor carry one to term. I only challenged
> you
> after seeing that pro-life crap on your website. A person can advocate,
> "choose life," but the overwhelming majority of folks who put that phrase
> on
> their car bumpers are not supporting choice, but laws forcing women to
> carry
> unwanted pregnancies to term."
>
> That stance is at odds with his obvious belief that Ranee should have made
> DIFFERENT choices after her first or second child. It's like a parent
> saying, "You get to choose what we have for dinner tonight. But if you
> choose the wrong thing I'm going to punish you for it."
>
> His "sow" thread was a response to the assertion that Ranee has a tiny
> carbon footprint. Bryan claims that it is impossible to have a tiny carbon
> footprint when you have a large family, but that's only vaguely connected
> to
> the discussion about reproductive rights. As happens so often, it's a
> discussion about the difference between what you CAN do (legally) and what
> you SHOULD do.
>
> Bob
>
>

On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:09:47 -0500, "Storrmmee" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>and is not pro choice after all because he says he supports choice for
>everyone err except for renee, lol, just shows the weakness of mind... as to
>soap, my grandmother used it for years, Lee
>"spamtrap1888" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>On Jul 21, 7:15 am, Bryan <bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 7:58 pm, "Storrmmee" <rgr...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>>
>> > i don't see bryan's posts unless someone replys, and after reading this
>> > tirade... he is so angry that you have children
>>
>> I'm angry at these "pro-life" ****s
>
>So Bryan reduces women in his mind to their reproductive organs --
>walking talking vaginas in other words.
>

Back on track, you should be careful about buying stain pre treaters at the
dollar stores. For the most part they are solvent and possibly combustible,
atleast the one I purchased there was....and it smelled disgusting.

"Stu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:09:47 -0500, "Storrmmee" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>and is not pro choice after all because he says he supports choice for
>>everyone err except for renee, lol, just shows the weakness of mind... as
>>to
>>soap, my grandmother used it for years, Lee
>>"spamtrap1888" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>On Jul 21, 7:15 am, Bryan <bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 7:58 pm, "Storrmmee" <rgr...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > i don't see bryan's posts unless someone replys, and after reading
>>> > this
>>> > tirade... he is so angry that you have children
>>>
>>> I'm angry at these "pro-life" ****s
>>
>>So Bryan reduces women in his mind to their reproductive organs --
>>walking talking vaginas in other words.
>>
>
> Back on track, you should be careful about buying stain pre treaters at
> the
> dollar stores. For the most part they are solvent and possibly
> combustible,
> atleast the one I purchased there was....and it smelled disgusting.

Mrs. Meyers makes the BEST spot remover. It gets all spots out. Sadly I
have not found it in any stores. Just online and only at a couple of
places. It is sweet pea scented and is meant for babies. Second best would
be Totally Toddler. It is available in stores such as Toys R Us and Walmart
but in the baby department.