Received: by 10.66.89.162 with SMTP id bp2mr1861114pab.4.1349396583309;
        Thu, 04 Oct 2012 17:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Path: t10ni23613907pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Women Under Islam
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:23:01 -0400
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <u1as68tpobshlkp4i4a2pjlqqtvhb75scj@4ax.com>
References: <qf5e68lsbl3h79rt4atgq35908p475eb7u@4ax.com> <399n68hmkf4dbe836auuaag8jss243q9pj@4ax.com> <0m9n68hdrcufm22ve4c4g7t37ue7jpldrm@4ax.com> <b8ln68ts85ee0uj059goa1njk54mjh7n3n@4ax.com> <jtgo68l9qppsqugpefoel52suvb1v7bfc2@4ax.com> <4ino68p70q9cdplu4c2lpd0v6ig0s19sn5@4ax.com> <q3so681ighorbjlr1r94oppaub1bbeaveh@4ax.com> <n3jp68hl2q77ufcpb2ekv4shegneleoscl@4ax.com> <tmlp68lag154khqdlae65kvkicporpqvfo@4ax.com> <4onr68dp8tjkduo21gce0b78k59bdqpdh5@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net fEnuE4pXZYtauMGA3w8EyArD5VEv/nxdiYSnXpTEooFvp01QuY
Cancel-Lock: sha1:29pU1C/M0hoYcVhz6at3wp6Dj0k=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 5.00/32.1171
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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*.
>
>>>>>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.