Double Standards and Crossposting
Mike Kelly
Any chance those of you participating in the "Double Standards"
threads could start trimming the number of groups you are crossposting
to? And while you're at it, trim alt.folklore.military.
The thread has turned into a bunch of people beating a big greasy
spot on the ground where a horse used to be.
madw...@my-dejanews.com
i'm using dejanews to look up the newsgroup, and i can't view the "double
standards"-thread anymore. i can only look up the posts in the first listing,
and have to cling to that; usually it showed the thread, but this is now
broken, perhaps because the thread is too long or dejanews too short or
whatever. would be quite glad if someone got this fixed...
apart from this, there's some people around who are hard to hear respectively
do not want to debate, but spray their believes and if get nailed down with
an argument simply refuse to accept it and put on the old platter again or
side- step to something completely different.
maybe it's not a greasy spot, but finely dispersed horsedung, as assumed by
those with a nose.
*madwoman*
----------
‰‰
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Paul Jacobsen
could meet the same physical fitness standards as men. It found that only
3.4 percent of women achieved a score equal to the male mean score on the
Army's physical fitness test.[12]
Women experience more than twice the number of lower extremity injuries and
over four times the number of stress fractures, the report said.[13]
Without special training, the commission found, nature gives women only 50
to 60 percent of the upper torso muscular strength of men. They have 70 to
75 percent of the aerobic capacity of men.[14]
The United States Military Academy requires all cadets to complete an indoor
obstacle course test. The test evaluates a cadet's muscular
strength/endurance, flexibility, agility, and coordination. The average
completion time for the 10 obstacles is 2:50 (min:sec) for men and 4:05
(min:sec) for women.[15]
Even in the civilian world, rational minds recognize the fundamental
differences between the physical capacities of men and women. Dr. Mary Lloyd
Ireland, a Kentucky orthopedic surgeon, studied why female basketball
players suffer twice as many serious knee injuries as males and six times
more anterior cruciate ligament tears. She attributes the problem in part to
the fact that women's bodies are less-suited than men's to absorb the
driving and pounding of sports.[16]
Ann Loucks, an associate professor of physiology at Ohio University, found
that hard physical work coupled with a caloric deficit may have long-term
effects -- damaging a woman's reproductive ability and losing bone minerals,
which could lead to osteoporosis. Extended periods of hard labor and limited
caloric intake are common military conditions.[17]
Because of undeniable differences in speed, strength and endurance between
men and women, women will always be in greater danger than men on the
battlefield -- just as they are in some urban "combat zones." In terms of
modern-day combat, women do not have "an equal opportunity to survive."
Good physical condition is important for both sexes. But the most physically
demanding assignments should go to men who are genetically predisposed to
handling the toughest tasks. If special training is offered, it should go to
men to give them an edge over our enemies. Even the best and strongest
females are unlikely to match most male enemies.
America's military is on a slippery slope. Feminists and their supporters
want to gender-neutralize the military by incrementally ditching commonsense
policies. This latest study, which claims that women can be trained to be
like men, contributes to this misguided ideology, weakens the force
structure at its core, and puts America's military personnel in peril.
madw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<77bdtu$9gf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Mike Kelly
>In article <36971465.50236602@news>,
> michae...@home.com (Mike Kelly) wrote:
>>
>> Any chance those of you participating in the "Double Standards"
>> threads could start trimming the number of groups you are crossposting
>> to? And while you're at it, trim alt.folklore.military.
>>
>> The thread has turned into a bunch of people beating a big greasy
>> spot on the ground where a horse used to be.
>>
>>
>
>i'm using dejanews to look up the newsgroup, and i can't view the "double
>standards"-thread anymore. i can only look up the posts in the first listing,
>and have to cling to that; usually it showed the thread, but this is now
>broken, perhaps because the thread is too long or dejanews too short or
>whatever. would be quite glad if someone got this fixed...
>
You should try the Free Agent newsreader. It's a lot easier to use
than Dejanews.
>apart from this, there's some people around who are hard to hear respectively
>do not want to debate, but spray their believes and if get nailed down with
>an argument simply refuse to accept it and put on the old platter again or
>side- step to something completely different.
>
There is no point in arguing with drunks and idiots. Neither of them
will appreciate what you have to say.
And once you learn that someone is only going to spout nonsense and
side step any challenges to said nonsense, it only makes sense to
ignore them anyway. (Unless you are screwing with them for the sport.
Which could be what they are doing to you.) What possible reason do
you have to believe that you can whip some sense into them.
>maybe it's not a greasy spot, but finely dispersed horsedung, as assumed by
>those with a nose.
>
No it's a greasy spot. I cannot think of any of you, for or against
the issue, coming up with anything new that will cause the other party
to give up their misguided ways and take on a new point of view.
Brian Yeoh
> The 1992 Presidential Commission ran a study to investigate whether women
> could meet the same physical fitness standards as men. It found that only
> 3.4 percent of women achieved a score equal to the male mean score on the
> Army's physical fitness test.[12]
<snip rest of citeless post>
I'll repeat my question, so that you can maybe understand.
WHERE. DID. THIS. POST'S. TEXT. COME. FROM. YOU. DIDN'T. WRITE. IT. SO.
WHERE. DID. YOU. GET. IT. FROM.
Understand teh question?
Moses Lambert
--
Moses Lambert
Proud Conspiracies Member:
IJC, Vast Right-Wing, Hiramite, Cabalistic, Circuit Mayflower & Y2K
(didn't think all those programs got screwed up all by themselves, did you?)
Mike Kelly wrote in message <36998cd1.5490384@news>...
madw...@my-dejanews.com
[clogged up beatles rememberance: melody of "pennylane"]
In article <36998cd1.5490384@news>,
michae...@home.com (Mike Kelly) wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:42:54 GMT, madw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <36971465.50236602@news>,
> > michae...@home.com (Mike Kelly) wrote:
> >>
> >> Any chance those of you participating in the "Double Standards"
> >> threads could start trimming the number of groups you are crossposting
> >> to? And while you're at it, trim alt.folklore.military.
> >>
> >> The thread has turned into a bunch of people beating a big greasy
> >> spot on the ground where a horse used to be.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >i'm using dejanews to look up the newsgroup, and i can't view the "double
> >standards"-thread anymore. i can only look up the posts in the first listing,
> >and have to cling to that; usually it showed the thread, but this is now
> >broken, perhaps because the thread is too long or dejanews too short or
> >whatever. would be quite glad if someone got this fixed...
> >
>
> You should try the Free Agent newsreader. It's a lot easier to use
> than Dejanews.
--------when it's better, give us the url!!
spent 2 days now hunting free mailservices and organising them-
if you want, i can tell you about these in exchange...--------------
>
> >apart from this, there's some people around who are hard to hear respectively
> >do not want to debate, but spray their believes and if get nailed down with
> >an argument simply refuse to accept it and put on the old platter again or
> >side- step to something completely different.
> >
>
> There is no point in arguing with drunks and idiots. Neither of them
> will appreciate what you have to say.
---------[being drunk myself, i scratch my head]
that's right at any case.
only...
staying silent for decades is not so nice either, isn't it?---------
> And once you learn that someone is only going to spout nonsense and
> side step any challenges to said nonsense, it only makes sense to
> ignore them anyway.
------------that's why i won't ever adress jacobsen directly- he's too
disgusting in his lowlife piss-on-the-higher-leg-attitude. all he is able to
is to twist other peoples' words and get the jitters on some old, doubted
study that he can wave around. thats one of them against whom the
"/ig"-function was invented for.-------------
(Unless you are screwing with them for the sport.
> Which could be what they are doing to you.) What possible reason do
> you have to believe that you can whip some sense into them.
>
> >maybe it's not a greasy spot, but finely dispersed horsedung, as assumed by
> >those with a nose.
> >
>
> No it's a greasy spot. I cannot think of any of you, for or against
> the issue, coming up with anything new that will cause the other party
> to give up their misguided ways and take on a new point of view.
>
-------------[man what do you expect? a second buddha rising instantly??]
that's why i once said that it's not really about debate, but about religious
believes. it's true that in the moment all are sure about their opinions. and
that it's only "fresh blood"/new posters who can bring in some new point of
view. all got in their trenches now, so-to-say.--------
regards,
*madwoman*‰
Mike Kelly
<macb...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>So what's the URL for this "Free Agent?"
Mike Kelly
>>
>> You should try the Free Agent newsreader. It's a lot easier to use
>> than Dejanews.
>
>--------when it's better, give us the url!!
>spent 2 days now hunting free mailservices and organising them-
>if you want, i can tell you about these in exchange...--------------
Go to ------>> www.forteinc.com
Keep the free mailservices. I've got one email account and that's all
I'm gonna use. Those Freemail scams just force you to look at a lot of
advertisments and turn you into Spam Bait. Speaking for myself, I tend
to think that people who post from semi anonymous email services
aren't all that credible. Look at Stanley Fielding for example. He's
like a chiauha who barks through a megaphone, hiding behind a couch.
>>
>> >apart from this, there's some people around who are hard to hear respectively
>> >do not want to debate, but spray their believes and if get nailed down with
>> >an argument simply refuse to accept it and put on the old platter again or
>> >side- step to something completely different.
>> >
>>
>> There is no point in arguing with drunks and idiots. Neither of them
>> will appreciate what you have to say.
>
>---------[being drunk myself, i scratch my head]
>that's right at any case.
>only...
>staying silent for decades is not so nice either, isn't it?---------
Not at all. But howling at the moon, or barking up a tree aint gonna
get you anywhere either.
>
>> And once you learn that someone is only going to spout nonsense and
>> side step any challenges to said nonsense, it only makes sense to
>> ignore them anyway.
>
>------------that's why i won't ever adress jacobsen directly- he's too
>disgusting in his lowlife piss-on-the-higher-leg-attitude. all he is able to
>is to twist other peoples' words and get the jitters on some old, doubted
>study that he can wave around. thats one of them against whom the
>"/ig"-function was invented for.-------------
>
I've lost my "program". It's almost impossible to tell where one
poster leaves off and another begins. Everyone is starting to look
alike now. At least when MS was farting around here, it was easy. (Did
I say that?)
>>
>> No it's a greasy spot. I cannot think of any of you, for or against
>> the issue, coming up with anything new that will cause the other party
>> to give up their misguided ways and take on a new point of view.
>>
>
>-------------[man what do you expect? a second buddha rising instantly??]
>that's why i once said that it's not really about debate, but about religious
>believes. it's true that in the moment all are sure about their opinions. and
>that it's only "fresh blood"/new posters who can bring in some new point of
>view. all got in their trenches now, so-to-say.--------
Yeah well thank god I'm an atheist. I've been online since 1991, and
I have yet to ever see anyone ever back off an opinion, nor have I met
anyone who could back me off of mine. Especially when I know I am
right <G>
Wanna know why? Because no matter how many facts you present to
Jacobsen about why women ought to be in the Army, and no matter how
many facts he presents in opposition to your opinion, both of you will
end up rolling around in the USENET mud and eventually, what might
have been a reasonable debate will end up as a mudslinging, name
calling, nothing. Hell, I've even seen lawsuits erupt out of shit like
this.
madw...@my-dejanews.com
michae...@home.com (Mike Kelly) wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:29:16 GMT, madw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>
>>> You should try the Free Agent newsreader. It's a lot easier to use
>>> than Dejanews.
>>
>>--------when it's better, give us the url!!
>>spent 2 days now hunting free mailservices and organising them-
>>if you want, i can tell you about these in exchange...--------------
>
> Go to ------>> www.forteinc.com
>
> Keep the free mailservices. I've got one email account and that's all
>I'm gonna use. Those Freemail scams just force you to look at a lot of
>advertisments and turn you into Spam Bait.
see, i'm an internet-newby (first time i got access to it was last
year in April) and so i'm still in that phase where i do some things just
to try out, to satisfy my curiousity.
e.g. i wanted to find out about what attracts spam, so i put up
several freemail-accounts with different profiles: male, female,
high income, low income, self-employed, clerk, servicemember, big firm,
small firm. it may sound funny but i was a bit disappointed that i got so
LITTLE spam! i expected MUCH MORE!! since i heard all the people
complaining about it.
in about half a year, i had only 2 real nasty spammers who were
really tricky in using other's adresses.
i don't know how this is done technically (hidden java-applet or
what?), but they sent me an e-mail (in a real horrid design), and this
seems to have sent itself farther using my address as sender. sort of
virus-like.
and the content was so crazy: SEWING MACHINES SALES IN FLORIDA.*lol*
when you are familiar with the net since 91, then of course
these are things that make you yawn, cos you've seen them too often.
Speaking for myself, I tend
>to think that people who post from semi anonymous email services
>aren't all that credible.
well okay i may be incredible *ggg*
for some reason people like it better when they read "Marvin Brown -
mbr...@somewhere.com" instead of "hit...@killaz.com" [*duck* okay.
bad taste, i know.] or so, perhaps because they think (theoretical
speculation now) that "a person" will be more responsible than "a
role". for whatever reason. it can't be the greater exposedness,
since folks who know about webmastering and server administration
can easily track even the anonymous accounts, since they must originate
from a server somewhere.
-- don't want to get into this discussion too far, especially since i
don't have long newsgroup-experience and therefore probably lack
fantasy of what real nasty idiots are capable of.---
the reason why *i* use these freemail-accounts to post is that
i want to keep my home-address free of spam, and don't want to expose it
to trolls. i don't want to open my outlook one day and find loads of
e-mails bitching at me because i said something in a newsgroup which
isn't liked by some pressure-group. may be a paranoic idea, but i'm
rather cautious before than sorry afterwards. if a freemail-adress gets
loaded with shit, i can declare it to be a dumpsite and use another.
if this happens to my vital e-mail, i have a problem.
Look at Stanley Fielding for example. He's
>like a chiauha who barks through a megaphone, hiding behind a couch.
>
ouch that's hitting him hard! don't know that type yet, tried
to find out what he wrote cos Velovich lately was mentioning him, but
didn't get too far. seems he (SF) likes to put up fata morganas to
misguide people. well, i hope he's recognized early enough before he
can do damage... btw, chihuahuas are these rat-sized high-pitch yelpers,
or not?
okay, i see you are really talking from years of experience now.
can't comment on these, since i don't know exactly what you're referring
to and don't have much experience.
>>>
>>> No it's a greasy spot. I cannot think of any of you, for or against
>>> the issue, coming up with anything new that will cause the other party
>>> to give up their misguided ways and take on a new point of view.
>>>
>>
>>-------------[man what do you expect? a second buddha rising instantly??]
>>that's why i once said that it's not really about debate, but about religious
>>believes. it's true that in the moment all are sure about their opinions. and
>>that it's only "fresh blood"/new posters who can bring in some new point of
>>view. all got in their trenches now, so-to-say.--------
>
> Yeah well thank god I'm an atheist. I've been online since 1991, and
>I have yet to ever see anyone ever back off an opinion, nor have I met
>anyone who could back me off of mine. Especially when I know I am
>right <G>
>
*lol* the latter 2 sentences are probably something that would
be subscribed by almost everyone!!! (=the only point in which there's
consent).
> Wanna know why? Because no matter how many facts you present to
>Jacobsen about why women ought to be in the Army, and no matter how
>many facts he presents in opposition to your opinion, both of you will
>end up rolling around in the USENET mud and eventually, what might
>have been a reasonable debate will end up as a mudslinging, name
>calling, nothing. Hell, I've even seen lawsuits erupt out of shit like
>this.
>
>
sounds pretty ugly. *dust off dirt*
can't imagine of being sued only for posting in a newsgroup, up to now.
though i heard from someone who was badly had, not for posting, but by
someone who wanted to take revenge on him and personally knew him- but
that's another story...
regards,
*madwoman*
Paul Jacobsen
>
>------------that's why i won't ever adress jacobsen directly- he's too
>disgusting in his lowlife piss-on-the-higher-leg-attitude. all he is able
to
>is to twist other peoples' words and get the jitters on some old, doubted
>study that he can wave around. thats one of them against whom the
>"/ig"-function was invented for.-------------
>
How often have we been told that the military is supposed to be "The Great
Equalizer," where gender has absolutely no bearing? According to those in
Congress and the White House, equal pay is the same as equality.
But is it? Sure, ... everyone with the same rank and time-in-service
receives, more or less, equal pay (disregarding the differences between
single and married Marines -- a topic for a later date), but do they require
the same standards to get to their ranks?
Let's have a show of hands. How many out there actually believe that, given
the allowances for the necessary rank structure and chain of command,
everything is equal in the Marine Corps? Even in principle, not just in
practice, the theory of non-discrimination is flawed. How can we ever even
hope to maintain that gender is not an issue in promotions when one gender
has a different physical standard than another?
There is no doubt that there are physical differences between men and women.
That is an established fact that I cannot deny. However, we need to ask our
women Marines to perform the same tasks as male Marines. WMs need to be able
to lift an M-240G, load and fire it as quickly and as ably as their male
counterparts. After all, a bullet does not discriminate when a position
(even in the rear) is being overrun. If a Marine, male or female, cannot
perform certain basic (and perhaps difficult) physical tasks, the lives of
every other person in his or her position are placed in jeopardy. Is that
something America as a whole and the Marine Corps in particular is willing
to risk just to appease a few (dare I say it) feminists in Washington?
I think that if you were to go around and ask every WM if they wanted
special treatment with regard to their gender, I think you'd find out that
the answer is "No!" Does raising the physical standard of females to the
male level mean that some females wouldn't be able to execute them? Maybe.
But, some male Marines can't either, and corrective action is taken to get
that Marine up-to-par. Why can we not do the same with women?
Is this simply a matter of policy? Not by my observations. If a male Marine
drops out of a run, he is rightly chastised for it and told to shape up. If
a female drops out, why is it one or more Marines drops back to see if she's
okay? This has got to be frustrating for those females who, to the credit of
their own conditioning and determination, stay with the main body and finish
the run without any special consideration.
It is certainly frustrating for a corporal who was passed up for promotion
because his PFT score, even though he is faster and stronger than his female
counterpart, was not as high as the new female sergeant who dropped out of
that run.
We keep hearing from our leadership that there are no female and male
Marines.... there are only Marines. As long as we hold them to two different
standards, in the minds of every Marine, there will always be that split
regardless of what we hear in the news, training classes, and Marine Corps
Orders. It is true that this standard may make things harder for the females
who persue a career in the Marine Corps, but as Marines we are trained to do
the right thing -- not the easy thing. It's past time we all lived by that
maxim.
Semper Fidelis!
madw...@iname.com
> Speaking for myself, I tend
>>to think that people who post from semi anonymous email services
>>aren't all that credible.
i don't post semi-anonymous from semi-anonymous email services.
no. i practised quite a time to get FULLY ANONYMOUS accounts!!!
(but you got my address anyway).
i'm trying the forté newsreader now.
it has it's advantages: sucks up threads quick, so that they can be
read offline, which is a plus since inner city calls are still goddamn
expensive over here. and doesn't collapse if one doesn't cut out from
right to left instead f4rom left to right...which is a real bad thing
with dejanews.
what i'm missing is the special deja-feature "author profile".
i really liked this one, cos by that it's possible to get an opinion
on a person's postings.
and the threads aren't longer as in deja-news. at least today. they
are similar to these i get with outlook express, it seems.
but this thread will die soon anyway.
thx for the download-url
*madwoman*