AMAZING PROOF WOMEN ARE WHORES
Ray Gordon
Idiot lawyer solicits me for a job.
Gives me his REAL name.
His pic.
The name of his firm.
The name of the previous secretary he "wore out" before firing her.
And a TON of other evidence which I could EASILY use to verify his identity.
I thought about all the "Defenders of women" and how SILENT they'd be EVEN IF I
posted all the evidence here.
Never mind that he SOLICITED A PROSTITUTE in addition to discriminating.
This is a very good-looking man. Very successful.
What you folks would call a "winner."
I wonder what God would call him?
Of course, people would STILL say it's MY attitude, even in the face of
evidence like this.
Nothing makes me suicidal more quickly than to see this up front.
I believe suicide should be a fundamental legal right.
Suicide on demand.
My body, my choice.
A lawsuit can make that a reality. If I win, EVERY person gets the right to
end their lives at any time for any reason.
I think of all the neurotic women who would go off the deep end at some point
under that law and how the gene pool would self-cleanse so quickly.
I do have pity for the people who know these truths and ignore them, and what
God will do to them for trying to blame me and for ignoring what happens to
"women" while pretending to be their defenders.
DISCLAIMER: I left USENET but have returned as "one-way Ray." I post but
refuse to respond to people who can't handle truth about women and who feel
compelled to lie about me.
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html (Seduction Library)
Sharon Roeben
Ray Gordon <iteachh...@aol.come4menow> wrote in message
news:20010219190452...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
Courageous
>Nothing makes me suicidal more quickly than to see this up front.
The internet is very unhealthy for you, Ray.
C//
Ray Gordon
>
>life? Must be some sicko fetish of yours.
Would I HAVE to do this if asswipes like you didn't call the truth of my claims
into question? Isn't it amazing that this guy is a "friend" of the person who
felt the need to tell the world about ME? I never did this to anyone......this
man is a TRUE predator. What happened to your activism?
See the hypocrisy, folks?
>>Idiot lawyer solicits me for a job.
>>
>>Gives me his REAL name.
>>
>>His pic.
>>
>>The name of his firm.
>>
>>The name of the previous secretary he "wore out" before firing her.
>
>Yup..this guy's a totalized mor-roooonnn...
So confront him.
>>And a TON of other evidence which I could EASILY use to verify his identity.
>
>2000 lbs?...really? You mush have a very fast modem.
Yep.
>>I thought about all the "Defenders of women" and how SILENT they'd be EVEN
>IF I
>>posted all the evidence here.
>
>or bored to tears....
Oh screw the rest. I'll save it for when I sue Krusty.
Three-year timelimit....
Ray Gordon
>
>The internet is very unhealthy for you, Ray.
>
>C//
It's not the internet, it's discrimination. Why do you blame the INTERNET for
that?
That made me suicidal long before online, so you're offbase.
Your momma.
Ray Gordon
Investigators do that all the time to uncover discrimination.
It's perfectly ethical.
Notice how the CUNT here finds time to attack me and nothing for a man who
would do something like this.
rifter
existant) of the communications with the lawyer. Otherwise, I don't
really believe anyone in here will take you seriously. Or was that in
one of the fantasy-fetish chat rooms/newsgroups you seem to go to
frequently? Or are you just lying to get attention for yourself?
The title of this article and the actual content have nothing to do with
each other, either. The fact that the man abused his priviledge as an
employer is no proof that women are "whores." To me, that just says
you're trying to pick fights (seemingly typical behavior for you) and
that you have no life other than to incense others so you can tell them
you'll sue them for lying about you eventhough they're excersizing their
rights to free speech by posting what they see and their own opinions in
addition to responding to your attacks on them.
Again, post your evidence (other than usenet posts) and people may be
less likely to question your statements.
Ray Gordon
>existant) of the communications with the lawyer.
If I do that I have to name a real-life attorney. I'd do that on the condition
that you allow me to let him know that were it not for YOU, his dirty little
secret never would have been made public. I also would want your real name and
address so the attorney would know that as well. Up for that?
>Otherwise, I don't
>really believe anyone in here will take you seriously.
Oh, they do. I love the way people go into super-denial mode when this
happens. Never mind that when women talk about being sexually harassed (the
other side of this coin), they get almost universal sympathy. I love the
hypocrisy.
>Or was that in
>one of the fantasy-fetish chat rooms/newsgroups you seem to go to
>frequently?
Like I said, I got sufficient information to prove that the job offer was
legitimate. I can do this many times over. It's very easy. The results are
very reproducible in fact.
>Or are you just lying to get attention for yourself?
Are you just calling me a liar because you can't stand the truth?
>The title of this article and the actual content have nothing to do with
>each other, either. The fact that the man abused his priviledge as an
>employer is no proof that women are "whores."
Women who accept treatment like this for a paycheck ARE whores. The other
women who don't fight it are whore-enablers. Better?
>To me, that just says
>you're trying to pick fights (seemingly typical behavior for you) and
>that you have no life other than to incense others so you can tell them
>you'll sue them for lying about you
I already filed a lawsuit, and I don't answer to "others" who choose to break
laws. Are you projecting again? In need of a life?
>eventhough they're excersizing their
>rights to free speech by posting what they see and their own opinions in
>addition to responding to your attacks on them.
Lying about me is not protected speech.
>Again, post your evidence (other than usenet posts) and people may be
>less likely to question your statements.
Are you saying that women don't get sexually harassed in large numbers? To
call me a liar you HAVE to take that position.
Ray Gordon, Net LEGEND
http://www.cybersheet.com/sportpix.html (Caveman News)
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html (Seduction Library [how-to seduce])
http://www.cybersheet.com/hypno/index.html (Hypnosis Composition Theory)
James King
<iteachh...@aol.come4menow> wrote:
> >Post the logs (not that I believe even they would be real, if even
> >existant) of the communications with the lawyer.
>
> If I do that I have to name a real-life attorney. I'd do that on the
> condition
> that you allow me to let him know that were it not for YOU, his dirty little
> secret never would have been made public. I also would want your real name
> and address so the attorney would know that as well. Up for that?
So you really were never intending on posting his name. This is typical
behavior for you ... threatening to do something and then not following
through on it.
Or trying to change the "rules" in mid-stream: "Do you want me to post
his name? I have it you know!! --- Ok post it --- Well, you gotta give
me your name so I can tell him who forced me to do it."
>
> >Otherwise, I don't
> >really believe anyone in here will take you seriously.
>
> Oh, they do. I love the way people go into super-denial mode when this
> happens. Never mind that when women talk about being sexually harassed (the
> other side of this coin), they get almost universal sympathy. I love the
> hypocrisy.
No, they don't. You should have accepted his job offer, and then showed
up for work. Think, Gordon, that might have put him in a position where
you could have blackmailed him into letting you work for him, rather
than trying to posture how great you imagine yourself to be to this
group. Or perhaps that's exactly what you did, and now you're following
through on your blackmail. I don't know ... those are just
possibilities.
> >Or was that in
> >one of the fantasy-fetish chat rooms/newsgroups you seem to go to
> >frequently?
>
> Like I said, I got sufficient information to prove that the job offer was
> legitimate. I can do this many times over. It's very easy. The results are
> very reproducible in fact.
Then take one of those job offers.
> >Or are you just lying to get attention for yourself?
>
> Are you just calling me a liar because you can't stand the truth?
No, we're calling you a liar because you have proven yourself to be a
liar in the past, and we have no reason to believe you now.
[snip]
> Lying about me is not protected speech.
But it's perfectly within your free speech rights to lie about others?
> >Again, post your evidence (other than usenet posts) and people may be
> >less likely to question your statements.
>
> Are you saying that women don't get sexually harassed in large numbers? To
> call me a liar you HAVE to take that position.
No, I think you're lying because your posting history gives me no
reason to believe that you're telling the truth.
James King
--
Enjoy a classic 30-minute drama absolutely free! http://www.shadowradio.org
Shawn T Pickrell
: You lie and you think that is ethical?
be very careful to avoid defending the lawyer in your attacks
on ray.
ray paints us in a pretty corner. attack him, and defend the
lawyer whose behaviour is difficult to defend.
: Ray Gordon <iteachh...@aol.come4menow> wrote in message
:>
:>
--
Shawn Pickrell
Shawn T Pickrell
: He's a idiot and you still are boring and stupid..next ?
hey i think we have a winner.
:>I believe suicide should be a fundamental legal right.
: In a some cases.. But it is people like you that stop
: such a thing happening. Nuts, like you.
paging dr kevorkian ...
--
Shawn Pickrell
rifter
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> >Post the logs (not that I believe even they would be real, if even
> >existant) of the communications with the lawyer.
>
> If I do that I have to name a real-life attorney. I'd do that on the condition
> that you allow me to let him know that were it not for YOU, his dirty little
> secret never would have been made public. I also would want your real name and
> address so the attorney would know that as well. Up for that?
>
Up for what? Letting you get my real name so you can tell some lawyer
that I held a virtual gun to your head to force you to prove your
statements? I'm not that stupid.
> >Otherwise, I don't
> >really believe anyone in here will take you seriously.
>
> Oh, they do.
Name a few people in here who take your words seriously without you
laying proof out.
>
> >Or was that in
> >one of the fantasy-fetish chat rooms/newsgroups you seem to go to
> >frequently?
>
> Like I said, I got sufficient information to prove that the job offer was
> legitimate. I can do this many times over. It's very easy. The results are
> very reproducible in fact.
The legitimacy of the job is not being called into question. The whole
scenario is being called into question. You lied to the lawyer about
being female. What makes you think the lawyer would have actually
followed through on the offer for the job?
>
> >Or are you just lying to get attention for yourself?
>
> Are you just calling me a liar because you can't stand the truth?
What truth? I see no evidence to back up your so-called truths. I have
never, to my knowledge, seen you offer real evidence other than your
say-so as to whether something you say is true. I have never seen you
post real facts, other than pure hearsay.
>
> >The title of this article and the actual content have nothing to do with
> >each other, either. The fact that the man abused his priviledge as an
> >employer is no proof that women are "whores."
>
> Women who accept treatment like this for a paycheck ARE whores. The other
> women who don't fight it are whore-enablers. Better?
No, not better. It's like telling a rape victim that it's all her
fault. If she'd done this or that different, she wouldn't have been put
into that position.
>
> >To me, that just says
> >you're trying to pick fights (seemingly typical behavior for you) and
> >that you have no life other than to incense others so you can tell them
> >you'll sue them for lying about you
>
> I already filed a lawsuit, and I don't answer to "others" who choose to break
> laws. Are you projecting again? In need of a life?
Projecting again? On whom and what am I projecting? I have a life,
thank you.
>
> >eventhough they're excersizing their
> >rights to free speech by posting what they see and their own opinions in
> >addition to responding to your attacks on them.
>
> Lying about me is not protected speech.
But you lying about others is?
>
> >Again, post your evidence (other than usenet posts) and people may be
> >less likely to question your statements.
>
> Are you saying that women don't get sexually harassed in large numbers? To
> call me a liar you HAVE to take that position.
Again, sexual harassment is not necessarily the fault of the woman. As
I said earlier, it's not the rape victim's fault. To me, sexual
harassment is pretty close to rape. The women are put into a position
that makes them feel helpless. Human nature dictates that an average
person when cornered is unable to fight back. Fear prevents movement
against the attacker, and outside help can be thwarted by this fear that
it will happen to them as well.
Basically, if a woman feels unable to leave (as society's brainwashing
enforces by telling women that men ruling over women is natural) then
she won't until there is no other choice. It's not the fault of the
women, but rather of society and male dominance.
Courageous
>>Post the logs (not that I believe even they would be real, if even
>>existant) of the communications with the lawyer.
>
>If I do that I have to name a real-life attorney. I'd do that on the condition
>that you allow me to let him know that were it not for YOU, his dirty little
>secret never would have been made public.
I'll tell you what. I'll go to bat here. Go ahead and do it. "Joe Kraska"
(that's me) says so.
C//
Ray Gordon
>
>be very careful to avoid defending the lawyer in your attacks
>on ray.
Oh, but they DO defend the lawyer, or they give a token attack. These are the
same people who make it their mission in life to attack me to the world over
INSULTS. This is what I mean by whores and whore-enablers.....
>ray paints us in a pretty corner. attack him, and defend the
>lawyer whose behaviour is difficult to defend.
Why should I be attacked for exposing someone who is such a terrible victimizer
of women?
Of course, the female victims have a lot of cash, now don't they?
Ray Gordon
>> >existant) of the communications with the lawyer.
>>
>> If I do that I have to name a real-life attorney. I'd do that on the
>> condition
>> that you allow me to let him know that were it not for YOU, his dirty
>little
>> secret never would have been made public. I also would want your real name
>> and address so the attorney would know that as well. Up for that?
>
>
>So you really were never intending on posting his name. This is typical
>behavior for you ... threatening to do something and then not following
>through on it.
Not at all. I could post the logs without identifying information, but then
people can say they were fabricated.
>Or trying to change the "rules" in mid-stream: "Do you want me to post
>his name? I have it you know!! --- Ok post it --- Well, you gotta give
>me your name so I can tell him who forced me to do it."
Just wondering if he'd want the same burden he's expecting me to carry. Please
also remember that the intent here for me is to just shut up those who insist
on claiming that the discrimination I cite somehow doesn't exist.
>> >Otherwise, I don't
>> >really believe anyone in here will take you seriously.
>>
>> Oh, they do. I love the way people go into super-denial mode when this
>> happens. Never mind that when women talk about being sexually harassed
>(the
>> other side of this coin), they get almost universal sympathy. I love the
>> hypocrisy.
>
>No, they don't. You should have accepted his job offer, and then showed
>up for work. Think, Gordon, that might have put him in a position where
>you could have blackmailed him into letting you work for him, rather
>than trying to posture how great you imagine yourself to be to this
>group.
I wouldn't want to work for a guy like that, and it's not blackmail to expect
equal opportunity, or to sue when you don't get it, which I can do in this case
if I wanted to. What I want to do is point out that the discrimination is very
real, very illegal, and reveals a side of the office whore (literally in this
case) that people refuse to acknowledge.
>Or perhaps that's exactly what you did, and now you're following
>through on your blackmail. I don't know ... those are just
>possibilities.
Your ability to grasp at straws is astounding.
>> >Or was that in
>> >one of the fantasy-fetish chat rooms/newsgroups you seem to go to
>> >frequently?
>>
>> Like I said, I got sufficient information to prove that the job offer was
>> legitimate. I can do this many times over. It's very easy. The results
>are
>> very reproducible in fact.
>
>Then take one of those job offers.
The offers were not for me but for the female personae I had created. Your
flippant, dismissive attitude is pathetic. Seems you're almost ANGRY that I
can prove something like this.
>> >Or are you just lying to get attention for yourself?
>>
>> Are you just calling me a liar because you can't stand the truth?
>
>No, we're calling you a liar because you have proven yourself to be a
>liar in the past, and we have no reason to believe you now.
Said the man who has lied about me, and no, I'm not a liar. Someone calling me
one and offering fake proof (such as with the woman on my website) doesn't make
me one.
>[snip]
>
>> Lying about me is not protected speech.
>
>But it's perfectly within your free speech rights to lie about others?
Examples? I was called a child molester. You think that's not actionable?
I've been accused of stealing people's credit-card numbers. That's not
actionable? Give me a fucking break.
>> >Again, post your evidence (other than usenet posts) and people may be
>> >less likely to question your statements.
>>
>> Are you saying that women don't get sexually harassed in large numbers? To
>> call me a liar you HAVE to take that position.
>
>No, I think you're lying because your posting history gives me no
>reason to believe that you're telling the truth.
Vague.......and again, you are dismissing that this happens to women, because
all I've done is point out how the scenario that the WOMEN present plays out.
I see I've struck a nerve in men who claim to "respect" women.....amazing the
tolerance people have for this.
Ray Gordon
>> >existant) of the communications with the lawyer.
>>
>> If I do that I have to name a real-life attorney. I'd do that on the
>condition
>> that you allow me to let him know that were it not for YOU, his dirty
>little
>> secret never would have been made public. I also would want your real name
>and
>> address so the attorney would know that as well. Up for that?
>>
>Up for what? Letting you get my real name so you can tell some lawyer
>that I held a virtual gun to your head to force you to prove your
>statements? I'm not that stupid.
Or that courageous.....
>> >Otherwise, I don't
>> >really believe anyone in here will take you seriously.
>>
>> Oh, they do.
>
>Name a few people in here who take your words seriously without you
>laying proof out.
They exist. Some have even posted here! Hell, WOMEN are the ones who claim
this exists. Are you calling THEM liars? I'm just showing another outcome of
this behavior, the part women don't like talking about.
>> >Or was that in
>> >one of the fantasy-fetish chat rooms/newsgroups you seem to go to
>> >frequently?
>>
>> Like I said, I got sufficient information to prove that the job offer was
>> legitimate. I can do this many times over. It's very easy. The results
>are
>> very reproducible in fact.
>
>The legitimacy of the job is not being called into question. The whole
>scenario is being called into question. You lied to the lawyer about
>being female.
Perfectly legitimate, as the Supreme Court has ruled MANY times. HUD sends
testers into banks, and detectives and journalists have used these techniques
as well as law enforcement. The key ruling is a 1992 case where a company
cannot use information it obtains after the incident to defend itself. This is
to prevent "witch hunts."
>What makes you think the lawyer would have actually
>followed through on the offer for the job?
The job was listed in a public internet job listing and was offered in exchange
for sex. Legally, it's irrelevant if he would have followed through or not.
Do you realize you're practically defending a sexual harasser here?
>> >Or are you just lying to get attention for yourself?
>>
>> Are you just calling me a liar because you can't stand the truth?
>
>What truth? I see no evidence to back up your so-called truths.
Oh? Are you calling WOMEN liars? They are the ones who claim that this type
of harassment exists. I'm just showing another consequence of it.
>I have
>never, to my knowledge, seen you offer real evidence other than your
>say-so as to whether something you say is true. I have never seen you
>post real facts, other than pure hearsay.
Again, women have said this exists. Are they lying? Do you really think a
woman sexually harassed on the job didn't get favorable treatment in the
interview?
>> >The title of this article and the actual content have nothing to do with
>> >each other, either. The fact that the man abused his priviledge as an
>> >employer is no proof that women are "whores."
>>
>> Women who accept treatment like this for a paycheck ARE whores. The other
>> women who don't fight it are whore-enablers. Better?
>
>No, not better. It's like telling a rape victim that it's all her
>fault.
You mean the way people tell me that my being discriminated against illegally
is MY fault? How cute.....the woman IS at fault if she doesn't speak up, and
if she profits from it, as are the witnesses. Women say they want this stuff
stopped, but they don't want the discrimination stopped. They want "look but
don't touch" which gives them the jobs without the harassment. That's like
trying to separate rice from beans after they have been chewed.
>If she'd done this or that different, she wouldn't have been put
>into that position.
Not at all. Women take jobs all the time that are offered to them because of
how they look.
>> >To me, that just says
>> >you're trying to pick fights (seemingly typical behavior for you) and
>> >that you have no life other than to incense others so you can tell them
>> >you'll sue them for lying about you
>>
>> I already filed a lawsuit, and I don't answer to "others" who choose to
>break
>> laws. Are you projecting again? In need of a life?
>
>Projecting again? On whom and what am I projecting? I have a life,
>thank you.
Of course you do! Proof? LOL. Do you have the quirky, one-dimensional
neighbor like the people with "lives" on TV have too!?
>> >eventhough they're excersizing their
>> >rights to free speech by posting what they see and their own opinions in
>> >addition to responding to your attacks on them.
>>
>> Lying about me is not protected speech.
>
>But you lying about others is?
Specifics? Where have I lied?
>> >Again, post your evidence (other than usenet posts) and people may be
>> >less likely to question your statements.
>>
>> Are you saying that women don't get sexually harassed in large numbers? To
>> call me a liar you HAVE to take that position.
>
>Again, sexual harassment is not necessarily the fault of the woman.
Didn't say it was, but it IS the fault of the woman to take a job based on it
and it's hypocritical for her to fight one injustice (harassment) but not
another (the hiring discrimination which plants the seeds).
>As
>I said earlier, it's not the rape victim's fault.
I never said it was.
>To me, sexual
>harassment is pretty close to rape.
And hiring discrimination for sexual reasons is very close to hiring a
prostitute.
>The women are put into a position
>that makes them feel helpless.
Helpless? They could be ethical and not take the money in the first place, and
since their taking this money costs ME money, someone IS harmed by their
silence and by what plants the seeds of their harassment. Not only me, but
older women and other women passed over for the jobs as well.
>Human nature dictates that an average
>person when cornered is unable to fight back. Fear prevents movement
>against the attacker, and outside help can be thwarted by this fear that
>it will happen to them as well.
It's not fear, but GREED....they want the money so badly that they're willing
to remain silent about this behavior.
>Basically, if a woman feels unable to leave (as society's brainwashing
>enforces by telling women that men ruling over women is natural)
How can you claim this and NOT claim discrimination against a male secretary?
You are so contradictory here it's not funny.
>then
>she won't until there is no other choice. It's not the fault of the
>women, but rather of society and male dominance.
This is a very pathetic argument, to say the least, and it's impossible to
argue what you are arguing and then trying to claim that I wouldn't be
discriminated against in a profession which is by nature subservient.
You're trying to walk a fine line between showing sympathy for the whores while
still trying to say that I am lying. Never mind that if *I* am lying, all the
older and overweight and ugly women have to be lying too. Would you question
THEM if they had made the same claims I did? I seriously doubt it.
What you show to me here is that you are pretty damned whipped in your speech
about women.
Sharon Roeben
lawyer. I was making a small point of the lie told to uncover the lawyer's
unethical behavior. Seems strange to me that a grown man has nothing better
to do with his time than deceive men on-line into believing he is a woman to
prove a point. Cheers!
Shawn T Pickrell <spic...@mason2.gmu.edu> wrote in message
news:96ucie$9...@portal.gmu.edu...
Jason McClain
news:20010219190452...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
<Snippage>
> I go online as a female secretary looking for work again.
<More Snippage>
Do you wear woman's undergarments while you do this?
You know, to "get into character".
Hugs and Kisses
Ray Gordon
>lawyer. I was making a small point of the lie told to uncover the lawyer's
>unethical behavior. Seems strange to me that a grown man has nothing better
>to do with his time than deceive men on-line into believing he is a woman to
>prove a point. Cheers!
Deception is a common investigative technique in civil rights. If the
government can do it, if private investigators can do it, so can I. The
Supreme Court sides with me on the issue.
Also, were the job in question in my area, I would have filed an EEOC complaint
in a heartbeat. It's a very effective means of getting justice for me.
The whole thing took an hour. That's not much of a waste of time.
Ray Gordon
><More Snippage>
>
> Do you wear woman's undergarments while you do this?
> You know, to "get into character".
>
> Hugs and Kisses
Very typical flippant, cocky attitude that demonstrates what type of a man we
have here.
Oh wait, his wife was a legal secretary.....
I forgot.
Courageous
>The whole thing took an hour. That's not much of a waste of time.
Considering that you've admitted this thing makes you suicidal,
it seems like about the worst possible investment of time that I
can imagine.
C//
Ray Gordon
Not at all. It's there whether I uncover it or not. In fact, it's good to
uncover because it shows the world that I'm right, and that I'm justified in
feeling suicidal, and even in taking my life. In fact, in giving the finger to
God over this man, I said to God: "You just lost every right you have to ask me
not to take my own life. Your universe is fundamentally flawed."
If men like that are more important to this world than men like me, let the
world have him, let the women have him, and let the world live without me.
Honest. You think I want to live on a polluted planet?
You don't seem to understand the difference between disgust and depression.
People who want me to continue to tolerate this pathetic universe need to
realize I have minimum standards for existence which if not met, will lead to
my exit. I have that right, it's between me and God, and you all should BUTT
OUT.
As I like to say, I don't hate you, I hate God for creating you.
rifter
against individual sentences. You have turned what I have said into an
arguement for you by breaking up what I said and bringing irrelevant
information into the mix...
> >Name a few people in here who take your words seriously without you
> >laying proof out.
>
> They exist. Some have even posted here! Hell, WOMEN are the ones who claim
> this exists. Are you calling THEM liars? I'm just showing another outcome of
> this behavior, the part women don't like talking about.
I asked you to name them! Not say that they exist! I'm not saying that
the harassment does not exist. I'm saying that you post no proof that
the lawyer even offered a job other than your testimony.
> Perfectly legitimate, as the Supreme Court has ruled MANY times. HUD sends
> testers into banks, and detectives and journalists have used these techniques
> as well as law enforcement. The key ruling is a 1992 case where a company
> cannot use information it obtains after the incident to defend itself. This is
> to prevent "witch hunts."
And these techniques include written proof that there was
discrimination!
> >What makes you think the lawyer would have actually
> >followed through on the offer for the job?
>
> The job was listed in a public internet job listing and was offered in exchange
> for sex. Legally, it's irrelevant if he would have followed through or not.
> Do you realize you're practically defending a sexual harasser here?
I'm not defending him. I'm just saying that you offer no evidence to
back up your claims. If the lawyer really did this, then if you are
subpeona'd by him, you'll have your evidence against him.
>
> >> >Or are you just lying to get attention for yourself?
> >>
> >> Are you just calling me a liar because you can't stand the truth?
> >
> >What truth? I see no evidence to back up your so-called truths.
>
> Oh? Are you calling WOMEN liars? They are the ones who claim that this type
> of harassment exists. I'm just showing another consequence of it.
I'm not talking about harassment. I'm talking about that fact that you
post your ideas, but not proof other than your word or hearsay. You
call women whores and whore-enablers, yet the "proof" you put out is
pretty much hearsay and posts from other groups, including fetish
groups.
> Of course you do! Proof? LOL. Do you have the quirky, one-dimensional
> neighbor like the people with "lives" on TV have too!?
No, my neighbors don't bother me and I don't bother them. What proof do
you need that I have a life?
Courageous
>... and that I'm justified in feeling suicidal, and even in taking my life.
It would appear to me that you are looking for opportunities to
justify your suicide.
> I have that right, it's between me and God, and you all should BUTT OUT.
This claim that you don't want any of our involvement is a crock.
For example, take the way that you posted a dozen or more
profanity-laden confrontational messages to usenet the first
day of your return. Plainly, you want conflict.
This cycle of generating conflict and then validating your negative
world view is coming perilously close to killing you.
C//
Dexter
DZappy
"Ray Gordon" <iteachh...@aol.come4menow> wrote in message
news:20010219190452...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
terra incognita
hurly-burly of existence and expect a certain outcome. it is that
expectation that is laughable.
the universe ignores our expectations and sends instead spring flowers.
x
Courageous
>the universe ignores our expectations and sends instead spring flowers.
All too often we are the fertilizer. :)
C//
terra incognita
<Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> So it'll be a sad year when we expect spring flowers?
>
> Pete Turk
it is always fun to expect nothing and be eternally surprised by
everything.
:)
x