Feminists are so STUPID

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·]

Feminists are so stupid. Their actions demanding *equality*
are counter productive. If a female wishes to be treated equally
as a man then said female is actually reducing her status as
traditional men generally go about treating females as if they
were something special. They protect them, they nurture
them, the love them and would die for them.

So feminists trade special, elevated treatment for equal
treatment. Men when they fight punch each other out, so
do females really want men to punch them out when they
fight with a man? Equality, ya know.

I don't think so! So, feminists are stupid. They want equality
when equality is to step down off the pedestal.

--
Sir Gregory

[Dakota]

With his attitude, Sir Gregory won't be having any kids. That's a good
thing.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

[Oh, starting this as a new topic instead now, but without using the
phrase "extreme feminist?" Well then, re-posting my response (with the
same quotation below my signature) is appropriately in order too...]

As I understand it, feminism is merely the advocacy of women's rights on
the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. This
seems reasonable to me as it does not imply physical equality, which
isn't possible anyway since there are physiological differences that
grant certain advantages and disadvantages to each sex.

What you seem to be advocating is discrimination against women purely
on the basis of their sex. It would be interesting to observe your
reaction to a female officer placing you under arrest, or a superior
female officer in the military ordering you to put more effort into
training, if only to gain insight into your true character.

Although the extreme feminists tend to take things too far, there are
many reasonable and rational contributions that women make to society,
and I see no Logical, Objective, Verifiable Evidence (L.O.V.E.) for why
women shouldn't be respected as productive, meaningful, intelligent, and
otherwise valuable contributors in all societies just as much as men
are since the continued survival of the human species is undeniably and
uncompromisingly dependent on both sexes.

L.O.V.E.: http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/love.pl

If you feel threatened by feminism, then you have not learned how to
cope with the fear of change. You need to understand that the world is
gradually changing, and has been for some time now, as societies evolve
to share more compassion, fight oppression (which necessarily includes
abandoning religion), progress by acquiring more knowledge (which works
against religion), fall in love without arbitrary inhibitions, and most
importantly to ensure that everyone has the freedom to think, express
themselves, and be completely empowered to make independent medical
decisions concerning their own health (even when that includes things
like abortions and doctor-assisted suicide).

You and all giant religions of the world are truly powerless to stop
this movement, regardless of how obsessed you are with limiting
veryone's freedoms, hence your true salvation is in trying to adapt,
and all attempts to keep forcing your corrupt moral values on the world
mostly have the unintended effect of self-sabotage.

People rightly expect freedom, and oppressive religions and oppressive
regimes threaten the core of that natural desire.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"I will not be a slave, [and] I will not stand by and let other women
be made into slaves. What every woman does with her body - including
her pregnancy - is her business; no one else's."
-- Brenda Nelson, EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and
Cat-Herding

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <6abe29....@news.alt.net>,

" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <greghall@home.fåke> wrote:

Women want to be treated as adults, not children.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Richo]

On Feb 1, 8:43 am, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <gregh...@home.fåke>

wrote:
> Feminists are so stupid.

Grand sweeping statements like this are ridiculous overstatements.
Some feminists are stupid - the stupid ones in particular.
Some feminists are tall - the tall ones.
The intelligent, articulate and educated feminists are intelligent,
educated and articulate.

Their actions demanding *equality*
> are counter productive.

In your subjective opinion?
Who cares?

If a female wishes to be treated equally
> as a man then said female is actually reducing her status as
> traditional men generally go about treating females as if they
> were something special. They protect them, they nurture
> them, the love them and would die for them.
>

There is some truth in that - and feminists do want to stop being
treated as precious valuables and want to be treated as fully human.

> So feminists trade special, elevated treatment for equal
> treatment.

Yes they want that trade.

> Men when they fight punch each other out, so
> do females really want men to punch them out when they
> fight with a man? Equality, ya know.
>
> I don't think so!  So, feminists are stupid. They want equality
> when equality is to step down off the pedestal.
>

I don't find your argument convincing.
Slaves have to give up being fed and housed by their master - they
have to fend for themselves when they are free - but they still chose
freedom.
Sure its a trade off but they are willing to take it.

Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardson61ATgmailDOTcom

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)

-----------------------------------------------------

[pandora]

We don't need/want no stinking pedestal. Thank you very much.

[Nadegda]

FWOOM!

I guess you got tired of having eyebrows or something, Gweggie? I can't
think of any *other* reason to wade into a pool of gasoline and drop a
lit match like that.

<snicker>

[Dick Stuckey]

In article <kef28o$9g6$5...@dont-email.me>, nad31...@gmail.invalid
says...

He's obviously starved for attention.

--
Dick Stuckey

[%]

anyone that posts is

[pandora]

You got that right!

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:13:13 -0800 (PST)
hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:43:02 PM UTC-5, Sir Gregory Hall,

> Why are you dragging this nym out again, Zachy? Are you planning on
> dragging out all of your nyms and socks before you have a complete
> breakdown - excuse me - before you pop? First your fake mother, now
> this?

Actually, that Mrs. Mulletstein character made me laugh, despite the
sad and pathetic parts. They're worried about tornados in their
trailer park? Ha ha! Bingo and taters? Ha ha!

How many pseudonyms is Zacharias Mulletstein known for anyway? There's
the disgusting sexual one named Rev. Samuel Harrigon, Constance Knoring
the ex-con who burns down churches and swears a lot, the Billy Hernsted
slip-ups (which I now suspect were intentional), Joe Bruno the angry
sociopathic Jew *, and now there's this Gregory Hall Esq. character too.

What other names has he been using?

* I only suspect Joe Bruno is another sock puppet; I'm not certain yet.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"... I really don't want to have to go back to the asylum again.
There's a big fat nurse there who picks on me and makes me do things
I'd rather not."
-- Zacharias Mulletstein (October 22, 2012)

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:13:13 -0800 (PST)
hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:43:02 PM UTC-5, Sir Gregory Hall,
> Esq· wrote:
>

> Why are you dragging this nym out again, Zachy? Are you planning on
> dragging out all of your nyms and socks before you have a complete
> breakdown - excuse me - before you pop? First your fake mother, now
> this?

Actually, that Mrs. Mulletstein character made me laugh, despite the
sad and pathetic parts. They're worried about tornados in their
trailer park? Ha ha! Bingo and taters? Ha ha!

How many pseudonyms is Zacharias Mulletstein known for anyway? There's
the disgusting sexual one named Rev. Samuel Harrigon, Constance Knoring
the ex-con who burns down churches and swears a lot, the Billy Hernsted
slip-ups (which I now suspect were intentional), Joe Bruno the angry

sociopathic Jew *, and now there's the Gregory Hall, Esq. character too.

[%]

greg is not a bruno sock he's been around for years ,
and only showed up here due to the crossposting

[Nadegda]

That, Fidem, is one of AUK's many resident stopped clocks, on one of his
two allotted occasions of being right today. Gweggles is indeed a whole
'nother kook altogether, notorious for traditionalist rants in various
places, some instances of sockpuppetry of his own, and, especially, for
blistering screeds railing against the evils of -- of all things -- free
newsservers. Naturally, this makes him the second biggest kook in
alt.free.newsservers. (You've also met the third biggest, but not the
biggest, though I suspect you soon will.)

[Dakota]

On 1/31/2013 6:03 PM, Richo wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:43 am, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�" <gregh...@home.f�ke>

At what age does a member of S.M.A.S.H become a member of S.O.A.S.H?

[Nadegda]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:41:24 -0600, Dakota wrote:

> On 1/31/2013 6:03 PM, Richo wrote:

>> On Feb 1, 8:43 am, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <gregh...@home.fåke>

They don't. The women, anyway -- we become S.L.O.S.H -- Sarcastic Ladies
with an Odd Sense of Humor.

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 31, 2:43 pm, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <gregh...@home.fåke>
wrote:

All that being protected and nurtured and treated "like something
special" comes at too high a price - abrogation of a woman's power. I
don't want to be above men, or below men. Just their equal. If you
don't like it, go crawl in a hole somewhere. There's one conveniently
located between your buttocks, if you need a suggestion.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox

EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

I haven't met the biggest? I'm feeling like I should be feeling scared!

Thanks for the history. I really like the "stopped clocks" analogy. It
truly is wonderful having involvement from AUK members here in this
"alt.atheism" newsgroup if not only for the new perspective but also
for the friendly banter that is so creatively written.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to
believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
-- Ambrose Bierce

[Yap]

On Feb 1, 5:43 am, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <gregh...@home.fåke>
wrote:

You must have suffered at the hands of female, to deny them equal
rights?

>
> --
> Sir Gregory

[Yap]

On Feb 1, 9:12 am, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dick Stuckey wrote:

> > In article <kef28o$9g...@dont-email.me>, nad318b...@gmail.invalid

So, you are trolling for attention as well?

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

I challenge you to supply evidence in support of your claim of denial.

> and only showed up here due to the crossposting

Are you claiming that his cross-posting (he started this thread) is the
cause of his participation here? I'll accept that claim as valid.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"I don't have a noggin (whatever that is). There is no question of
this."
-- Zacharias Mulletstein (January 11, 2013)

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:21:33 -0600
Robert Parker <robpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I know I am not his sock puppet, and I suspect that you are not.
> Every body else is suspect.

I believe these atheists aren't sock puppets either: Jeanne Douglas,
SkyEyes, Warlord Steve, Christopher A. Lee, Don Martin, Smiler, Yap,
hypatiab7, Dakota, sbalnaev, Father Haskell, thomas p., Freedom Man,
Daniel San, W.T.S., Devils Advocaat, Mitchell Holman, Syd M. (when not
being forged), raven1, tirebiter, Josef Balluch, Virgil, walksalone,
MarkA, Ben Kaufman, Doc Smartass, and many others.

Perhaps the sock puppeteers were inspired by CBC's Mr. Dressup? The
problem is that many of them grew older at some point without growing
up mentally, which turns out to be a rather nasty combination when
adult oriented matters enter the frey, as is regularly demonstrated.

It is fun to quote the kooks from time-to-time though because not only
does it infuriate them (mostly because of the context, ha ha), but also
because it serves as a reminder of the times when their incompetence in
presenting whatever message was the "soup of the day" for them ended up
falling in their lap and burning them.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Besides, I would never use 'vacuous' in a sentence. I don't even know
what vacuous means."
-- Zacharias Mulletstein (January 28, 2013)

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·]

"Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:9de1228b-e8fe-4881...@pp8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 1, 5:43 am, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <gregh...@home.fåke> wrote:
>
> Feminists are so stupid. Their actions demanding *equality*
> are counter productive. If a female wishes to be treated equally
> as a man then said female is actually reducing her status as
> traditional men generally go about treating females as if they
> were something special. They protect them, they nurture
> them, the love them and would die for them.
>
> So feminists trade special, elevated treatment for equal
> treatment. Men when they fight punch each other out, so
> do females really want men to punch them out when they
> fight with a man? Equality, ya know.
>
> I don't think so! So, feminists are stupid. They want equality
> when equality is to step down off the pedestal.

//
// You must have suffered at the hands of female, to deny them
// equal rights?

The biggest problem for females is this: along with equal
rights comes equal treatment. If females are not treated
equally can it really be said they truly enjoy equal rights?

I think not. Here are a few examples of the folly of feminist
thinking. These examples pretty much prove the female
brain, at least, is not the equal of a man's more logical
brain.

If females really wish to be equal to men then females:

1) need to accept being physically assaulted when
an argument with a man gets really heated as men
accept resorting to physical violence as a valid way
to resolve a dispute.

2) should embrace the fact that they can't qualify as
a soldier, paramedic, fireman, etc. until and unless
they can lift, run with, carry, drag, etc. the same heavy
weights required of men. Also, they should be content
with the lack of personal hygiene men accept as a
a matter of course when soldiering, etc. There have
been recent articles where females admit they
can't abide going weeks at a time without a bath,
shower, douche etc. It makes them mentally unstable.

3) need to accept the same standards of hair length
that apply to men in the military, for example. No
make-up allowed. No separate bathing facilities.
No separate latrines.

4) must not expect extra time off work due to their
periods and menstruation episodes. No maternity
leave either. No special treatment in courts of law
if they drown their children in a bathtub because
PMS or post-partum depression got the best of
them.

I could go on and on but I think even in-denial feminist
get the point. You only pay lip service to accepting or
wanting true equality. You only want it when there's an
up side. When there's a downside, you are in denial.

--
Sir Gregory

[kensi]

On 01/02/2013 1:35 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

Are you scared of clowns? Because if Nadegda means who I think she
means, the biggest afn kOok is one. Also a gibbering l00n. You'll know
him if you see him, even though I can't predict what nym he'll use (out
of his *thousands*, of which he sometimes creates three or four more new
ones *in a single day*), as he'll make markedly less sense than any
other usenetter you've ever read that was even slightly understandable.

> Thanks for the history. I really like the "stopped clocks" analogy. It
> truly is wonderful having involvement from AUK members here in this
> "alt.atheism" newsgroup if not only for the new perspective but also
> for the friendly banter that is so creatively written.

There're other populations here: some of us are as you describe, some
are dull and vicious with their posts mostly consisting of namecalling
and cursing (usually targeting either "Emmett BADASS Gulley" or someone
they hallucinat), some are relatively intelligent but deeply misguided
(you've definitely met one of them), and a few are just stark raving mad.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"A clue, a clue. My kingdom for a clue!!!!" ~Gweggles,
in an uncommon moment of self-awareness.

[kensi]

On 01/02/2013 12:07 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:

> It is fun to quote the kooks from time-to-time though because not only
> does it infuriate them (mostly because of the context, ha ha), but also
> because it serves as a reminder of the times when their incompetence in
> presenting whatever message was the "soup of the day" for them ended up
> falling in their lap and burning them.

See my .sig. :)

[kensi]

*knees Gweggles in the groin*

Not the intelligent ones, ko0kums. The intelligent ones accept resorting
to facts, evidence, and logical arguments as *the* valid way to resolve
an ontological or epistemological dispute, and negotiation and exchange
as the valid way to resolve a scarcity-allocation dispute.
Force should be resorted to only when necessary to defend against
someone else's use of force.

The men I've seen that like to settle disputes with physical violence
tend to be dullards, nutcases, or just plain aware that they're wrong
and that the facts would prove it.

> 2) should embrace the fact that they can't qualify as
> a soldier, paramedic, fireman, etc. until and unless
> they can lift, run with, carry, drag, etc. the same heavy
> weights required of men.

I can't reasonably object to that, though the PC crowd will hate me for
saying so.

> Also, they should be content
> with the lack of personal hygiene men accept as a
> a matter of course when soldiering, etc.

Or perhaps the men shouldn't be.

> There have
> been recent articles where females admit they
> can't abide going weeks at a time without a bath,
> shower, douche etc. It makes them mentally unstable.

URLs, ko0ky? That's an outrageous and implausible k'lame.

> 3) need to accept the same standards of hair length
> that apply to men in the military, for example.

If there's a pragmatic reason for it (enemy pulling your hair a
realistic threat on a modern battlefield?), sure.

> No make-up allowed.

Why not?

> No separate bathing facilities.

Why not?

> No separate latrines.

Why not?

> 4) must not expect extra time off work due to their
> periods and menstruation episodes.

Do we? I work right through mine, though it's not in the military.

> No maternity leave either.

Sorry, but that's absolutely non-negotiable. On the other hand, I've no
objection to granting men paternity leave in the event that any man
becomes pregnant while on duty, or to requiring those on active duty use
contraceptives (while allowing for the fact that these are not 100%
effective).

> No special treatment in courts of law
> if they drown their children in a bathtub because
> PMS or post-partum depression got the best of
> them.

I'm perfectly happy with men also being able to use post-partum
depression as a diminished capacity defense for killing their kids, if
ever a qualified psychiatrist diagnoses such.

> I could go on and on but I think even in-denial feminist
> get the point.

The point being that your death is roughly 65 million years overdue,
ko0ky? ;)

> You only pay lip service to accepting or
> wanting true equality.

A lie.

> You only want it when there's an
> up side. When there's a downside, you are in denial.

Another lie.

[Irreverend Dave]

Was Mr. Dressup ever on US TV?

Maybe if someone lived in Buffalo, Rochester or some other border town
they might get the reference.

> The
> problem is that many of them grew older at some point without growing
> up mentally, which turns out to be a rather nasty combination when
> adult oriented matters enter the frey, as is regularly demonstrated.

Acting like a total buffoon in the name of religion isn't going to endear
religion to anybody. Just look at what it has done for Fagnadhs.

>
> It is fun to quote the kooks from time-to-time though because not only
> does it infuriate them (mostly because of the context, ha ha), but also
> because it serves as a reminder of the times when their incompetence in
> presenting whatever message was the "soup of the day" for them ended up
> falling in their lap and burning them.
>



--

Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe,

but in proportion to their readiness to doubt - Ambrose Bierce

[alen]

On Feb 1, 8:43 am, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <gregh...@home.fåke>

wrote:
> Feminists are so stupid. Their actions demanding *equality*
> are counter productive. If a female wishes to be treated equally
> as a man then said female is actually reducing her status as
> traditional men generally go about treating females as if they
> were something special. They protect them, they nurture
> them, the love them and would die for them.
>
> So feminists trade special, elevated treatment for equal
> treatment. Men when they fight punch each other out, so
> do females really want men to punch them out when they
> fight with a man? Equality, ya know.
>
> I don't think so!  So, feminists are stupid. They want equality
> when equality is to step down off the pedestal.
>

> --
> Sir Gregory

[alen]

It used to be a matter of the liberation of women.
Somewhere there was a subtle change from liberation
to 'equality', which is not the same thing. Since differences
always exist, when can someone really feel 'equal'?
The answer is 'never'. The only way for a seeker of
equality to be sure of being equal is to become superior.
Only then do you know for sure that differences do not indicate
you inferiority or inequality., So the campaign for equality,
rather than liberty, is actually a campaign for superiority.

Equality is also hostile to liberty. In the public sphere it is
the same thing, but in the private sphere it is its opposite.
Discrimination in the public sphere is contrary to liberty,
whereas in the private sphere it is the equivalent of liberty.
Liberty gives us the right to discriminate in friendships,
opinions, beliefs, private gatherings etc. The feminist
campaign for women priests and bishops on the ground
of equality is an assault on churches, which are not
public institutions. Also, breaking into private men's clubs
was a feminist assault on the liberty of men.

It is time men woke up to what the aims of militant
feminism really are!

Alen

[Nadegda]

I'm sorry, alen, you'll have to speak up. I can't hear you.

<snicker>

[SkyEyes]

On Feb 1, 8:27 pm, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:43 am, "   Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <gregh...@home.fåke>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Feminists are so stupid. Their actions demanding *equality*
> > are counter productive. If a female wishes to be treated equally
> > as a man then said female is actually reducing her status as
> > traditional men generally go about treating females as if they
> > were something special. They protect them, they nurture
> > them, the love them and would die for them.
>
> > So feminists trade special, elevated treatment for equal
> > treatment. Men when they fight punch each other out, so
> > do females really want men to punch them out when they
> > fight with a man? Equality, ya know.
>
> > I don't think so!  So, feminists are stupid. They want equality
> > when equality is to step down off the pedestal.
>
> > --
> > Sir Gregory
>
> It used to be a matter of the liberation of women.
> Somewhere there was a subtle change from liberation
> to 'equality', which is not the same thing. Since differences
> always exist, when can someone really feel 'equal'?

The "equality" being sought is "equality before the law," and
"equality of opportunity." Nobody thinks everybody has equal talents
or abilities. That's just stupid.

> The answer is 'never'. The only way for a seeker of
> equality to be sure of being equal is to become superior.

Which women have had to do over the years, just to be considered the
equal of men in certain circumstances. Like Ginger Rogers, who was a
better dancer than Fred Astair. She could do all the moves he could
do - but she had to do them backwards and in high heels.

> Only then do you know for sure that differences do not indicate
> you inferiority or inequality., So the campaign for equality,
> rather than liberty, is actually a campaign for superiority.

I say again: the equality we're looking for is "equality before the
law" and "eqality of opportunity."

>
> Equality is also hostile to liberty. In the public sphere it is
> the same thing, but in the private sphere it is its opposite.
> Discrimination in the public sphere is contrary to liberty,
> whereas in the private sphere it is the equivalent of liberty.
> Liberty gives us the right to discriminate in friendships,
> opinions, beliefs, private gatherings etc. The feminist
> campaign for women priests and bishops on the ground
> of equality is an assault on churches, which are not
> public institutions. Also, breaking into private men's clubs
> was a feminist assault on the liberty of men.

And wouldn't have needed breaking into if it wasn't for the fact that
it was within the bosom of the men's clubs where the best and most
important deals were made, thus effectively cutting women out of the
process. That's where the "equality of opportunity" bit comes into
play. They can either let women into the men's clubs to be part of
the wheeling and dealing, or they can refrain from wheeling and
dealing while in the confines of the men's clubs. Just make it
*fair*, so everyone has an opportunity to shine.

>
> It is time men woke up to what the aims of militant
> feminism really are!

Yes: we intend to compete with you on a level playing field *and* make
you wash the skid marks out of your own underwear.

[%]

soon as i'm allowed to go to mom's and tots

[spondiferous]

Nadegda shemale twitter'd:

>On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:16:37 -0800, alen wrote:
>

snip

>
>I'm sorry, alen, you'll have to speak up. I can't hear you.
>
><snicker>

yer deaf (to) as well as illiterate in cultural matters belonging to
natives of those Antipodes, woofter sockiboi. LOL
http://peakbagger.com/pbgeog/worldrev.aspx
you can tell that the furthest away place from
New York in the world is a spot a few hundred
miles southwest of Perth, Australia, off in the Ocean

you could take all of your sox for a leap into a manhole?
careful you don't bust a nail with all that digging to Perth!
/snuckles/

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <6adiga....@news.alt.net>,

" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�" <greghall@home.f�ke> wrote:

> "Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:9de1228b-e8fe-4881...@pp8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Why is it acceptable for men to assault anybody of either gender?

> 2) should embrace the fact that they can't qualify as
> a soldier, paramedic, fireman, etc. until and unless
> they can lift, run with, carry, drag, etc. the same heavy
> weights required of men. Also, they should be content
> with the lack of personal hygiene men accept as a
> a matter of course when soldiering, etc. There have
> been recent articles where females admit they
> can't abide going weeks at a time without a bath,
> shower, douche etc. It makes them mentally unstable.

Then they won't qualify. But neither will men with the same neurosis.

Nobody's expecting a huge influx of female infantry soldiers, but the
ones who do qualify and who wand to do the job should not be prevented
from doing so.

> 3) need to accept the same standards of hair length
> that apply to men in the military, for example. No
> make-up allowed. No separate bathing facilities.
> No separate latrines.

I don't think any woman who wants to be in infantry would accede happily
to all of those conditions.

> 4) must not expect extra time off work due to their
> periods and menstruation episodes. No maternity
> leave either. No special treatment in courts of law
> if they drown their children in a bathtub because
> PMS or post-partum depression got the best of
> them.

How is acknowledging a medical condition unequal treatment.

And why don't BOTH men and women have parental leave. Every civilized
country in this planet gives long parental leaves, with pay, to mothers
AND fathers.

> I could go on and on but I think even in-denial feminist
> get the point. You only pay lip service to accepting or
> wanting true equality. You only want it when there's an
> up side. When there's a downside, you are in denial.

Nonsense.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[alen]

'opportunity', yes, that's a word you can make to mean
anything you might want it to mean.

> > Equality is also hostile to liberty. In the public sphere it is
> > the same thing, but in the private sphere it is its opposite.
> > Discrimination in the public sphere is contrary to liberty,
> > whereas in the private sphere it is the equivalent of liberty.
> > Liberty gives us the right to discriminate in friendships,
> > opinions, beliefs, private gatherings etc. The feminist
> > campaign for women priests and bishops on the ground
> > of equality is an assault on churches, which are not
> > public institutions. Also, breaking into private men's clubs
> > was a feminist assault on the liberty of men.
>
> And wouldn't have needed breaking into if it wasn't for the fact that
> it was within the bosom of the men's clubs where the best and most
> important deals were made, thus effectively cutting women out of the
> process.  That's where the "equality of opportunity" bit comes into
> play.  They can either let women into the men's clubs to be part of
> the wheeling and dealing, or they can refrain from wheeling and
> dealing while in the confines of the men's clubs.  Just make it
> *fair*, so everyone has an opportunity to shine.

I've heard that before. We are not stupid. All that was just
an excuse concocted to justify feminists breaking into
men's clubs. Evidently either men can't have their own
clubs, or they must have some femenazi matron supervising
what they are allowed to do within their clubs. What men
do within their clubs is no one's business but their
own. The fact is the militant feminists broke into
men's clubs and committed an assault against the
liberty of men.

> > It is time men woke up to what the aims of militant
> > feminism really are!
>

[snip misandrous contempt]

Alen

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-DCCE0C...@news.giganews.com...

I said men sometimes agree that physical violence is a valid
way to resolve disputes. That's a fact. Look up the word "duel."

It follows then, if females demand equality they should be fair
game for duels, fisticuffs etc.

>> 2) should embrace the fact that they can't qualify as
>> a soldier, paramedic, fireman, etc. until and unless
>> they can lift, run with, carry, drag, etc. the same heavy
>> weights required of men. Also, they should be content
>> with the lack of personal hygiene men accept as a
>> a matter of course when soldiering, etc. There have
>> been recent articles where females admit they
>> can't abide going weeks at a time without a bath,
>> shower, douche etc. It makes them mentally unstable.
>
> Then they won't qualify. But neither will men with the same neurosis.

But, females are agitating and trying to legislate LOWER
standards of physical fitness so they can qualify. They claim
it's discrimination against women to set the bar so high that
they can't succeed when it comes to strength pursuits. How
does that support the claim that females are equal and need
to be treated equally to men?

> Nobody's expecting a huge influx of female infantry soldiers, but the

> ones who do qualify and who wan(t) to do the job should not be
> prevented from doing so.

Agreed ,but they must meet all the standards set for men. Everybody
needs to be treated equally. That's a feminist tenet, isn't it?

>> 3) need to accept the same standards of hair length
>> that apply to men in the military, for example. No
>> make-up allowed. No separate bathing facilities.
>> No separate latrines.
>
> I don't think any woman who wants to be in infantry would accede
> happily to all of those conditions.

Then tough! Let them pursue another line of work. Like
being a military nurse. If they have to be treated differently
then men then it follows they aren't equal to men.

>> 4) must not expect extra time off work due to their
>> periods and menstruation episodes. No maternity
>> leave either. No special treatment in courts of law
>> if they drown their children in a bathtub because
>> PMS or post-partum depression got the best of
>> them.
>
> How is acknowledging a medical condition unequal treatment.

Medical condition, my ass! Being cranky and violent isn't a
medical condition. It's an attitude that needs adjustment.

> And why don't BOTH men and women have parental leave. Every
> civilized country in this planet gives long parental leaves, with pay,
> to mothers AND fathers.

I'm not talking about "parental leave." Women think they have
the right to "maternity leave" for weeks and months in some
instances. There is NO EQUIVALENT paternity leave. So,
again, women want special treatment in the workplace yet
they claim to be equal? Yah right.

>> I could go on and on but I think even in-denial feminist
>> get the point. You only pay lip service to accepting or
>> wanting true equality. You only want it when there's an
>> up side. When there's a downside, you are in denial.
>
> Nonsense.

Fact!

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�]

"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:fbcbff4f-cc59-442d...@nh8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 8:43 am, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�" <gregh...@home.f�ke>

================[reply]==================

Well said!

Feminists desire incremental "equality" to the extent
where they actually obtain superiority which superiority
they intend to garner by marginalizing males.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�]

"SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fc848db3-e745-433f...@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 1, 8:27 pm, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:

> On Feb 1, 8:43 am, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�" <gregh...@home.f�ke> wrote:
> > Feminists are so stupid. Their actions demanding *equality*
> > are counter productive. If a female wishes to be treated equally
> > as a man then said female is actually reducing her status as
> > traditional men generally go about treating females as if they
> > were something special. They protect them, they nurture
> > them, the love them and would die for them.
>
> > So feminists trade special, elevated treatment for equal
> > treatment. Men when they fight punch each other out, so
> > do females really want men to punch them out when they
> > fight with a man? Equality, ya know.
>
> > I don't think so! So, feminists are stupid. They want equality
> > when equality is to step down off the pedestal.
>
> > --
> > Sir Gregory
>
> It used to be a matter of the liberation of women.
> Somewhere there was a subtle change from liberation
> to 'equality', which is not the same thing. Since differences
> always exist, when can someone really feel 'equal'?

// The "equality" being sought is "equality before the law," and
// "equality of opportunity." Nobody thinks everybody has equal talents
// or abilities. That's just stupid.

Spoken like a true liberal. What you fail to consider is the
fact that equality before the law and equality of opportunity
must rest on a foundation of true equality. For example, when
females take extensive time off from work to have babies
then that time taken off results in extra expense to the employer
in the form of lost productivity, hiring a temporary replacement,
etc. Yet, females yell about not being paid equal to a man
for doing the same job. Sorry, but women DON'T do the
same job unless they are ON THE JOB for the same number
number of hours or days as a man.

> The answer is 'never'. The only way for a seeker of
> equality to be sure of being equal is to become superior.

// Which women have had to do over the years, just to be considered the
// equal of men in certain circumstances. Like Ginger Rogers, who was a
// better dancer than Fred Astair. She could do all the moves he could
// do - but she had to do them backwards and in high heels.

OMG! What a total misandrist attitude! You take art partners and
break them up into individuals just so you can claim discrimination.
Now, that's feminism gone wild!!!

> Only then do you know for sure that differences do not indicate
> you inferiority or inequality., So the campaign for equality,
> rather than liberty, is actually a campaign for superiority.

// I say again: the equality we're looking for is "equality before the
// law" and "eqality of opportunity."

Bullshit. As my paragraph on workplace women being absent
and unproductive because of pregnancy and child birth illustrated,
females want the same pay for being less productive on the job
than men. That means you feminists are pushing for EXTRA or
superior status.

> Equality is also hostile to liberty. In the public sphere it is
> the same thing, but in the private sphere it is its opposite.
> Discrimination in the public sphere is contrary to liberty,
> whereas in the private sphere it is the equivalent of liberty.
> Liberty gives us the right to discriminate in friendships,
> opinions, beliefs, private gatherings etc. The feminist
> campaign for women priests and bishops on the ground
> of equality is an assault on churches, which are not
> public institutions. Also, breaking into private men's clubs
> was a feminist assault on the liberty of men.

// And wouldn't have needed breaking into if it wasn't for the fact that
// it was within the bosom of the men's clubs where the best and most
// important deals were made, thus effectively cutting women out of the
// process.

Then if you women wish true equality start your own freaking women's
clubs and do your wheeling and dealing there and cut the men out.

That would be equality - not trying to marginalize what men do in
their clubs.

// That's where the "equality of opportunity" bit comes into
// play. They can either let women into the men's clubs to be part of
// the wheeling and dealing, or they can refrain from wheeling and
// dealing while in the confines of the men's clubs. Just make it
// *fair*, so everyone has an opportunity to shine.

There's a third alternative that is more equitable and that is the
one I just mentioned - start your own freaking women's club. You
claim you are equal to men then what's stopping you from creating
women's clubs that do the same things men's clubs do? Huh?

>
> It is time men woke up to what the aims of militant
> feminism really are!

// Yes: we intend to compete with you on a level playing field *and*
// make you wash the skid marks out of your own underwear.

Consider this - men only have skid marks on the backs of their
underwear while women have them on both the front and back.

You feminist next will be insisting men have operations to create
a cloaca on their lower, anterior anatomy so as to make men
and women equal. That's how absurd your equality attitude is.

Brenda, you need to wake the fuck up! Alen is right and you
are wrong. You'd be much less bitter if you just accepted the
fact that feminism gets it all wrong.

--
Sir Gregory

[kensi]

You indented your quoted text wrong, ko0ky. It should all be a level
deeper than it is.

> Feminists desire incremental "equality" to the extent
> where they actually obtain superiority which superiority
> they intend to garner by marginalizing males.

Proof, ko0ky?

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�]

"There's Howard Hughes in China Blue Suede Shoes" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:chine.bleu-F430E...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article
> <fbcbff4f-cc59-442d...@nh8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
>> It is time men woke up to what the aims of militant
>> feminism really are!
>

> To force men to take responsibility for birth control!


Don't get me started on that one. Leaping Lizards but
that's the stupidest, feminist comment of them all.

A) Only females may become pregnant.

B) Baring rape, females may choose or not chose
to copulate.

C) With copulation comes the chance of pregnancy.

D) If a woman becomes pregnant it's her choice and
her choice only. With choice comes responsibility.

E) 100% choice means 100% responsibility. Like
the feminists say. They have the 100% right to do
with their bodies as they see fit or wish (abortion).
If they see fit or wish to copulate then that is 100%
their right. If they wish to abort the pregnancy it is
100% their right. Yet somehow in their chronic
self-centered and illogical minds the man who
they wished to copulate with bears at least half
the responsibility for their pregnancy.

That kind of illogic borders on the psychopathic.

That being said, it follows that birth control is strictly
the female's prerogative by the very dictates of
feminism.

--
Sir Gregory

[kensi]

On 02/02/2013 2:39 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq� wrote:
> "There's Howard Hughes in China Blue Suede Shoes" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote
> in message news:chine.bleu-F430E...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article
>> <fbcbff4f-cc59-442d...@nh8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>> alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> It is time men woke up to what the aims of militant
>>> feminism really are!
>>
>> To force men to take responsibility for birth control!
>
>
> Don't get me started on that one. Leaping Lizards but
> that's the stupidest, feminist comment of them all.
>
> A) Only females may become pregnant.
>
> B) Baring rape, females may choose or not chose
> to copulate.
>
> C) With copulation comes the chance of pregnancy.
>
> D) If a woman becomes pregnant it's her choice and
> her choice only. With choice comes responsibility.

So, you're one of those right-wing ko0ks that doesn't believe pregnancy
can result if it was "legitimate rape"?

Why am I disappointed, but unsurprised?

[Dick Stuckey]

In article <6agepb....@news.alt.net>, greghall@home.fï¿œke says...

>
> "SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:fc848db3-e745-433f...@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 8:27 pm, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:

Brenda?

--
Dick Stuckey

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�]

"Dick Stuckey" <di...@stuckey.corn> wrote in message
news:MPG.2b773c61d...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <6agepb....@news.alt.net>, greghall@home.f�ke says...

>>
>> "SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:fc848db3-e745-433f...@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 1, 8:27 pm, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:

That's what it says in her sig line . . .

[Dick Stuckey]

In article <chine.bleu-94623...@news.eternal-
september.org>, chine...@yahoo.com says...
>
> In article <6agfi4....@news.alt.net>,

> " Sir Gregory Hall, Esqￜ" <greghall@home.fￜke> wrote:
>
> > D) If a woman becomes pregnant it's her choice and
> > her choice only. With choice comes responsibility.
>

> No, it's power that comes with responsibility. Great power brings great
> responsibility. No where did I leave my Q-Bomb?

I think Greg mistook it for a Q-Tip and blew his mind out.

--
Dick Stuckey

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <6agdf4....@news.alt.net>,

" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <greghall@home.fåke> wrote:

> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-DCCE0C...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <6adiga....@news.alt.net>,

> > " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <greghall@home.fåke> wrote:
> >
> >> "Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news:9de1228b-e8fe-4881...@pp8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Yes, it's a fact. But it's no longer acceptable behavior for men or
women.

> It follows then, if females demand equality they should be fair
> game for duels, fisticuffs etc.

Since it's idiotic for men to participate in any such things, there's no
reason for women to join the idiocy.

> >> 2) should embrace the fact that they can't qualify as
> >> a soldier, paramedic, fireman, etc. until and unless
> >> they can lift, run with, carry, drag, etc. the same heavy
> >> weights required of men. Also, they should be content
> >> with the lack of personal hygiene men accept as a
> >> a matter of course when soldiering, etc. There have
> >> been recent articles where females admit they
> >> can't abide going weeks at a time without a bath,
> >> shower, douche etc. It makes them mentally unstable.
> >
> > Then they won't qualify. But neither will men with the same neurosis.
>
> But, females are agitating and trying to legislate LOWER
> standards of physical fitness so they can qualify.

Let's see a citation that shows women demanding lower standards for
combat troops.

>They claim
> it's discrimination against women to set the bar so high that
> they can't succeed when it comes to strength pursuits. How
> does that support the claim that females are equal and need
> to be treated equally to men?
>
> > Nobody's expecting a huge influx of female infantry soldiers, but the
> > ones who do qualify and who wan(t) to do the job should not be
> > prevented from doing so.
>
> Agreed ,but they must meet all the standards set for men. Everybody
> needs to be treated equally. That's a feminist tenet, isn't it?

And that's exactly what I said. Sheesh!

> >> 3) need to accept the same standards of hair length
> >> that apply to men in the military, for example. No
> >> make-up allowed. No separate bathing facilities.
> >> No separate latrines.
> >
> > I don't think any woman who wants to be in infantry would accede
> > happily to all of those conditions.
>
> Then tough! Let them pursue another line of work. Like
> being a military nurse. If they have to be treated differently
> then men then it follows they aren't equal to men.

Ooops. That should have read:

I don't think any woman who wants to be in infantry would NOT accede
happily to all of those conditions?

> >> 4) must not expect extra time off work due to their
> >> periods and menstruation episodes. No maternity
> >> leave either. No special treatment in courts of law
> >> if they drown their children in a bathtub because
> >> PMS or post-partum depression got the best of
> >> them.
> >
> > How is acknowledging a medical condition unequal treatment.
>
> Medical condition, my ass! Being cranky and violent isn't a
> medical condition. It's an attitude that needs adjustment.

You think a brain illness is an attitude problem? Seriously?

> > And why don't BOTH men and women have parental leave. Every
> > civilized country in this planet gives long parental leaves, with pay,
> > to mothers AND fathers.
>
>
> I'm not talking about "parental leave." Women think they have
> the right to "maternity leave" for weeks and months in some
> instances. There is NO EQUIVALENT paternity leave.

Good way to completely avoid what I said.

There SHOULD be parental leave, with pay, for both men and women. That's
what civilized nations do.

> So,
> again, women want special treatment in the workplace yet
> they claim to be equal? Yah right.
>
> >> I could go on and on but I think even in-denial feminist
> >> get the point. You only pay lip service to accepting or
> >> wanting true equality. You only want it when there's an
> >> up side. When there's a downside, you are in denial.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> Fact!

--

[Nadegda]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 12:57:27 +0000, spondiferous (Pie Gurl)
P...@yahoo.calm WINNER - KOTM July 2012 and 2012's leading candidate for
Kook of the Year wrote:

> Nadegda shemale

Proof, kook?

> twitter'd:
>>On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:16:37 -0800, alen wrote:
>>
> snip
>>
>>I'm sorry, alen, you'll have to speak up. I can't hear you.
>>
>><snicker>
>
> yer deaf (to) as well as illiterate in cultural matters belonging to
> natives of those Antipodes, woofter sockiboi. LOL

Who is "woofter sockiboi", kook? There is nobody in this newsgroup using
that name.

> http://p<SLAP!>

Not touching any link you post with a ten-foot pole, kooky.

> you can tell that the furthest away place from
> New York in the world is a spot a few hundred
> miles southwest of Perth, Australia, off in the Ocean
>
> you could take all of your sox for a leap into a manhole? careful you
> don't bust a nail with all that digging to Perth! /snuckles/

Wow, what a nut. Totally off the rails. Post has nothing to do with the
parent article, half of it has no obvious connection to the other half,
much of it is made-up words, and none of it bears any apparent
relationship to reality, save possibly the bare geographic fact of what's
antipodal to New York.

*This* is the #1 kook from alt.free.newsservers, in case you hadn't
guessed already. When your headache from trying to figure out what the
fuck he even means (the answer being "means? What makes you think the
stuff he writes *means* something?") subsides, you might want to plonk
him silently. (He'll nymshift fairly soon and rant and rave some more,
but if you actually post "plonk" he'll nymshift right away.)

[Nadegda]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:19:29 -0600, Dick Stuckey wrote:

> In article <chine.bleu-94623...@news.eternal-
> september.org>, chine...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> In article <6agfi4....@news.alt.net>,

>> " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <greghall@home.fåke> wrote:
>>
>> > D) If a woman becomes pregnant it's her choice and
>> > her choice only. With choice comes responsibility.
>>
>> No, it's power that comes with responsibility. Great power brings great
>> responsibility. No where did I leave my Q-Bomb?
>
> I think Greg mistook it for a Q-Tip and blew his mind out.

He used to have a mind?

<snicker>

[Dick Stuckey]

In article <kekdro$7v3$6...@dont-email.me>, nad31...@gmail.invalid
says...

>
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:19:29 -0600, Dick Stuckey wrote:
>
> > In article <chine.bleu-94623...@news.eternal-
> > september.org>, chine...@yahoo.com says...
> >>
> >> In article <6agfi4....@news.alt.net>,

> >> " Sir Gregory Hall, Esqￜ" <greghall@home.fￜke> wrote:
> >>
> >> > D) If a woman becomes pregnant it's her choice and
> >> > her choice only. With choice comes responsibility.
> >>
> >> No, it's power that comes with responsibility. Great power brings great
> >> responsibility. No where did I leave my Q-Bomb?
> >
> > I think Greg mistook it for a Q-Tip and blew his mind out.
>
> He used to have a mind?
>
> <snicker>

I'm being generous here.

--
Dick Stuckey

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:24:01 -0500
kensi <kkensi...@gmail.invalid> wrote:

> *knees Gweggles in the groin*
>
> Not the intelligent ones, ko0kums. The intelligent ones accept
> resorting to facts, evidence, and logical arguments as *the* valid
> way to resolve an ontological or epistemological dispute, and
> negotiation and exchange as the valid way to resolve a
> scarcity-allocation dispute. Force should be resorted to only when
> necessary to defend against someone else's use of force.

Yes.

> The men I've seen that like to settle disputes with physical violence
> tend to be dullards, nutcases, or just plain aware that they're wrong
> and that the facts would prove it.

Anyone who settles disputes with physical violence is an insecure bully.

> > 2) should embrace the fact that they can't qualify as
> > a soldier, paramedic, fireman, etc. until and unless
> > they can lift, run with, carry, drag, etc. the same heavy
> > weights required of men.
>

> I can't reasonably object to that, though the PC crowd will hate me
> for saying so.

The "Politically Correct" crowd needs to stop ignoring the real world,
and South Park would be a great referential starting point for them.

> > Also, they should be content
> > with the lack of personal hygiene men accept as a
> > a matter of course when soldiering, etc.
>

> Or perhaps the men shouldn't be.

Yes, although indifference seems more appropriate.

> > There have
> > been recent articles where females admit they
> > can't abide going weeks at a time without a bath,
> > shower, douche etc. It makes them mentally unstable.
>

> URLs, ko0ky? That's an outrageous and implausible k'lame.

Many male soldiers haven't been able to do this either. The fallacy in
the claim is its illogical dependence on a few anecdotes as being a fair
representation of the attitudes of all women in the military.

> > 3) need to accept the same standards of hair length
> > that apply to men in the military, for example.
>

> If there's a pragmatic reason for it (enemy pulling your hair a
> realistic threat on a modern battlefield?), sure.

Correct.

> > No make-up allowed.
>
> Why not?

It's already done, and an extreme version of it was used in Libya too
with some well equipped, tough, and highly capable female soldiers:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XM3mjzsLu9g/Tro3CoKZJnI/AAAAAAAA020/C9A8qLOYRoI/s1600/Gaddafi%2527s+Women+3.jpg

Alternate link: http://www.moourl.com/8wmud

Full article:
http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-gaddafi-improved-lives-of-libyan.html

Alternate link: http://www.moourl.com/4q3ms

> > No separate bathing facilities.
>
> Why not?

Or more importantly, who cares? When the priority lies in saving the
lives of other team members on the field in extreme conditions, then
nudity simply isn't a big deal.

> > No separate latrines.
>
> Why not?

The television show Ally McBeal featured a unisex washroom. If a law
firm drama being aired on major networks can handle it, why can't a
rough-and-tumble military operation handle it? (Or perhaps there's an
assumption that infantry is incapable of following certain orders, such
as respecting the bodily function service operations of other members.)

> > 4) must not expect extra time off work due to their
> > periods and menstruation episodes.
>

> Do we? I work right through mine, though it's not in the military.

M*A*S*H units are designed to handle a wide range of serious medical
conditions close to or amidst extreme conditions, and do exercise the
authority to send some patients back home, so this is a moot point.

The team is also prepared to persevering even when other members of the
team are unexpectedly available (e.g., because they are killed or
seriously injured in the line of duty). Even though a complete team
generally has a better chance of advancing or competing their missions,
the essential aspects of preparation include coping when one or more
members of the team are unexpectedly removed or otherwise eliminated.

> > No maternity leave either.
>
> Sorry, but that's absolutely non-negotiable. On the other hand, I've
> no objection to granting men paternity leave in the event that any
> man becomes pregnant while on duty, or to requiring those on active
> duty use contraceptives (while allowing for the fact that these are
> not 100% effective).

That seems logically reasonable.

Soldiers generally remain on duty in extreme conditions for longer
durations now than in the distant past, and now it seems that higher
instances of PTSD and other physical and psychological conditions may
be caused by this. If duty cycles are shortened again, this could help
to facilitate transitioning to support more reasons for leave as well
(that's a crude assessment, sorry, but I'm trying to keep it short).

> > No special treatment in courts of law
> > if they drown their children in a bathtub because
> > PMS or post-partum depression got the best of
> > them.
>

> I'm perfectly happy with men also being able to use post-partum
> depression as a diminished capacity defense for killing their kids,
> if ever a qualified psychiatrist diagnoses such.

In other words, this issue is not sex-specific.

(It's always tragic when this sort of scenario arises, but life isn't
fair. Perhaps teams comprised of both sexes can have a positive effect
that may help to preventively alleviate some of these stresses.)

> > I could go on and on but I think even in-denial feminist
> > get the point.
>

> The point being that your death is roughly 65 million years overdue,
> ko0ky? ;)

Ha ha! Possibly.

The point that any feminist should get is that Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
has a sexist attitude not befitting Knighthood -- I strongly suspect
that Her Royal Majesty The Queen, who Knights are duty-bound to honour
and respect her (and the conventions she is entrusted with), would not
approve of Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.'s obviously sexist agenda.

> > You only pay lip service to accepting or
> > wanting true equality.
>

> A lie.

>
> > You only want it when there's an
> > up side. When there's a downside, you are in denial.
>

> Another lie.

Habitual lying is problematic for maintaining Knighthood status.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits."
-- Sun Zi

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:58:48 -0800

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

<god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:24:01 -0500
> kensi <kkensi...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> > On 01/02/2013 12:11 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:
> > > "Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > message
> > > news:9de1228b-e8fe-4881...@pp8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Feb 1, 5:43 am, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
> > > <gregh...@home.fåke> wrote:

[snip]

> > > 4) must not expect extra time off work due to their
> > > periods and menstruation episodes.
> >
> > Do we? I work right through mine, though it's not in the military.
>
> M*A*S*H units are designed to handle a wide range of serious medical
> conditions close to or amidst extreme conditions, and do exercise the
> authority to send some patients back home, so this is a moot point.
>
> The team is also prepared to persevering even when other members of
> the team are unexpectedly available (e.g., because they are killed or
> seriously injured in the line of duty). Even though a complete team
> generally has a better chance of advancing or competing their
> missions, the essential aspects of preparation include coping when
> one or more members of the team are unexpectedly removed or otherwise
> eliminated.

[snip]

I'm very sorry, for some reason the above paragraph was skipped entirely
during my final proofreading; here's the corrected version (corrected or
replaced four words: available, complete, compete, missions):

> The team is also prepared to persevering even when other members of

> the team are unexpectedly unavailable (e.g., because they are killed
> or seriously injured in the line of duty). Even though a full team
> generally has a better chance of advancing or completing their
> mission(s), the essential aspects of preparation include coping when

> one or more members of the team are unexpectedly removed or otherwise
> eliminated.

[Andrew Wilson]

On Feb 1, 6:29 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> All that being protected and nurtured and treated "like something
> special" comes at too high a price - abrogation of a woman's power.  I
> don't want to be above men,

Aww, damn. So much for *that* fantasy then.

[Irkin Invader Zim]

On Jan 31, 4:43 pm, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <gregh...@home.fåke>
wrote:
> Feminists are so stupid.

But at least they recognize the concept of indoor plumbing.
That's still one step ahead of you.

>Their actions demanding *equality*
> are counter productive.

Greggies "Howard Hughes" Hall against equality of the sexes? *gasp*

> If a female wishes to be treated equally
> as a man then said female is actually reducing her status as
> traditional men generally go about treating females as if they
> were something special. They protect them, they nurture
> them, the love them and would die for them.

i wish you would, Greg.

>
> So feminists trade special, elevated treatment for equal
> treatment. Men when they fight punch each other out, so
> do females really want men to punch them out when they
> fight with a man? Equality, ya know.

Invoking violence and condoning domestic abuse?
I thought you couldn't get any lower, Greggies.
Sorry that I was wrong about that.

>
> I don't think so!  So, feminists are stupid. They want equality
> when equality is to step down off the pedestal.
>

> --
> Sir Gregory


I wish you would step down off the side of your boat while carrying an
anchor.

[Irkin Invader Zim]

On Feb 1, 12:11 pm, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <gregh...@home.fåke>
wrote:
> "Yap" <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:9de1228b-e8fe-4881...@pp8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 5:43 am, "   Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" <gregh...@home.fåke> wrote:
>
> > Feminists are so stupid. Their actions demanding *equality*
> > are counter productive. If a female wishes to be treated equally

> > as a man then said female is actually reducing her status as
> > traditional men generally go about treating females as if they
> > were something special. They protect them, they nurture
> > them, the love them and would die for them.
>

> > So feminists trade special, elevated treatment for equal
> > treatment. Men when they fight punch each other out, so
> > do females really want men to punch them out when they
> > fight with a man? Equality, ya know.
>

> > I don't think so! So, feminists are stupid. They want equality
> > when equality is to step down off the pedestal.
>

> //
> // You must have suffered at the hands of female, to deny them
> // equal rights?
>
> The biggest problem for females is this: along with equal
> rights comes equal treatment. If females are not treated
> equally can it really be said they truly enjoy equal rights?
>
> I think not. Here are a few examples of the folly of feminist
> thinking. These examples pretty much prove the female
> brain, at least, is not the equal of a man's more logical
> brain.
>
> If females really wish to be equal to men then females:
>
> 1) need to accept being physically assaulted when
>      an argument with a man gets really heated as men
>      accept resorting to physical violence as a valid way
>      to resolve a dispute.

Condoning domestic abuse, assault. Nice one, Greggies.

>
> 2) should embrace the fact that they can't qualify as
>      a soldier, paramedic, fireman, etc. until and unless
>      they can lift, run with, carry, drag, etc. the same heavy

>      weights required of men. Also, they should be content

>      with the lack of personal hygiene men accept as a

>      a matter of course when soldiering, etc. There have

>      been recent articles where females admit they
>      can't abide going weeks at a time without a bath,
>      shower, douche etc. It makes them mentally unstable.
>

Nice generalization and sweeping stupidity brought through using
sexual stereotypes and ambiguity, Greggy.

> 3) need to accept the same standards of hair length

>      that apply to men in the military, for example. No
>      make-up allowed. No separate bathing facilities.
>      No separate latrines.
>

No Greg Halls living in the bunk next door.

> 4) must not expect extra time off work due to their

>     periods and menstruation episodes. No maternity
>     leave either. No special treatment in courts of law

>     if they drown their children in a bathtub because
>     PMS or post-partum depression got the best of
>     them.
>

Yea!
Just let 'em squat somewhere and get back to work!
Lazy bitches want to have children. They should be punished for that,
right Greggies?

> I could go on and on

I am sure that you could, but at some point science would reach a
point of infinite density with your stupidity, sexual ignorance and
general "what the hell" level.

> but I think even in-denial feminist

> get the point. You only pay lip service to accepting or
> wanting true equality. You only want it when there's an

> up side. When there's a downside, you are in denial.
>

> --
> Sir Gregory


Go crap in your bucket.
You'll feel better.

[kensi]

On 03/02/2013 1:12 PM, Irkin Invader Zim wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:11 pm, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�" <gregh...@home.f�ke>

> wrote:
>> "Yap" <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:9de1228b-e8fe-4881...@pp8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

And it's Alex Cain's turn to be right twice a day.

*snicker*

[SkyEyes]

Don't mistake that for the sentiment "I don't want to be on top." ;-P

Brenda

[Richo]

On Feb 1, 4:41 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/2013 6:03 PM, Richo wrote:
>
>
> > Mark.
> > --
> > Mark Richardson mDOTrichardson61ATgmailDOTcom
>
> > Member of S.M.A.S.H.
> > (Sarcastic Middle aged  Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------
>
> At what age does a member of S.M.A.S.H become a member of S.O.A.S.H?

An interesting question !
Great sages have given this much thought but unfortunately they have,
so far, tended to forget what they were thinking about and fall asleep
before providing an answer.
Hmmm I think its time for my nap.
Nurse!

Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardson61ATgmailDOTcom

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)

-----------------------------------------------------

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 23:08:49 +0000 (UTC)
Irreverend Dave <revere...@ministerpants.com> wrote:
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

> > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:21:33 -0600
> > Robert Parker <robpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:05:02 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the

> >> non-existent atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

> >> >On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:13:13 -0800 (PST)
> >> >hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:43:02 PM UTC-5, Sir Gregory

> >> >> Hall, Esq· wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Feminists are so stupid. Their actions demanding *equality*
> >> >> > are counter productive. If a female wishes to be treated
> >> >> > equally as a man then said female is actually reducing her
> >> >> > status as traditional men generally go about treating females
> >> >> > as if they were something special. They protect them, they
> >> >> > nurture them, the love them and would die for them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So feminists trade special, elevated treatment for equal
> >> >> > treatment. Men when they fight punch each other out, so
> >> >> > do females really want men to punch them out when they
> >> >> > fight with a man? Equality, ya know.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't think so! So, feminists are stupid. They want
> >> >> > equality when equality is to step down off the pedestal.
> >> >>

> >> >> Why are you dragging this nym out again, Zachy? Are you
> >> >> planning on dragging out all of your nyms and socks before you
> >> >> have a complete breakdown - excuse me - before you pop? First
> >> >> your fake mother, now this?
> >> >
> >> >Actually, that Mrs. Mulletstein character made me laugh, despite
> >> >the sad and pathetic parts. They're worried about tornados in
> >> >their trailer park? Ha ha! Bingo and taters? Ha ha!
> >> >
> >> >How many pseudonyms is Zacharias Mulletstein known for anyway?
> >> >There's the disgusting sexual one named Rev. Samuel Harrigon,
> >> >Constance Knoring the ex-con who burns down churches and swears a
> >> >lot, the Billy Hernsted slip-ups (which I now suspect were
> >> >intentional), Joe Bruno the angry sociopathic Jew *, and now
> >> >there's this Gregory Hall Esq. character too.
> >> >
> >> >What other names has he been using?
> >> >
> >> >* I only suspect Joe Bruno is another sock puppet; I'm not certain
> >> >yet.
> >>
> >> I know I am not his sock puppet, and I suspect that you are not.
> >> Every body else is suspect.
> >
> > I believe these atheists aren't sock puppets either: Jeanne
> > Douglas, SkyEyes, Warlord Steve, Christopher A. Lee, Don Martin,
> > Smiler, Yap, hypatiab7, Dakota, sbalnaev, Father Haskell, thomas
> > p., Freedom Man, Daniel San, W.T.S., Devils Advocaat, Mitchell
> > Holman, Syd M. (when not being forged), raven1, tirebiter, Josef
> > Balluch, Virgil, walksalone, MarkA, Ben Kaufman, Doc Smartass, and
> > many others.
> >
> > Perhaps the sock puppeteers were inspired by CBC's Mr. Dressup?
>
> Was Mr. Dressup ever on US TV?
>
> Maybe if someone lived in Buffalo, Rochester or some other border
> town they might get the reference.

Ah yes, I forgot that this was a Canadian television show (that was part
of the taxpayer-funded CBC Television Network, assuming I'm remembering
this correctly). Sorry to those who missed it, though you can find many
of his episodes on YouTube:

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=vid&q=Mr.%20Dressup

Another really nice one to search for is "The Friendly Giant" who often
aired at around the same time as Mr. Dressup:

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=vid&q=The%20Friendly%20Giant

> > The problem is that many of them grew older at some point without
> > growing up mentally, which turns out to be a rather nasty
> > combination when adult oriented matters enter the frey, as is
> > regularly demonstrated.
>
> Acting like a total buffoon in the name of religion isn't going to
> endear religion to anybody. Just look at what it has done for
> Fagnadhs.

I think their efforts actually "turn many people off" of religion.

> > It is fun to quote the kooks from time-to-time though because not
> > only does it infuriate them (mostly because of the context, ha ha),
> > but also because it serves as a reminder of the times when their
> > incompetence in presenting whatever message was the "soup of the
> > day" for them ended up falling in their lap and burning them.
>
> --
> Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to
> believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt - Ambrose
> Bierce

Skepticism is one of the greatest advantages gained from free thinking.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the
land. They said 'Let us pray' [and] we closed our eyes. When we
opened them we had the Bible and they had the land."
-- Desmond Tutu

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Ha ha! It all boils down to personal preferences now, doesn't it?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Logic is the attempt, by humans, to make sense; it isn't a divine
endowment. The same with philosophy, philosophy is the love of wisdom,
we don't say it's the revelation by [some deity.]"
-- Christopher Hitchens

[%]

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:10:25 -0800 (PST)
> SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 3:14 am, Andrew Wilson <awils984...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 6:29 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All that being protected and nurtured and treated "like something
>>>> special" comes at too high a price - abrogation of a woman's
>>>> power. I don't want to be above men,
>>>
>>> Aww, damn. So much for *that* fantasy then.
>>
>> Don't mistake that for the sentiment "I don't want to be on top."
>> ;-P
>
> Ha ha! It all boils down to personal preferences now, doesn't it?

no it all boils down to me

[%]

so am i

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <20130206193041.52b0...@fidemturbare.com>,

And dukie.

[Yap]

You? King Liar is no body.

[%]

i'm king because i like to lie to you ,
well that was an easy role to take