Feminist cartel
William Blake Jr.
places upon the producers the pressure of competing companies to
provide for the consumer the correct goods at the correct price.
Because of this, the anti-trust legislation has come into effect to
prevent companies from colluding into cartels and monopolies that would
dominate industries and, by being the dominant players, prevent
competition from other companies and individuals. It occurs to me that
the same logic that applies to companies must also apply to cultural
and social entities, and that means the following:
Competition among multiple cultures, within framework of statutory and
legally defended liberty.
Exposing wrong ideas and practices in each culture to competition from
better ideas in other cultures.
Incorporating knowledge and wisdom from each culture into other
cultures.
Providing people cultural alternatives that are right for them.
And, through competition among the cultures, as in competition among
companies, creating real and meaningful climate in which cultural goods
are improved and refined and provide the best and ever-better cultural
goods to the individuals.
This means: Competition among cultures for people's attention and
loyalty - like competition among enterprises - making the best of
these entities and the best result therefore for the people.
And pursuant this mechanism, the best lives for the people around the
world.
This means of course, as in case of capitalism, protection for rights
and liberties of people. It means preventing anti-competitive tactics,
from bullying to blackmail to barbarism. And it means this also:
Destroying cartels, at whatever level they may exist.
This brings me to an issue I've been trying to address for a long
time, and that is: That in America, there is such a thing as a feminist
cartel. The beautiful women are attacked; ones with a heart,
maliciously and horribly so. The men who have it within them to
appreciate beauty and heart and tenderness are attacked still worse.
The goal: To bludgeon people into believing that beauty is
unachievable, and that people have to settle down with harpies and live
a life of hideousness and misery.
You may deny it all you want; it is all around you. The cities of great
American cities are filled with malicious dykes, as are its schools and
universities and even churches. A pretty and sweet-hearted girl born in
this set of conditions has low to none chance of survival (and less so
of survival as this: A pretty and sweet-hearted girl). And men who have
any kind of romantic sensibilities - well, the viciousness that comes
their way makes Gerry Springer look like a saint by comparison.
So here comes the following: Attack on those who rightly evoke
beautiful feelings; and attack further on those who rightly feel them
and seek to transmit them. The goal? To make people think such things
impossible and acquiesce to a horrible and oppressive existence. To go
out into such climate with any kind of purity or goodness is to put a
bull's eye on oneself; which is why for example Brenda Lee, who came
with precisely such intentions, got the treatment she got. The goal? To
interpose between the soul and the existence, that people be made to
believe soul inaccessible and then fall into the net of one or another
usurpatory entity or usurpatory construct!
And in the process to make soul's treasures unavailable for the
soulful and the people who desperately need such treasures!
So do you think then that I, with my economics and psychology
education, would stand by to see a feminist cartel go on destroying
women who have beautiful things to offer while making the climate so
horrible that the most loving men either fall into one or another trap
or are otherwise shattered? How could I? A malicious cartel is a
malicious cartel, whether it be Medellin drug cartel, OPEC or American
feminism! First they claim to speak for women and for womanhood as
such; then they tell women what to be and what to do and how to act and
how to think and how to dress and what it means to be a woman! Do you
see a power grab of cosmic proportions? And are the people who
participate in that power grab worthy of power and trust?
Who indeed creates greater crime against women: Someone who tells them
they have to be excellent or someone who tells them they have to be
nasty poisonous mouthy shrews with an attitude and an agenda against
all men? Whose way is more oppressive? Indeed we see in American
feminism the same qualities we've seen in the worst Third World
dictators: Combining the worst of their people and of their colonial
masters. The sense of victimization which they share with their people
leading to irresponsible and blame-placing action when they in fact are
the ones in power, while the same viciousness and abrasiveness and
hideousness that they've inherited from their colonial masters making
them doubly ruinous to the people they claim to serve!
Now I keep hearing again and again, from just about every person I
meet, how they HATE having the feminists tell them what to do and what
to be; that no, feminists do not speak for them; and that no, feminists
do not represent women or indeed even people. I repeat: Do you see a
power grab of cosmic proportions? Who on earth has elected feminists to
tell everyone what to do and how to behave? If people claim to speak
for women then they will exercise also double power over men, the bulk
of whom need some kind of female company. So what do we have then? What
we have is a set of freaks claiming to speak for all women, and other
women - either being nice and not liking fighting, or believing they
must love everyone, or anything else - not challenging them in their
lies. Which lies keep growing, becoming monstrous, and eating up
America.
This of course we have seen before, with unions claiming to speak for
the workers. Their power kept growing as well - until some smart
folks figured out that there are billions of people, for whom the
chance at a fraction of the income American union workers were making
would be greater chance of a life they would ever have. So these folks
gave these people a chance at a life. With the result that over two
decades more than half a billion of people rose out of poverty in China
and India alone. With the result that now right goods are again
produced at right price. With the result that consumer has money in
pocket and can buy other things and produces jobs upon jobs worldwide.
With the result that business prospers, government prospers, and so
does the world.
The feminist cartel will be broken in the same way as was the union
cartel. It will be broken by exposing American women to competition
from women abroad. It will be broken by bringing American men, who have
worked like dogs and suffered under feminism and refined their habits
and thoughts and approach to life, in contact with cultured, beautiful,
intelligent and warm women from Latin America and Eastern Europe. For
whom a life with an American man and in America is a dream worth dying
for - and which American men with these women will have a life that
is worthy of them.
Ilya Shambat.
Perseus
William Blake Jr. wrote:
[...]
> The feminist cartel will be broken in the same way as was the union
> cartel. It will be broken by exposing American women to competition
> from women abroad. It will be broken by bringing American men, who have
> worked like dogs and suffered under feminism and refined their habits
> and thoughts and approach to life, in contact with cultured, beautiful,
> intelligent and warm women from Latin America and Eastern Europe. For
> whom a life with an American man and in America is a dream worth dying
> for - and which American men with these women will have a life that
> is worthy of them.
>
> Ilya Shambat.
Then Lorena Bobbitt came "bob, bob, bobbing alond..."
Then there's the one about Ivanna Trump: "I Vanna divorce!!"
Masculist
Good points. The original poster had my hopes getting up until he said
that thing about the unions. Granted the unions ate it with
outsourcing, but they were dead in the water long before that when the
feminists took over the Left in '72. It was the feminist counter
insurgents on the Left, used by the Right, who allowed outsourcing and
watered down union "solidarity" which depended on men fighting for
their families. Now with all the owmen in the unions, who gives a shit
what happens to them?
As for foreign women, that is only a temporary solution and those
countries are now being taken over by feminism.
Any more ideas?
Tom Smith
The American Union of Men (AUM)
Hyerdahl
Masculist wrote:
> Perseus wrote:
> > William Blake Jr. wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The feminist cartel will be broken in the same way as was the union
> > > cartel. It will be broken by exposing American women to competition
> > > from women abroad. It will be broken by bringing American men, who have
> > > worked like dogs and suffered under feminism and refined their habits
> > > and thoughts and approach to life, in contact with cultured, beautiful,
> > > intelligent and warm women from Latin America and Eastern Europe. For
> > > whom a life with an American man and in America is a dream worth dying
> > > for - and which American men with these women will have a life that
> > > is worthy of them.
> > >
> > > Ilya Shambat.
> >
> > Then Lorena Bobbitt came "bob, bob, bobbing alond..."
Come on....how many women resort to cutting off the penis?
> >
> > Then there's the one about Ivanna Trump: "I Vanna divorce!!"
>
No problem. She's just as entitled to one as is the Donald.
> Good points. The original poster had my hopes getting up until he said
> that thing about the unions. Granted the unions ate it with
> outsourcing, but they were dead in the water long before that when the
> feminists took over the Left in '72.
Just how did feminists "take over the unions" in '72? Next thing you
know you'll say that feminists were on the 'grassy knoll'. :-)
It was the feminist counter insurgents on the Left, used by the Right,
who allowed outsourcing and> watered down union "solidarity" which
depended on men fighting for
> their families. Now with all the owmen in the unions, who gives a shit
> what happens to them?
>
The unions have lost their power, but that has more to do with politics
than feminism. If you vote for turkeys like Bush what do you expect?
> As for foreign women, that is only a temporary solution and those
> countries are now being taken over by feminism.
Yes, indeed. Feminism is spreading like wild fire.
>
> Any more ideas?
Grow up; stop being so insecure. Either that or I guess you'll have to
go back to Mars, where you began. I understand those Martian women are
eager beavers. :-)
Perseus
Hyerdahl wrote:
> Masculist wrote:
> > Perseus wrote:
> > > William Blake Jr. wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > The feminist cartel will be broken in the same way as was the union
> > > > cartel. It will be broken by exposing American women to competition
> > > > from women abroad. It will be broken by bringing American men, who have
> > > > worked like dogs and suffered under feminism and refined their habits
> > > > and thoughts and approach to life, in contact with cultured, beautiful,
> > > > intelligent and warm women from Latin America and Eastern Europe. For
> > > > whom a life with an American man and in America is a dream worth dying
> > > > for - and which American men with these women will have a life that
> > > > is worthy of them.
> > > >
> > > > Ilya Shambat.
> > >
>
> Come on....how many women resort to cutting off the penis?
You're right, not many. Most prefer to cut off the balls, since
they're more tired of being baby factories than they are tired of sex.
The older, and homlier they get, the more they seem to want it too.
Heh!
> > >
> > > Then there's the one about Ivanna Trump: "I Vanna divorce!!"
> >
> No problem. She's just as entitled to one as is the Donald.
I'll bet you muff-dived Leona Helmsley too.
>
> > Good points. The original poster had my hopes getting up until he said
> > that thing about the unions. Granted the unions ate it with
> > outsourcing, but they were dead in the water long before that when the
> > feminists took over the Left in '72.
>
> Just how did feminists "take over the unions" in '72?
Through the back door, stupid.
> Next thing you
> know you'll say that feminists were on the 'grassy knoll'. :-)
They were! They were masturbating as JFK approached in his Limo.
>
>
> It was the feminist counter insurgents on the Left, used by the Right,
> who allowed outsourcing and> watered down union "solidarity" which
> depended on men fighting for
> > their families. Now with all the owmen in the unions, who gives a shit
> > what happens to them?
> >
> The unions have lost their power, but that has more to do with politics
> than feminism. If you vote for turkeys like Bush what do you expect?
It has more to do with greed and ambition. Unions became just one more
form of Enron Corp... i.e. unaccountable to anyone but themselves.
>
>
> > As for foreign women, that is only a temporary solution and those
> > countries are now being taken over by feminism.
>
> Yes, indeed. Feminism is spreading like wild fire.
No. It's been on the retreat lately. Still, like gasoline prices, it
will never retreat all the way back to the "good ol' days."
> >
> > Any more ideas?
>
> Grow up; stop being so insecure. Either that or I guess you'll have to
> go back to Mars, where you began. I understand those Martian women are
> eager beavers. :-)
Men aren't from Mars. Men are from Chicago. Women are from Cleveland.
Dennis M. Hammes
> The pretext of free-gerbil gerbitalism is that gerbil competitions
> place upon the gerbils the pressure of completing gerbils to
> provide for the lemmings the correct gerbils at the correct temperature.
> Because of this, the anti-gerbil legislation has come into effect to
> prevent gerbils from colliding into cartons and monocles that would
> dominate lemmings and, by being the dominant gerbils, get pregnant
> compensation from other gerbils and voles. It occurs to me that
> the same gerbil that applies to companies must also apply to cultural
> and social entities, or forego two-thirds of the job market.
>
Verrrry Interestingk.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
If a pome falls in the middle of a library and
the Bishop can't read it, does it still say, "Iamb"?
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
Why do American women live eight years longer than American men?
They're not married to American women.
Dennis M. Hammes
> Perseus wrote:
>
>>William Blake Jr. wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>The feminist cartel will be broken in the same way as was the union
>>>cartel. It will be broken by exposing American women to competition
>>>from women abroad. It will be broken by bringing American men, who have
>>>worked like dogs and suffered under feminism and refined their habits
>>>and thoughts and approach to life, in contact with cultured, beautiful,
>>>intelligent and warm women from Latin America and Eastern Europe. For
>>>whom a life with an American man and in America is a dream worth dying
>>>for - and which American men with these women will have a life that
>>>is worthy of them.
>>>
>>>Ilya Shambat.
>>
>>Then Lorena Bobbitt came "bob, bob, bobbing alond..."
>>
>>Then there's the one about Ivanna Trump: "I Vanna divorce!!"
>
>
> Good points. The original poster had my hopes getting up until he said
> that thing about the unions. Granted the unions ate it with
> outsourcing, but they were dead in the water long before that when the
> feminists took over the Left in '72. It was the feminist counter
> insurgents on the Left, used by the Right, who allowed outsourcing and
> watered down union "solidarity" which depended on men fighting for
> their families. Now with all the owmen in the unions, who gives a shit
> what happens to them?
Unless they water down the beer, nothing.
If they water down the beer, they'll really be "ow"men.
BTW, feminist counter insurgents do not yell "charge" until
/after/ they've surged up to the counter.
>
> As for foreign women, that is only a temporary solution and those
> countries are now being taken over by feminism.
>
> Any more ideas?
>
> Tom Smith
> The American Union of Men (AUM)
>
Always Under Mommy?
Dennis M. Hammes
> Masculist wrote:
>
>>Perseus wrote:
>>
>>>William Blake Jr. wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>The feminist cartel will be broken in the same way as was the union
>>>>cartel. It will be broken by exposing American women to competition
>>>>from women abroad. It will be broken by bringing American men, who have
>>>>worked like dogs and suffered under feminism and refined their habits
>>>>and thoughts and approach to life, in contact with cultured, beautiful,
>>>>intelligent and warm women from Latin America and Eastern Europe. For
>>>>whom a life with an American man and in America is a dream worth dying
>>>>for - and which American men with these women will have a life that
>>>>is worthy of them.
>>>>
>>>>Ilya Shambat.
>>>
>>>Then Lorena Bobbitt came "bob, bob, bobbing alond..."
>
>
> Come on....how many women resort to cutting off the penis?
>
All of 'em. He's just not man enough to have noticed.
Amander
I am a pretty sweet girl, and a feminist. My husband is a feminist. My
mother is a feminist. Every human being I know and like is a feminist.
And OUR FUCKING CARTEL IS COMING DOWN ON YOUR ASS! HA!
(I wish we had one.)
Amander
Info for you: You can have your 63 cents on the dollar back. I don't
want your fucking job, your penis, your emptyminded rhetoric or your
sexist spin on what "feminism" is. Here is what feminism is: the idea
that neither gender should be hindered by social rules that dictate
what they can and cannot do. Everyone should be given opportunities to
persue their goals to the best of their abilities. If a woman wants to
be a housewife...good on her! God bless. If a man wants to be a
househusband...good on him too. Learn your facts from books and
lectures instead of from television commericals and pop stereotypes,
maybe then you'll find your sweet girl...because right now you'd turn
anything off. (repellant views mean a repellant person)
Hyerdahl
Amander wrote:
> Dear Misinformed Babblebot,
>
> I am a pretty sweet girl, and a feminist. My husband is a feminist. My
> mother is a feminist. Every human being I know and like is a feminist.
> And OUR FUCKING CARTEL IS COMING DOWN ON YOUR ASS! HA!
>
> (I wish we had one.)
:-) Yup.
> Amander
>
> Info for you: You can have your 63 cents on the dollar back. I don't
> want your fucking job, your penis, your emptyminded rhetoric or your
> sexist spin on what "feminism" is.
You go girl!
Here is what feminism is: the idea> that neither gender should be
hindered by social rules that dictate> what they can and cannot do.
Everyone should be given opportunities to persue their goals to the
best of their abilities. If a woman wants to
> be a housewife...good on her! God bless. If a man wants to be a
> househusband...good on him too. Learn your facts from books and
> lectures instead of from television commericals and pop stereotypes,
> maybe then you'll find your sweet girl...because right now you'd turn
> anything off. (repellant views mean a repellant person)
Wow....I'm very impressed. No kidding.
the Danimal
> Dear Misinformed Babblebot,
>
> I am a pretty sweet girl, and a feminist. My husband is a feminist. My
> mother is a feminist. Every human being I know and like is a feminist.
> And OUR FUCKING CARTEL IS COMING DOWN ON YOUR ASS! HA!
Before coming down on my hairy ass, best to probe its ample defenses
first.
"Arm flatulon torpedoes. Full spread. Fire!"
> (I wish we had one.)
> Amander
>
> Info for you: You can have your 63 cents on the dollar back. I don't
> want your fucking job, your penis, your emptyminded rhetoric or your
> sexist spin on what "feminism" is.
Do you want to be treated just like a man?
Or do you expect preferential treatment, because you are a woman?
It's possible you are not consciously aware of the preferential
treatment women get, because that's all you've known for your whole
life.
I have yet to meet a woman who wants to be treated just like a
man. This becomes very clear on Usenet, where people get
reduced to just words on a screen, and women have to function
largely without the automatic advantage they enjoy in real life,
and see what happens when their ideas get judged on logical
merit.
> Here is what feminism is: the idea
> that neither gender should be hindered by social rules that dictate
> what they can and cannot do.
Feminism is itself a set of social rules that dictate what people
can and cannot do, specifically to hinder the male gender.
For example, feminism says if a man owns a company, he cannot
just hire anyone he wants. Instead he must hire people in accordance
with the social rules of feminism.
Your attempt to portray feminism as some sort of gender-neutral
attempt to lift all boats is as transparently dishonest as the silly
lies Patriarchy has told women for thousands of years to keep
them in their place.
Just be honest and say feminism is an attempt to curtail some
freedoms currently enjoyed by men, and transfer them to women.
Feminism is the idea that men should have less, so women can
have more.
For example, men should be less free to beat their wives, so women
can be more free to avoid being beaten. While that is a nice idea, in
practice it increases the scope for women to accuse men of beating
them as a way to obtain legal advantages (such as by filing a
"marital tort claim of abuse" to invalidate a pre-nuptial agreement,
during a divorce proceeding).
Or: women should have an easier time getting men convicted of
rape, guilty or not, so fewer rapists are able to get off scott-free.
That reduces the freedom of men, to increase the freedom of women.
The only way to reduce false accusations while vigorously enforcing
laws against rape and wife-beating is to give governments more
power to invade privacy. Some people might regard that as a loss of
freedom for everybody.
I think a reduction in privacy is a problem in short term, but if
privacy
could be *entirely* eliminated (i.e., if we all existed in an
environment
of *complete* information about everyone else), then it might be
possible
for justice to be perfect. At least the raw material for perfect
justice---
complete information---would be available.
In practice, privacy cannot be entirely eliminated, so there will
probably
always be scope for abuse by the people who manage to retain more
privacy than others.
> Everyone should be given opportunities to
> persue their goals to the best of their abilities.
Does "everyone" include arsonists, drug dealers, prostitutes, rapists,
and pedophiles? Does "everyone" include male chauvanists?
When a male chauvanist wants to pursue his goal to keep women
barefoot and pregnant, should he be given opportunities to pursue
his goal to the best of his abilities?
Or is feminism in fact just another other ideology that seeks to
meddle in the affairs of others, with the end result simply the
desire to transfer some freedom from men to women?
I can't blame women for attempting a power grab---after all, that's
what men have had going for a million years or so---but to pretend
a power grab is not a power grab is basically dishonest.
Feminists object when patriarchy lies to women. Shouldn't feminists
aspire to a higher moral standard than their historical oppressors?
> If a woman wants to
> be a housewife...good on her! God bless. If a man wants to be a
> househusband...good on him too. Learn your facts from books and
> lectures instead of from television commericals and pop stereotypes,
> maybe then you'll find your sweet girl...because right now you'd turn
> anything off. (repellant views mean a repellant person)
Learn your facts from the real world: most people feel sexual
attraction
for other people, or not, long before they know much about their views.
It's common for men and women to meet, and then have sex after
just a few dates. Their time of acquaintance is so short that they
are often virtual strangers. They have at best a brief exposure to
some of each other's rhetoric, which may or may not have much
to do with their actual views. Clearly, the traits that determine
whether
a given person turns us on or off have little to do with their detailed
politics.
And that's a good thing for women, too. Imagine trying to arouse
men on the strength of your opinions! You'd be about as sexy
as your writing above. Which isn't sexy at all. You write as if
you expect men to automatically want you. But for that to be
true, you have to show up and display your pulchritude.
What people say and what they do may be very different. What's
more, people know how to adjust what they say to fit the desires
of their current audience. Particularly during the early stages of
a relationship, both partners are on their "best behavior," which
means they try to avoid exploring---let alone challenging---each
other's views too much. Do you think that when a man approaches
a woman and runs his game on her, he is giving her an accurate
picture of how he would behave in every future situation?
How many people would observe another person's behavior at
sufficient length to accurately assess his or her views, *BEFORE*
"deciding" whether to feel sexual attraction for that person? Let's
get real---almost nobody does that. Because people don't
"decide" who to find attractive. Our brains automatically determine
who is attractive to us, and who isn't. Our conscious decision-making
minds are just along for the ride, pretending to be in control.
The world is full of examples of people getting turned on by strangers
who turn out later to have deep ideological disagreements with them.
That's one reason why the divorce rate is so high. It takes YEARS of
living with a person to really discover who you married.
-- the Danimal
ohlo...@hotmail.com
Amander wrote:
> Dear Misinformed Babblebot,
>
> I am a pretty sweet girl, and a feminist. My husband is a feminist.
I think they call that "pussy-whipped".
Hyerdahl
You know what they call the non feminist husband these days?
Divorced. :-)
Szczepan Holyszewski
> I don't want your fucking job, your penis, your emptyminded
> rhetoric or your sexist spin on what "feminism" is. Here is
> what feminism is: the idea that neither gender should be
> hindered by social rules that dictate what they can and cannot
> do. Everyone should be given opportunities to persue their goals
> to the best of their abilities. If a woman wants to be a
> housewife...
> good on her! God bless. If a man wants to be a househusband...good
> on him too.
If that would be true then I would be a feminist too.
> Learn your facts from books and lectures instead of
> from television commericals and pop stereotypes,
That's exactly what I am doing. I *do* learn what feminism is from
books (i.e. "The S.C.U.M. Manifesto", books by Andrea Dworkin,
Catherine MacKinnon, and Polish feminists - Agnieszka Graff, Kinga
Dunin, Inga Iwasiow) and lectures (I haven't attended but notes from
gender studies courses often leak outside the academy). I do *not*
learn what feminism is from newsgroup posts written by feminist drones
paid by their organizations to promote falsely sanitized image of
feminism on the Internet.
Szczepan Holyszewski
// u l i e n
the Danimal wrote:
> The only way to reduce false accusations while vigorously enforcing
> laws against rape and wife-beating is to give governments more
> power to invade privacy. Some people might regard that as a loss of
> freedom for everybody.
It seems that it doesn't have to be a reduction in freedom. The only
way it would be a reduction in freedom for a person is if that person
is breaking the law. Consider a perfectly clinical government with
clearly stated laws. The android or highly ethical person with a
diamond printed on his forehead would view the occurences with all the
privacy cut through like a hot knife through butter and make a
determination based on law points and deliver a verdict.
It hinges on having a perfectly ethical person or group of persons. How
reasonable this is is beyond the scope of this statement.
// u l i e n
Perseus wrote:
> William Blake Jr. wrote:
> [...]
> > The feminist cartel will be broken in the same way as was the union
> > cartel. It will be broken by exposing American women to competition
> > from women abroad. It will be broken by bringing American men, who have
> > worked like dogs and suffered under feminism and refined their habits
> > and thoughts and approach to life, in contact with cultured, beautiful,
> > intelligent and warm women from Latin America and Eastern Europe. For
> > whom a life with an American man and in America is a dream worth dying
> > for - and which American men with these women will have a life that
> > is worthy of them.
That sounds like wishful thinking. I believe the feminist cartel is a
monolithic obelisk that is going to last many centuries if not
milennia. The real way to solve the problem is to provide hormones to
American women that increases their sexual urges. This can be done by
putting this miraculous hormone in diet coke and diet pepsi. Also, it
can be sprayed over the country from irrigation planes.
William Blake Jr.
the Danimal wrote to Misinformed Fembot:
>
> Do you want to be treated just like a man?
>
> Or do you expect preferential treatment, because you are a woman?
> It's possible you are not consciously aware of the preferential
> treatment women get, because that's all you've known for your whole
> life.
>
> I have yet to meet a woman who wants to be treated just like a
> man. This becomes very clear on Usenet, where people get
> reduced to just words on a screen, and women have to function
> largely without the automatic advantage they enjoy in real life,
> and see what happens when their ideas get judged on logical
> merit.
You go dude.
Hyerdahl
:-) That's the only way some men here on this NG will EVER get laid.
Amander
hung up on the "fem" in feminism...sorry kids, we'd call it something
else but sexist was already taken by assholes like you.
I don't want to be treated like a man, nor do I want men to be treated
like women. Shouldn't people be judged for their abilities rather than
the rules dictated by patriarchal dogma?
As for "real world"...see how far your version of the truth takes you,
and I'll see how far mine takes me.
Amander
Amander
Amander
Amander
feminist scholars, and their extreme views are not representative of
feminists in general. That's like me saying" I've read Ezra Pound and
he was an anti-semetic therefore don't tell me that all expatriate
poets aren't antisemetic." A faulty bit of logic you have there. You
claim I've sanitized feminism...I say you've focused on the most
radical feminist elements and judged an entire movement on their views.
I disagree with Dworkin too (and I have seen her lecture), but she's
not all feminists. Maybe you should broaden your range of scholars to
those you can't use as an example of your backlash views? That's
research...what you've done is seek to prove yourself right. (OOps. you
missed.)
Amander
Hyerdahl
Amander wrote:
> Each of those women holds views which are highly debated even among
> feminist scholars, and their extreme views are not representative of
> feminists in general.
Feminism "in general" is dedicated to the idea that women are both
human and deservingof equal rights. How feminist authors write, with
that as a major premise, is up to each of those authors.
That's like me saying" I've read Ezra Pound and he was an
anti-semetic therefore don't tell me that all expatriate poets aren't
antisemetic." A faulty bit of logic you have there.
Sure, he does. He does not want to allow for the unique theories of
feminist thought and to allow for each writer to have his or her own
theory. He would prefer to lump all feminists together, under one
umbrella. It simply speaks in soundbites better that way and makes all
free and equal women...his enemy.
You> claim I've sanitized feminism...I say you've focused on the most
> radical feminist elements and judged an entire movement on their views.
Well, Amander...you can't really "sanitize" feminism that way. :-)
However, sexist men certainly do like to discuss the most radical of
feminist writers. That way they can pretend the entire movement is
about radicalism.
> I disagree with Dworkin too (and I have seen her lecture), but she's
> not all feminists.
Personally, I think Dworkin is misunderstood by most of her readers.
I've been told she says that all sex between heterosexuals is
tantamount to rape, but, in reading her literature, that is not really
what she is saying. So, it's possible, I suppose, that you too may
have misinterpreted what she was saying. OTOH, perhaps you really
don't agree with her, and that's ok too.
Maybe you should broaden your range of scholars to
> those you can't use as an example of your backlash views? That's
> research...what you've done is seek to prove yourself right. (OOps. you
> missed.)
The bitter boys here are only interested in "scholars" who back their
position.
>
> Amander
one2one69
probably it is you that do not know what "femminist" means.....
The definition you gave is not property of "feminism".....
Rights are for everyone....not only for women......
I don't know in which worl d you are living....but maybe you should put
apart your aggressivity and see what is happening around men and
fathers....how media and laws threat them
I guess....what do you prefer to have as a child....a girl or a
boy??????
regards...
greg
So what's your excuse.
>
Dennis M. Hammes
> Perseus wrote:
>
>>William Blake Jr. wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>The feminist cartel will be broken in the same way as was the union
>>>cartel. It will be broken by exposing American women to competition
>>>from women abroad. It will be broken by bringing American men, who have
>>>worked like dogs and suffered under feminism and refined their habits
>>>and thoughts and approach to life, in contact with cultured, beautiful,
>>>intelligent and warm women from Latin America and Eastern Europe. For
>>>whom a life with an American man and in America is a dream worth dying
>>>for - and which American men with these women will have a life that
>>>is worthy of them.
>
>
> That sounds like wishful thinking. I believe the feminist cartel is a
> monolithic obelisk that is going to last many centuries if not
What, besides redundant, is a "monolithic obelisk"?
A penis obsession or a penis envy?
An admission that a "feminist," being in your view a "monolithic
obelisk," has a bigger penis than you do?
Do you think about levering a great big rock into a great big hole
whenever you can't get it up?
Or is the erection of a "monolithic obelisk" also a miracle to you?
> milennia. The real way to solve the problem is to provide hormones to
> American women that increases their sexual urges. This can be done by
> putting this miraculous hormone in diet coke and diet pepsi. Also, it
> can be sprayed over the country from irrigation planes.
>
Do "centuries" and "millenia" make you think of Cialis, then? Or
does Cialis make you think of "millenia"? "In the event that an
erection should last for more than four centuries, contact your
girlfriend."
Too bad you haven't got either one, hunh.
P.S.: What is a "feminist cartel"? An organisation of women who
won't fondle your manhood as well as your Mommy does?
I guarantee you they're not organised, indeed, that an
"organisation of women" is an oxymoron.
Their reaction to you is strictly personal.
Dennis M. Hammes
Then they will never get laid.
Women's sexual urges are not increased by anabolic hormones, they
are increased by chlorohydrocarbons, i.e., by plastic.
What you do, you max out your credit card. Then you pull a
"zero-percent transfer" of the debt to a Gold Card. Max that, and
"zero-transfer" the wad to a Platinum Card. Max that, and "zero" it
to a Blue Card.
When the woman takes all the stuff you bought with all the cards,
and leaves you holding your Blue Card in one hand and your blue ballZ
in the other, she'll have what's probably the first orgasm in her
entire career.
It does no good to emigrate.
The women in that country have all been trained by American
television, and will make you get a Green Card.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Do you want to be treated just like a man?
>
I don't share my toilet with cannon-fodder, tnx.
Dennis M. Hammes
> the Danimal wrote:
>
>
>>The only way to reduce false accusations while vigorously enforcing
>>laws against rape and wife-beating is to give governments more
>>power to invade privacy. Some people might regard that as a loss of
>>freedom for everybody.
>
[Missed this earlier]
I don't regard this scenario as a loss of freedom a tall.
It's clearly an expanded opportunity for target practice.
>
> It seems that it doesn't have to be a reduction in freedom. The only
> way it would be a reduction in freedom for a person is if that person
> is breaking the law. Consider a perfectly clinical government with
> clearly stated laws. The android or highly ethical person with a
> diamond printed on his forehead would view the occurences with all the
> privacy cut through like a hot knife through butter and make a
> determination based on law points and deliver a verdict.
>
> It hinges on having a perfectly ethical person or group of persons. How
> reasonable this is is beyond the scope of this statement.
>
Dennis M. Hammes
Actually, three millenia of "equal" participation in the arts,
engines, and sciences have resulted in women's getting about 1:500 of
the publications, fees, awards, etc., when their "ideas" are tested
by that nasty "public market" thingy.
And this fact is usually the first one that a "feminist" will
start ranting about.
Though they usually refer to the public market by the obviously
more-appropriate "patriarchal dogma."
Dennis M. Hammes
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> feminist scholars
>
Even UseNet PO-wets do not ordinarily stoop to coining oxymorons to
pretend an authority that their premise does not have, because even
UseNet PO-wets can recognise oxymorons.
Evidently the suc.froups are not even up to the level of UseNet
PO-wets when it comes to the use of imagination to substantiate fantasy.
Szczepan Holyszewski
> feminist scholars, and their extreme views are not representative of
> feminists in general.
This is precisely one of the two problems - the fact that feminist
scholars *debate* this hatred and bigotry on an equal basis instead of
rejecting it unanimously; the fact that they (and you) call Dworkin,
MacKinnon and Daly *scholars* at all.
The other problem is that while feminism as a scholarly endeavour
might not be dominated by radicals, feminism as a political force is.
There may be lots of feminist Trotskis but they are completely
irrelevant to the situation of an average man because it is the
feminist Lenins who shape the policies. NOW and Feminist Majority
expel non-radicals from their ranks. VAWA is based on the radfem
Dhulhuth Fhtagn model, not on any of the non-radical, non-manhating
approaches to DV. Your claim that feminism is not all radical is
technically valid but effectively irrelevant.
> A faulty bit of logic you have there. You claim I've sanitized
> feminism...I say you've focused on the most radical feminist
> elements and judged an entire movement on their views.
As I said above, there is a very valid reason why I have focused on
these elements and not others.
> I disagree with Dworkin too
But it doesn't count unless you are actually DOING something to
prevent the political Dworkinites from pushing Dworkin-inspired
legislation.
> (and I have seen her lecture), but she's not all feminists.
She, and others I mentioned, are all feminists that matter
politically. You can change it. Start today.
> Maybe you should broaden your range of scholars to those you can't
> use as an example of your backlash views?
When they start being politically active, I will. Otherwise I would be
wasting my time.
Szczepan Holyszewski
Amander
they come in contact with her work out of context of the original text
(ie. quotes that point her out as what is "wrong" with feminism). But,
I do tend to find her problematic at times. I have focused my studies
more on ecofeminist theory and authors, and tend towards third-wave
feminist views (and thankfully have that option since the second and
first wave provided me with such great strides). It seems that most
bitter boys (I like the term) like these focus on the necessary
extremism of some first wave feminists as evidence of all feminists.
In any every socio/political movement it takes extreme means to stir
things up at the get go. Do they hate Malcom X because of his early
views and his opinion that social equality should be achieved "by any
means necessary?" Probebly not (or at least they would not admit it),
but it's perfectly okay to tell women to promote their rights quietly
(sweetie the men are talking now, don't interrupt) and with as little
disruption to the rest of the world as possible.
Amander-
Amander
And "femminist" (sic) does mean exactly what I wrote. The world you
live in, too, has books. Read them.
regards
Amander
Szczepan Holyszewski
But it is a meaning.
> And "femminist" (sic) does mean exactly what I wrote. The world you
> live in, too, has books. Read them.
It is very likely that the newsreader you are using lets you view all
headers of a message. Read them and find out that the person you just
dissed so rudely for making spelling and vocabulary mistakes is
unlikely to be a native speaker of your world-dominant colonialist
language. Do YOU speak any foreign language nearly as well as that
person speaks yours?
Szczepan Holyszewski
Mr. Greengeens
> person speaks yours?
>
> Szczepan Holyszewski
Tooshay, Szczy!
See? I can speak a foreign language, too.
MGJ
the Danimal
> The pretext of free-market capitalism is that economic competition
> places upon the producers the pressure of competing companies to
> provide for the consumer the correct goods at the correct price.
Actually the free market allocates scarcity. The consumer always
wants better products at lower prices than whatever is available
at the moment. Even after centuries of technological progress,
the unmet wants seem as great as ever.
> Because of this, the anti-trust legislation has come into effect to
> prevent companies from colluding into cartels and monopolies that would
> dominate industries and, by being the dominant players, prevent
> competition from other companies and individuals.
Anti-trust legislation is necessary because the free market
promotes the formation of cartels and monopolies.
Evidently you are not smart enough to grasp the contradiction
between your lavish praise for the free market and the wonders
of competition even while you detail the need for governments to
make markets less free by punishing companies which compete
too successfully.
In a perfectly free market, companies would do all sorts of untidy
things, such as engage in price-fixing, and perhaps hire hit squads
to whack competitors. Those sorts of activities can often
increase the profits of companies which engage in them.
> It occurs to me that
> the same logic that applies to companies must also apply to cultural
> and social entities,
In a sloppy way, the logic that applies to one thing can be made to
apply to almost anything else, but why would you do that?
Economists did not create their science by imitating something
else. By "the same logic," you should refrain from trying to
apply insights from economics outside their domain, and instead
do what economists did: study something and try to explain it
without reference to unrelated things.
> and that means the following:
>
> Competition among multiple cultures, within framework of statutory and
> legally defended liberty.
For something to "mean" something else, that something else has to
mean something. And what you wrote above means nothing in particular.
In what sense is American culture "competing" with a different culture
on the other side of the world? People don't select cultures from some
sort of competition to see which culture is "best." Instead, people
mindlessly absorb their culture as they grow up by imitating what
they see the people around them doing.
Do you also think there is competition between languages and hair
styles?
In economics it makes sense to speak of competition because we can
go to stores and see competing products lined up on a shelf. If
possible,
please explain how culture works anything like that.
> Exposing wrong ideas and practices in each culture to competition from
> better ideas in other cultures.
How can this work? Most people, yourself especially, cling to their
mistakes to the bitter end, and wouldn't acknowledge a better idea
unless they thought they invented it.
> Incorporating knowledge and wisdom from each culture into other
> cultures.
Well, at least this much has actually occurred. The letters you see
on your screen came to us from the Phoenicians by way of the
Greeks and Romans. Computers are based on binary numbers,
and that's easier to conceptualize if we use the concept of zero
that came from some clever Hindu and was copied by some
clever Arabs. Our calendar came to us from the Romans, with
some adjustments. Lots of handy gadgets were first invented in
China.
> Providing people cultural alternatives that are right for them.
Who does this "providing"? And what does that mean?
Can you ever write anything that has some specific meaning? Or
do you just plan to gibber meaninglessly until you die?
While you're writing about providing people cultural alternatives,
why not provide us some concrete examples of your glittering
generalities?
> And, through competition among the cultures, as in competition among
> companies, creating real and meaningful climate in which cultural goods
> are improved and refined and provide the best and ever-better cultural
> goods to the individuals.
You could start by tossing out English and learning the superior
constructed language of Esperanto.
What's that, too difficult? And nobody would understand you once
you began speaking exclusively in Esperanto? The "best" culture
is usually the one your brain has spent a lifetime adapting to. Not
to mention the one all the people around you have spent their lives
adapting to.
> This means: Competition among cultures for people's attention and
> loyalty - like competition among enterprises - making the best of
> these entities and the best result therefore for the people.
Do you think one culture would be best for everyone?
The free market hates diversity. When one company gains a slight
advantage over its competitors, it tends to absorb the weaker
ones and form a monopoly.
In the same way, one dominant culture can spread around the
world and turn everything into McDonalds.
In the realm of economics, economists have decreed that perfectly
free markets are evil. Therefore governments must intervene with
laws that artificially prop up diversity (i.e., anti-trust
legislation).
The market must be made less free so weaker companies can
avoid being swallowed up by stronger companies on their way to
creating monopolies.
If we adopt the same "logic" in the cultural realm, that would argue
against allowing McDonalds and Starbucks to take over the entire
world. Instead governments would intervene with cultural anti-trust
legislation to artificially prop up weaker and less popular cultures
*purely* to maintain diversity.
> And pursuant this mechanism, the best lives for the people around the
> world.
>
> This means of course, as in case of capitalism, protection for rights
> and liberties of people. It means preventing anti-competitive tactics,
> from bullying to blackmail to barbarism. And it means this also:
> Destroying cartels, at whatever level they may exist.
So you want to protect the rights and liberties of people, as long
as they aren't businessmen.
Why shouldn't a businessman have the right to grow his company to
any size, and buy up all his competitors? Why shouldn't he have
the right to create a monopoly? Isn't his liberty sacred too?
If you can pull your head out of the glittering generality cloud for a
few seconds, perhaps you can realize that "liberty" and "freedom"
are not absolutely good things. People who have liberty and freedom
may choose to do things that create difficulties for other people. To
prevent that, you have to restrict their liberty and freedom.
> This brings me to an issue I've been trying to address for a long
> time, and that is: That in America, there is such a thing as a feminist
> cartel. The beautiful women are attacked; ones with a heart,
> maliciously and horribly so.
And yet most women want to be beautiful. Evidently the benefits
outweigh these "horrible" costs.
> The men who have it within them to
> appreciate beauty and heart and tenderness are attacked still worse.
Only if they are effete whiners. Which is to say, only if the attacks
appear to be hitting their mark.
Tip: if you must be an effete whiner, set your whines to music.
Musicians can whine all day, and get paid well for it.
If you try to whine without solid backing tracks, of course you will
get attacked. As you should be. People want to be entertained.
> The goal: To bludgeon people into believing that beauty is
> unachievable, and that people have to settle down with harpies and live
> a life of hideousness and misery.
Beauty is not unachievable, but it is unsustainable. Beauty is a
temporary illusion. Basically just a Darwinistic tease. Find a
beautiful
woman, and compare her to her mother and grandmother. Odds are,
they were similarly beautiful when they were young, and are
considerably less so now.
The problem is that we rely on nature to provide all the beauty.
In the quest for beauty, humans have not progressed much beyond
the hunter-gatherer stage. We haven't gotten to the agricultural
stage, in which beauty can be cultivated, and we're far from the
industrial stage in which beauty can be manufactured.
Perhaps someday the "free" market so dear to you will learn how to
manufacture beauty. And then there will finally be enough of it.
> You may deny it all you want; it is all around you. The cities of great
> American cities are filled with malicious dykes, as are its schools and
> universities and even churches. A pretty and sweet-hearted girl born in
> this set of conditions has low to none chance of survival
I'd say her chances of survival are about as high as your chances of
lapsing into hyperbole and playing the drama queen. I.e., very high.
> (and less so
> of survival as this: A pretty and sweet-hearted girl). And men who have
> any kind of romantic sensibilities - well, the viciousness that comes
> their way makes Gerry Springer look like a saint by comparison.
If it's so bad, why haven't you committed suicide yet?
I'm guessing because you have the compensatory pleasure of finding
so much to complain about. Complaining is one of the great joys in
life. Why else would everyone do it?
If you want people to enjoy listening to your complaints, set them
to some decent music.
> So here comes the following: Attack on those who rightly evoke
> beautiful feelings; and attack further on those who rightly feel them
> and seek to transmit them.
How can you be sure why someone else "attacks" you?
Are you sure that what you perceive as an "attack" is meant as
an "attack"?
Suppose you have a neighbor who is banging on the piano all night
and you find it annoying. You tell the neighbor to quiet down. If
your neighbor started screaming that you were "attacking" him,
you'd know your neighbor is not only annoying but mentally
disturbed as well.
> The goal? To make people think such things
> impossible and acquiesce to a horrible and oppressive existence.
How do you know what another person's goal is? Are you a
mind-reader?
If you live long enough, you will most likely reach some age after
which you will never make love to another beautiful woman. If you
find that prospect "horrible" and "oppressive," best to end it all now.
Beauty is incredibly transient. Just in the years that I have been
wasting time on Usenet, most women who were adults when I started
have become substantially less beautiful.
> To go
> out into such climate with any kind of purity or goodness is to put a
> bull's eye on oneself; which is why for example Brenda Lee, who came
> with precisely such intentions, got the treatment she got.
Don't be silly. Brenda waved a red flag in front of Jackie's many
victims
by carrying on in public as his Eva Braun.
If you're so damaged by all the vicious abusers, how can you excuse
a woman who allied herself with perhaps the most viciously adept
abuser yet seen on soc.singles?
All Brenda had to do, if she wanted to avoid the abuse, was to
extend some of her purity and goodness to those wounded by
Jackie.
How do you think New Yorkers would respond to Osama bin Laden's
wives making public displays of affection for their husband? That would
be insensitive to say the least.
> The goal? To
> interpose between the soul and the existence, that people be made to
> believe soul inaccessible and then fall into the net of one or another
> usurpatory entity or usurpatory construct!
Your goal seems to be to miscast obvious reality. There's no mystery
about why Brenda got the treatment she did, or what she could easily
have done to avoid it.
> And in the process to make soul's treasures unavailable for the
> soulful and the people who desperately need such treasures!
One would think desperate people who are terrified of a little
teasing would figure out how to get what they need via private
e-mail, instead of baring their souls to the entire world and going
into hysterics when the entire world does not uniformly react
exactly to their liking.
For someone so fond of competition---at least the word---you are
far too delicate to withstand much of it.
For someone so fond of misplaced analogies, why not view yourself
as a company whose products might fail spectacularly and be
cruelly rejected by the market?
Companies do not appear fully formed, magically knowing exactly
what consumers want. Instead they have to learn through repeated
trials and failures. Most companies fail within their first five years,
because figuring out what consumers want, and then building it
more cheaply than the competition, is very hard.
Brenda could have learned how to write articles on Usenet and
get the kinds of responses she wanted, but she refused to learn
from her experience. The more others tried to correct her error,
the more she clung to it. And so the free market of Usenet
eliminated her.
> So do you think then that I, with my economics and psychology
> education, would stand by to see a feminist cartel go on destroying
> women who have beautiful things to offer while making the climate so
> horrible that the most loving men either fall into one or another trap
> or are otherwise shattered? How could I?
It's not a question of what we think you would do, it's a question of
what you have actually done, or failed to do.
You could have prevented the "destruction" of Brenda simply by
teaching her how to write better. Did you? No. Could you? Probably
not, and not because what Brenda needed to learn was in any
way difficult to grasp.
> A malicious cartel is a
> malicious cartel, whether it be Medellin drug cartel, OPEC or American
> feminism! First they claim to speak for women and for womanhood as
> such; then they tell women what to be and what to do and how to act and
> how to think and how to dress and what it means to be a woman! Do you
> see a power grab of cosmic proportions?
No. I see the women's magazines at the grocery store checkout line.
> And are the people who
> participate in that power grab worthy of power and trust?
Well, what does the free market say?
The un-named people you rail against in your vague meaningless way
obtained whatever power they have now by competing for it in the
free market, and by crushing whatever competitors stood in their
way.
Do you think competition is a good thing, or a bad thing? You start
off by claiming it is good, and then you write a long screed pleading
for relief from competition. You want protectionist subsidies for
your inferior ideas which cannot win in the free market.
Brenda competed freely with some other people. She lost; they won.
> Who indeed creates greater crime against women: Someone who tells them
> they have to be excellent or someone who tells them they have to be
> nasty poisonous mouthy shrews with an attitude and an agenda against
> all men?
Neither of those people appears to commit a crime.
> Whose way is more oppressive?
Free markets are oppressive. For example, 150 years ago, white
southerners in the U.S. were free to buy and own black people.
So the yankee government stepped in and forcibly interfered with
the southern economy, rendering it less free by outlawing the
economic bastion of slavery.
Of course from the point of view of black southerners, their freedom
increased with the end of slavery.
That illustrates something you undoubtedly fail to grasp and will
always fail to grasp, in your inferior losing-culture way: freedom is
a zero-sum game. The more free I become, the less free you become,
if we happen to be on opposite sides of the competition for a given
finite resource. Everyone is involved in many competitions like that.
For example, women want to "take back the night." That means
taking it back from some men who have it now. Women want to make
men less free so women can be more free.
Is Iraq freer today than it was in the year 2000? Yes, if you are the
average Iraqi who can now vote in meaningful elections, and read
a variety of relatively uncensored news publications. No, if you were
a member of Saddam's ruling elite.
The net amount of freedom in Iraq hasn't changed much at all.
Because it can't.
During the height of his power, Saddam enjoyed vastly more freedom
and liberty than anyone in the United States. Even the President of
the United States is less free than Saddam was, because Saddam
did not have to answer to anybody, and the POTUS is subject to
the threat of impeachment if he gets too far out of line.
> Indeed we see in American
> feminism the same qualities we've seen in the worst Third World
> dictators: Combining the worst of their people and of their colonial
> masters. The sense of victimization which they share with their people
> leading to irresponsible and blame-placing action when they in fact are
> the ones in power, while the same viciousness and abrasiveness and
> hideousness that they've inherited from their colonial masters making
> them doubly ruinous to the people they claim to serve!
Can you give a specific example of some way in which a woman (pick
any one) has been harmed by feminism?
As far as I can tell, by most objective measures (income, education,
lifespan) women are doing pretty well in the countries where feminism
has had some impact.
It seems there are lots of Third-World women trying to get into the
U.S., even to take the most menial jobs. Would women be trying
to escape their traditional societies and enter our hotbed of
feminist oppression if they thought it would make their lives worse?
> Now I keep hearing again and again, from just about every person I
> meet, how they HATE having the feminists tell them what to do and what
> to be;
That's interesting. Perhaps I should take a video camera to the
grocery store and ask a sample of people if they HATE having "the
feminists" tell them what to do and how to be.
I'm guessing most people would just look at me funny. And if
I wore my heart on my sleeve and I had a persecution complex
like our friend Ilya, I would interpret their puzzlement as a vicious
attack! Then I would fly into hysterics, be a drama queen, laspe
into meaningless glittering generalities, and calm myself
in a library.
> that no, feminists do not speak for them; and that no, feminists
> do not represent women or indeed even people. I repeat: Do you see a
> power grab of cosmic proportions?
I see hyperbole of cosmic proportions.
> Who on earth has elected feminists to
> tell everyone what to do and how to behave?
If feminists have so much power, how is George W. Bush able to
stack the Supreme Court with anti-abortion judges?
> If people claim to speak
> for women then they will exercise also double power over men, the bulk
> of whom need some kind of female company.
Since when does claiming to have something amount to an exercise
of power?
To exercise power, you must actually have it.
Instead of whining about feminists despoiling our natural resources,
try progressing beyond the hunter-gatherer stage and figure out how
to manufacture the female company you crave.
A man does not actually need "a woman," whatever that is. Rather,
a man needs the sensory experiences which in the ancestral
environment could only be provided by women. But advancing
technology can provide other ways to get the same sensory
experiences.
You don't have to keep a staff of actual human musicians around
to enjoy listening to music. Let's figure out how to do the same
thing with the enjoyable things women provide. Technology can
"record" what's good about women, so we can play it back whenever
we need it.
> So what do we have then? What
> we have is a set of freaks claiming to speak for all women, and other
> women - either being nice and not liking fighting, or believing they
> must love everyone, or anything else - not challenging them in their
> lies. Which lies keep growing, becoming monstrous, and eating up
> America.
Brenda did not love everyone else. She was remarkably insensitive
to all those harmed by Jackie's viciousness.
One thing you probably haven't learned about women yet is that
they know how to inflict much harm while maintaining plausible
deniability. That is an essential survival skill for women, given that
most of them are too small and weak to do the alpha male
direct confrontation thing.
A woman cannot (usually) fight you, so she may seek to undermine
you by working behind the scenes, if she perceives a difference with
you.
> This of course we have seen before, with unions claiming to speak for
> the workers. Their power kept growing as well - until some smart
> folks figured out that there are billions of people, for whom the
> chance at a fraction of the income American union workers were making
> would be greater chance of a life they would ever have. So these folks
> gave these people a chance at a life. With the result that over two
> decades more than half a billion of people rose out of poverty in China
> and India alone.
Just temporarily though, propped up by a brief unsustainable surge in
petroleum combustion. When global oil production peaks and begins
its inexorable decline, folks in China and India and everywhere else
with an economy propped up by petroleum will have to find something
else to base their economies on, and fast.
>From an historical perspective, it doesn't look good. Replacing all
that
petroleum infrastructure would take decades even if we had something
to replace it with right now. Having to find the replacement first will
probably add more decades to the schedule.
World oil production might peak within the next five years.
Of course to a dumbass economist, there is no problem, because humans
can create endless amounts of petroleum simply by investing more. Or
if petroleum really does get scarce, the free market will switch to
something else as easily as kerosene replaced whale oil. Never mind
that petroleum plays a rather larger role today than whale oil lamps
played in the 1840's. Running out of whale oil did not threaten to
shut down entire economies; it simply would have made it harder
for a few people to stay up and read after sunset.
Did you know that Saudi Arabia does not allow independent audits
of its oil reserves?
> With the result that now right goods are again
> produced at right price. With the result that consumer has money in
> pocket and can buy other things and produces jobs upon jobs worldwide.
> With the result that business prospers, government prospers, and so
> does the world.
The result is that humans are burning up finite petroleum reserves
faster, making the ultimate crash that much more catastrophic.
> The feminist cartel will be broken in the same way as was the union
> cartel. It will be broken by exposing American women to competition
> from women abroad.
I would imagine that many of the influential feminists have Guatemalan
ladies doing domestic work in their homes. A woman who is
prominent and successful does not have time for housework.
In what way will a successful woman learn from the Guatemalan
illegal immigrant who does her laundry and cleaning?
> It will be broken by bringing American men, who have
> worked like dogs and suffered under feminism and refined their habits
> and thoughts and approach to life, in contact with cultured, beautiful,
> intelligent and warm women from Latin America and Eastern Europe.
How is that going to help? American women came from such cultures
originally. Once women get here, they will assimilate soon enough.
The other problem is this: only loser American men look overseas
for women. American men with high SMV can get all the action
they need locally.
So you will have high-SMV women from other countries entering
the sexual market in America, using low-SMV American men as
their conduit for trading up. That's easy to predict from the market
analogy.
If a woman is really attractive to men, she deserves a man who is
just that attractive to women. And she knows it.
This is not necessarily such a bad deal for the American loser man.
He just has to keep getting new foreign women to replace the ones
who assimilate, dump him, and trade up.
> For
> whom a life with an American man and in America is a dream worth dying
> for - and which American men with these women will have a life that
> is worthy of them.
So will you get yourself a foreign woman and stop whining already?
-- the Danimal
Dennis M. Hammes
So do you want a change in the rewards tables, revolution, or
distruption?
You decide.
I'll fight as I stand.
Dennis M. Hammes
>>Each of those women holds views which are highly debated even among
>>feminist scholars, and their extreme views are not representative of
>>feminists in general.
>
>
> This is precisely one of the two problems - the fact that feminist
> scholars *debate* this hatred and bigotry on an equal basis instead of
> rejecting it unanimously; the fact that they (and you) call Dworkin,
> MacKinnon and Daly *scholars* at all.
>
> The other problem is that while feminism as a scholarly endeavour
> might not be dominated by radicals, feminism as a political force is.
> There may be lots of feminist Trotskis but they are completely
> irrelevant to the situation of an average man because it is the
> feminist Lenins who shape the policies. NOW and Feminist Majority
> expel non-radicals from their ranks. VAWA is based on the radfem
> Dhulhuth Fhtagn model, not on any of the non-radical, non-manhating
> approaches to DV. Your claim that feminism is not all radical is
> technically valid but effectively irrelevant.
Hear, hear.
>
>
>>A faulty bit of logic you have there. You claim I've sanitized
>>feminism...I say you've focused on the most radical feminist
>>elements and judged an entire movement on their views.
>
>
> As I said above, there is a very valid reason why I have focused on
> these elements and not others.
>
>
>>I disagree with Dworkin too
>
>
> But it doesn't count unless you are actually DOING something to
> prevent the political Dworkinites from pushing Dworkin-inspired
> legislation.
So let 'em waste their lives, fortunes, and honors squabbling over
who gets to hire the servants.
They're /servants/.
I don't care /who/ hired 'em, /my/ name is "Yes, Sir."
>
>
>>(and I have seen her lecture), but she's not all feminists.
>
>
> She, and others I mentioned, are all feminists that matter
> politically. You can change it. Start today.
>
>
>>Maybe you should broaden your range of scholars to those you can't
>>use as an example of your backlash views?
>
>
> When they start being politically active, I will. Otherwise I would be
> wasting my time.
>
> Szczepan Holyszewski
>
>
Dennis M. Hammes
Whether this does any good or not, I shall essay it.
The "world-dominant colonialist language" you gripe about is English,
not American, and is doing its damndest to take back the U.S.
("America") by force (if you can't see the project or the force,
/you/ are not competent to discuss the subject).
The person you address above appears to speak that English, in the
insistence that if she(?) counts enough wishes, "it's not just a Good
Idea, it's the Law." Which, they say, is the Law in England, i.e.,
"one baby, one vote." The law in the U.S. is "one riot, one knight."
The "Quiet Feminists" long ago insisted that /their/ babies were
born with "equal rights" to other men's lives, fortunes, and honors,
so that there were no knights in the U.S., they being "titles of
nobility." But a knighthood is no more a title of nobility than is
an "A" in algebra (or Polish), and for the same reason: it's earned
in the first person singular.
And because it is earned in the first person singular, it doesn't
require the *agreement* of /any/ feminist, including the English
Queen, that a knight is a knight (what the Queen is passing out to
guitar players is not knighthood, but baronetcy, but the Queen
doesn't speak English any better than any other militant feminist).
Having "abolished" "titles of nobility," they uniformly screech,
as they are doing in this thread, that their counted screeches have
anointed "judges," "senators," "district attorneys," "presidents,"
etc., "over" the rest of us, i.e., have created, with their sucking
noises, titles of nobility.
Well, I don't care /who/ y'are, /that's funny/.
The assertion that they are so Holy that they can anoint their
unders over (by any means) proves only that they don't even know
which way is up.
Since democracy isn't even the largest minority religion in this
country, I tend to ignore it unless it starts spouting its "law" on a
poetry newsgroup.
Because it's hideously bad poetry before it is anything else.
P.S.: As a rule, true throughout history whether you like it or not,
it behooves "lesser" political powers and languages to learn
whichever "world-dominant colonialist language" /is/ the current
world-dominant colonialist language if for no other reason than to
ask for help or yell "uncle."
Time was, you'd have been writing your gripe in Latin.
Well... no.
There was /never/ a time when you'd have been writing your gripe
in Latin.
Had you written any part of your gripe in Latin, you'd have been
crucified or burned at the stake for writing it.
The world-dominant colonialist-imperialist U.S. of A. (there is a
U.S. of M. just south of here, you know) has, by contrast, a First
Amendment that we're rather fussy about exporting to the downtrodden
along with the rest of the goodies we downtrod them with.
saru noberu
saru mo komino o
hoshige nari
Dennis M. Hammes
Ah, but can you speak it /by hand/?
Differences are crucial...
P.S.: How do you pronounce that other? "Scuzzy"?
In the U.S. Army, he'd have acquired the name "Saucepan" on the
first day of Basic. And heda been so proud of it on the last day
that heda kept it (among his fellows) for life.
(He's not doing too badly in the argument at large, but that last was
no "touchee" beyond the person to whom it was delivered. The only
country with a smaller percentage of second languages than the U.S.of
A. is Britain, but that with the largest -- which routinely runs not
to one but five "second" tongues -- is Khirghizstan. Obviously not a
Lit'ry Achievement but a political necessity, a.s.)
r j thurman
On 2005-11-16 Dennis Hammes said:
> So let 'em waste their lives, fortunes, and honors squabbling over
> who gets to hire the servants.
> They're /servants/.
> I don't care /who/ hired 'em, /my/ name is "Yes, Sir."
Heh. You /wish./
More of the same old impotent faux-macho blather, eh, Hammy?
Sorry, son, your self-awarded "Litt.D." doesn't cut any ice
in /this/ particular lake -- with or without your infamous
"swords."
"I've been seeing through Mr (not Dr) Hammes for a while.
"He's been asked before (about two years ago) to state which
University awarded his D.Litt. and he dropped the thread like
the kind of hot potato that makes Geiger counters gleeful.
...
"Oh, and he has a genuinely kooky inability to write the words
'poet' ('pomet') and 'poetry' ('poultry') correctly, or to
write /three/ consecutive *words* without idiotic /marks/ of
emphasis.
"Mr (not Dr) Hammes is a dullard and a fraud. Save time by not
reading him."
- Peter J Ross
March 19, 2004
message i.d. c3e9jq.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net
,----------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Narcissistic Personality Disorder
| American Description
| Diagnostic Criteria
|
| A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need
| for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood
| and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or
| more) of the following:
|
| 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates
| achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior
| without commensurate achievements)
|
| 2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power,
| brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
|
| 3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
| understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-
| status people (or institutions)
|
| 4. requires excessive admiration
|
| 5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of
| especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his
| or her expectations
|
| 6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others
| to achieve his or her own ends
|
| 7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the
| feelings and needs of others
|
| 8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious
| of him or her
|
| 9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
|
|________________________________________________________________
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
// u l i e n
news:mu2dnZma4cowBuTe...@onvoy.com...
> // u l i e n wrote:
>
>> Perseus wrote:
>>
>>>William Blake Jr. wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>The feminist cartel will be broken in the same way as was the union
>>>>cartel. It will be broken by exposing American women to competition
>>>>from women abroad. It will be broken by bringing American men, who have
>>>>worked like dogs and suffered under feminism and refined their habits
>>>>and thoughts and approach to life, in contact with cultured, beautiful,
>>>>intelligent and warm women from Latin America and Eastern Europe. For
>>>>whom a life with an American man and in America is a dream worth dying
>>>>for - and which American men with these women will have a life that
>>>>is worthy of them.
>>
>>
>> That sounds like wishful thinking. I believe the feminist cartel is a
>> monolithic obelisk that is going to last many centuries if not
>
>
> What, besides redundant, is a "monolithic obelisk"?
Have you ever eaten shit on a Sunday night?
> A penis obsession or a penis envy?
Have you ever fucked a gopher while it was on the rag?
> An admission that a "feminist," being in your view a "monolithic
> obelisk," has a bigger penis than you do?
Does your world view include your penis hemhorraging from too much blood?
> Do you think about levering a great big rock into a great big hole
> whenever you can't get it up?
Do you put mustard and mayonnaise on your hot helping of dick?
> Or is the erection of a "monolithic obelisk" also a miracle to you?
Was there a reason for your existance or are you one of the unwanted?
>
>
>> milennia. The real way to solve the problem is to provide hormones to
>> American women that increases their sexual urges. This can be done by
>> putting this miraculous hormone in diet coke and diet pepsi. Also, it
>> can be sprayed over the country from irrigation planes.
>>
>
> Do "centuries" and "millenia" make you think of Cialis, then?
Does St. Peter turn you on?
Or
> does Cialis make you think of "millenia"?
Your ass makes me think of a crevice.
"In the event that an
> erection should last for more than four centuries, contact your
> girlfriend."
> Too bad you haven't got either one, hunh.
Should I have an erection when responding to you? Do I wait until I do? Does
your girlfriend have a hairy ass?
>
> P.S.: What is a "feminist cartel"?
What is your mother's maiden name, and what is the phone number for your
banking organisation?
> An organisation of women who won't fondle your manhood as well as your
> Mommy does?
Are you from England? I ask because you are a git.
> I guarantee you they're not organised, indeed, that an "organisation of
> women" is an oxymoron.
> Their reaction to you is strictly personal.
Your guarantee is noted. Keep in mind, a guarantee from you is as useless as
a bit of rabbit shit.
// u l i e n
> Amander wrote:
>
>> I do think Dworkin is misunderstood by many readers because usually
>> they come in contact with her work out of context of the original text
>> (ie. quotes that point her out as what is "wrong" with feminism). But,
>> I do tend to find her problematic at times. I have focused my studies
>> more on ecofeminist theory and authors, and tend towards third-wave
>> feminist views (and thankfully have that option since the second and
>> first wave provided me with such great strides). It seems that most
>> bitter boys (I like the term) like these focus on the necessary
>> extremism of some first wave feminists as evidence of all feminists.
>> In any every socio/political movement it takes extreme means to stir
>> things up at the get go. Do they hate Malcom X because of his early
>> views and his opinion that social equality should be achieved "by any
>> means necessary?" Probebly not (or at least they would not admit it),
>> but it's perfectly okay to tell women to promote their rights quietly
>> (sweetie the men are talking now, don't interrupt) and with as little
>> disruption to the rest of the world as possible. Amander-
>>
>
> So do you want a change in the rewards tables, revolution, or distruption?
Does your hemhorraging penis make you think of "distruption?" Do you think
that in the olympic decathalon they have "distruption" races? Was your Mommy
mad at you because you were always making a "distruption?"
> You decide.
> I'll fight as I stand.
You lie. You're so cowardly you run from termites.
--
// u l i e n
>
> So let 'em waste their lives, fortunes, and honors squabbling over who
> gets to hire the servants.
> They're /servants/.
> I don't care /who/ hired 'em, /my/ name is "Yes, Sir."
You'll answer to Mr. Buttocks too.
--
// u l i e n
> Szczepan Holyszewski wrote:
>
>>>Agressivity isn't a word.
>>
>>
>> But it is a meaning.
>>
>>
>>>And "femminist" (sic) does mean exactly what I wrote. The world you
>>>live in, too, has books. Read them.
>>
>>
>> It is very likely that the newsreader you are using lets you view all
>> headers of a message. Read them and find out that the person you just
>> dissed so rudely for making spelling and vocabulary mistakes is unlikely
>> to be a native speaker of your world-dominant colonialist language. Do
>> YOU speak any foreign language nearly as well as that person speaks
>> yours?
>>
>> Szczepan Holyszewski
> Whether this does any good or not, I shall essay it.
>
> The "world-dominant colonialist language" you gripe about is English,
Do you squeeze your cock thinking of Englishwomen?
> not American, and is doing its damndest to take back the U.S. ("America")
> by force (if you can't see the project or the force, /you/ are not
> competent to discuss the subject).
> The person you address above appears to speak that English, in the
> insistence that if she(?) counts enough wishes, "it's not just a Good
> Idea, it's the Law."
If wishes were good ideas you'd have a few.
Which, they say, is the Law in England, i.e.,
> "one baby, one vote." The law in the U.S. is "one riot, one knight."
> The "Quiet Feminists" long ago insisted that /their/ babies were born
> with "equal rights" to other men's lives, fortunes, and honors, so that
> there were no knights in the U.S., they being "titles of nobility." But a
> knighthood is no more a title of nobility than is an "A" in algebra (or
> Polish), and for the same reason: it's earned in the first person
> singular.
We live as we dream: alone. I got an A in knighthood and I'm going to run
you through with my lance.
> And because it is earned in the first person singular, it doesn't
> require the *agreement* of /any/ feminist, including the English Queen,
> that a knight is a knight (what the Queen is passing out to guitar players
> is not knighthood, but baronetcy, but the Queen doesn't speak English any
> better than any other militant feminist).
Yah. Like, everyone in the room already knew that.
> Having "abolished" "titles of nobility," they uniformly screech, as they
> are doing in this thread, that their counted screeches have anointed
> "judges," "senators," "district attorneys," "presidents," etc., "over" the
> rest of us, i.e., have created, with their sucking noises, titles of
> nobility.
Being human entitles one to position over you. Noble shit-eating heroin
addict is what you shall call this guy, and you will address him as your
Highness.
> Well, I don't care /who/ y'are, /that's funny/.
> The assertion that they are so Holy that they can anoint their unders
> over (by any means) proves only that they don't even know which way is up.
In a void there is no up. You seem to think there is shape and form to this
world, but that's just because you haven't caught up to the rest of us who
realize there is *nothing*.
> Since democracy isn't even the largest minority religion in this
> country, I tend to ignore it unless it starts spouting its "law" on a
> poetry newsgroup.
> Because it's hideously bad poetry before it is anything else.
What is "bad poetry" besides redundant?
> P.S.: As a rule, true throughout history whether you like it or not, it
> behooves "lesser" political powers and languages to learn whichever
> "world-dominant colonialist language" /is/ the current world-dominant
> colonialist language if for no other reason than to ask for help or yell
> "uncle."
Oh, now I get where you're going with this. You're going to lead into a
Roman gangbang and transliterate the Latin overheard after the orgy.
> Time was, you'd have been writing your gripe in Latin.
> Well... no.
> There was /never/ a time when you'd have been writing your gripe in
> Latin.
> Had you written any part of your gripe in Latin, you'd have been
> crucified or burned at the stake for writing it.
> The world-dominant colonialist-imperialist U.S. of A. (there is a U.S.
> of M. just south of here, you know) has, by contrast, a First Amendment
> that we're rather fussy about exporting to the downtrodden along with the
> rest of the goodies we downtrod them with.
They exist to be downtrodden. It is their "ko".
> saru noberu
> saru mo komino o
> hoshige nari
hemesu kun
wa chisai ringo
o kudasai
// u l i e n
> Mr. Greengeens wrote:
>
>>> [...] Do YOU speak any foreign language nearly as well as that
>>> person speaks yours?
>>>
>>> Szczepan Holyszewski
>>
>>
>> Tooshay, Szczy!
>>
>> See? I can speak a foreign language, too.
>>
>> MGJ
>
>
> Ah, but can you speak it /by hand/?
> Differences are crucial...
>
> P.S.: How do you pronounce that other? "Scuzzy"?
> In the U.S. Army, he'd have acquired the name "Saucepan" on the first
> day of Basic. And heda been so proud of it on the last day that heda kept
> it (among his fellows) for life.
>
> (He's not doing too badly in the argument at large, but that last was no
> "touchee" beyond the person to whom it was delivered. The only country
> with a smaller percentage of second languages than the U.S.of A. is
> Britain, but that with the largest -- which routinely runs not to one but
> five "second" tongues -- is Khirghizstan. Obviously not a Lit'ry
> Achievement but a political necessity, a.s.)
Do you have problems counting, soldier? Every country in the world has
either one second language or no second language. Second is a placeholder
referring to one location.
Don't be dissing on the touchee, private.
--
Amander
And your assumption that I am a native speaker of english is just as
bad as my assumption that one2one69 (I don't have headers on my reader
and the screenname implies juvenile american male NOT british or
american colonized non-english speaking person...my mistake if I'm
wrong) is a native speaker of english.
I am a colonized people asshat, and maybe I write standard english but
I don't speak it.
Odpierdol sie!
Amander
// u l i e n
news:1132124311.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> You could start by tossing out English and learning the superior
> constructed language of Esperanto.
Superior!? While I don't have a whole lot of experience with this so-called
constructed language, superior is a large claim. I have Moderate to Advanced
experience with English. There are some with higher knowledge of it, but
they are damn few. English is amazing because you can keep finding
interesting nuances, usually of connections between words that you had never
thought connected before, and this continues so far that it keeps happening
and has happened in recent circumstances. I should think that a constructed
language would lack these two page essay bifurcated boundary combinations
that crop up infinitely. I half expect to connect every word and develop a
tree that encompasses the entire language, starting from the primitive word,
"Ug."
In short, you are comparing a language which has developed over millions of
years to something created less than twenty years ago. Wasn't it you who
earlier said something about not using unrelated concepts for comparison?
--
// u l i e n
news:1132124311.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> In the realm of economics, economists have decreed that perfectly
> free markets are evil. Therefore governments must intervene with
> laws that artificially prop up diversity (i.e., anti-trust
> legislation).
> The market must be made less free so weaker companies can
> avoid being swallowed up by stronger companies on their way to
> creating monopolies.
Then, every market is evil, and every situation we ever find ourselves in
will be evil. Perhaps we live in hell. Every market is free, barring the
intervention of God or some other "higher power." The government is just
another consumer/merchant in the midst of an anarchic economic mix. Have you
ever told yourself that you would do anything to make some money? Well,
imagine six billion others just like you trying to satisfy themselves on
cash and aboriginal living. Where does this morality come from? Is there an
inherent Immaculateness that touches the government and keeps its
inhabitants from seeking out coin wherever they can? I think not. The
supposed "tamed" market is the arm of the law reaching out to confine and
collapse. But this system gets saturated regularly and we see hint of
corruption everywhere. Just turn on King of Queens and watch unrestrained
greed. You make me sick with your imagination of a closed system.
--
// u l i e n
news:1132124311.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> So you want to protect the rights and liberties of people, as long
> as they aren't businessmen.
>
> Why shouldn't a businessman have the right to grow his company to
> any size, and buy up all his competitors? Why shouldn't he have
> the right to create a monopoly? Isn't his liberty sacred too?
>
> If you can pull your head out of the glittering generality cloud for a
> few seconds, perhaps you can realize that "liberty" and "freedom"
> are not absolutely good things. People who have liberty and freedom
> may choose to do things that create difficulties for other people. To
> prevent that, you have to restrict their liberty and freedom.
>
This touches on the reason why I have, in my deepest heart, always felt that
Heaven is a bunch of bunk. Heaven is generally considered multiplayer in
every religion known. Several religions consider Hell to be the opposite of
that, an eternity alone without others. But, the simple fact of having
anyone else, even just one other person, is that you are going to infringe
on each other. Only the most divine of marriages could withstand an eternity
together. Eternity is a long time. Eternity is forever. Forever and ever.
Come and play with us. Forever and ever and ever.
--
// u l i e n
news:1132124311.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snipped]
I read through your screed and see a man with a need for a logical bead. You
have me saying No, No and No at almost every passage. Half-assed logic that
is painful to view and puke-stained conjectures at every turn. It makes me
sad to say that you will always be an untermensch until the day you die.
--
We will call you Tinkerbell because you wave your little wand over a bar of
steel and call it a railroad.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Your guarantee is noted. Keep in mind, a guarantee from you is as useless as
> a bit of rabbit shit.
>
You misspelled "useful," since either one obviously hits you right in
the eye when fired correctly.
Dennis M. Hammes
Don't need to. Moorhead is a couple hundred miles north of the
termite line.
Call it "accident of birth" or call it "strategy," I don't need to
budge from poor little things who can't read papers, only chew on them.
Dennis M. Hammes
Naaah, that's Bishop Tommy.
Dennis M. Hammes
Poor little termite boi. Countries don't have second languages.
People do.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> We live as we dream: alone. I got an A in knighthood and I'm going to run
> you through with my lance.
>
OOOOoooo, the Black Knight returns with his flesh wounds.
tabi-no aku
yume wa rairakku-no
ne-no kioku
>
> In a void there is no up. You seem to think there is shape and form to this
> world, but that's just because you haven't caught up to the rest of us who
> realize there is *nothing*.
>
Obviously including the imaginary writer of those squiggles.
If the monkey actually knew what Void was, the monkey would
realise that Void really, truly, has nothing, even extension in any
dimension, and cannot under any circumstances be "occupied."
If the monkey actually had a language, it would realise that both
it and Void were the Empty Set, however the latter is a geometrical
point bounding the universe at the monkey's antipode, and recedes
from him exactly as fast as he reaches for it.
chichi kinoko
nakute mo tsukamu
mizu-no tsuki
>
> What is "bad poetry" besides redundant?
Eminently saleable.
geppu gintsu
kaeru-no geppu
geppu de kau
>
> They exist to be downtrodden. It is their "ko".
hashi kireru
botan tsugitsugi ni
saki yureru
>
>
>>saru noberu
>> saru mo komino o
>> hoshige nari
>
>
> hemesu kun
> wa chisai ringo
> o kudasai
>
hagakure-no
asaboshi yoboshi
kao o tsubusu
Dennis M. Hammes
> "the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> news:1132124311.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>You could start by tossing out English and learning the superior
>>constructed language of Esperanto.
>
>
> Superior!? While I don't have a whole lot of experience with this so-called
> constructed language, superior is a large claim. I have Moderate to Advanced
> experience with English. There are some with higher knowledge of it, but
> they are damn few. English is amazing because you can keep finding
> interesting nuances, usually of connections between words that you had never
> thought connected before, and this continues so far that it keeps happening
> and has happened in recent circumstances. I should think that a constructed
> language would lack these two page essay bifurcated boundary combinations
> that crop up infinitely. I half expect to connect every word and develop a
> tree that encompasses the entire language, starting from the primitive word,
> "Ug."
The Primitive Word is "ouch."
You could go so far as to say it's what the meaning of the word
"is" is.
Everything else is just the sorting out its nuances.
>
> In short, you are comparing a language which has developed over millions of
> years to something created less than twenty years ago. Wasn't it you who
> earlier said something about not using unrelated concepts for comparison?
>
English has been around (as such) for about 300 years; it's one of
the youngest on the planet. Esperanto has been around for about 50,
and as you note doesn't even catch the flu, let alone on, precisely
because there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of
in its tenses, let alone its philosophy, i.e., it hasn't been around
long enough or used enough to acquire connotation.
Dennis M. Hammes
Hell is the part you walk around on.
Heaven is the part you walk around in (Gen.1:6-8).
I.e., you ain't goin' to Heaven, and that can be conjugated as a
regular verb.
You're already here.
You either accept responsibility for the fact or you don't.
And if you don't, to Hell with you.
A. Jinn (AJ)
"Amander" <mand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1132079767.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Agressivity isn't a word.
Yes it is.
--
http://Clitin.Com *The Pussy Poetry Palace*
*** MORE THAN 150 meg FREE Usenet PORNetry ***
(in > 80 "hands free" slideshows)
with poetry from famous poets (soon)
Bibliophilia
Actually, married American men live *longer* than single ones, so
being married to American women helps you live longer, but a funny joke
nonetheless.
The serious answer to your question is "because they are mammals." In
the mammalian world, the females, all other things being equal, tend to
live longer. Human females have to brook childbirth which doesn't work
well in humans and causes shorter average lifespan in the women, but
with modern medical care for birthing to counteract that, women live
longer because they are built to. Because that's the mammal plan.
Not very fair, is it? But be cheered about biological differences
when you are standing up to pee; that sounds so convenient.
Amander
Bibliophilia
generalizations. *waves*
>Just be honest and say feminism is an attempt to curtail
>some freedoms currently enjoyed by men, and transfer
>them to women.
>Feminism is the idea that men should have less, so
>women can have more.
Well, yeah. Of course. The world is owned and run by men, and that's
just plain silly. They have done a lousy job in many sectors. Time to
let some chicks in to do some ruling, and let some of the less
competent men step down.
I don't think that when women are running the world it will be better,
that women are less corruptible or more wise, but at least it'll be a
different set of miseries and awful mistakes.
>When a male chauvanist wants to pursue his goal to keep
>women barefoot and pregnant, should he be given
>opportunities to pursue his goal to the best of his abilities?
Of course. Some women want to be barefoot and pregnant. Those types
should get together and leave the rest of us alone.
>Learn your facts from the real world: most people feel
>sexual attraction for other people, or not, long before
>they know much about their views.
Um, actually, I tend to get turned on or off by your views. So when you
say "most people" could you be talking about yourself? No claim I
know you, of course. I can see how it might be tempting to
extrapolate onto the world your experience of it, but human sexual
response is too weird and varied as to defy neat catagorization.
I might see a nice set of shoulders and get a charge out of it, but
panting, sweaty, "God, do me you stud" feelings are usually the result
of talking to someone and finding them intelligent and interesting, not
admiring their ass or something. No offense to asses, of course, but
for some of us, what is in your head really really matters - it really
determines whether we want to sleep with you. Not your bank account,
not your car, your brain. Good news for nerds, eh?
>It's common for men and women to meet, and then have
>sex after just a few dates.
I never did that, even when I had the hot bod to make that possible.
>How many people would observe another person's
>behavior at sufficient length to accurately assess
>his or her views, *BEFORE* "deciding" whether to
> feel sexual attraction for that person? Let's
>get real---almost nobody does that.
What happens is you think, "Hey! He's quite handsome!" and you get a
little tingle of excitement, then he opens his mouth and expresses
opinions that are ugly, rude, racist, stupid, whatever, and it kills
the feeling ENTirely. You must have had that experience with nice
looking ladies? "God, I'd do you if you could just not talk."
>And that's a good thing for women, too. Imagine trying
> to arouse men on the strength of your opinions! You'd
> be about as sexy as your writing above. Which isn't sexy at all.
Could we, er, possibly be talking about you again? I have met a number
of men, usually the higher IQ types, who get all hot and bothered if I
express myself well on a difficult topic.
I distinctly remember in college at those silly fun bull sessions
standing around with studly young men, and having them jab their cig at
me and discuss something esoteric with great passion, and it was
foreplay pure and simple, mental fondling. The challenge, the give and
take, the battle of wills, got their blood up.
We might start standing 5 feet apart, but at the end, we were inches
apart, he'd maybe be touching my arm to make a point, and flirting in
between his railing on whatever it was. Some men get hot if you have
opinions. Some men find that repulsive. For political types, if you
know about politics, and can talk cogently about current events, you
might as well be standing there topless. Other guys, current events
would wilt him for an hour. Depends on the guy. :)
>I have yet to meet a woman who wants to be treated
>just like a man. This becomes very clear on Usenet,
>where people get reduced to just words on a screen,
>and women have to function largely without the
>automatic advantage they enjoy in real life, and see
>what happens when their ideas get judged on logical
>merit.
I don't mind being treated like a man, and have used male personas on
the internet just so I get the unfiltered rough and tumble treatment
men get, but also so my ideas get a fair evaluation. If you are female
and they know it, your opinion is automatically downgraded to "Isn't
that cute! She has a iddy biddy lil opinion! Good for her!" *Sigh*
What men sometimes fail to recognize ( I am not pointing a finger at
you specifically) is that their opinions are sometimes granted validity
because they are male. Women tend to validate reflexively, because
they are trained to, and so men expect that you will validate them, and
we are happy to oblige. This behavior feeds the problem. Praising
women for having cute little opinions feeds the other problem - women
who don't think because society sets the bar lower. Be harsher on your
female counterparts, man, and you will make them sharper and more
capable. The really sharp ones might get all excited and jump your
bones. :)
"Ung, ung, ung, acoustic cavitation in deuterated actetone CANNOT,
ung, oh, God, can't cause, ung, ung, cold fusion, you bastard, ung,
ung, and you'll never convince me of ... oh God, harder, harder!"
But I will stack my logic against most men's any day. I will stack my
mind against most men's minds. I am quite rational. I am largely
logical. I am not the only woman out there like that. :)
Amander
amander- claps!
A. Jinn (AJ)
"Amander" <mand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1132247036.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
>> "Amander" <mand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1132079767.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Agressivity isn't a word.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://Clitin.Com *The Pussy Poetry Palace*
>>
>> *** MORE THAN 150 meg FREE Usenet PORNetry ***
>> (in > 80 "hands free" slideshows)
>> with poetry from famous poets (soon)
>
> No, really, it isn't.
Yes, it really is... and...
As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I Make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place.
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings.
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four --
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
* * * * *
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man --
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began --
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mice,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire --
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
A. Jinn (AJ)
"Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132249694.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Uh, okay, I can think of at least one person who doesn't fit your
> generalizations. *waves*
>
>>Just be honest and say feminism is an attempt to curtail
>>some freedoms currently enjoyed by men, and transfer
>>them to women.
>
>>Feminism is the idea that men should have less, so
>>women can have more.
No, feminism is an idea that women might someday get
testosterone treatments. (but they are really too much a bunch
of pussies)
And don't men love them for that?
>
> Well, yeah. Of course. The world is owned and run by men, and that's
> just plain silly. They have done a lousy job in many sectors. Time to
> let some chicks in to do some ruling, and let some of the less
> competent men step down.
Less competent men always step down. Or they are smacked down
by more competent men. Best when the more competent ment can
exploit the less competent men in a way that makes the less competenent
men think they have some dignity. (but it is usually too much trouble...)
>
> I don't think that when women are running the world it will be better,
> that women are less corruptible or more wise, but at least it'll be a
> different set of miseries and awful mistakes.
Don't be ridiculous... Without testosterone treatments women would best
be served by learning to suck cock.
<flush the rest of this idiot rant>
Bibliophilia
A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
> "Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132249694.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>Feminism is the idea that men should have less, so
> >>women can have more.
>
> No, feminism is an idea that women might someday get
> testosterone treatments. (but they are really too much a bunch
> of pussies)
>
> And don't men love them for that?
That doesn't make any sense. There are women presently who get
testosterone treatments, usually to boost libido. Did you want to
re-think your comment?
>
> >
> > Well, yeah. Of course. The world is owned and run by men, and that's
> > just plain silly. They have done a lousy job in many sectors. Time to
> > let some chicks in to do some ruling, and let some of the less
> > competent men step down.
>
> Less competent men always step down. Or they are smacked down
> by more competent men. Best when the more competent ment can
> exploit the less competent men in a way that makes the less competenent
> men think they have some dignity. (but it is usually too much trouble...)
Ah, if that were only true. The part about more competent men
smacking down the lesser. You have two ideas confused - high dominance
doesn't imply high competence in general. Granted, leadership is
easier with higher serum testosterone levels, but it isn't a
prerequisite and it doesn't confer wisdom or good administrative
skills. I agree that good leaders nudge poor leaders out of the way
in a manner that keeps the nudged-out on the team, and not making them
an enemy. Dignity is an important component. Or swift and quiet
execution works, too.
> > I don't think that when women are running the world it will be better,
> > that women are less corruptible or more wise, but at least it'll be a
> > different set of miseries and awful mistakes.
>
> Don't be ridiculous... Without testosterone treatments women would best
> be served by learning to suck cock.
Skill in fellatio serves the entire human race well, my friend. Also,
what is this obsession you have about extra testosterone? Are you
supplementing your own and it worries you? I just notice you mentioned
it twice here.
> <flush the rest of this idiot rant>
I assume you mean the latter portion of your idiot rant. Unless you
consider our exchange one enormous idiot rant. There might be
something to that.
Did you run out of steam? Was answering my comments point by point
tiring?
You know what might fix you up? Testosterone treatments! I hear the
internet is just *buzzing * about them!
Bibliophilia
>amander- claps!
Bib bows, sweeps the stage with her hat, then claps!
( We're really scaring the boys, I'm afraid. *hee hee*)
Amander
A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
> "Amander" <mand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1132247036.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
> >> "Amander" <mand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1132079767.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Agressivity isn't a word.
> >>
> >> Yes it is.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://Clitin.Com *The Pussy Poetry Palace*
> >>
> >> *** MORE THAN 150 meg FREE Usenet PORNetry ***
> >> (in > 80 "hands free" slideshows)
> >> with poetry from famous poets (soon)
> >
> > No, really, it isn't.
>
> Yes, it really is... and...
>
> As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
> I Make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-Place.
> Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
> And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
>
> We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
> That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
> But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
> So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
>
----snippity snippity (I am a woman)----
>
> As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man --
> There are only four things certain since Social Progress began --
> That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mice,
> And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire --
> And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
> When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins
> As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn
> The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
>
>
> --
> http://Clitin.Com *The Pussy Poetry Palace*
>
> *** MORE THAN 150 meg FREE Usenet PORNetry ***
> (in > 80 "hands free" slideshows)
> with poetry from famous poets (soon)
Oh, don't I feel the silly one; for a second there I mistook you for
NOT a fucking crazy bastard.
Amander - this is the funniest thing I've read in years.
Bibliophilia
> legislation.
What is Dworkin-inspired legislation? Can we have a concrete example,
please?
Hyerdahl
Bibliophilia wrote:
You know, that's a very good question, but I'm afraid it's one they
can't answer. :-)
A. Jinn (AJ)
"Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132255753.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
>> "Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132249694.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >>Feminism is the idea that men should have less, so
>> >>women can have more.
>>
>> No, feminism is an idea that women might someday get
>> testosterone treatments. (but they are really too much a bunch
>> of pussies)
>>
>> And don't men love them for that?
>
> That doesn't make any sense. There are women presently who get
> testosterone treatments, usually to boost libido.
And what percentage do this?
> Did you want to
> re-think your comment?
Not at all, why?
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Well, yeah. Of course. The world is owned and run by men, and that's
>> > just plain silly. They have done a lousy job in many sectors. Time to
>> > let some chicks in to do some ruling, and let some of the less
>> > competent men step down.
>>
>> Less competent men always step down. Or they are smacked down
>> by more competent men. Best when the more competent ment can
>> exploit the less competent men in a way that makes the less competenent
>> men think they have some dignity. (but it is usually too much trouble...)
>
> Ah, if that were only true. The part about more competent men
> smacking down the lesser. You have two ideas confused - high dominance
> doesn't imply high competence in general.
You are confusing dominance with competence.
> Granted, leadership is
> easier with higher serum testosterone levels, but it isn't a
> prerequisite and it doesn't confer wisdom or good administrative
> skills. I agree that good leaders nudge poor leaders out of the way
> in a manner that keeps the nudged-out on the team, and not making them
> an enemy. Dignity is an important component. Or swift and quiet
> execution works, too.
That's what I said.
>
>> > I don't think that when women are running the world it will be better,
>> > that women are less corruptible or more wise, but at least it'll be a
>> > different set of miseries and awful mistakes.
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous... Without testosterone treatments women would best
>> be served by learning to suck cock.
>
> Skill in fellatio serves the entire human race well, my friend. Also,
> what is this obsession you have about extra testosterone? Are you
> supplementing your own and it worries you? I just notice you mentioned
> it twice here.
My comments concerned women and their lack of /it/.
>
>> <flush the rest of this idiot rant>
>
> I assume you mean the latter portion of your idiot rant. Unless you
> consider our exchange one enormous idiot rant. There might be
> something to that.
>
> Did you run out of steam? Was answering my comments point by point
> tiring?
You made no points that I observed.
>
> You know what might fix you up? Testosterone treatments! I hear the
> internet is just *buzzing * about them!
I've been off-line. :)
But until women start exhibiting more than pussy I think I'll lick.
Szczepan Holyszewski
> being married to American women helps you live longer, but a funny
> joke
> nonetheless.
>
> The serious answer to your question is "because they are mammals."
> In the mammalian world, the females, all other things being equal,
> tend to live longer. Human females have to brook childbirth which
> doesn't work well in humans and causes shorter average lifespan
> in the women, but with modern medical care for birthing to
> counteract
> that, women live longer because they are built to. Because that's
> the mammal plan.
Humman biology differs immensely even from our closest evolutionary
cousins so it is not immediately obvious whether an observation about
most mammals is implicitly valid for humans too. But even if we accept
that men's lifespan disadvantage is indeed a fact of nature, it is
amazing how women expect from society to compensate them for their
in-born disadvantages while men's in-born disadvantages are just
c'est-la-vied off...
> Not very fair, is it? But be cheered about biological differences
> when you are standing up to pee; that sounds so convenient.
... and sneered at.
Szczepan Holyszewski
Hyerdahl
Szczepan Holyszewski wrote:
> >
Actually, married American men live *longer* than single ones, so
> > being married to American women helps you live longer, but a funny
> > joke> nonetheless.
Like Bill Maher says, yes, married men live longer, as do...house cats.
:-)
> >
> > The serious answer to your question is "because they are mammals."
> > In the mammalian world, the females, all other things being equal,
> > tend to live longer. Human females have to brook childbirth which
> > doesn't work well in humans and causes shorter average lifespan
> > in the women, but with modern medical care for birthing to
> > counteract> > that, women live longer because they are built to. Because that's
> > the mammal plan.
>
> Humman biology differs immensely even from our closest evolutionary
> cousins so it is not immediately obvious whether an observation about
> most mammals is implicitly valid for humans too. But even if we accept
> that men's lifespan disadvantage is indeed a fact of nature, it is
> amazing how women expect from society to compensate them for their
> in-born disadvantages while men's in-born disadvantages are just
> c'est-la-vied off...
Not true at all. In fact, where feminism invests time is places where
women face DISCRIMINATION and not at all about bodily advantages or
disadvantages. And, we also have not addressed the FACT that men
pursue many more risks that are negative to their health. They smoke
more, drink more, engage in riskier sex more, and make riskier choices
in both vocations and advocations.
>
> > Not very fair, is it? But be cheered about biological differences
> > when you are standing up to pee; that sounds so convenient.
>
> ... and sneered at.
But, SuzieQ....you can't beat the truth, dear. And those are the
facts; women face life with whatever bio limitations they have and so
do men. We don't balance the rights of one sex on the backs of the
other, nor do we support discrimination. That works.
>
> Szczepan Holyszewski
Szczepan Holyszewski
> example, please?
Dworkin-inspired legislation is legislation pushed by Dworkin-inspired
people. It's that simple.
Szczepan Holyszewski
Bibliophilia
> "Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132255753.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
> >> "Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132249694.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> >>Feminism is the idea that men should have less, so
> >> >>women can have more.
> >>
> >> No, feminism is an idea that women might someday get
> >> testosterone treatments. (but they are really too much a bunch
> >> of pussies)
> >
> > testosterone treatments, usually to boost libido.
>
> And what percentage do this?
I have no idea. I am not sure that could be calculated, actually. I
guess one could poll all the pharmaceutical companies and inquire about
their sales, although that would net you some false positives, since it
might be administered for other reasons and to males, as well. So,
dunno. Does it matter? Do you have a vital interest in people
getting treated for sexual dysfunction?
> > Did you want to
> > re-think your comment?
>
> Not at all, why?
>
Because it was unclear. Your choice, naturally.
> >> > Well, yeah. Of course. The world is owned and run by men, and that's
> >> > just plain silly. They have done a lousy job in many sectors. Time to
> >> > let some chicks in to do some ruling, and let some of the less
> >> > competent men step down.
> >>
> >> Less competent men always step down. Or they are smacked down
> >> by more competent men. Best when the more competent ment can
> >> exploit the less competent men in a way that makes the less competenent
> >> men think they have some dignity. (but it is usually too much trouble...)
> >
> > Ah, if that were only true. The part about more competent men
> > smacking down the lesser. You have two ideas confused - high dominance
> > doesn't imply high competence in general.
>
> You are confusing dominance with competence.
You were the one who said that the more competent "smacked down" the
less competent as if there were some connection between being more
competent and using a dominance process like smacking someone down.
But if you agree that administrative competence and dominance are
variables that can vary independently, we are in agreement.
> > Granted, leadership is
> > easier with higher serum testosterone levels, but it isn't a
> > prerequisite and it doesn't confer wisdom or good administrative
> > skills. I agree that good leaders nudge poor leaders out of the way
> > in a manner that keeps the nudged-out on the team, and not making them
> > an enemy. Dignity is an important component. Or swift and quiet
> > execution works, too.
>
> That's what I said.
So we have agreement. Excellent.
> >> > I don't think that when women are running the world it will be better,
> >> > that women are less corruptible or more wise, but at least it'll be a
> >> > different set of miseries and awful mistakes.
> >>
> >> Don't be ridiculous... Without testosterone treatments women would best
> >> be served by learning to suck cock.
> >
> > Skill in fellatio serves the entire human race well, my friend. Also,
> > what is this obsession you have about extra testosterone? Are you
> > supplementing your own and it worries you? I just notice you mentioned
> > it twice here.
>
> My comments concerned women and their lack of /it/.
Lack of skill in the oral arts? Everyone would do well to improve
their skills. I blame porn, which often models sloppy and clumsy
technique on erections of such size that the instruction is moot for
most men a person might be practicing on. Oral arts improve the soul
of both sexes.
Or, you can't mean women's lack of testosterone? Women's bodies make
and use it and other androgens; adding too much more won't make them
morphologically or behaviorally men, y'know. Most behaviors in people
are learned, and addition of male hormones might make for more muscular
and hairy women, but I can't see how that is a bonus. Not knowing your
proclivities, likes and dislikes, of course.
> > Did you run out of steam? Was answering my comments point by point
> > tiring?
>
> You made no points that I observed.
I am beginning to have the same problem with your comments, which
disturbs me.
>
> But until women start exhibiting more than pussy I think I'll lick.
Pardon? More *what* than pussy? What more of them do you want to see,
man? I thought seeing the pussy was the raison d'etre of males
everywhere - is there a higher, more inspirational sight?
Bibliophilia
No, please provide an actual example. Is the Patriot Act
Dworkin-inspired? How about the original SuperFund legislation? The
Hatch Act?
Please specify.
Bibliophilia
>can't answer. :-)
Because then you or I or someone could construct a scathing and logical
rebuttal. And no one wants that. : -)
Bibliophilia
> them for their in-born disadvantages while men's in-born
>disadvantages are just c'est-la-vied off...
Oh no. If my flipness carried a whiff of that, I apologize. I think
it is horrifying that men pop off to the afterlife years before the
women, and feel that medical science should make an effort of assure
that men get every drop of this mortal life they can. I don't think
there is anything just or right about men dying earlier; I think it's
sad and should be remedied.
>> Not very fair, is it? But be cheered about biological differences
>> when you are standing up to pee; that sounds so convenient.
>... and sneered at.
I would never sneer at standing to pee. I think that's marvelous,
frankly! Do people sneer at that?
miguel
This post is off-topic in soc.singles.
Please stop your abusive crossposting NOW.
Read the FAQ, loser.
Bob
> being married to American women helps you live longer, but a funny
> joke nonetheless.
Rather than saying that women make men live longer (a most self-serving
interpretation) I find it more likely that women simply don't marry
unhealthy men.
Hyerdahl
Szczepan Holyszewski wrote:
> > What is Dworkin-inspired legislation? Can we have a concrete
> > example, please?
>
> Dworkin-inspired legislation is legislation pushed by Dworkin-inspired
> people. It's that simple.
Is that like saying that anti-female legislation is legislation pushed
by Biblical Paulists and other worried bitter boys pissing their pants
because women have escaped? :-)
Dworkin and her followers have had to pay taxes; perhaps we should see
if we can round up all those right wing conservatives hiding under the
sheeps clothing of churches, eh?
>
> Szczepan Holyszewski
A. Jinn (AJ)
"Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132266334....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
>> "Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132255753.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
>> >> "Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132249694.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >> >>Feminism is the idea that men should have less, so
>> >> >>women can have more.
>> >>
>> >> No, feminism is an idea that women might someday get
>> >> testosterone treatments. (but they are really too much a bunch
>> >> of pussies)
>> >
>> > That doesn't make any sense. There are women presently who get
>> > testosterone treatments, usually to boost libido.
>>
>> And what percentage do this?
>
> I have no idea. I am not sure that could be calculated, actually.
Why not?
The only females that take substantial testosterone treatment are
FtM transsexuals and they are fairly well counted.
The number is 1 in every 100,000 generally, for males it is
3 times as frequent, presumably driven by their larger initial dose
of testosterone (which they must lose in the gender change process)
> I
> guess one could poll all the pharmaceutical companies and inquire about
> their sales, although that would net you some false positives, since it
> might be administered for other reasons and to males, as well. So,
> dunno. Does it matter?
Of course it matters.
It is almost the only thing that matters. I suppose there are
other hormones/chemicals, but it pretty much points to the big-T.
Testosterone is the main hormone involved in sex-drive,
aggression and violence.
Women, even at best, have less than 1/100th as much as men.
(in general...)
I bet that armed with this knowledge a quick analysis of history
would make a lot more sense.
> Do you have a vital interest in people
> getting treated for sexual dysfunction?
To some degree, and have known those with extreme
such dysfunction, but in this case, I have knowledge
I was sharing about hormones and their clear disparity
between the 2 main genders.
>
>> > Did you want to
>> > re-think your comment?
>>
>> Not at all, why?
>>
>
> Because it was unclear. Your choice, naturally.
No, I think not at all.
>
>
>> >> > Well, yeah. Of course. The world is owned and run by men, and that's
>> >> > just plain silly. They have done a lousy job in many sectors. Time to
>> >> > let some chicks in to do some ruling, and let some of the less
>> >> > competent men step down.
>> >>
>> >> Less competent men always step down. Or they are smacked down
>> >> by more competent men. Best when the more competent ment can
>> >> exploit the less competent men in a way that makes the less competenent
>> >> men think they have some dignity. (but it is usually too much trouble...)
>> >
>> > Ah, if that were only true. The part about more competent men
>> > smacking down the lesser. You have two ideas confused - high dominance
>> > doesn't imply high competence in general.
>>
>> You are confusing dominance with competence.
>
> You were the one who said that the more competent "smacked down" the
> less competent as if there were some connection between being more
> competent and using a dominance process like smacking someone down.
> But if you agree that administrative competence and dominance are
> variables that can vary independently, we are in agreement.
I think that most such variables can vary independently, though some move
together in a synergy.
>
>
>> > Granted, leadership is
>> > easier with higher serum testosterone levels, but it isn't a
>> > prerequisite and it doesn't confer wisdom or good administrative
>> > skills. I agree that good leaders nudge poor leaders out of the way
>> > in a manner that keeps the nudged-out on the team, and not making them
>> > an enemy. Dignity is an important component. Or swift and quiet
>> > execution works, too.
>>
>> That's what I said.
>
> So we have agreement. Excellent.
I think it better that we disagree a bit, but whatever.
I'm sure we do. :)
>
>
>> >> > I don't think that when women are running the world it will be better,
>> >> > that women are less corruptible or more wise, but at least it'll be a
>> >> > different set of miseries and awful mistakes.
>> >>
>> >> Don't be ridiculous... Without testosterone treatments women would best
>> >> be served by learning to suck cock.
>> >
>> > Skill in fellatio serves the entire human race well, my friend. Also,
>> > what is this obsession you have about extra testosterone? Are you
>> > supplementing your own and it worries you? I just notice you mentioned
>> > it twice here.
>>
>> My comments concerned women and their lack of /it/.
>
> Lack of skill in the oral arts?
Mostly lack of Testosterone == "/it/".
> Everyone would do well to improve
> their skills. I blame porn, which often models sloppy and clumsy
> technique on erections of such size that the instruction is moot for
> most men a person might be practicing on. Oral arts improve the soul
> of both sexes.
I certainly agree with this. Women certainly don't need much testosterone
to orgasm like the Eveready bunny... (though I think that those with relatively
more have a better chance of being multi-and/or-continuously orgasmic)
My sampling size is small but consistent.
>
> Or, you can't mean women's lack of testosterone? Women's bodies make
> and use it and other androgens;
Yes, but 2 orders of magnitutude less than the wimpiest man.
> adding too much more won't make them
> morphologically or behaviorally men, y'know.
Actually it does indeed. The experiment is performed for
transsexuals on an ongoing basis and documented for decades.
> Most behaviors in people
> are learned, and addition of male hormones might make for more muscular
> and hairy women, but I can't see how that is a bonus. Not knowing your
> proclivities, likes and dislikes, of course.
No, you are misinformed. If you give women T they become NY cab drivers.
Period.
I have watched transsexuals take hormones with my own eyes over
months of time. Talked to them who have gone through the process.
Less experience than I would like with FtM transsexuals, but from what
I hear from reliable sources, the hormone reaction on FtM TSs is more permanent
than with males, who must continue hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
The changes with HRT with FtM TSs (body hair and body mass changes)
are more permanent. (but surgically forming a pussy from a dick is much easier
than forming a dick from a pussy, plus the women,
due to testosterone deprivation IMO,
are less likely to go for it) --- even though they are internally
as transsexual as the males...
I can only assume that transsexualism occurs at about the rate of
1 in 30,000 in both genders, but because of the hormone and
societal differences women are lagging in the race to gender change.
>
>> > Did you run out of steam? Was answering my comments point by point
>> > tiring?
>>
>> You made no points that I observed.
>
> I am beginning to have the same problem with your comments, which
> disturbs me.
So sorry...
>
>>
>> But until women start exhibiting more than pussy I think I'll lick.
>
> Pardon? More *what* than pussy? What more of them do you want to see,
> man? I thought seeing the pussy was the raison d'etre of males
> everywhere - is there a higher, more inspirational sight?
I like the eyes of a naked woman.
// u l i e n
news:1132265474....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> But, SuzieQ....you can't beat the truth, dear. And those are the
> facts; women face life with whatever bio limitations they have and so
> do men. We don't balance the rights of one sex on the backs of the
> other, nor do we support discrimination. That works.
With men and women being very different animals (figuratively speaking),
doesn't it seem likely that in the end, the universal truth regarding the
sexes is that they should be treated differently? Or did God playtest the
two sexes so that they are comparatively equal when all things are laid
down, like humans and orcs in Warcraft?
--
A. Jinn (AJ)
> Read the FAQ, loser.
That really sounds boring.
Dave Brown
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> writes:
5 > tabi-no aku
9 > yume wa rairakku-no
5 > ne-no kioku
6 > geppu gintsu
7 > kaeru-no geppu
6 > geppu de kau
5 > hashi kireru
8 > botan tsugitsugi ni
5 > saki yureru
5 > hagakure-no
7 > asaboshi yoboshi
6 > kao o tsubusu
>> What is "bad poetry" besides redundant?
>
> Eminently saleable.
Er, don't give up your day job, okay?
--Dave
Dennis M. Hammes
>>Why do American women live eight years longer than American men?
>
>
> Actually, married American men live *longer* than single ones, so
> being married to American women helps you live longer, but a funny joke
> nonetheless.
>
> The serious answer to your question is "because they are mammals." In
> the mammalian world, the females, all other things being equal, tend to
> live longer. Human females have to brook childbirth which doesn't work
> well in humans and causes shorter average lifespan in the women, but
> with modern medical care for birthing to counteract that, women live
> longer because they are built to. Because that's the mammal plan.
> Not very fair, is it? But be cheered about biological differences
> when you are standing up to pee; that sounds so convenient.
>
But consider that women appear smarter than men because women never
pee into the wind.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
If a pome falls in the middle of a library and
the Bishop can't read it, does it still say, "Iamb"?
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
That depends on whether men and women are engaged in warcraft.
It's long observed that a good woman can beat a male tyro in
almost anything.
It's been observed as long that a good male fencer can beat a good
female fencer as a matter of routine.
Or karateka, chessmaster, violinist, sculptor, poet...
Women in the combat services is an experiment that has returned /no/
useable data before Iraq II beyond those sufficiently favorable to
continue the experiment.
It is founded on the premise that the size and sex of a trigger
finger and eyeball are irrelevant to the question.
Oh. And on the ancient observation that "the female of the
species is deadlier than the male."
Dennis M. Hammes
>>it is amazing how women expect from society to compensate
>>them for their in-born disadvantages while men's in-born
>>disadvantages are just c'est-la-vied off...
>
>
> Oh no. If my flipness carried a whiff of that, I apologize. I think
> it is horrifying that men pop off to the afterlife years before the
> women, and feel that medical science should make an effort of assure
> that men get every drop of this mortal life they can. I don't think
> there is anything just or right about men dying earlier; I think it's
> sad and should be remedied.
Men burn faster.
But don't even /try/ to rememdy it.
What unaltered enemies there are would walk all over us like stink
on shit.
Because we'd merely become slow and dull -- and our women
/already/ walk all over us like stink on shit.
(And we'd /still/ have no tits.)
>
>
>>>Not very fair, is it? But be cheered about biological differences
>>>when you are standing up to pee; that sounds so convenient.
>
>
>>... and sneered at.
>
>
> I would never sneer at standing to pee. I think that's marvelous,
> frankly! Do people sneer at that?
>
Dennis M. Hammes
> Uh, okay, I can think of at least one person who doesn't fit your
> generalizations. *waves*
>
>
>>Just be honest and say feminism is an attempt to curtail
>>some freedoms currently enjoyed by men, and transfer
>>them to women.
>
>
>>Feminism is the idea that men should have less, so
>>women can have more.
>
>
> Well, yeah. Of course. The world is owned and run by men, and that's
> just plain silly. They have done a lousy job in many sectors. Time to
> let some chicks in to do some ruling, and let some of the less
> competent men step down.
>
ERM.
"Let" do the "ruling"?
What kinda poultry is /that/?
It's "fiction." Product of /ficare/, "to make, to fuck."
That the only thing is fucks is your head, is somewhere between
implicit and obvious.
Dennis M. Hammes
> woo hoooooo!
>
> amander- claps!
>
Not to worry, they've got medicines for that.
Dennis M. Hammes
What makes them "boys," of course.
(And /that's/ what they really hate about it.)
Dennis M. Hammes
> "Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132249694.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Uh, okay, I can think of at least one person who doesn't fit your
>>generalizations. *waves*
>>
>>
>>>Just be honest and say feminism is an attempt to curtail
>>>some freedoms currently enjoyed by men, and transfer
>>>them to women.
>>
>>>Feminism is the idea that men should have less, so
>>>women can have more.
>
>
> No, feminism is an idea that women might someday get
> testosterone treatments. (but they are really too much a bunch
> of pussies)
>
> And don't men love them for that?
>
You should know, being our current resident expert pussy.
"Pussy," dim. of "puss," that thing under your nose, with which
you brag about, after demonstrating right in front of us, how well
you suck prick.
What you don't want anybody to notice (but the dataset is too
obvious to /avoid/ noticing it) is that you nicely demonstrate also
the First Rule of pricksucking: that you gotta find one small enough
to appreciate your ministry (hence also your several returns to the
only place you can find them, apparently).
Why for 1500 years it's been called "Kissing Frogs into Princes."
Why "men" don't let them belligerent Princess teeth anywhere near it.
Why, as noted by several upthread, "boys" are /desperate/ for the
same attentions, i.e., nothin' to lose.
Dennis M. Hammes
> A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
>
>>"Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132249694.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>>>Feminism is the idea that men should have less, so
>>>>women can have more.
>>
>>No, feminism is an idea that women might someday get
>>testosterone treatments. (but they are really too much a bunch
>>of pussies)
>>
>>And don't men love them for that?
>
>
> That doesn't make any sense.
Don't take it personally; Bishop Tommy routinely doesn't.
He's just another boy desperate enough to hazard your ire for the
possibility of your attention.
What's mildly amusing is that your sex doesn't even figure into
the equation.
Dennis M. Hammes
> A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
>
>>"Bibliophilia" <cmi...@crs.loc.gov> wrote in message news:1132255753.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Less competent men always step down. Or they are smacked down
>>>>by more competent men. Best when the more competent ment can
>>>>exploit the less competent men in a way that makes the less competenent
>>>>men think they have some dignity. (but it is usually too much trouble...)
>>>
>>>Ah, if that were only true. The part about more competent men
>>>smacking down the lesser. You have two ideas confused - high dominance
>>>doesn't imply high competence in general.
>>
>>You are confusing dominance with competence.
>
>
> You were the one who said that the more competent "smacked down" the
> less competent as if there were some connection between being more
> competent and using a dominance process like smacking someone down.
> But if you agree that administrative competence and dominance are
> variables that can vary independently, we are in agreement.
>
Well put. Esp. as Dominance is observed to vary inversely with the
square of the distance from the playpen ("Territory").
While competence tends to vary directly with it.
It's why the little boys in Colored Shirts with Holy Numbers on them
/have/ colored shirts with Holy numbers on them.
And specially-reproduced playpens inside the regular playpens,
where they can look like Men by playing with their balls at public
expense.
...
>
> Pardon? More *what* than pussy? What more of them do you want to see,
> man? I thought seeing the pussy was the raison d'etre of males
> everywhere - is there a higher, more inspirational sight?
>
About two feet higher, usually.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Testosterone is the main hormone involved in sex-drive,
> aggression and violence.
>
Bull.
(And not even Papal.)
Dennis M. Hammes
> A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
>
>>"Amander" <mand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1132247036.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>A. Jinn (AJ) wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Amander" <mand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1132079767.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Agressivity isn't a word.
>>>>
>>>>Yes it is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>> http://Clitin.Com *The Pussy Poetry Palace*
>>>>
>>>> *** MORE THAN 150 meg FREE Usenet PORNetry ***
>>>> (in > 80 "hands free" slideshows)
>>>> with poetry from famous poets (soon)
>>>
>>>No, really, it isn't.
>>
>>Yes, it really is... and...
>>
>>As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
>>I Make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-Place.
>>Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
>>And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
>>
>>We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
>>That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
>>But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
>>So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
>>
>
>
> ----snippity snippity (I am a woman)----
>
>
>>As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man --
>>There are only four things certain since Social Progress began --
>>That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mice,
>>And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire --
>>And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
>>When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins
>>As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn
>>The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
>>
>>
>>--
>> http://Clitin.Com *The Pussy Poetry Palace*
>>
>> *** MORE THAN 150 meg FREE Usenet PORNetry ***
>> (in > 80 "hands free" slideshows)
>> with poetry from famous poets (soon)
>
>
>
> Oh, don't I feel the silly one; for a second there I mistook you for
> NOT a fucking crazy bastard.
>
> Amander - this is the funniest thing I've read in years.
>
Too bad Bishop Tommy didn't write either one of 'em.
I'm not going to bother to trace 'em, but the voices are somewhere
between high-dudgeon Victorian and faux-Victorian (as satire), and
Bishop Tommy can't manage a single line in the style.
Hell, he can't even get the scansion, let alone the assonances.
Christian Stauffer
> With men and women being very different animals (figuratively speaking),
> doesn't it seem likely that in the end, the universal truth regarding the
> sexes is that they should be treated differently? Or did God playtest the
> two sexes so that they are comparatively equal when all things are laid
> down, like humans and orcs in Warcraft?
I think women are imbalanced. Their ratial (charm male humanoid) is much
more powerful than the one of the males (drink beer).
Nerf girls!
Chris
--
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (60) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (22) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Jivarr - Charming Troll (12) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Berryman's Legacy
On 2005-11-18 Dennis Hammes said:
> Bibliophilia wrote:
>
> > You were the one who said that the more competent "smacked down"
> > the less competent as if there were some connection between being
> > more competent and using a dominance process like smacking
> > someone down. But if you agree that administrative competence
> > and dominance are variables that can vary independently, we are
> > in agreement.
>
> Well put. Esp. as Dominance is observed to vary inversely with
> the square of the distance from the playpen ("Territory").
> While competence tends to vary directly with it.
> It's why the little boys in Colored Shirts with Holy Numbers on
> them /have/ colored shirts with Holy numbers on them.
> And specially-reproduced playpens inside the regular playpens,
> where they can look like Men by playing with their balls at public
> expense.
Hammy, you've lapsed into 'Hammy-speak' without establishing a
sufficient foundation for the cross-posted audience to know
what the heck you're talking about.
Allow me to translate:
"Little boys in Colored Shirts with Holy Numbers on them."
This is Hammy's quaint way of referring to 'jocks.'
Lettermen. Guys who play on a school's sports team.
"Specially-reproduced playpens inside the regular playpens."
This is Hammy-speak for various sports venues (baseball
diamonds, football fields, basketball courts, etc.)
that are part of, or associated with, the school.
"Men playing with their balls at public expense."
In plain language, school 'jocks' who use the public
school's sports venues to engage in the act of playing
their respective sports.
Background to the nuttiness:
Hammy was a short little nerd in school, and was often picked on
by the jocks. According to Hammus, the coaches tacitly ignored
-- or even actively encouraged -- such bullying behavior by their
players.
Remember, we're talking about Minnesota here.
Hammy *CLAIMS* to have ultimately wreaked his vengeance on his
tormenters, using various combinations of physicality and stealth;
a real-life 'Revenge Of The Nerds.'
Of course, there are no first-hand witnesses around anymore to
confirm or refute the claim, so you'll have to decide for your-
self whether or not to believe any of this.
---
See Dennis Hammes's picture at The Net Poets Photo Gallery!
ALL your favorite on-line poets in one convenient location.
http://clitin.com/NetPoets