Dr. Fong Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 I'm talking about the baby's DNA. The baby has not been born yet. Was her boyfriend at the party? 867794[/snapback] I don't understand your point Just because it's around 9 months after the "party" doesn't at all indicate that it would have had to be one of the lacrosse players. Her "boyfriend" or some other unknown DNA donor might very well have impregnated her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I don't understand your point Just because it's around 9 months after the "party" doesn't at all indicate that it would have had to be one of the lacrosse players. Her "boyfriend" or some other unknown DNA donor might very well have impregnated her. 868144[/snapback] This is also my answer to Yall. If the baby is born EXACTLY nine months after the party, to the hour, then the baby was obviously conceived at the party. If the boyfriend was at the party as a bodyguard or something he could still be the father. If not, it MUST be one of the players or their guests. If the baby is born 8 months and 27 days or 9 months and 3 days after the party then it is clearly not one of the players' baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 This was one of your better 'hogboy-type' efforts at inciting response until this one. You almost even had me there for a minute at the beginning.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 This is also my answer to Yall. If the baby is born EXACTLY nine months after the party, to the hour, then the baby was obviously conceived at the party. If the boyfriend was at the party as a bodyguard or something he could still be the father. If not, it MUST be one of the players or their guests. If the baby is born 8 months and 27 days or 9 months and 3 days after the party then it is clearly not one of the players' baby. 868178[/snapback] What if the baby comes out a Canadian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 What if the baby comes out a Canadian? 868182[/snapback] The baby was conceived at or near Duke University which is a very highly acclaimed school. The chances of a Canadian being anywhere near Duke at that or any other time are not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 The baby was conceived at or near Duke University which is a very highly acclaimed school. The chances of a Canadian being anywhere near Duke at that or any other time are not good. 868189[/snapback] How silly of me. I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ1 Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 This is also my answer to Yall. If the baby is born EXACTLY nine months after the party, to the hour, then the baby was obviously conceived at the party. If the boyfriend was at the party as a bodyguard or something he could still be the father. If not, it MUST be one of the players or their guests. If the baby is born 8 months and 27 days or 9 months and 3 days after the party then it is clearly not one of the players' baby. 868178[/snapback] Can't determine whether you're serious or not but if you are, you must eat crayons coated with lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Can't determine whether you're serious or not but if you are, you must eat crayons coated with lead. 868209[/snapback] It really isn't fair to the accuser or accused to take a stand here. Why not just wait and see when the baby is born? I hope the mods see the shot you're taking at me. It wasn't very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 This is also my answer to Yall. If the baby is born EXACTLY nine months after the party, to the hour, then the baby was obviously conceived at the party. If the boyfriend was at the party as a bodyguard or something he could still be the father. If not, it MUST be one of the players or their guests. If the baby is born 8 months and 27 days or 9 months and 3 days after the party then it is clearly not one of the players' baby. 868178[/snapback] How long is a month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 How long is a month? 868216[/snapback] From the 10th of one month to the 10th of the next month is a month? Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 From the 10th of one month to the 10th of the next month is a month? Get it? 868219[/snapback] Holy redundancy batman. i didn't know you can define a word by using that word in the definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 This is also my answer to Yall. If the baby is born EXACTLY nine months after the party, to the hour, then the baby was obviously conceived at the party. If the boyfriend was at the party as a bodyguard or something he could still be the father. If not, it MUST be one of the players or their guests. If the baby is born 8 months and 27 days or 9 months and 3 days after the party then it is clearly not one of the players' baby. 868178[/snapback] OK so I finally caught on to your lame schtick. You're either winding everyone up with your stupid routine or you're the world's stupidest person. I'm still not 100% sure which it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 OK so I finally caught on to your lame schtick. You're either winding everyone up with your stupid routine or you're the world's stupidest person. I'm still not 100% sure which it is. 868248[/snapback] Hay you are learning about trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Hay you are learning about trolling. 868249[/snapback] My first reply was from work. I don't have time to weed out the idiots during the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Hay you are learning about trolling. 868249[/snapback] He/she did "build it" for sometime since the summer of last year (2005)... Even creative enough with the whole BF thing... I am kinda impressed with the patience... If he/she really is HogBoy... Kinda funny how their ire has turned from volunteer firefighters to Canadians... What is next? Tow truck operators? Maybe federal workers? Who knows... Kinda entertaining, amazing how somebody will always get riled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I don't understand why everyone is upset with me. It seems like you all have taken sides with the accuser or the accused. I say wait until the birth then do a DNA test. How is that trolling? A DNA test is definitive. If the baby is not born nine months after the party then it is not one of the players'. I understand that doesn't mean there was no rape. I get it. There could have been a rape and a separate pregnancy. It might make the accuser's credibility look bad but that is only part of the equation. With no other evidence known, Nifong either has something up his sleeve or he is in trouble. I don't like the paint chips comments from people that don't understand that pregnancy is measured in months, not days. A month is not a constant number of days. I get that too. But pregnancy is measured in months, not days, so your arguments are mute points and calling names does not change that. It's like trying to ask how many meters do the Bills need to go for a first down. Football is measured in yards and there is no correlation to meters, just like months and days. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 When on earth did i ever advocate killing gypsies? 867825[/snapback] In a thread about the Borat movie. Even if you erased your nasty posts, I'm sure I had quoted them in some of mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 It's like trying to ask how many meters do the Bills need to go for a first down. Football is measured in yards and there is no correlation to meters, just like months and days. Get it? 868368[/snapback] Yeah, we get it. You are a knee biter. By the way, there is a correlation. A very direct one. 9.144 meters to be exact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I don't understand why everyone is upset with me. It seems like you all have taken sides with the accuser or the accused. I say wait until the birth then do a DNA test. How is that trolling? A DNA test is definitive. If the baby is not born nine months after the party then it is not one of the players'. I understand that doesn't mean there was no rape. I get it. There could have been a rape and a separate pregnancy. It might make the accuser's credibility look bad but that is only part of the equation. With no other evidence known, Nifong either has something up his sleeve or he is in trouble. I don't like the paint chips comments from people that don't understand that pregnancy is measured in months, not days. A month is not a constant number of days. I get that too. But pregnancy is measured in months, not days, so your arguments are mute points and calling names does not change that. It's like trying to ask how many meters do the Bills need to go for a first down. Football is measured in yards and there is no correlation to meters, just like months and days. Get it? 868368[/snapback] It is measured in days. 266 Days to be exact. Or do you believe that babies carried through February require less time in the womb than babies carried through October. How do you explain premies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 It is measured in days. 266 Days to be exact. Or do you believe that babies carried through February require less time in the womb than babies carried through October. How do you explain premies? 868401[/snapback] It's measured in months. Nine months is the mean time of gestation. A baby not born in nine months means there was an error in the pregnancy. I have spent a lot of time researching this lately as have others on this board. Many of the theories are explained on the Politics board in a very enlightening thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts