On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:39:21 GMT, dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:
In a separate thread The Danimal talked about women receiving unwantedattention from men. However flashing at parties, concerts, and resortsindicates that some segment of women do crave and expect male attention inpublic venues and that they are willing to expose themselves to get it.Problems only seem to arise when these women discover that someone is makingmoney from their exposure. The concept that behavior has consequencesclearly hasn't sunk in with these women, but this does not explain theadvantage of being willing to expose yourself to a crowd.Given the ubiquitous nature of cameras (camera equipped cell phones) andfacial recognition software, it would seem that flashing a crowd is a prettystupid act. So why would a woman do it, unless they crave/expect maleattention.None of my female friends understand the mind of a flasher, any theories?

If it was possible for anyone to fully understand the mind of any
female, we would have heard about it years ago.

One theory is that females have an almost random set of images
flashing through their brains. This passes for thought and it can even
delude the casual observer into believing that a woman is thinking. On
closer observation, he will discover that there is no real coherence.

Men experience a similar sensation as they approach the point of
sleep. The brain skips through vaguely related images as linear
thought is surrendered but the individual fails to realise the
increasing lack of coherence as oblivion takes over.

Women are somewhere on this continuum between mildly irrational
thought and oblivion. It may be caused by continual hormonal
disruptions.

"James Cameron" wrote dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:In a separate thread The Danimal talked about women receiving unwantedattention from men. However flashing at parties, concerts, and resortsindicates that some segment of women do crave and expect male attention
inpublic venues and that they are willing to expose themselves to get it.Problems only seem to arise when these women discover that someone is
makingmoney from their exposure. The concept that behavior has consequencesclearly hasn't sunk in with these women, but this does not explain theadvantage of being willing to expose yourself to a crowd.Given the ubiquitous nature of cameras (camera equipped cell phones) andfacial recognition software, it would seem that flashing a crowd is a
prettystupid act. So why would a woman do it, unless they crave/expect maleattention.None of my female friends understand the mind of a flasher, any theories? If it was possible for anyone to fully understand the mind of any female, we would have heard about it years ago. One theory is that females have an almost random set of images flashing through their brains. This passes for thought and it can even delude the casual observer into believing that a woman is thinking. On closer observation, he will discover that there is no real coherence. Men experience a similar sensation as they approach the point of sleep. The brain skips through vaguely related images as linear thought is surrendered but the individual fails to realise the increasing lack of coherence as oblivion takes over. Women are somewhere on this continuum between mildly irrational thought and oblivion.

You must be from soc.men.
That was very funny.

It may be caused by continual hormonal disruptions.

Why are you so afraid of women?

- Michaela

"James Cameron" wrote dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:Given the ubiquitous nature of cameras (camera equipped cell phones)
andfacial recognition software, it would seem that flashing a crowd is a
prettystupid act. So why would a woman do it


Alcohol?


--

Snoop Dogg: Diary of a Pimp
http://tinyurl.com/9v29

"Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f108fe5.0@news1.mweb.co.za... "James Cameron" wrote dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:In a separate thread The Danimal talked about women receiving unwantedattention from men. However flashing at parties, concerts, and resortsindicates that some segment of women do crave and expect male attention inpublic venues and that they are willing to expose themselves to get it.Problems only seem to arise when these women discover that someone is makingmoney from their exposure. The concept that behavior has consequencesclearly hasn't sunk in with these women, but this does not explain theadvantage of being willing to expose yourself to a crowd.Given the ubiquitous nature of cameras (camera equipped cell phones)
andfacial recognition software, it would seem that flashing a crowd is a prettystupid act. So why would a woman do it, unless they crave/expect maleattention.None of my female friends understand the mind of a flasher, any
theories? If it was possible for anyone to fully understand the mind of any female, we would have heard about it years ago. One theory is that females have an almost random set of images flashing through their brains. This passes for thought and it can even delude the casual observer into believing that a woman is thinking. On closer observation, he will discover that there is no real coherence. Men experience a similar sensation as they approach the point of sleep. The brain skips through vaguely related images as linear thought is surrendered but the individual fails to realise the increasing lack of coherence as oblivion takes over. Women are somewhere on this continuum between mildly irrational thought and oblivion. You must be from soc.men. That was very funny. It may be caused by continual hormonal disruptions. Why are you so afraid of women? - Michaela

Must be feminism is fast becoming something that men are getting tired of as
women's stupidity knows no bounds.

"Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3f108fe5.0@news1.mweb.co.za>... "James Cameron" wrote dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:In a separate thread The Danimal talked about women receiving unwantedattention from men. However flashing at parties, concerts, and resortsindicates that some segment of women do crave and expect male attention inpublic venues and that they are willing to expose themselves to get it.Problems only seem to arise when these women discover that someone is makingmoney from their exposure. The concept that behavior has consequencesclearly hasn't sunk in with these women, but this does not explain theadvantage of being willing to expose yourself to a crowd.Given the ubiquitous nature of cameras (camera equipped cell phones) andfacial recognition software, it would seem that flashing a crowd is a prettystupid act. So why would a woman do it, unless they crave/expect maleattention.None of my female friends understand the mind of a flasher, any theories? If it was possible for anyone to fully understand the mind of any female, we would have heard about it years ago. One theory is that females have an almost random set of images flashing through their brains. This passes for thought and it can even delude the casual observer into believing that a woman is thinking. On closer observation, he will discover that there is no real coherence. Men experience a similar sensation as they approach the point of sleep. The brain skips through vaguely related images as linear thought is surrendered but the individual fails to realise the increasing lack of coherence as oblivion takes over. Women are somewhere on this continuum between mildly irrational thought and oblivion. You must be from soc.men. That was very funny. It may be caused by continual hormonal disruptions. Why are you so afraid of women? - Michaela

Sometimes a rose is just a rose. Period. You're at a party, you're
feeling good and you pick up your shirt. Big friggin deal.

"Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3f108fe5.0@news1.mweb.co.za>... "James Cameron" wrote dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:In a separate thread The Danimal talked about women receiving unwantedattention from men. However flashing at parties, concerts, and resortsindicates that some segment of women do crave and expect male attention inpublic venues and that they are willing to expose themselves to get it.Problems only seem to arise when these women discover that someone is makingmoney from their exposure. The concept that behavior has consequencesclearly hasn't sunk in with these women, but this does not explain theadvantage of being willing to expose yourself to a crowd.Given the ubiquitous nature of cameras (camera equipped cell phones) andfacial recognition software, it would seem that flashing a crowd is a prettystupid act. So why would a woman do it, unless they crave/expect maleattention.None of my female friends understand the mind of a flasher, any theories? If it was possible for anyone to fully understand the mind of any female, we would have heard about it years ago. One theory is that females have an almost random set of images flashing through their brains. This passes for thought and it can even delude the casual observer into believing that a woman is thinking. On closer observation, he will discover that there is no real coherence. Men experience a similar sensation as they approach the point of sleep. The brain skips through vaguely related images as linear thought is surrendered but the individual fails to realise the increasing lack of coherence as oblivion takes over. Women are somewhere on this continuum between mildly irrational thought and oblivion. You must be from soc.men. That was very funny. It may be caused by continual hormonal disruptions. Why are you so afraid of women? - Michaela

Sometimes a rose is just a rose. Period. You're at a party, you're
feeling good and you pick up your shirt. Big friggin deal.

keelandrasislack@yahoo.com (keelandra sislack) wrote in
Sometimes a rose is just a rose. Period. You're at a party, you're feeling good and you pick up your shirt. Big friggin deal.

That's right. What man in his right mind would ***** about getting flashed by
a woman ? Keep up the good work ladies !!

"green-fingers" <greenfigers@it.takes.one.to.know.one.gnc.org> wrote in
message news:zvgQa.4517$Ma.375178@news1.telusplanet.net... "S.La Rocca" <geechel@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns93B7626ACD8geechelyahoocom@216.168.3.44... keelandrasislack@yahoo.com (keelandra sislack) wrote in Sometimes a rose is just a rose. Period. You're at a party, you're feeling good and you pick up your shirt. Big friggin deal. That's right. What man in his right mind would ***** about getting
flashed by a woman ? Keep up the good work ladies !! unless she was a raving man hating feminazi with a hairy chest
Well, in all honesty, that is the sort *least* likely to flash, anyway!

"green-fingers" wrote "Michaela" wrote "James Cameron" wrote dduck531@ameritech.net wrote: >In a separate thread The Danimal talked about women receiving
unwanted >attention from men. However flashing at parties, concerts, and
resorts >indicates that some segment of women do crave and expect male
attention in >public venues and that they are willing to expose themselves to get
it. >Problems only seem to arise when these women discover that someone is making >money from their exposure. The concept that behavior has
consequences >clearly hasn't sunk in with these women, but this does not explain
the >advantage of being willing to expose yourself to a crowd. > >Given the ubiquitous nature of cameras (camera equipped cell phones) and >facial recognition software, it would seem that flashing a crowd is a pretty >stupid act. So why would a woman do it, unless they crave/expect
male >attention. > >None of my female friends understand the mind of a flasher, any theories? If it was possible for anyone to fully understand the mind of any female, we would have heard about it years ago. One theory is that females have an almost random set of images flashing through their brains. This passes for thought and it can even delude the casual observer into believing that a woman is thinking. On closer observation, he will discover that there is no real coherence. Men experience a similar sensation as they approach the point of sleep. The brain skips through vaguely related images as linear thought is surrendered but the individual fails to realise the increasing lack of coherence as oblivion takes over. Women are somewhere on this continuum between mildly irrational thought and oblivion. You must be from soc.men. That was very funny. It may be caused by continual hormonal disruptions. Why are you so afraid of women? - Michaela Must be feminism is fast becoming something that men are getting tired of as women's stupidity knows no bounds.

So why are you so afraid of women/feminists?
What have they got that you haven't got?
What are they going to take from you that you can't keep for yourself?

[I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's all about, but I
haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras and demands for
equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a 20-word response to
"What is feminism?" for me?]

- Michaela

"Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f11d28e.0@news1.mweb.co.za... Must be feminism is fast becoming something that men are getting tired
of as women's stupidity knows no bounds. So why are you so afraid of women/feminists?

Why are you afraid of men have equality, or shared parenting?
What have they got that you haven't got?

What have men got that your so fearing of?
What are they going to take from you that you can't keep for yourself?

What is it with stupid women?
[I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's all about, but I haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras and demands for equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a 20-word response to "What is feminism?" for me?]

Then you have no clue about radical feminazi's do you and you ask some
stupid questions that where used twenty years ago give it up, feminism is
dead.
- Michaela

"green-fingers" <greenfigers@it.takes.one.to.know.one.gnc.org> wrote in message news:<6g4Qa.24$xn5.21821@news0.telusplanet.net>... "Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3f108fe5.0@news1.mweb.co.za... "James Cameron" wrote dduck531@ameritech.net wrote: >In a separate thread The Danimal talked about women receiving unwanted >attention from men. However flashing at parties, concerts, and resorts >indicates that some segment of women do crave and expect male attention in >public venues and that they are willing to expose themselves to get it. >Problems only seem to arise when these women discover that someone is making >money from their exposure. The concept that behavior has consequences >clearly hasn't sunk in with these women, but this does not explain the >advantage of being willing to expose yourself to a crowd. > >Given the ubiquitous nature of cameras (camera equipped cell phones) and >facial recognition software, it would seem that flashing a crowd is a pretty >stupid act. So why would a woman do it, unless they crave/expect male >attention. > >None of my female friends understand the mind of a flasher, any theories? If it was possible for anyone to fully understand the mind of any female, we would have heard about it years ago. One theory is that females have an almost random set of images flashing through their brains. This passes for thought and it can even delude the casual observer into believing that a woman is thinking. On closer observation, he will discover that there is no real coherence. Men experience a similar sensation as they approach the point of sleep. The brain skips through vaguely related images as linear thought is surrendered but the individual fails to realise the increasing lack of coherence as oblivion takes over. Women are somewhere on this continuum between mildly irrational thought and oblivion. You must be from soc.men. That was very funny. It may be caused by continual hormonal disruptions. Why are you so afraid of women? - Michaela Must be feminism is fast becoming something that men are getting tired of as women's stupidity knows no bounds.


Yep. They're stupid. That MUST be why they all can't stand you.

-
theoneflasehaddock

In <3f108fe5.0@news1.mweb.co.za>, on 07/13/03
at 12:35 AM, "Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> said:
"James Cameron" wrote dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:In a separate thread The Danimal talked about women receiving unwantedattention from men. However flashing at parties, concerts, and resortsindicates that some segment of women do crave and expect male attentioninpublic venues and that they are willing to expose themselves to get it.Problems only seem to arise when these women discover that someone ismakingmoney from their exposure. The concept that behavior has consequencesclearly hasn't sunk in with these women, but this does not explain theadvantage of being willing to expose yourself to a crowd.Given the ubiquitous nature of cameras (camera equipped cell phones) andfacial recognition software, it would seem that flashing a crowd is aprettystupid act. So why would a woman do it, unless they crave/expect maleattention.None of my female friends understand the mind of a flasher, any theories? If it was possible for anyone to fully understand the mind of any female, we would have heard about it years ago. One theory is that females have an almost random set of images flashing through their brains. This passes for thought and it can even delude the casual observer into believing that a woman is thinking. On closer observation, he will discover that there is no real coherence. Men experience a similar sensation as they approach the point of sleep. The brain skips through vaguely related images as linear thought is surrendered but the individual fails to realise the increasing lack of coherence as oblivion takes over. Women are somewhere on this continuum between mildly irrational thought and oblivion.
You must be from soc.men.That was very funny.
It may be caused by continual hormonal disruptions.
Why are you so afraid of women?

Because there aren't any who will have him!
- Michaela



--
-----------------------------------------------------------
letoured@together.net
-----------------------------------------------------------

"green-fingers" <greenfigers@it.takes.one.to.know.one.gnc.org> screeched
while his had his green fingers up his own ***
news:nalQa.4517$xn5.436879@news0.telusplanet.net.. . "Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3f11d28e.0@news1.mweb.co.za... Must be feminism is fast becoming something that men are getting tired of as women's stupidity knows no bounds. So why are you so afraid of women/feminists? Why are you afraid of men have equality, or shared parenting? What have they got that you haven't got? What have men got that your so fearing of? What are they going to take from you that you can't keep for yourself? What is it with stupid women?

Oops, and I thought you just hated FEMINISTS and NOT women. Which is it?
Do you hate feminists or is it all women which you deem stupid and hate?
[I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's all about, but I haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras and demands for equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a 20-word response to "What is feminism?" for me?] Then you have no clue about radical feminazi's do you and you ask some stupid questions that where used twenty years ago give it up, feminism is dead. - Michaela

"Jude" <Jude@nunyabiznez.usa> wrote in message
news:mmAQa.9116$Sf1.913@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com... "green-fingers" <greenfigers@it.takes.one.to.know.one.gnc.org> screeched while his had his green fingers up his own *** news:nalQa.4517$xn5.436879@news0.telusplanet.net.. . "Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3f11d28e.0@news1.mweb.co.za... > > Must be feminism is fast becoming something that men are getting
tired of > as women's stupidity knows no bounds. So why are you so afraid of women/feminists? Why are you afraid of men have equality, or shared parenting? What have they got that you haven't got? What have men got that your so fearing of? What are they going to take from you that you can't keep for yourself? What is it with stupid women? Oops, and I thought you just hated FEMINISTS and NOT women. Which is it? Do you hate feminists or is it all women which you deem stupid and hate?

LOL, hate women, hahahahahha, your an idiot
Stupid women like you are not worth the time of day but feminazi's can be
get fun, to SLAP AROUND..
[I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's all about, but I haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras and demands for equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a 20-word response to "What is feminism?" for me?] Then you have no clue about radical feminazi's do you and you ask some stupid questions that where used twenty years ago give it up, feminism
is dead. - Michaela

> [I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's all about, but I haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras and demands for equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a 20-word response to "What is feminism?" for me?]

"Femin" ism, by name, nature and history is a movement for, about and
by females.

Feminism fought for the vote, equal pay.

Feminism fought for extra rights for females in divorces (letting a
woman ruin her husband's life by taking everything he has, even if she
worked for none of it), affirmative action, for the police to assume
all domestic violence was male on female when in reality it is
half-half (giving females total power over their partner if they
decide to get violent on him). And for women's health to be taken more
seriously than men's health by the government, resulting in females
living longer. And for an anti-male media putting anti-male messages
and images onto TV, and in newspapers (portaying males as stupid,
incompetant, jerks, and that a male's suffering is funny while a
female's suffering isn't.).

As you can see, there is one pattern. It benefits females. Often it
makes things worse for males in the process.

And so, the movement sticks to the name. "Femin" ism, by name, nature
and history is a movement for, about and by females.

> > dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:In a separate thread The Danimal talked about women receiving unwantedattention from men. However flashing at parties, concerts, and resortsindicates that some segment of women do crave and expect male attention inpublic venues and that they are willing to expose themselves to get it.


Perhaps it gives some women a feeling of liberation:
http://www.allstarz.org/davidletterman/drew.jpg

"Guys can show their breasts, but we can't?"

"James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bev1o8$928fi$3@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de... On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:53:25 +0200, "Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote:"BitingHeart" <collection60@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.go ogle.com... Feminism fought for [...] women's health to be taken more seriously than men's health by the government, resulting in
females living longer.Oh, come on. Women live longer than men in almost everysociety studied. It has to do with them having a sturdiergenetic makeup (two X chromosomes allow for a defect inone to be compensated for by the other; men have one,hence one defect can harm their health), among other reasons. Sue your biology teacher.

I guess biological science is wrong, then. Thanks for letting
me know, man.
Radical feminism is bad enough, we don't need to make upmore stuff that isn't true. The reasons for men having shorter lives are warfare, riskier jobs
and poorer healthcare.

About the riskier jobs and warfare, you are 100% accurate.

High demand...

natasha fatale

"Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3f11d28e.0@news1.mweb.co.za>... "green-fingers" wrote "Michaela" wrote "James Cameron" wrote > dduck531@ameritech.net wrote: > >In a separate thread The Danimal talked about women receiving > >unwanted attention from men. However flashing at parties, concerts, > >and resorts indicates that some segment of women do crave and expect > >male attention in public venues and that they are willing to expose > >themselves to get it. Problems only seem to arise when these women > >discover that someone is making money from their exposure. The > >concept that behavior has consequences clearly hasn't sunk in with > >these women, but this does not explain the advantage of being willing > >to expose yourself to a crowd. > > > >Given the ubiquitous nature of cameras (camera equipped cell phones) > >and facial recognition software, it would seem that flashing a crowd > >is a pretty stupid act. So why would a woman do it, unless they > >crave/expect male attention. > > > >None of my female friends understand the mind of a flasher, any > >theories? > > If it was possible for anyone to fully understand the mind of any > female, we would have heard about it years ago. > > One theory is that females have an almost random set of images > flashing through their brains. This passes for thought and it can even > delude the casual observer into believing that a woman is thinking. On > closer observation, he will discover that there is no real coherence. > > Men experience a similar sensation as they approach the point of > sleep. The brain skips through vaguely related images as linear > thought is surrendered but the individual fails to realise the > increasing lack of coherence as oblivion takes over. > > Women are somewhere on this continuum between mildly irrational > thought and oblivion. You must be from soc.men. That was very funny. It may be caused by continual hormonal > disruptions. Why are you so afraid of women? Must be feminism is fast becoming something that men are getting tired of as women's stupidity knows no bounds. So why are you so afraid of women/feminists?

I love women. I am bored by and pity feminists. I do not consider
the two groups to be related in any way. Genetically, feminists are
women, but they are not all women, and they wish they weren't women at
all. I neither nate nor fear either group.

Jason

collection60@hotmail.com (BitingHeart) wrote in message news:<ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.google.com>... [I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's all about, but I haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras and demands for equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a 20-word response to "What is feminism?" for me?] "Femin" ism, by name, nature and history is a movement for, about and by females. Feminism fought for the vote, equal pay. Feminism fought for extra rights for females in divorces (letting a woman ruin her husband's life by taking everything he has, even if she worked for none of it),

Um, actually it's more about giving a wife a stake in the life that
both husband and wife worked to build. Her labor was unpaid, but no
less of a sacrifice than his, (assuming she's a SAH, which most women
AREN'T now-a-days), and all made at sacrifce to her future earning
potential. The same is done for SAH dads, now-a-days, and for poor
men vs. their rich wives in community property states.
affirmative action, for the police to assume all domestic violence was male on female when in reality it is half-half (giving females total power over their partner if they decide to get violent on him).

Rather simplistic, since the anti=feminists are the first to point out
the biological differences whenever it suits their particular
anti-feminist rant, but not when it's time to point out that many more
women than men suffer permanent injury or death due to DV than men.
And for women's health to be taken more seriously than men's health by the government, resulting in females living longer.

Wrong. Men's choices (smoking, drinking, stress, lack of excercise)
despite plenty of research showing that those choices are unhealthy is
the primary reason for men's lower life-spans. Women take better care
of themselves than men do. They also look out for the health of their
children.
And for an anti-male media putting anti-male messages and images onto TV, and in newspapers (portaying males as stupid, incompetant, jerks, and that a male's suffering is funny while a female's suffering isn't.).

Somehow, I don't think that advertising is a large bastion of radical
feminism, but if *YOU* say so, it must be so, right?
As you can see, there is one pattern. It benefits females.

This, at least is true. It strives to redress the inequality which
women have suffered and continue to suffer around the world.
Often it makes things worse for males in the process.

Well of course. If you're paying a man $75 a day for picking his nose
and ogling the secerataries at the water cooler, and you're paying a
seceratary $25 to actually *work* and the laws are changed so that the
seceratary is making $50 an hour, and the man is now only getting $50
and actually has to *work* or lose his job to a woman who will, I
guess you could say that things are worse for him. Fairer for all
concerned, but worse for the previously priveliged due only to his
white maleness. Boo frigging Hoo
And so, the movement sticks to the name. "Femin" ism, by name, nature and history is a movement for, about and by females.

You go girls!

"Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bev2u1$bnq$1@news.iucc.ac.il>... "James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bev1o8$928fi$3@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de... On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:53:25 +0200, "Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote:"BitingHeart" <collection60@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.go ogle.com...> Feminism fought for [...] women's health to be taken more> seriously than men's health by the government, resulting in females> living longer.Oh, come on. Women live longer than men in almost everysociety studied. It has to do with them having a sturdiergenetic makeup (two X chromosomes allow for a defect inone to be compensated for by the other; men have one,hence one defect can harm their health), among other reasons. Sue your biology teacher. I guess biological science is wrong, then. Thanks for letting me know, man.Radical feminism is bad enough, we don't need to make upmore stuff that isn't true. The reasons for men having shorter lives are warfare, riskier jobs and poorer healthcare. About the riskier jobs and warfare, you are 100% accurate.

Hello? When was the last war the US fought? We're not exactly
knee-deep in casualties from the gulf wars, are we?

You're forgetting personal choice. Men make less healthful decisions
than women, and that INCLUDES working riskier jobs. No one forces
them to work risky jobs, OR to go to war (at least, not since
Vietnam). And they are well remunerated for both of these choices.

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fd91df.0307151326.5211cc3c@posting.google.c om...
[...]
Hello? When was the last war the US fought? We're not exactly knee-deep in casualties from the gulf wars, are we?

If you're going to focus only on US men, then don't ever bring up
non-US women.
You're forgetting personal choice. Men make less healthful
decisions than women, and that INCLUDES working riskier jobs. No one
forces them to work risky jobs, OR to go to war (at least, not since Vietnam). And they are well remunerated for both of these
choices.

Funny that when the topic is women predominating in lower-paying
but safer jobs, you blame men/society for forcing or coercing
them into those jobs, but when the topic is better-paying and/or
hazardous jobs, it's men's free choice.

Why don't more women choose to take on the hazardous jobs that
must get done? Oh, I forgot, men won't let them.

--
Feminists just don't get it.

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fd91df.0307151326.5211cc3c@posting.google.c om... "Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<bev2u1$bnq$1@news.iucc.ac.il>... "James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bev1o8$928fi$3@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de... On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:53:25 +0200, "Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"BitingHeart" <collection60@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.google.co m... >> Feminism fought for [...] women's health to be taken more >> seriously than men's health by the government, resulting in females >> living longer. > >Oh, come on. Women live longer than men in almost every >society studied. It has to do with them having a sturdier >genetic makeup (two X chromosomes allow for a defect in >one to be compensated for by the other; men have one, >hence one defect can harm their health), among other reasons. Sue your biology teacher. I guess biological science is wrong, then. Thanks for letting me know, man. >Radical feminism is bad enough, we don't need to make up >more stuff that isn't true. The reasons for men having shorter lives are warfare, riskier
jobs and poorer healthcare. About the riskier jobs and warfare, you are 100% accurate. Hello? When was the last war the US fought? We're not exactly knee-deep in casualties from the gulf wars, are we?

In recent decades there have been less war deaths, yes. But
consider just one or two decades further back... such things
influence statistics that are calculated over long periods of time.
As statistics about life expectancy _should_ be.
You're forgetting personal choice. Men make less healthful
decisions than women, and that INCLUDES working riskier jobs.

It is true that men make riskier choices, yes, and it is one factor
in their living less on average. But it is also true that for many men
those are the best jobs they can get. For men whose best asset
is their physical strength, a job in the military or some other
high-risk job may be the best idea, despite the small risk of death.

But I agree that they still have an element of choice, yes. We
shouldn't ignore that, good point.
No one forces them to work risky jobs, OR to go to war (at least, not since Vietnam).

Should there be another major war, we all know very well who
will be drafted by force and who won't. Again, let's not ignore
what happened just a few decades behind us... in virtually every
society, only men are forced to fight when fighting occurs.
Hence, over the long-term, if there are wars (and let's face it,
there are), men will tend to live a little less because of that. There
is no equality in a forced draft, and there never was.
And they are well remunerated for both of these choices.

Perhaps that matters to some of them. But why do you raise
the topic? It is irrelevant in my opinion. We were discussing
life expectency, I thought.

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fd91df.0307151326.5211cc3c@posting.google.c om... "Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<bev2u1$bnq$1@news.iucc.ac.il>... "James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bev1o8$928fi$3@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de... On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:53:25 +0200, "Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"BitingHeart" <collection60@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.google.co m... >> Feminism fought for [...] women's health to be taken more >> seriously than men's health by the government, resulting in females >> living longer. > >Oh, come on. Women live longer than men in almost every >society studied. It has to do with them having a sturdier >genetic makeup (two X chromosomes allow for a defect in >one to be compensated for by the other; men have one, >hence one defect can harm their health), among other reasons. Sue your biology teacher. I guess biological science is wrong, then. Thanks for letting me know, man. >Radical feminism is bad enough, we don't need to make up >more stuff that isn't true. The reasons for men having shorter lives are warfare, riskier jobs and poorer healthcare. About the riskier jobs and warfare, you are 100% accurate. Hello? When was the last war the US fought? We're not exactly knee-deep in casualties from the gulf wars, are we?
Your total lack of a sense of history on this point is amusing.
You're forgetting personal choice. Men make less healthful decisions than women, and that INCLUDES working riskier jobs. No one forces them to work risky jobs, OR to go to war (at least, not since Vietnam). And they are well remunerated for both of these choices.

Why does this argument apply to men (the free choice one), but when a women
suffers from heart disease it's her doctor's fault? Women are take more
responsibility for their healthcare, why don't they cough up for a damned
stress test instead of a tit job?

So men are more idiotic? Don't want to be cooped up in an office (who
does?)?
Men don't need to make money?
You may have heard about a little thing called Vietnam, wherein many
American males were drafted and sent to be maimed and/or die horribly. "The
draft,", ever hear about it? Or can you remember facts that fit into your
argument?

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fd91df.0307151326.5211cc3c@posting.google.c om...
Men make less healthful decisions than women

No, they do not. Women are by no means more "healthy" than men when it
comes to decision making.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/14/2003

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fd91df.0307151324.754cbe0@posting.google.co m...
Men's choices (smoking, drinking, stress, lack of excercise) despite plenty of research showing that those choices are unhealthy is the primary reason for men's lower life-spans.

Nope. Women just nag men to death.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/14/2003

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fd91df.0307151311.121ac853@posting.google.c om...
To the seventies: There was never a 'bra burning' that's a myth perpetuated by anti-feminists all these years. What happened is a few women threw their bras in a trash can to symbolize the jettisoning of all that had restrained women these many years.

Oh? So then why can't women walk around topless like men, then?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/14/2003

"Eerie Rodent of Unusual Size & Typing Ability"
<Department@fKeepingItReal.gov> wrote in message
news:1x%Qa.8095$Je.5900@fed1read04... "Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message news:a0fd91df.0307151326.5211cc3c@posting.google.c om... "Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bev2u1$bnq$1@news.iucc.ac.il>... "James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bev1o8$928fi$3@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de... > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:53:25 +0200, "Thoughtcube" > <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >"BitingHeart" <collection60@hotmail.com> wrote in
message > >news:ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.google.co m... > >> Feminism fought for [...] women's health to be taken
more > >> seriously than men's health by the government,
resulting in females > >> living longer. > > > >Oh, come on. Women live longer than men in almost every > >society studied. It has to do with them having a
sturdier > >genetic makeup (two X chromosomes allow for a defect in > >one to be compensated for by the other; men have one, > >hence one defect can harm their health), among other
reasons. > > Sue your biology teacher. > I guess biological science is wrong, then. Thanks for
letting me know, man. > >Radical feminism is bad enough, we don't need to make up > >more stuff that isn't true. > > The reasons for men having shorter lives are warfare,
riskier jobs and > poorer healthcare. About the riskier jobs and warfare, you are 100% accurate. Hello? When was the last war the US fought? We're not
exactly knee-deep in casualties from the gulf wars, are we? Your total lack of a sense of history on this point is amusing. You're forgetting personal choice. Men make less healthful
decisions than women, and that INCLUDES working riskier jobs. No one
forces them to work risky jobs, OR to go to war (at least, not since Vietnam). And they are well remunerated for both of these
choices. Why does this argument apply to men (the free choice one), but
when a women suffers from heart disease it's her doctor's fault? Women are
take more responsibility for their healthcare, why don't they cough up
for a damned stress test instead of a tit job? So men are more idiotic? Don't want to be cooped up in an
office (who does?)? Men don't need to make money? You may have heard about a little thing called Vietnam, wherein
many American males were drafted and sent to be maimed and/or die
horribly. "The draft,", ever hear about it? Or can you remember facts that
fit into your argument?

Amber has already gone on record as rejecting citations more than
10 years old (while citing events centuries old), so I guess that
puts vietnam in pre-history.

"Amber J the idiot" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
You're forgetting personal choice. Men make less healthful decisions than women,

Oh like women who drink or do drug when pregnent, you idiot

and that INCLUDES working riskier jobs. No one forces them to work risky jobs,

Yup that's right Amber is all for the money you feminist idiots screem about
for men to make lots of money so you women can sit on your fat *** abusing
the kids

OR to go to war (at least, not since Vietnam). And they are well remunerated for both of these choices.

Now there is the most stupidiest thing you ever have said, has your
stupidity ever heard of the draft in the states you stupid idiot feminist
nutbar...

"Amber J the idiot" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message OR to go to war (at least, not since Vietnam). And they are well remunerated for both of these choices.

No, they aren't.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/14/2003

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fd91df.0307151324.754cbe0@posting.google.co m... collection60@hotmail.com (BitingHeart) wrote in message
news:<ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.google.com>... [I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's all
about, but I haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras and
demands for equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a 20-word
response to "What is feminism?" for me?] "Femin" ism, by name, nature and history is a movement for,
about and by females. Feminism fought for the vote, equal pay. Feminism fought for extra rights for females in divorces
(letting a woman ruin her husband's life by taking everything he has,
even if she worked for none of it), Um, actually it's more about giving a wife a stake in the life
that both husband and wife worked to build.

Um, actually feminism is about more for women. The stake that
husband and wife have worked to build is secondary to giving more
to the woman.

Her labor was unpaid, but no less of a sacrifice than his,
(assuming she's a SAH, which most women AREN'T now-a-days), and all made at sacrifce to her future
earning potential.

Nonsense. Family courts have consistently demonstrated that SAH
moms need sacrifice nothing, and that SAH dads must prove extreme
maternal failure.
The same is done for SAH dads, now-a-days, and for poor men vs.
their rich wives in community property states.

Name some cases.



[...]
Well of course. If you're paying a man $75 a day for picking
his nose and ogling the secerataries at the water cooler, and you're
paying a seceratary $25 to actually *work* and the laws are changed so
that the seceratary is making $50 an hour, and the man is now only
getting $50 and actually has to *work* or lose his job to a woman who will,
I guess you could say that things are worse for him. Fairer for
all concerned, but worse for the previously priveliged due only to
his white maleness. Boo frigging Hoo

Outstanding! We all know that the patriarchy would rather pay
men $75 per day for picking his nose, when we could actually pay
a "seceratary $25 to actually *work*" .

"Maxie P. Diddy" <mep@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
news:vh930s42pl2m85@corp.supernews.com... "Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message news:a0fd91df.0307151311.121ac853@posting.google.c om... To the seventies: There was never a 'bra burning' that's a myth perpetuated by anti-feminists all these years. What happened is a few women threw their bras in a trash can to symbolize the jettisoning of all that had restrained women these many years. Oh? So then why can't women walk around topless like men, then?

Amber in Ontario, women can show those hairy breast in public and you can
show your hairy ones too, and I think all women should be allowed to walk
around breast out, ahhh, maybe in your case you should cover up.

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/14/2003

"Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bev2u1$bnq$1@news.iucc.ac.il... "James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bev1o8$928fi$3@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de... On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:53:25 +0200, "Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote:"BitingHeart" <collection60@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.go ogle.com...> Feminism fought for [...] women's health to be taken more> seriously than men's health by the government, resulting
in females> living longer.Oh, come on. Women live longer than men in almost everysociety studied. It has to do with them having a sturdiergenetic makeup (two X chromosomes allow for a defect inone to be compensated for by the other; men have one,hence one defect can harm their health), among other
reasons. Sue your biology teacher. I guess biological science is wrong, then. Thanks for letting me know, man.Radical feminism is bad enough, we don't need to make upmore stuff that isn't true. The reasons for men having shorter lives are warfare, riskier
jobs and poorer healthcare. About the riskier jobs and warfare, you are 100% accurate.

Poorer healthcare too. Men are less likely to have health
insurance than women, and the US gov't currently spends roughly
twice as much on women's health issues as it does for mens.

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fd91df.0307151311.121ac853@posting.google.c om... "Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<3f11d28e.0@news1.mweb.co.za>... "green-fingers" wrote "Michaela" wrote > "James Cameron" wrote > > dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:
Fast forward through feminism's long and valiantly fought victorious battles including: The right to post-secondary education for women The right of women to vote The right of women to have custody of their children The right of women to humane labor conditions Child labor laws, eliminating much exploitation of kiddies. Humane and just treatment of the mentally ill The right to equal pay for equal work. To the seventies: There was never a 'bra burning' that's a myth perpetuated by anti-feminists all these years. What happened is a few women threw their bras in a trash can to symbolize the jettisoning of all that had restrained women these many years. Women were giddy with their victory of the 1968 equal pay act. Sadly, though it was passed into law, it is still not enacted 100%. Feminism continues to fight gender inequity around the globe. Learn more about it. You owe it to yourself.

Actually after my son was trapped into fatherhood by a young girl..I made it
a point to learn more about it. I dare say much more than you since I am an
analytical and do not accept things just on the surface. The more I've
learned about Feminazi tactics ( like the ones you are employing now and the
guys here don't get) have convinced me that they are not concerned with any
of the things you mention above. What they are concerned about is POWER for
themselves. In a way they are just like a proganda machine twisting the
truth, lying, misquoting whining etc. If I hade my way I'd take every last
one of them and shoot them dead. Strong views to be sure but then you see I
know the TRUTH.


- Michaela

> >

for the exposure?

natasha fatale

In <bf3r74$1r3$1@news.eusc.inter.net>, on 07/16/03
at 11:32 AM, "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> said:

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a0fd91df.0307151311.121ac853@posting.g oogle.com... "Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:<3f11d28e.0@news1.mweb.co.za>... "green-fingers" wrote > "Michaela" wrote > > "James Cameron" wrote > > > dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:
Fast forward through feminism's long and valiantly fought victorious battles including: The right to post-secondary education for women The right of women to vote The right of women to have custody of their children The right of women to humane labor conditions Child labor laws, eliminating much exploitation of kiddies. Humane and just treatment of the mentally ill The right to equal pay for equal work. To the seventies: There was never a 'bra burning' that's a myth perpetuated by anti-feminists all these years. What happened is a few women threw their bras in a trash can to symbolize the jettisoning of all that had restrained women these many years. Women were giddy with their victory of the 1968 equal pay act. Sadly, though it was passed into law, it is still not enacted 100%. Feminism continues to fight gender inequity around the globe. Learn more about it. You owe it to yourself.
Actually after my son was trapped into fatherhood by a young girl..

What did she do, tie him down and take him as he said No?





I made ita point to learn more about it. I dare say much more than you since I am ananalytical and do not accept things just on the surface. The more I'velearned about Feminazi tactics ( like the ones you are employing now and theguys here don't get) have convinced me that they are not concerned with anyof the things you mention above. What they are concerned about is POWER forthemselves. In a way they are just like a proganda machine twisting thetruth, lying, misquoting whining etc. If I hade my way I'd take every lastone of them and shoot them dead. Strong views to be sure but then you see Iknow the TRUTH.


- Michaela


--
-----------------------------------------------------------
letoured@together.net
-----------------------------------------------------------

"Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3f108fe5.0@news1.mweb.co.za>... "James Cameron" wrote dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:In a separate thread The Danimal talked about women receiving unwantedattention from men. However flashing at parties, concerts, and resortsindicates that some segment of women do crave and expect male attention inpublic venues and that they are willing to expose themselves to get it.Problems only seem to arise when these women discover that someone is makingmoney from their exposure. The concept that behavior has consequencesclearly hasn't sunk in with these women, but this does not explain theadvantage of being willing to expose yourself to a crowd.Given the ubiquitous nature of cameras (camera equipped cell phones) andfacial recognition software, it would seem that flashing a crowd is a prettystupid act. So why would a woman do it, unless they crave/expect maleattention.None of my female friends understand the mind of a flasher, any theories? If it was possible for anyone to fully understand the mind of any female, we would have heard about it years ago. One theory is that females have an almost random set of images flashing through their brains. This passes for thought and it can even delude the casual observer into believing that a woman is thinking. On closer observation, he will discover that there is no real coherence. Men experience a similar sensation as they approach the point of sleep. The brain skips through vaguely related images as linear thought is surrendered but the individual fails to realise the increasing lack of coherence as oblivion takes over. Women are somewhere on this continuum between mildly irrational thought and oblivion. You must be from soc.men. That was very funny. It may be caused by continual hormonal disruptions. Why are you so afraid of women?

I saw no expression of fear in his writing.

Why are you attributing fear where there obviously is none?

What are YOU afraid of?

- Michaela

"Jude" <Jude@nunyabiznez.usa> wrote in message news:<mmAQa.9116$Sf1.913@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>... "green-fingers" <greenfigers@it.takes.one.to.know.one.gnc.org> screeched while his had his green fingers up his own *** news:nalQa.4517$xn5.436879@news0.telusplanet.net.. . "Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3f11d28e.0@news1.mweb.co.za... > > Must be feminism is fast becoming something that men are getting tired of > as women's stupidity knows no bounds. So why are you so afraid of women/feminists? Why are you afraid of men have equality, or shared parenting? What have they got that you haven't got? What have men got that your so fearing of? What are they going to take from you that you can't keep for yourself? What is it with stupid women? Oops, and I thought you just hated FEMINISTS and NOT women. Which is it? Do you hate feminists or is it all women which you deem stupid and hate?

Did he ask
"what is it with ALL women" or did he ask "what is it with STUPID women?"


You demonstrate that you are a typical women, functionally illiterate,
and incapable of seperating a qualifier from an entire class.

And then you whine and whine and whine about how long it took for
you to get the right to vote....yet your inability to comprehend a
simple sentance is a perfect demonstration of why women should NEVER
have been allowed to vote in the first place.

twoFive <twoFive25123atyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3f147b88$0$150$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>... Amber J wrote: "Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bev2u1$bnq$1@news.iucc.ac.il>..."James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in messagenews:bev1o8$928fi$3@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de...>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:53:25 +0200, "Thoughtcube"><thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>"BitingHeart" <collection60@hotmail.com> wrote in message>>news:ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.google.co m...>>>>>Feminism fought for [...] women's health to be taken more>>>seriously than men's health by the government, resulting in>> females>>>living longer.>>>>Oh, come on. Women live longer than men in almost every>>society studied. It has to do with them having a sturdier>>genetic makeup (two X chromosomes allow for a defect in>>one to be compensated for by the other; men have one,>>hence one defect can harm their health), among other reasons.>>Sue your biology teacher.>I guess biological science is wrong, then. Thanks for lettingme know, man.>>Radical feminism is bad enough, we don't need to make up>>more stuff that isn't true.>>The reasons for men having shorter lives are warfare, riskier jobs and>poorer healthcare.About the riskier jobs and warfare, you are 100% accurate. Hello? When was the last war the US fought? We're not exactly knee-deep in casualties from the gulf wars, are we? Soldiers get killed all the time, even when there's not a war going on. Even practicing is dangerous. If you add up *all* casualties since 1980, including those from peace keeping operations and non-combat casualties, the number would easily top 1000. If you include those people who lived shorter lives because of wounds or whatever they were exposed to while in the service, the numbers start to get much bigger. Maybe from a statistics standpoint, that's insignificant. You're forgetting personal choice. Men make less healthful decisions than women, and that INCLUDES working riskier jobs. No one forces them to work risky jobs, OR to go to war (at least, not since Vietnam). And they are well remunerated for both of these choices. I'll take issue with this although I'd be on your side in general. I'd say some of the riskiest jobs tend to be of the blue collar variety (cops, fire fighter, miners, farmers, soldiers) and while you can usually live off those wages, I don't think "well renumerated" really applies.

Having lived in mining counry (Wise, Virginia) I can verify that
miners are well remunerated. They probably get more money than is
good for them, considering their average education and lifestyle. I'd
bet that more miners die off-job doing stupid drunk stunts than in the
mines. As for the other jobs, probably the only ones who don't make
more than I do (white collar professional, albeit in the non-profit
sector), are farmers.
I'd also say that in most cases you pick from the jobs that are available to you based on demand and your skills. Not everyone has the same opportunities. So there's more to it than just choice.

A very feminist argument. I agree.

On 16 Jul 2003 17:26:55 -0700, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose
Goblin) wrote:
collection60@hotmail.com (BitingHeart) wrote in message news:<ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.google.com>... [I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's all about, but I haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras and demands for equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a 20-word response to "What is feminism?" for me?] "Femin" ism, by name, nature and history is a movement for, about and by females. Feminism fought for the vote, equal pay.Feminism is about getting MORE pay for doing LESS work than men.And salary data proves that, in fact, women ARE getting MORE payfor doing less work than men in the same exact jobs.

I'm curious what "salary data" you have that shows how much work
people are doing on the job. Care to back this statement up? Or is
your source something somebody posted unattributed on
alt.rant.drunken.tirade?

- Randy

"GodEvolved" <nospam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93BC497FD2AD4nospamcom@198.164.200.20... heavyglass@wildmail.com (Amber J) wrote in news:a0fd91df.0307171649.232c722f@posting.google.c om:
[...]
Having lived in mining counry (Wise, Virginia) I can verify
that miners are well remunerated. They probably get more money
than is good for them, considering their average education and
lifestyle. I'd If that isn't the most egotistical, classist and *communistic*
thing I've ever read, I don't know what is.

That's really something isn't it? I'm almost dumbstruck. This
belongs in a .sig
--
"[Miners] probably get more money than is good for them,
considering their average education and lifestyle." - Amber J,
Baby Feminist.

Amber J wrote: twoFive <twoFive25123atyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3f147b88$0$150$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>...

<snip>
I'd say some of the riskiest jobs tend to be of the blue collar variety(cops, fire fighter, miners, farmers, soldiers) and while you canusually live off those wages, I don't think "well renumerated" reallyapplies. Having lived in mining counry (Wise, Virginia) I can verify that miners are well remunerated. They probably get more money than is good for them, considering their average education and lifestyle. I'd bet that more miners die off-job doing stupid drunk stunts than in the mines. As for the other jobs, probably the only ones who don't make more than I do (white collar professional, albeit in the non-profit sector), are farmers.

Maybe we just disagree on what "well renumerated" means. To me that
means that their wages would be *well* above average. I don't know many
rich cops, fire fighters, or soldiers. I just don't know many miners.

I also work for a non-profit and the average person in those professions
I listed makes much less than I do. My job does not put my life in jeopardy.
I'd also say that in most cases you pick from the jobs that areavailable to you based on demand and your skills. Not everyone has thesame opportunities. So there's more to it than just choice. A very feminist argument. I agree.

If you want to call that a "feminist argument", that's up to you. In my
mind it goes beyond feminism.

I'm kind of sorry I replied to your post. The feminist, anti-feminist
discussion is not something that I really care to get involved in. I
have no real problem with feminists in general, -at least not moderate
ones. Your post just hit me as rather cold hearted and I felt compelled
to respond.

"Magic Nose Goblin" <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a0133f8d.0307161605.3946459e@posting.google.c om... "Michaela" <michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<3f108fe5.0@news1.mweb.co.za>... "James Cameron" wrote dduck531@ameritech.net wrote:
I think she's afraid of the coming backlash that the feminists will have to
go through. It's starting. You have to wonder why societies far older than
ours repress their women the way they do. Is it because they found out a
long time ago what feminists were like and good women were controlled as
well? You have to wonder why women who claim not to be feminists very rarely
ever speak out against feminism.
Why are you so afraid of women? I saw no expression of fear in his writing. Why are you attributing fear where there obviously is none? What are YOU afraid of? - Michaela

"James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bev1o8$928fi$3@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de... On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:53:25 +0200, "Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote:"BitingHeart" <collection60@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.go ogle.com... Feminism fought for [...] women's health to be taken more seriously than men's health by the government, resulting in females living longer.Oh, come on. Women live longer than men in almost everysociety studied. It has to do with them having a sturdiergenetic makeup (two X chromosomes allow for a defect inone to be compensated for by the other; men have one,hence one defect can harm their health), among other reasons. Sue your biology teacher.Radical feminism is bad enough, we don't need to make upmore stuff that isn't true. The reasons for men having shorter lives are warfare, riskier jobs and poorer healthcare.

As well as risk taking behavior.

Amber J wrote: "John Jones" <enuffspam@nothanks.invalid> wrote in message news:<NmKRa.86074$X43.27765@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com>... "Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message news:a0fd91df.0307171649.232c722f@posting.google.c om... [...] Having lived in mining counry (Wise, Virginia) I can verify that miners are well remunerated. They probably get more money
than is good for them, considering their average education and lifestyle. Translation: Miners are over-paid. They are dumb and live trashy lives. The women who depend on these dumb, trashy, and dirty miners are objects of pity. No. It would be more like: There would be no work for miners
to do if our government looked out for human rights as much as they
do for corporate interests. It's a dirty job that NO ONE must do, and
it's the corporate interests and unions that make sure it continues
to be human-done and not automated.

HA HA HA! Look what you wrote!

Are feminists like you doing anything to automate these jobs?
Let me guess, men stop you for some convoluted reason or another
that always results in men's premature death.

Folks, Amber J actually seems to believe this stuff.

--
"[Miners] probably get more money than is
good for them, considering their average
education and lifestyle." - Amber J, Baby Feminist.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:52:07 GMT, "John Jones" <enuffspam@nothanks.invalid>
wrote:

->Amber J wrote:
->> "John Jones" <enuffspam@nothanks.invalid> wrote in message
->> news:<NmKRa.86074$X43.27765@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com>...
->>> "Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
->>> news:a0fd91df.0307171649.232c722f@posting.google.c om...
->>> [...]
->>>>
->>>> Having lived in mining counry (Wise, Virginia) I can verify
->>> that
->>>> miners are well remunerated. They probably get more money
->than
->>> is
->>>> good for them, considering their average education and
->>> lifestyle.
->>>
->>> Translation: Miners are over-paid. They are dumb and live
->>> trashy lives. The women who depend on these dumb, trashy, and
->>> dirty miners are objects of pity.
->>
->> No. It would be more like: There would be no work for miners
->to do
->> if our government looked out for human rights as much as they
->do for
->> corporate interests. It's a dirty job that NO ONE must do, and
->it's
->> the corporate interests and unions that make sure it continues
->to be
->> human-done and not automated.

And by the year 1965 we'll all have private helicopters.

->
->HA HA HA! Look what you wrote!
->
->Are feminists like you doing anything to automate these jobs?

Men already automated them - or mechanized them, anyway. Machines
and explosives cut the coal or ore and then carry it to the surface,
so it's no longer dug with shovels and carried out by women and kids.

->Let me guess, men stop you for some convoluted reason or another
->that always results in men's premature death.
->
->Folks, Amber J actually seems to believe this stuff.

Strange But True.

"John Jones" <enuffspam@nothanks.invalid> wrote in message news:<IC2Ra.85675$X43.43796@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com>... "Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message news:a0fd91df.0307151324.754cbe0@posting.google.co m... collection60@hotmail.com (BitingHeart) wrote in message news:<ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.google.com>... > [I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's all about, but I > haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras and demands for > equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a 20-word response to > "What is feminism?" for me?] "Femin" ism, by name, nature and history is a movement for, about and by females. Feminism fought for the vote, equal pay. Feminism fought for extra rights for females in divorces (letting a woman ruin her husband's life by taking everything he has, even if she worked for none of it), Um, actually it's more about giving a wife a stake in the life that both husband and wife worked to build. Um, actually feminism is about more for women. The stake that husband and wife have worked to build is secondary to giving more to the woman. Her labor was unpaid, but no less of a sacrifice than his, (assuming she's a SAH, which most women AREN'T now-a-days), and all made at sacrifce to her future earning potential. Nonsense. Family courts have consistently demonstrated that SAH moms need sacrifice nothing, and that SAH dads must prove extreme maternal failure.

Staying at home and losing senority at your place of work, thus
lowering your future pay is sacrificing nothing? Being out of the
workforce and not attuned to changes in your profession is sacrificing
nothing? Carrying a child for nine months and giving birth in
excruciating pain is sacrificing nothing? What planet are you from,
again?
The same is done for SAH dads, now-a-days, and for poor men vs. their rich wives in community property states. Name some cases.

Rosanne Barr/Tom Arnold, Kirstie Allie/Parker Stenvenson, Kate
Winslet/Jim Threapleton.
[...] Well of course. If you're paying a man $75 a day for picking his nose and ogling the secerataries at the water cooler, and you're paying a seceratary $25 to actually *work* and the laws are changed so that the seceratary is making $50 an hour, and the man is now only getting $50 and actually has to *work* or lose his job to a woman who will, I guess you could say that things are worse for him. Fairer for all concerned, but worse for the previously priveliged due only to his white maleness. Boo frigging Hoo Outstanding! We all know that the patriarchy would rather pay men $75 per day for picking his nose, when we could actually pay a "seceratary $25 to actually *work*" .


Definitely. That's why it's called *pat*riarchy

--
"[Miners] probably get more money than is
good for them, considering their average
education and lifestyle." - Amber J, Baby Feminist.

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fd91df.0307181107.6ba3507e@posting.google.c om... "John Jones" <enuffspam@nothanks.invalid> wrote in message
news:<IC2Ra.85675$X43.43796@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com>... "Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message news:a0fd91df.0307151324.754cbe0@posting.google.co m... collection60@hotmail.com (BitingHeart) wrote in message news:<ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.google.com>... > > [I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's
all about, but I > > haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras
and demands for > > equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a
20-word response to > > "What is feminism?" for me?] > > "Femin" ism, by name, nature and history is a movement
for, about and > by females. > > Feminism fought for the vote, equal pay. > > Feminism fought for extra rights for females in divorces (letting a > woman ruin her husband's life by taking everything he
has, even if she > worked for none of it), Um, actually it's more about giving a wife a stake in the
life that both husband and wife worked to build. Um, actually feminism is about more for women. The stake
that husband and wife have worked to build is secondary to giving
more to the woman. Her labor was unpaid, but no less of a sacrifice than his, (assuming she's a SAH, which most women AREN'T now-a-days), and all made at sacrifce to her future earning potential. Nonsense. Family courts have consistently demonstrated that
SAH moms need sacrifice nothing, and that SAH dads must prove
extreme maternal failure. Staying at home and losing senority at your place of work, thus lowering your future pay is sacrificing nothing? Being out of
the workforce and not attuned to changes in your profession is
sacrificing nothing? Carrying a child for nine months and giving birth in excruciating pain is sacrificing nothing? What planet are you
from, again? The same is done for SAH dads, now-a-days, and for poor men
vs. their rich wives in community property states. Name some cases. Rosanne Barr/Tom Arnold, Kirstie Allie/Parker Stenvenson, Kate Winslet/Jim Threapleton. [...] Well of course. If you're paying a man $75 a day for
picking his nose and ogling the secerataries at the water cooler, and you're paying a seceratary $25 to actually *work* and the laws are changed
so that the seceratary is making $50 an hour, and the man is now only getting $50 and actually has to *work* or lose his job to a woman who
will, I guess you could say that things are worse for him. Fairer
for all concerned, but worse for the previously priveliged due only
to his white maleness. Boo frigging Hoo Outstanding! We all know that the patriarchy would rather
pay men $75 per day for picking his nose, when we could actually
pay a "seceratary $25 to actually *work*" . Definitely. That's why it's called *pat*riarchy

You have no idea what is glaringly wrong with that argument, do
you, Amber J?

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fd91df.0307181107.6ba3507e@posting.google.c om... "John Jones" <enuffspam@nothanks.invalid> wrote in message
news:<IC2Ra.85675$X43.43796@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com>...

Amber J, Are you deliberatly screwing-up the attributions?

--
"[Miners] probably get more money than is
good for them, considering their average
education and lifestyle." - Amber J, Baby Feminist.

On 15-Jul-2003, heavyglass@wildmail.com (Amber J) wrote:
collection60@hotmail.com (BitingHeart) wrote in message news:<ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.google.com>... [I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's all about, but I haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras and demands for equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a 20-word response to "What is feminism?" for me?] "Femin" ism, by name, nature and history is a movement for, about and by females. Feminism fought for the vote, equal pay. Feminism fought for extra rights for females in divorces (letting a woman ruin her husband's life by taking everything he has, even if she worked for none of it), Um, actually it's more about giving a wife a stake in the life that both husband and wife worked to build. Her labor was unpaid, but no less of a sacrifice than his, (assuming she's a SAH, which most women AREN'T now-a-days), and all made at sacrifce to her future earning potential. The same is done for SAH dads, now-a-days, and for poor men vs. their rich wives in community property states.


According to the most recent census the number of stay at home mothers has
increased 13% in the last decade, and fewer are returning to work after the
birth of a child. The pendulum swings both ways.

see http://www.suntimes.com/output/census/cst-nws-mom17.html

affirmative action, for the police to assume all domestic violence was male on female when in reality it is half-half (giving females total power over their partner if they decide to get violent on him). Rather simplistic, since the anti=feminists are the first to point out the biological differences whenever it suits their particular anti-feminist rant, but not when it's time to point out that many more women than men suffer permanent injury or death due to DV than men.And for women's health to be taken more seriously than men's health by the government, resulting in females living longer. Wrong. Men's choices (smoking, drinking, stress, lack of excercise) despite plenty of research showing that those choices are unhealthy is the primary reason for men's lower life-spans. Women take better care of themselves than men do. They also look out for the health of their children.

"* 33% of adult women are obese, compared with 28% of men."

taken from
http://www.diabetic-help.com/obesity_in_america_is_worse_than%20ever.htm

HTH
And for an anti-male media putting anti-male messages and images onto TV, and in newspapers (portaying males as stupid, incompetant, jerks, and that a male's suffering is funny while a female's suffering isn't.). Somehow, I don't think that advertising is a large bastion of radical feminism, but if *YOU* say so, it must be so, right?

Try counting instances of man and female bashing in ads. Tape the top 20
shows for a week, fast forward through the shows, and count the ads that
satisfy the criteria for man or female bashing. See for yourself.
As you can see, there is one pattern. It benefits females. This, at least is true. It strives to redress the inequality which women have suffered and continue to suffer around the world.Often it makes things worse for males in the process. Well of course. If you're paying a man $75 a day for picking his nose

Is the man's job picking his nose or is his higher pay based on more
education, trainging, and productivity? Or do you consider a Radiologist's
pay to be comparable to the woman who transcribes his diagnosis?
and ogling the secerataries at the water cooler, and you're paying a seceratary $25 to actually *work* and the laws are changed so that the seceratary is making $50 an hour, and the man is now only getting $50 and actually has to *work* or lose his job to a woman who will, I guess you could say that things are worse for him. Fairer for all concerned, but worse for the previously priveliged due only to his white maleness. Boo frigging Hoo

Why should laws affect compensation between employer and employee?
Shouldn't a woman be able to negotiate on her own with her employer for her
compensation? Aren't women capable of taking care of themselves without
government hand holding?

Secondly, since women do so poorly at negotiation perhaps employers should
be able to legally exclude them from the workplace to prevent exploitation.
These excluded women could form their own all female firms, and according to
your logic and *charming* anecdotes an all female workplace would be the
most productive in the world.

Last point, are Hispanic, Asian, and Black men exempt from your proposed
legislation?

Dexter M. Duck
And so, the movement sticks to the name. "Femin" ism, by name, nature and history is a movement for, about and by females. You go girls!

On 17 Jul 2003 17:49:55 -0700, heavyglass@wildmail.com (Amber J) wrote:

->They probably get more money than is
->good for them, considering their average education and lifestyle.

"I'm a better person than those unpleasant miners, so I deserve
more money than they do."

--
"[Miners] probably get more money than is
good for them, considering their average
education and lifestyle." - Amber J, Baby Feminist.

"Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0fd91df.0307181107.6ba3507e@posting.google.c om... "John Jones" <enuffspam@nothanks.invalid> wrote in message
news:<IC2Ra.85675$X43.43796@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com>... "Amber J" <heavyglass@wildmail.com> wrote in message news:a0fd91df.0307151324.754cbe0@posting.google.co m... collection60@hotmail.com (BitingHeart) wrote in message news:<ff08daf.0307140041.5fccf134@posting.google.com>... > > [I downloaded some stuff on feminism to see what it's
all about, but I > > haven't read it yet. All I can picture is burning bras
and demands for > > equal wages for equal effort. Does anyone have a
20-word response to > > "What is feminism?" for me?] > > "Femin" ism, by name, nature and history is a movement
for, about and > by females. > > Feminism fought for the vote, equal pay. > > Feminism fought for extra rights for females in divorces (letting a > woman ruin her husband's life by taking everything he
has, even if she > worked for none of it), Um, actually it's more about giving a wife a stake in the
life that both husband and wife worked to build. Um, actually feminism is about more for women. The stake
that husband and wife have worked to build is secondary to giving
more to the woman. Her labor was unpaid, but no less of a sacrifice than his, (assuming she's a SAH, which most women AREN'T now-a-days), and all made at sacrifce to her future earning potential. Nonsense. Family courts have consistently demonstrated that
SAH moms need sacrifice nothing, and that SAH dads must prove
extreme maternal failure. Staying at home and losing senority at your place of work, thus lowering your future pay is sacrificing nothing? Being out of
the workforce and not attuned to changes in your profession is
sacrificing nothing? Carrying a child for nine months and giving birth in excruciating pain is sacrificing nothing? What planet are you
from, again? The same is done for SAH dads, now-a-days, and for poor men
vs. their rich wives in community property states. Name some cases. Rosanne Barr/Tom Arnold, Kirstie Allie/Parker Stenvenson, Kate Winslet/Jim Threapleton. [...] Well of course. If you're paying a man $75 a day for
picking his nose and ogling the secerataries at the water cooler, and you're paying a seceratary $25 to actually *work* and the laws are changed
so that the seceratary is making $50 an hour, and the man is now only getting $50 and actually has to *work* or lose his job to a woman who
will, I guess you could say that things are worse for him. Fairer
for all concerned, but worse for the previously priveliged due only
to his white maleness. Boo frigging Hoo Outstanding! We all know that the patriarchy would rather
pay men $75 per day for picking his nose, when we could actually
pay a "seceratary $25 to actually *work*" . Definitely. That's why it's called *pat*riarchy

Good thing my name is not *pat*rick. That's why the law is
called the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

<letoured@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3f19d8bd$3$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthlink.net ... Andre, do you have a point to any of this, or do you just like to rant and be an idiot in public?

So says a moronic top-poster

In <b6uSa.5472$OM3.2094@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, on 07/20/03
at 10:25 AM, "Brettg" <brettg@home.net> said:

<letoured@nospam.net> wrote in messagenews:3f19d8bd$3$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthl ink.net... Andre, do you have a point to any of this, or do you just like to rant and be an idiot in public?
So says a moronic top-poster


Lets see; You think the question of whether there is a point or its ranting --
and which does not fit directly into the discussion -- should have been hidden
somewhere in the continuing drivel -- and that top posting the question which
does not directly fit the ongoing drivel -- makes me a moron?

Sorry to inform you of this, but you are an asshole!




--
-----------------------------------------------------------
letoured@together.net
-----------------------------------------------------------

"BrettG" (brettg@home.net) writes: <letoured@nospam.net> wrote in message news:3f19d8bd$3$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthlink.net ... Andre, do you have a point to any of this, or do you just like to rant and be an idiot in public? So says a moronic top-poster

Puty the poor beknighted fool, Brett, for with his *choice* to avoid
the actual issues, topic, or try to refute *anything* that I actually
wrote, all he did was show everyone in five newsgroups his *inabilities*
when it comes to actual debate and the marshalling of facts and
arguments.

That he *knew that he couldn't refute me in debate, or with any facts*,
only shows that even he knows that his views, as posted, were... BS.

Too bad, so sad... <g>

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

(letoured@nospam.net) exuded: In <bfed3s$d12$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, on 07/20/03 at 03:39 PM, dg411@Freenet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) said:"BrettG" (brettg@home.net) writes: <letoured@nospam.net> wrote in message news:3f19d8bd$3$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthlink.net ...>> Andre, do you have a point to any of this, or do you just like to rant> and be an idiot in public? So says a moronic top-posterPuty the poor beknighted fool, Brett, for with his *choice* to avoid theactual issues, topic, or try to refute *anything* that I actually wrote, allhe did was show everyone in five newsgroups his *inabilities* when it comesto actual debate and the marshalling of facts and arguments. What an asshole you are.

*Inability* to refute or debate anything noted.
Do you really think everyone spends their time playing troll games on the internet like you do -- and above everything else?

LOL. Tell me how I'd do that, when my isp *limits* it's users to two hours
on line, between 1200 and 2400...

So, even were I wanting to do that.... I *can't*.

But, never let facts stop you from an insane rant... <bg>
You got the men killed number wrong.

Aw, poor baby, is lee so pissed at a difference between 53,000 and 57,000 ?

Did that make the *seven* women who also died seem like a larger number
to you ? LOL.
Its common knowledge what the actual number is.

Big deal. Its not as common, up here, *since I don't live in the US*.

Not everyone on the Internet and Usenet does. HTH.
So you prove your woman killed number is right. -- But, before making a bigger asshole out of yourself, you ought to know here were more then seven woman killed in Operation Babylift

That *wasn't* combat. Duh !
That he *knew that he couldn't refute me in debate, or with any facts*, onlyshows that even he knows that his views, as posted, were... BS. There is no debate here. Just facts and so far, yours are dead wrong.

<shrug> You keep saying that... But, *you have yet to do anything else*...

Funny how my saying something is terrible, but you doing that is...fine
with you. Hypocrite.

LOL.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

<letoured@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3f1a8d6e$5$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthlink.net ... In <b6uSa.5472$OM3.2094@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, on 07/20/03 at 10:25 AM, "Brettg" <brettg@home.net> said:<letoured@nospam.net> wrote in messagenews:3f19d8bd$3$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthl ink.net... Andre, do you have a point to any of this, or do you just like to rant and be an idiot in public?So says a moronic top-poster Lets see; You think the question of whether there is a point or its ranting -- and which does not fit directly into the discussion -- should have been hidden somewhere in the continuing drivel -- and that top posting the question which does not directly fit the ongoing drivel -- makes me a moron?

Aaaah, I see, you were waving the white flag of victory. Sorry for
not realising sooner

Sorry to inform you of this, but you are an asshole!

Thanks, I do try and it's nice to know it's not in vain.

letoured@nospam.net wrote: What really bothers you is that your kid should have kept it zipped up. He will now pay for the next 18 years because he was stupid.

And it bothers him that it reflects bad on his education. The fact that
the girls live is pretty much "destroyed" doesn't concern him at all, of
course.

<letoured@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3f1bfaf9$6$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthlink.net ... In <1bRSa.7230$OM3.476@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, on 07/21/03 at 12:40 PM, "BrettG" <brettg@home.net> said:<letoured@nospam.net> wrote in messagenews:3f1bab32$1$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthl ink.net... In <bffk19$kgr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, on 07/21/03 at 02:43 AM, dg411@Freenet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) said: > (letoured@nospam.net) exuded: >> In <bfed3s$d12$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, on 07/20/03 >> at 03:39 PM, dg411@Freenet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) said: >> >>>"BrettG" (brettg@home.net) writes: >>>> <letoured@nospam.net> wrote in message >>>> news:3f19d8bd$3$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthlink.net ... >>>>> >>>>> Andre, do you have a point to any of this, or do you just like to rant >>>>> and be an idiot in public? >>>> >>>> So says a moronic top-poster >> >>>Puty the poor beknighted fool, Brett, for with his *choice* to avoid the >>>actual issues, topic, or try to refute *anything* that I actually wrote,
all >>>he did was show everyone in five newsgroups his *inabilities* when it
comes >>>to actual debate and the marshalling of facts and arguments. >> >> What an asshole you are. >*Inability* to refute or debate anything noted. >> Do you really think everyone spends their time >> playing troll games on the internet like you do -- and above everything
else? >LOL. Tell me how I'd do that, when my isp *limits* it's users to two hours
on >line, between 1200 and 2400... >So, even were I wanting to do that.... I *can't*. >But, never let facts stop you from an insane rant... <bg> > >> You got the men killed number wrong. >Aw, poor baby, is lee so pissed at a difference between 53,000 and 57,000 ? >Did that make the *seven* women who also died seem like a larger number to >you ? LOL. >> Its common knowledge what the actual number is. >Big deal. Its not as common, up here, *since I don't live in the US*. >Not everyone on the Internet and Usenet does. HTH. >> So you prove your woman killed number is right. -- But, before making >> a bigger asshole out of yourself, you ought to know here were more then >> seven woman killed in Operation Babylift > >That *wasn't* combat. Duh ! Really, flying out while Siagon was under siege and being captured wasn't combat?Err, no it wasn't. You are a moron. The entire area in a civil/guerilla war is a combat area.

A "combat area" is not "combat"

Well, no more so than the citizens of Dresden were engaged in"combat", anyway. Or Londoners during the blitz. non sequitur

non sense

It is generally accepted that combatants mutually participatein combat . What you are describing is usually called "runningaway", not that it wasn't a dangerous time and place though. Nonsense. No one can run away from guerilla warfare.

Operation Babylift wasn't the Americans running away?

Well, what was it then? A victory for democracy?

In <3f1c7896$2_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, on 07/22/03
at 09:25 AM, "Brettg" <brettg@home.net> said:

<letoured@nospam.net> wrote in messagenews:3f1bfaf9$6$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthl ink.net... In <1bRSa.7230$OM3.476@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, on 07/21/03 at 12:40 PM, "BrettG" <brettg@home.net> said:<letoured@nospam.net> wrote in messagenews:3f1bab32$1$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthl ink.net...> In <bffk19$kgr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, on 07/21/03> at 02:43 AM, dg411@Freenet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) said:>> > (letoured@nospam.net) exuded:> >> In <bfed3s$d12$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, on 07/20/03> >> at 03:39 PM, dg411@Freenet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) said:> >>> >>>"BrettG" (brettg@home.net) writes:> >>>> <letoured@nospam.net> wrote in message> >>>> news:3f19d8bd$3$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthlink.net ...> >>>>>> >>>>> Andre, do you have a point to any of this, or do you just like to rant> >>>>> and be an idiot in public?> >>>>> >>>> So says a moronic top-poster> >>> >>>Puty the poor beknighted fool, Brett, for with his *choice* to avoid the> >>>actual issues, topic, or try to refute *anything* that I actually wrote,all> >>>he did was show everyone in five newsgroups his *inabilities* when itcomes> >>>to actual debate and the marshalling of facts and arguments.> >>> >> What an asshole you are.>> >*Inability* to refute or debate anything noted.>> >> Do you really think everyone spends their time> >> playing troll games on the internet like you do -- and above everythingelse?>> >LOL. Tell me how I'd do that, when my isp *limits* it's users to two hourson> >line, between 1200 and 2400...>> >So, even were I wanting to do that.... I *can't*.>> >But, never let facts stop you from an insane rant... <bg>> >> >> You got the men killed number wrong.>> >Aw, poor baby, is lee so pissed at a difference between 53,000 and 57,000 ?>> >Did that make the *seven* women who also died seem like a larger number to> >you ? LOL.>> >> Its common knowledge what the actual number is.>> >Big deal. Its not as common, up here, *since I don't live in the US*.>> >Not everyone on the Internet and Usenet does. HTH.>> >> So you prove your woman killed number is right. -- But, before making> >> a bigger asshole out of yourself, you ought to know here were more then> >> seven woman killed in Operation Babylift> >> >That *wasn't* combat. Duh !>> Really, flying out while Siagon was under siege and being captured wasn't> combat?Err, no it wasn't. You are a moron. The entire area in a civil/guerilla war is a combat area.
A "combat area" is not "combat"

You're a moron -- you are tying to spin the argument that the DOD is wrong for
calling deaths in a combat zone -- caused by war.

Well, no more so than the citizens of Dresden were engaged in"combat", anyway. Or Londoners during the blitz. non sequitur
non sense

No its non sequitur. If you had a brain you would know why, but you don't.
GIs in Vietnam were not civilians in a home city hiding from bombs with the
air raid warning went off. They were soldiers in a foreign land where there
was a guerilla-type civil war from sea to sea. And every one of them was a
target.

It is generally accepted that combatants mutually participatein combat . What you are describing is usually called "runningaway", not that it wasn't a dangerous time and place though. Nonsense. No one can run away from guerilla warfare.
Operation Babylift wasn't the Americans running away?

Not even funny and its beyond stupid. -- But then you are an asshole without a
clue so it to be expected. You also come across like I would expect an
offspring of the stupid brits the King dumped down below, because no one else
wanted them around. Its too bad he didn't send some good breeding stock to
improve the gene pool down there too.

Well, what was it then? A victory for democracy?

Do some homework so you don't look stupid all the time.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
letoured@together.net
-----------------------------------------------------------

<letoured@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3f1c85ae$2$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthlink.net ... In <3f1c7896$2_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, on 07/22/03 at 09:25 AM, "Brettg" <brettg@home.net> said:<letoured@nospam.net> wrote in messagenews:3f1bfaf9$6$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthl ink.net... In <1bRSa.7230$OM3.476@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, on 07/21/03 at 12:40 PM, "BrettG" <brettg@home.net> said: ><letoured@nospam.net> wrote in message >news:3f1bab32$1$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthlink.net ... >> In <bffk19$kgr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, on 07/21/03 >> at 02:43 AM, dg411@Freenet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) said: >> >> > (letoured@nospam.net) exuded: >> >> In <bfed3s$d12$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, on 07/20/03 >> >> at 03:39 PM, dg411@Freenet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) said: >> >> >> >>>"BrettG" (brettg@home.net) writes: >> >>>> <letoured@nospam.net> wrote in message >> >>>> news:3f19d8bd$3$yrgbherq$mr2ice@news.earthlink.net ... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Andre, do you have a point to any of this, or do you just like to
rant >> >>>>> and be an idiot in public? >> >>>> >> >>>> So says a moronic top-poster >> >> >> >>>Puty the poor beknighted fool, Brett, for with his *choice* to avoid
the >> >>>actual issues, topic, or try to refute *anything* that I actually
wrote,all >> >>>he did was show everyone in five newsgroups his *inabilities* when itcomes >> >>>to actual debate and the marshalling of facts and arguments. >> >> >> >> What an asshole you are. >> >> >*Inability* to refute or debate anything noted. >> >> >> Do you really think everyone spends their time >> >> playing troll games on the internet like you do -- and above everythingelse? >> >> >LOL. Tell me how I'd do that, when my isp *limits* it's users to two
hourson >> >line, between 1200 and 2400... >> >> >So, even were I wanting to do that.... I *can't*. >> >> >But, never let facts stop you from an insane rant... <bg> >> > >> >> You got the men killed number wrong. >> >> >Aw, poor baby, is lee so pissed at a difference between 53,000 and 57,000
? >> >> >Did that make the *seven* women who also died seem like a larger number
to >> >you ? LOL. >> >> >> Its common knowledge what the actual number is. >> >> >Big deal. Its not as common, up here, *since I don't live in the US*. >> >> >Not everyone on the Internet and Usenet does. HTH. >> >> >> So you prove your woman killed number is right. -- But, before making >> >> a bigger asshole out of yourself, you ought to know here were more then >> >> seven woman killed in Operation Babylift >> > >> >That *wasn't* combat. Duh ! >> >> Really, flying out while Siagon was under siege and being captured wasn't >> combat? >Err, no it wasn't. You are a moron. The entire area in a civil/guerilla war is a combat area.A "combat area" is not "combat" You're a moron -- you are tying to spin the argument that the DOD is wrong for calling deaths in a combat zone -- caused by war.

No, I am pointing out the distinction between behind the lines units
that are caught with their pants down in the middle of their HQ city
and soldiers (ie men) who are placed deliberately and directly into
"combat with the enemy"

>Well, no more so than the citizens of Dresden were engaged in >"combat", anyway. Or Londoners during the blitz. non sequiturnon sense No its non sequitur. If you had a brain you would know why, but you don't. GIs in Vietnam were not civilians in a home city hiding from bombs with the air raid warning went off. They were soldiers in a foreign land where there was a guerilla-type civil war from sea to sea. And every one of them was a target.

They were not expected to become embroiled in the sort of fighting
that they were consequently confronted with. Sure, they were (initially)
in more danger than, say, Aunty Mae who was back at home on her
porch in Nebraska but then so is just about anybody who drives a car
to work these days.

It is also true to say that they were no less dead than were their
combatant compatriots, but the fact remains these people were
not placed into a combat zone, the combat zone came to them,
and they fled.

As an aside, retreat under fire is not a tactic that American Generals
tend to spend a lot of time planning for. They usually just arrogantly
assume that they will beat everyone and anyone they come up against.

>It is generally accepted that combatants mutually participate >in combat . What you are describing is usually called "running >away", not that it wasn't a dangerous time and place though. Nonsense. No one can run away from guerilla warfare.Operation Babylift wasn't the Americans running away? Not even funny and its beyond stupid.

But nevertheless terribly accurate.

-- But then you are an asshole without a clue so it to be expected.

Aaah, yes, I see your point.

You also come across like I would expect an offspring of the stupid brits the King dumped down below, because no one else wanted them around. Its too bad he didn't send some good breeding stock to improve the gene pool down there too.

Oh, I see. All Australians are genetically inferior rejects.

Got it.

Well, what was it then? A victory for democracy? Do some homework so you don't look stupid all the time.

Don't need to.

Read this and then put *that* in the context of that "genetic
reject" garbage you wrote above.

http://www.ravenna.com/~forbes/2003/04/30/

Arsehole.

"green-fingers" <greenfigers@it.takes.one.to.know.one.gnc.org> wrote in message news:<zvgQa.4517$Ma.375178@news1.telusplanet.net>... "S.La Rocca" <geechel@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns93B7626ACD8geechelyahoocom@216.168.3.44... keelandrasislack@yahoo.com (keelandra sislack) wrote in Sometimes a rose is just a rose. Period. You're at a party, you're feeling good and you pick up your shirt. Big friggin deal. That's right. What man in his right mind would ***** about getting flashed by a woman ? Keep up the good work ladies !! unless she was a raving man hating feminazi with a hairy chest

...... or she's your mother.

It was the beads...

natasha fatale

no <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<no-AB4FCA.16431524072003@newssvr24-ext.news.prodigy.com>... In article <397828d4.0307240546.2c1fce75@posting.google.com>, phoglund@abo.fi (Panu Höglund) wrote: Because women are fascist and evil and they have smelly pussies, and still we cannot live without them. I guess this more or less explains it. Any of your friends that ask the same question, please show them my answer. You must be so jealous of gay men.

Yes, I am. Unfortunately, I am a straightnik. What is the idea of
telling me what everybody knows already?

Jude wrote:
Excuse me, what are you talking about??? Did you understand my post?

You should ask did I read it? No.
Women were denied pain killer during birth to uphold, as it were, God's curse to Eve.

There were enough medical reasons for this to justify especially after
the Contergan debacle. For a long time, there were no analgesics that
could be considered safe enough for a broad usage of that kind. And even
in free countries where there aren't any religious nutcases running
it, painkillers during birth aren't that common. And it ain't because of
the need to inflict pain upon women, rest assured. While the procedure
itself is safe, I wouldn't want to try hitting someones bonemark during
labor. And there can be, albeit only very infrequently, complications
where the painkillers really can cause troubles.

BTW, I think Contergan is back on the market but this time it's really
only the painkilling substance, not its evil enantiomer which caused so
much trouble last time (the industry learned their lesson out of it,
BTW, racemic medications usually aren't even going to clinical trial
these days they go through HOOPS (everyone familiar with the concept
will understand why so I don't explain it here) to only get the
enantiomer they actually need). I know a few pharmacologists and they
agree that it is a very effective and safe medication (partly because
the therapeutical range is rather distant from where it gets dangerous
unlike with some of the other high powered analgesics) if used where it
belongs.