>>>>>>>>All religion is oppressive. It is just a matter of degree.
>>>>>>> You can say the same thing about all governments, supermarkets, web
>>>>>>> browsers, and fruit trees. But I don't recall many instances of
>>>>>>> Methodists assaulting women for being improperly dressed in public.
>>>>>>Google "Westboro Baptist Church". Not Methodist, but it gives a modern >>>>>>example.
>>>>>How many people have they beheaded for blasphemy? How many women have
>>>>>they stoned for letting their hair show? How's their suicide bombing
>>>>>program coming along? Do they club people for holding hands in public?
>>>>---
>>>>You seem to be somewhat myopic in not believing that had they the
>>>>power, its likely that all of those atrocities would be visited upon
>>>>their detractors or non-believers.
>>>>Just look at history for a few examples.
>>>>---
>>>>>They do seem to object to people having sex in a public park, which is
>>>>>not a radically unreasonable position.
>>>>---
>>>>If it's public, and some of the public experiences joy by performing
>>>>sexually in public, and you'd deny them that pleasure because of your
>>>>own taste, then you'd also curtail speech, in a public place, with
>>>>which you disagree.
>>>If you would "experience joy" from having sex with other men in a
>>>public park, go for it. But be warned that it's illegal in most
>>>cities.
>>---
>>Quite telling that anytime sex is mentioned you immediately jump to
>>the conclusion that it's homosexual in nature.
>Well, it's mostly guys who have sex in public parks. Most women are
>smarter than that.
How strange, I once had a regular gal partner who wanted to have sex
rather more publicly than i did. She usually got her way.
>On 2012-09-27, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 9/27/2012 11:28 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:08:19 -0500, "Vladimir Vassilevsky"
>>> <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> "John Larkin" wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:19:24 -0700, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
>>>>>> All religion is oppressive. It is just a matter of degree.
>>>>> You can say the same thing about all governments, supermarkets, web
>>>>> browsers, and fruit trees.
>>>> It is relatively easy to avoid supermarkets and web browsers.
>>>> It is not so simple with governments and religions.
>>> It's easy to avoid religion in countries that don't have a state
>>> religion. Just ignore it.
>>>>> But I don't recall many instances of
>>>>> Methodists assaulting women for being improperly dressed in public.
>>>> Salem witch trials ?
>>> Was that Methodists? Was it about enforcing a dress code?
>>>>>>>>>All religion is oppressive. It is just a matter of degree.
>>>>>>>> You can say the same thing about all governments, supermarkets, web
>>>>>>>> browsers, and fruit trees. But I don't recall many instances of
>>>>>>>> Methodists assaulting women for being improperly dressed in public.
>>>>>>>Google "Westboro Baptist Church". Not Methodist, but it gives a modern >>>>>>>example.
>>>>>>How many people have they beheaded for blasphemy? How many women have
>>>>>>they stoned for letting their hair show? How's their suicide bombing
>>>>>>program coming along? Do they club people for holding hands in public?
>>>>>---
>>>>>You seem to be somewhat myopic in not believing that had they the
>>>>>power, its likely that all of those atrocities would be visited upon
>>>>>their detractors or non-believers.
>>>>>Just look at history for a few examples.
>>>>>---
>>>>>>They do seem to object to people having sex in a public park, which is
>>>>>>not a radically unreasonable position.
>>>>>---
>>>>>If it's public, and some of the public experiences joy by performing
>>>>>sexually in public, and you'd deny them that pleasure because of your
>>>>>own taste, then you'd also curtail speech, in a public place, with
>>>>>which you disagree.
>>>>If you would "experience joy" from having sex with other men in a
>>>>public park, go for it. But be warned that it's illegal in most
>>>>cities.
>>>---
>>>Quite telling that anytime sex is mentioned you immediately jump to
>>>the conclusion that it's homosexual in nature.
>>Well, it's mostly guys who have sex in public parks. Most women are
>>smarter than that.
>How strange, I once had a regular gal partner who wanted to have sex
>rather more publicly than i did. She usually got her way.
>?-)
I should hope she didn't want to do it with five different strangers
every night. As I said, most women are smarter than that.
Read "And The Band Played On." Fascinating and frightening. I was here
in SF when all that happened; very wild, very strange times, many
deaths.
>>On 2012-09-27, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2012 11:28 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:08:19 -0500, "Vladimir Vassilevsky"
>>>> <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> "John Larkin" wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:19:24 -0700, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> All religion is oppressive. It is just a matter of degree.
>>>>>> You can say the same thing about all governments, supermarkets, web
>>>>>> browsers, and fruit trees.
>>>>> It is relatively easy to avoid supermarkets and web browsers.
>>>>> It is not so simple with governments and religions.
>>>> It's easy to avoid religion in countries that don't have a state
>>>> religion. Just ignore it.
>>>>>> But I don't recall many instances of
>>>>>> Methodists assaulting women for being improperly dressed in public.
>>>>> Salem witch trials ?
>>>> Was that Methodists? Was it about enforcing a dress code?
>>>>>>>>>>All religion is oppressive. It is just a matter of degree.
>>>>>>>>> You can say the same thing about all governments, supermarkets, web
>>>>>>>>> browsers, and fruit trees. But I don't recall many instances of
>>>>>>>>> Methodists assaulting women for being improperly dressed in public.
>>>>>>>>Google "Westboro Baptist Church". Not Methodist, but it gives a modern >>>>>>>>example.
>>>>>>>How many people have they beheaded for blasphemy? How many women have
>>>>>>>they stoned for letting their hair show? How's their suicide bombing
>>>>>>>program coming along? Do they club people for holding hands in public?
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>You seem to be somewhat myopic in not believing that had they the
>>>>>>power, its likely that all of those atrocities would be visited upon
>>>>>>their detractors or non-believers.
>>>>>>Just look at history for a few examples.
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>They do seem to object to people having sex in a public park, which is
>>>>>>>not a radically unreasonable position.
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>If it's public, and some of the public experiences joy by performing
>>>>>>sexually in public, and you'd deny them that pleasure because of your
>>>>>>own taste, then you'd also curtail speech, in a public place, with
>>>>>>which you disagree.
>>>>>If you would "experience joy" from having sex with other men in a
>>>>>public park, go for it. But be warned that it's illegal in most
>>>>>cities.
>>>>---
>>>>Quite telling that anytime sex is mentioned you immediately jump to
>>>>the conclusion that it's homosexual in nature.
>>>Well, it's mostly guys who have sex in public parks. Most women are
>>>smarter than that.
>>How strange, I once had a regular gal partner who wanted to have sex
>>rather more publicly than i did. She usually got her way.
>>?-)
>I should hope she didn't want to do it with five different strangers
>every night. As I said, most women are smarter than that.
Sirrah, you insult that lady. And i take umbrage at being accused of
consorting with that type.
Typical Larkin, insult what is different from what you like.
>>>>>>>>>>>All religion is oppressive. It is just a matter of degree.
>>>>>>>>>> You can say the same thing about all governments, supermarkets, web
>>>>>>>>>> browsers, and fruit trees. But I don't recall many instances of
>>>>>>>>>> Methodists assaulting women for being improperly dressed in public.
>>>>>>>>>Google "Westboro Baptist Church". Not Methodist, but it gives a modern >>>>>>>>>example.
>>>>>>>>How many people have they beheaded for blasphemy? How many women have
>>>>>>>>they stoned for letting their hair show? How's their suicide bombing
>>>>>>>>program coming along? Do they club people for holding hands in public?
>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>You seem to be somewhat myopic in not believing that had they the
>>>>>>>power, its likely that all of those atrocities would be visited upon
>>>>>>>their detractors or non-believers.
>>>>>>>Just look at history for a few examples.
>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>>They do seem to object to people having sex in a public park, which is
>>>>>>>>not a radically unreasonable position.
>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>If it's public, and some of the public experiences joy by performing
>>>>>>>sexually in public, and you'd deny them that pleasure because of your
>>>>>>>own taste, then you'd also curtail speech, in a public place, with
>>>>>>>which you disagree.
>>>>>>If you would "experience joy" from having sex with other men in a
>>>>>>public park, go for it. But be warned that it's illegal in most
>>>>>>cities.
>>>>>---
>>>>>Quite telling that anytime sex is mentioned you immediately jump to
>>>>>the conclusion that it's homosexual in nature.
>>>>Well, it's mostly guys who have sex in public parks. Most women are
>>>>smarter than that.
>>>How strange, I once had a regular gal partner who wanted to have sex
>>>rather more publicly than i did. She usually got her way.
>>>?-)
>>I should hope she didn't want to do it with five different strangers
>>every night. As I said, most women are smarter than that.
>Sirrah, you insult that lady. And i take umbrage at being accused of
>consorting with that type.
>Typical Larkin, insult what is different from what you like.
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.
Epidemiology has some interesting, and tragic, math.
<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.
<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.
<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 -
---
>>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.
>>>Strange little mind-set.
>>Indeed.
>---
>As is your adjudication.
You like big words. Perhaps you should get a dictionary to go with your
"vocabulary".
<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.
My wife is a speech pathologist. That profession is, literally, 99%
female.
Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
> 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.
> My wife is a speech pathologist. That profession is, literally, 99%
> female.
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.
<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.
Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
<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.
---
>>>>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.
> 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...
We had one at Microdyne, around 2000. I even worked with one woman
who repaired TVs, about 35 years ago.
>>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*.
>>>>>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.
<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.
