>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:14:48 -0500, John Fields
>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:27:28 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:55:26 -0500, John Fields
>>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:06:54 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:53:28 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:59:34 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>I didn't insult the lady. I assumed that she, like most women, was
>>>>>>>>indeed smarter and more selective than the guys who have anonymous sex
>>>>>>>>in public parks, or, as JF delicately expresses it, "experience joy"
>>>>>>>>there.
>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>I didn't mention sexual preference, you did, and as usual, seem to
>>>>>>>think that every encounter not specifically identified as being
>>>>>>>heterosexual _must_ be homosexual.
>>>>>>Interesting that no one brought up homosexual sex but you thought you needed
>>>>>>to.
>>>>>---
>>>>>You must have either missed Larkin's earlier homosexual slur or
>>>>>ignored it for your own porpoises - something fishy there -
>>>>>---
>>>>It's interesting that you see queers who aren't there. Maybe your mirror is a
>>>>bit sensitive.
>>>---
>>>Or yours not at all selective.
>>>---
>>Idiot, we're talking about *you*.
>---
>Whoosh...
>---
>>>>>>>Strange little mind-set.
>>>>>>Indeed.
>>>>>---
>>>>>As is your adjudication.
>>>>You like big words. Perhaps you should get a dictionary to go with your
>>>>"vocabulary".
>>>---
>>>I like words, and sometimes the big ones can nail meaning exquisitely
>>>without the peening required from littler ones.
>>You really need to invest in a dictionary, then.
>---
>I have several, plus the ones on the web, while you seem unable or
>unwilling to access any of them.
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:38:06 -0500, John Fields
><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:23:01 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:14:48 -0500, John Fields
>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:27:28 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:55:26 -0500, John Fields
>>>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:06:54 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:53:28 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:59:34 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>I didn't insult the lady. I assumed that she, like most women, was
>>>>>>>>>indeed smarter and more selective than the guys who have anonymous sex
>>>>>>>>>in public parks, or, as JF delicately expresses it, "experience joy"
>>>>>>>>>there.
>>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>>I didn't mention sexual preference, you did, and as usual, seem to
>>>>>>>>think that every encounter not specifically identified as being
>>>>>>>>heterosexual _must_ be homosexual.
>>>>>>>Interesting that no one brought up homosexual sex but you thought you needed
>>>>>>>to.
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>You must have either missed Larkin's earlier homosexual slur or
>>>>>>ignored it for your own porpoises - something fishy there -
>>>>>>---
>>>>>It's interesting that you see queers who aren't there. Maybe your mirror is a
>>>>>bit sensitive.
>>>>---
>>>>Or yours not at all selective.
>>>>---
>>>Idiot, we're talking about *you*.
>>---
>>Whoosh...
>>---
>>>>>>>>Strange little mind-set.
>>>>>>>Indeed.
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>As is your adjudication.
>>>>>You like big words. Perhaps you should get a dictionary to go with your
>>>>>"vocabulary".
>>>>---
>>>>I like words, and sometimes the big ones can nail meaning exquisitely
>>>>without the peening required from littler ones.
>>>You really need to invest in a dictionary, then.
>>---
>>I have several, plus the ones on the web, while you seem unable or
>>unwilling to access any of them.
>Then learn how to use them, moron.
---
You seem to be the one with the cognitive deficit, so your inability
to attach meaning to words is your problem, not mine.
>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:40:38 -0600, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>On 10/3/2012 6:40 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:27:28 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:55:26 -0500, John Fields
>>>>> <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:06:54 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:53:28 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>> <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:59:34 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I didn't insult the lady. I assumed that she, like most women, was
>>>>>>>>> indeed smarter and more selective than the guys who have anonymous sex
>>>>>>>>> in public parks, or, as JF delicately expresses it, "experience joy"
>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> I didn't mention sexual preference, you did, and as usual, seem to
>>>>>>>> think that every encounter not specifically identified as being
>>>>>>>> heterosexual _must_ be homosexual.
>>>>>>> Interesting that no one brought up homosexual sex but you thought you needed
>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> You must have either missed Larkin's earlier homosexual slur or
>>>>>> ignored it for your own porpoises - something fishy there -
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> It's interesting that you see queers who aren't there. Maybe your mirror is a
>>>>> bit sensitive.
>>>> In my career, I've only met one gay EE, and he wasn't very good. He
>>>> inherited some money and gave up engineering for some artistic thing.
>>>> I have never met a female circuit designer... lots of scientists,
>>>> programmers, like that. Circuit design seems to be mostly a straight
>>>> male thing.
>>I've known three female design engineers, two good (one became a very good
>>manager and one was my lab partner in college), one not so much (a
>>double-affirmative action hire).
>>>> My wife is a speech pathologist. That profession is, literally, 99%
>>>> female.
>>>I am sure its a touchy feally position.
>>>What guy wants that !
---
Many do, and Larkin dotes on his wife, so maybe he's in that set.
---
>>Can't even blow things up! ;-)
>Yeah, and you have to be nice, too.
---
That's called being "pussywhipped", and relates to not demurring to
demands placed on you by your wife in return for sex.
>>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:38:06 -0500, John Fields
>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:23:01 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:14:48 -0500, John Fields
>>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:27:28 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:55:26 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:06:54 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:53:28 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:59:34 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>I didn't insult the lady. I assumed that she, like most women, was
>>>>>>>>>>indeed smarter and more selective than the guys who have anonymous sex
>>>>>>>>>>in public parks, or, as JF delicately expresses it, "experience joy"
>>>>>>>>>>there.
>>>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>>>I didn't mention sexual preference, you did, and as usual, seem to
>>>>>>>>>think that every encounter not specifically identified as being
>>>>>>>>>heterosexual _must_ be homosexual.
>>>>>>>>Interesting that no one brought up homosexual sex but you thought you needed
>>>>>>>>to.
>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>You must have either missed Larkin's earlier homosexual slur or
>>>>>>>ignored it for your own porpoises - something fishy there -
>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>It's interesting that you see queers who aren't there. Maybe your mirror is a
>>>>>>bit sensitive.
>>>>>---
>>>>>Or yours not at all selective.
>>>>>---
>>>>Idiot, we're talking about *you*.
>>>---
>>>Whoosh...
>>>---
>>>>>>>>>Strange little mind-set.
>>>>>>>>Indeed.
>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>As is your adjudication.
>>>>>>You like big words. Perhaps you should get a dictionary to go with your
>>>>>>"vocabulary".
>>>>>---
>>>>>I like words, and sometimes the big ones can nail meaning exquisitely
>>>>>without the peening required from littler ones.
>>>>You really need to invest in a dictionary, then.
>>>---
>>>I have several, plus the ones on the web, while you seem unable or
>>>unwilling to access any of them.
>>Then learn how to use them, moron.
>---
>You seem to be the one with the cognitive deficit, so your inability
>to attach meaning to words is your problem, not mine.
No, I can use a dictionary, which you *obviously* cannot. You do like the big
words (but haven't a clue of their meanings).
<jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:20:56 -0700, John Larkin
><jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 23:39:43 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:40:38 -0600, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>On 10/3/2012 6:40 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:27:28 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:55:26 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>> <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:06:54 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:53:28 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>>> <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:59:34 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't insult the lady. I assumed that she, like most women, was
>>>>>>>>>> indeed smarter and more selective than the guys who have anonymous sex
>>>>>>>>>> in public parks, or, as JF delicately expresses it, "experience joy"
>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> I didn't mention sexual preference, you did, and as usual, seem to
>>>>>>>>> think that every encounter not specifically identified as being
>>>>>>>>> heterosexual _must_ be homosexual.
>>>>>>>> Interesting that no one brought up homosexual sex but you thought you needed
>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> You must have either missed Larkin's earlier homosexual slur or
>>>>>>> ignored it for your own porpoises - something fishy there -
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> It's interesting that you see queers who aren't there. Maybe your mirror is a
>>>>>> bit sensitive.
>>>>> In my career, I've only met one gay EE, and he wasn't very good. He
>>>>> inherited some money and gave up engineering for some artistic thing.
>>>>> I have never met a female circuit designer... lots of scientists,
>>>>> programmers, like that. Circuit design seems to be mostly a straight
>>>>> male thing.
>>>I've known three female design engineers, two good (one became a very good
>>>manager and one was my lab partner in college), one not so much (a
>>>double-affirmative action hire).
>>>>> My wife is a speech pathologist. That profession is, literally, 99%
>>>>> female.
>>>>I am sure its a touchy feally position.
>>>>What guy wants that !
>---
>Many do, and Larkin dotes on his wife, so maybe he's in that set.
>---
>>>Can't even blow things up! ;-)
>>Yeah, and you have to be nice, too.
>---
>That's called being "pussywhipped", and relates to not demurring to
>demands placed on you by your wife in return for sex.
You have obviously had some very bad experiences with women, to
dislike them so much.
I think women are wonderful, especially my wife. I do things for her
because I like her.
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:04:07 -0500, John Fields
><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:55:00 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:38:06 -0500, John Fields
>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:23:01 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:14:48 -0500, John Fields
>>>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:27:28 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:55:26 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:06:54 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:53:28 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:59:34 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't insult the lady. I assumed that she, like most women, was
>>>>>>>>>>>indeed smarter and more selective than the guys who have anonymous sex
>>>>>>>>>>>in public parks, or, as JF delicately expresses it, "experience joy"
>>>>>>>>>>>there.
>>>>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>>>>I didn't mention sexual preference, you did, and as usual, seem to
>>>>>>>>>>think that every encounter not specifically identified as being
>>>>>>>>>>heterosexual _must_ be homosexual.
>>>>>>>>>Interesting that no one brought up homosexual sex but you thought you needed
>>>>>>>>>to.
>>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>>You must have either missed Larkin's earlier homosexual slur or
>>>>>>>>ignored it for your own porpoises - something fishy there -
>>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>It's interesting that you see queers who aren't there. Maybe your mirror is a
>>>>>>>bit sensitive.
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>Or yours not at all selective.
>>>>>>---
>>>>>Idiot, we're talking about *you*.
>>>>---
>>>>Whoosh...
>>>>---
>>>>>>>>>>Strange little mind-set.
>>>>>>>>>Indeed.
>>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>>As is your adjudication.
>>>>>>>You like big words. Perhaps you should get a dictionary to go with your
>>>>>>>"vocabulary".
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>I like words, and sometimes the big ones can nail meaning exquisitely
>>>>>>without the peening required from littler ones.
>>>>>You really need to invest in a dictionary, then.
>>>>---
>>>>I have several, plus the ones on the web, while you seem unable or
>>>>unwilling to access any of them.
>>>Then learn how to use them, moron.
>>---
>>You seem to be the one with the cognitive deficit, so your inability
>>to attach meaning to words is your problem, not mine.
>No, I can use a dictionary, which you *obviously* cannot. You do like the big
>words (but haven't a clue of their meanings).
---
Ho-hum...
Just another of your red-herring posts which is full of recrimination
and vapidity.
There's no doubt that you can use a dictionary, but since you seem
wont to use it for other than its intended purpose, one wonders if the
use you have in mind is to raise your height at table.
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:43:56 -0500, John Fields
><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:20:56 -0700, John Larkin
>><jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 23:39:43 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:40:38 -0600, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 10/3/2012 6:40 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:27:28 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:55:26 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>> <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:06:54 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:53:28 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>>>> <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:59:34 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't insult the lady. I assumed that she, like most women, was
>>>>>>>>>>> indeed smarter and more selective than the guys who have anonymous sex
>>>>>>>>>>> in public parks, or, as JF delicately expresses it, "experience joy"
>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't mention sexual preference, you did, and as usual, seem to
>>>>>>>>>> think that every encounter not specifically identified as being
>>>>>>>>>> heterosexual _must_ be homosexual.
>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no one brought up homosexual sex but you thought you needed
>>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> You must have either missed Larkin's earlier homosexual slur or
>>>>>>>> ignored it for your own porpoises - something fishy there -
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> It's interesting that you see queers who aren't there. Maybe your mirror is a
>>>>>>> bit sensitive.
>>>>>> In my career, I've only met one gay EE, and he wasn't very good. He
>>>>>> inherited some money and gave up engineering for some artistic thing.
>>>>>> I have never met a female circuit designer... lots of scientists,
>>>>>> programmers, like that. Circuit design seems to be mostly a straight
>>>>>> male thing.
>>>>I've known three female design engineers, two good (one became a very good
>>>>manager and one was my lab partner in college), one not so much (a
>>>>double-affirmative action hire).
>>>>>> My wife is a speech pathologist. That profession is, literally, 99%
>>>>>> female.
>>>>>I am sure its a touchy feally position.
>>>>>What guy wants that !
>>---
>>Many do, and Larkin dotes on his wife, so maybe he's in that set.
>>---
>>>>Can't even blow things up! ;-)
>>>Yeah, and you have to be nice, too.
>>---
>>That's called being "pussywhipped", and relates to not demurring to
>>demands placed on you by your wife in return for sex.
>You have obviously had some very bad experiences with women, to
>dislike them so much.
---
Being able to differentiate between being pussywhipped and not being
pussywhipped is hardly a criterion for the determination of the
existence of affection.
---
>I think women are wonderful, especially my wife. I do things for her
>because I like her.
---
So, instead of "have to be nice" you meant "want to be nice"?
<jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:29:07 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:43:56 -0500, John Fields
>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:20:56 -0700, John Larkin
>>><jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 23:39:43 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:40:38 -0600, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 10/3/2012 6:40 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:27:28 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:55:26 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>>> <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:06:54 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>>>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:53:28 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>>>>> <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:59:34 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't insult the lady. I assumed that she, like most women, was
>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed smarter and more selective than the guys who have anonymous sex
>>>>>>>>>>>> in public parks, or, as JF delicately expresses it, "experience joy"
>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't mention sexual preference, you did, and as usual, seem to
>>>>>>>>>>> think that every encounter not specifically identified as being
>>>>>>>>>>> heterosexual _must_ be homosexual.
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no one brought up homosexual sex but you thought you needed
>>>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> You must have either missed Larkin's earlier homosexual slur or
>>>>>>>>> ignored it for your own porpoises - something fishy there -
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> It's interesting that you see queers who aren't there. Maybe your mirror is a
>>>>>>>> bit sensitive.
>>>>>>> In my career, I've only met one gay EE, and he wasn't very good. He
>>>>>>> inherited some money and gave up engineering for some artistic thing.
>>>>>>> I have never met a female circuit designer... lots of scientists,
>>>>>>> programmers, like that. Circuit design seems to be mostly a straight
>>>>>>> male thing.
>>>>>I've known three female design engineers, two good (one became a very good
>>>>>manager and one was my lab partner in college), one not so much (a
>>>>>double-affirmative action hire).
>>>>>>> My wife is a speech pathologist. That profession is, literally, 99%
>>>>>>> female.
>>>>>>I am sure its a touchy feally position.
>>>>>>What guy wants that !
>>>---
>>>Many do, and Larkin dotes on his wife, so maybe he's in that set.
>>>---
>>>>>Can't even blow things up! ;-)
>>>>Yeah, and you have to be nice, too.
>>>---
>>>That's called being "pussywhipped", and relates to not demurring to
>>>demands placed on you by your wife in return for sex.
>>You have obviously had some very bad experiences with women, to
>>dislike them so much.
>---
>Being able to differentiate between being pussywhipped and not being
>pussywhipped is hardly a criterion for the determination of the
>existence of affection.
Your dislike of women has been obvious for some time. The thing about
women making "demands... in return for sex" sure sounds like bitter
memories to me. I've never had a woman do that to me; the very concept
is meaningless in my world: people have sex if they like one another.
>---
>>I think women are wonderful, especially my wife. I do things for her
>>because I like her.
>---
>So, instead of "have to be nice" you meant "want to be nice"?
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 01:59:23 -0500, John Fields
><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:29:07 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:43:56 -0500, John Fields
>>><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:20:56 -0700, John Larkin
>>>><jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 23:39:43 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:40:38 -0600, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 10/3/2012 6:40 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:27:28 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:55:26 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>>>> <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:06:54 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>>>>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:53:28 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>>>>>> <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:59:34 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't insult the lady. I assumed that she, like most women, was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed smarter and more selective than the guys who have anonymous sex
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in public parks, or, as JF delicately expresses it, "experience joy"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't mention sexual preference, you did, and as usual, seem to
>>>>>>>>>>>> think that every encounter not specifically identified as being
>>>>>>>>>>>> heterosexual _must_ be homosexual.
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no one brought up homosexual sex but you thought you needed
>>>>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> You must have either missed Larkin's earlier homosexual slur or
>>>>>>>>>> ignored it for your own porpoises - something fishy there -
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> It's interesting that you see queers who aren't there. Maybe your mirror is a
>>>>>>>>> bit sensitive.
>>>>>>>> In my career, I've only met one gay EE, and he wasn't very good. He
>>>>>>>> inherited some money and gave up engineering for some artistic thing.
>>>>>>>> I have never met a female circuit designer... lots of scientists,
>>>>>>>> programmers, like that. Circuit design seems to be mostly a straight
>>>>>>>> male thing.
>>>>>>I've known three female design engineers, two good (one became a very good
>>>>>>manager and one was my lab partner in college), one not so much (a
>>>>>>double-affirmative action hire).
>>>>>>>> My wife is a speech pathologist. That profession is, literally, 99%
>>>>>>>> female.
>>>>>>>I am sure its a touchy feally position.
>>>>>>>What guy wants that !
>>>>---
>>>>Many do, and Larkin dotes on his wife, so maybe he's in that set.
>>>>---
>>>>>>Can't even blow things up! ;-)
>>>>>Yeah, and you have to be nice, too.
>>>>---
>>>>That's called being "pussywhipped", and relates to not demurring to
>>>>demands placed on you by your wife in return for sex.
>>>You have obviously had some very bad experiences with women, to
>>>dislike them so much.
>>---
>>Being able to differentiate between being pussywhipped and not being
>>pussywhipped is hardly a criterion for the determination of the
>>existence of affection.
>>---
>Your dislike of women has been obvious for some time.
---
You know, John, you keep harping on that fantasy as if it were real,
but it'd make no sense to my friends who are women and who like me
because I don't just like them because they're women.
---
>The thing about women making "demands... in return for sex" sure sounds like bitter >memories to me.
---
Knowledge is power.
---
>I've never had a woman do that to me;
---
Perhaps because you've never had anything worth bartering for? ---
>the very concept is meaningless in my world: people have sex if they like one another.
---
Then why do you demean the fags getting off on each other in the park?
---
>>>I think women are wonderful, especially my wife. I do things for her
>>>because I like her.
>>---
>>So, instead of "have to be nice" you meant "want to be nice"?
>Neither. It's "enjoy being nice."
---
And, yet, your: "Yeah, and you have to be nice, too." indicates
subservience, accent on 'have'.
-- JF
