Lesbians and daycare.
Caesar J. B. Squitti
Throughtout Canada, why are lesbians and radical feminists, (according to
Real Women of Canada) promoting the expenditure of millions of dollars on
taxpayer funded daycare while ignoring giving parents the same money so
that at least one of them look after their own children.
Is ignoring the promotion of family, an indication that these special
interst groups are trying to promote their lesbian lifestyle at the expense
of the general society, and the heterosexual lifestyle ?
Caesar Squitti
--
"The Light....The Rainbow of Truth."
http://www.abeautifuldifference.com/gate.html
caesar j. b. a. squitti © 1998
SPONSORED BY
SQUITTI'S
" A Beautiful Difference" © 1997
Fine Diamonds and Gold Jewelery
http://www.abeautifuldifference.com/index.html
&
The People of Thunder Bay
"Superior by Nature"
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Lesbians and daycare.
>
> Throughtout Canada, why are lesbians and radical feminists, (according to
> Real Women of Canada) promoting the expenditure of millions of dollars on
> taxpayer funded daycare while ignoring giving parents the same money so
> that at least one of them look after their own children.
>
> Is ignoring the promotion of family, an indication that these special
> interst groups are trying to promote their lesbian lifestyle at the expense
> of the general society, and the heterosexual lifestyle ?
YES!
> Caesar Squitti
>
> --
> "The Light....The Rainbow of Truth."
> http://www.abeautifuldifference.com/gate.html
>
> caesar j. b. a. squitti © 1998
>
> SPONSORED BY
> SQUITTI'S
> " A Beautiful Difference" © 1997
> Fine Diamonds and Gold Jewelery
>
> http://www.abeautifuldifference.com/index.html
> &
> The People of Thunder Bay
> "Superior by Nature"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:40:17 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <aku...@alt.net> wrote:
>
> >"Caesar J. B. Squitti" wrote:
> >>
> >> Lesbians and daycare.
> >>
> >> Throughtout Canada, why are lesbians and radical feminists, (according to
> >> Real Women of Canada) promoting the expenditure of millions of dollars on
> >> taxpayer funded daycare while ignoring giving parents the same money so
> >> that at least one of them look after their own children.
> >>
> >> Is ignoring the promotion of family, an indication that these special
> >> interst groups are trying to promote their lesbian lifestyle at the expense
> >> of the general society, and the heterosexual lifestyle ?
> >
> >YES!
>
> the "lesbian lifestyle" ? They have an attention span of
Telling them, repeatedly, that it's "NORMAL".
You don't understand the slightest thing about brainwashing, do you?
> about seven seconds and then poop their pants. Get real.
>
> However, moneywise, this IS a good twist on the school
> voucher concept. It shows ideological consistency if
> nothing else. Home/private schools get no govt money
> and home/private childcare doesn't either. However,
> screwing over hardworking parents on the childcare
> equation will probably piss them off far more than the
> more abstract issue of public schools. How many
> suffering stay-home moms and dads, hip deep in baby
> poop, haven't said to themselves "someone ought to
> PAY me for this" ? After all, they're raising our
> future taxpayers ...
>
> Proper exploitation of the baby blues COULD translate
> into gains for the voucher concept.
>
> -j
Mitchell Holman
}j wrote:
}>
}> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:40:17 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
}> <aku...@alt.net> wrote:
}>
}> >"Caesar J. B. Squitti" wrote:
}> >>
}> >> Lesbians and daycare.
}> >>
}> >> Throughtout Canada, why are lesbians and radical feminists, (according to
}> >> Real Women of Canada) promoting the expenditure of millions of dollars on
}> >> taxpayer funded daycare while ignoring giving parents the same money so
}> >> that at least one of them look after their own children.
}> >>
}> >> Is ignoring the promotion of family, an indication that these special
}> >> interst groups are trying to promote their lesbian lifestyle at the
} expense
}> >> of the general society, and the heterosexual lifestyle ?
}> >
}> >YES!
}>
}> Um ... how much can you indoctrinate a three-year-old in
}> the "lesbian lifestyle" ? They have an attention span of
}
}Telling them, repeatedly, that it's "NORMAL".
}
And who defines what is "normal"?
Aaron R. Kulkis
Not YOU, obviously
Mark Balcom
>
> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 22:32:14 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <aku...@alt.net> wrote:
>
> >Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <38570847...@alt.net>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> wrote:
> >> }j wrote:
> >> }> Um ... how much can you indoctrinate a three-year-old in
> >> }> the "lesbian lifestyle" ? They have an attention span of
> >> }
> >> }Telling them, repeatedly, that it's "NORMAL".
> >>
> >> And who defines what is "normal"?
> >
> >Not YOU, obviously
>
> "usual", but normal - just as left-handed people are
> not "usual", but also normal.
>
> -j
Is that "normal" as "in quadrature with", or "at 90 degrees to"?
:)
Mark
Flykiller
> "usual", but normal - just as left-handed people are
> not "usual", but also normal.
Ooh, a discussion of the word, "normal". I love it.
OK, so nospam(j) says that lesbians are just as normal as left-handed people
(interesting side note: this argument would have to be reversed with the
ancient Romans!). It's line-drawing time. Would you consider, say,
child-molesters to be normal? In defense of their normality, I will cite the
thousands of years of history of child molestation, both accepted and
unaccepted, in our history. I will also cite their repeated claims, even in
the face of modern massive condemnation and hatred and serious death threats,
that they just can't help themselves. One must presume that they indeed can't,
and that their, uh, condition arises not by their choice but by their natural
design. Are they to be considered normal?
what we need right now is a full frontal assault.
j
>> OK ... then *I* will ... lesbians are NORMAL. Not
>> "usual", but normal - just as left-handed people are
>> not "usual", but also normal.
>
>Ooh, a discussion of the word, "normal". I love it.
Well, at least it's better than the word "natural" - which
really means "anything which CAN be".
>OK, so nospam(j) says that lesbians are just as normal as left-handed people
>(interesting side note: this argument would have to be reversed with the
>ancient Romans!). It's line-drawing time. Would you consider, say,
>child-molesters to be normal?
Yes, they are "normal" ... a constant group despite the
year or culture. Your Romans had many - but they were not
considered an especial abberation.
Not all that is "normal" MUST be tolerated. Our question
is whether lesbians, for some special and inescapable
reason, may NOT be tolerated.
I don't see any pressing reason. No aspect of the social
order is destroyed by there being a few percent of lesbians.
The only "harm" is to your vision itself, not to individual
people. I'll protect a person - but an abstraction had better
be pretty damn good before it deserves such protection. The
old "Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness" criteria
can not be construed to exclude lesbians. It CAN be used to
exclude certain classes of child molestors though since they
infringe on both the "liberty" and "happiness" of their targets.
-j
Flykiller
>>OK, so nospam(j) says that lesbians are just as normal as left-handed people
>>(interesting side note: this argument would have to be reversed with the
>>ancient Romans!). It's line-drawing time. Would you consider, say,
>>child-molesters to be normal?
>
> Yes, they are "normal" ... a constant group despite the
> year or culture. Your Romans had many - but they were not
> considered an especial abberation.
>
> Not all that is "normal" MUST be tolerated. Our question
> is whether lesbians, for some special and inescapable
> reason, may NOT be tolerated.
I object to your quotation marks. Are they normal?
>No aspect of the social
> order is destroyed by there being a few percent of lesbians.
Would it be destroyed by a large percentage of lesbians? If so, then how
large?
[snipping some decent stuff]
>It CAN be used to
> exclude certain classes of child molestors though since they
> infringe on both the "liberty" and "happiness" of their targets.
Which classes infringe? Which ones don't? And if the targets express a desire
for the infringement, can you still claim an infringement has taken place,
regardless of its class? And again, I object to your quotation marks here.
Mitchell Holman
}> OK ... then *I* will ... lesbians are NORMAL. Not
}> "usual", but normal - just as left-handed people are
}> not "usual", but also normal.
}
}Ooh, a discussion of the word, "normal". I love it.
}
}(interesting side note: this argument would have to be reversed with the
}ancient Romans!). It's line-drawing time. Would you consider, say,
}thousands of years of history of child molestation, both accepted and
}unaccepted, in our history.
When has child molesting been "accepted" in the US?
Flykiller
>}> "usual", but normal - just as left-handed people are
>}> not "usual", but also normal.
>}
>}Ooh, a discussion of the word, "normal". I love it.
>}
>}OK, so nospam(j) says that lesbians are just as normal as left-handed people
>}(interesting side note: this argument would have to be reversed with the
>}ancient Romans!). It's line-drawing time. Would you consider, say,
>}child-molesters to be normal? In defense of their normality, I will cite
>the
>}thousands of years of history of child molestation, both accepted and
>}unaccepted, in our history.
>
>
> When has child molesting been "accepted" in the US?
Well, history encompasses a bit more than the United States.
j
>[snipping some decent stuff]
>
>>>OK, so nospam(j) says that lesbians are just as normal as left-handed people
>>>(interesting side note: this argument would have to be reversed with the
>>>ancient Romans!). It's line-drawing time. Would you consider, say,
>>>child-molesters to be normal?
>>
>> Yes, they are "normal" ... a constant group despite the
>> year or culture. Your Romans had many - but they were not
>> considered an especial abberation.
>>
>> Not all that is "normal" MUST be tolerated. Our question
>> is whether lesbians, for some special and inescapable
>> reason, may NOT be tolerated.
>
>I object to your quotation marks. Are they normal?
Sorry, the quotes are necessary since "normal" - when
applied to something so broad as the sum-total of a
humans behavior - can never be a precise term. Lesbos
have always been around and they seem to fall within the
commonly observed spectrum of sexual affectations - not
an odd statistical freak or monster. So - lesbians are
"normal" for a much as that term will buy you. Not "usual",
but "normal".
>>No aspect of the social
>> order is destroyed by there being a few percent of lesbians.
>
>Would it be destroyed by a large percentage of lesbians? If so, then how
>large?
What compromises a negative population growth (assuming
that lesbians never get pregnant by any means) ? Assuming
that the hetero women all have the regular 2.5 or 3 kids
we can work this out.
As for the more nebulous "social order" - as opposed to
species survival - there would eventually come a point
where either lots of men would have to go gay, join a
monastary or they would have to compete quite vigorously
for the availible hetero females. "Vigorously" probably
means "violently" for the most part - though, of course,
wealth is also a factor in these sorts of competitions.
Anyway, the result would be a society with a deficit of
mateable females. This is not unprescedented in the
world - indeed, some asian cultures caused this problem
via female infanticide.
In any event, the current "social order" is NOT sacrosanct.
It changes a little bit every day whether you want it to
or not. Sometimes the changes make life crappier, sometimes
they make it better.
>>It CAN be used to
>> exclude certain classes of child molestors though since they
>> infringe on both the "liberty" and "happiness" of their targets.
>
>Which classes infringe? Which ones don't? And if the targets express a desire
>for the infringement, can you still claim an infringement has taken place,
>regardless of its class? And again, I object to your quotation marks here.
Ah ... you want to trap me into defending the un-pc
child molestors. Nope, won't fall for it. My statement
stands as-is without elaboration. Let's just say that
the term "molestor" had little or no meaning in cultures
past and present - just as the term "homosexual" or even
"murderer" has had a different reality level depending on
where and when.
Human society is a subjective construct, after all. That may
sound awfully ultralib, but when they have it right then they
have it right. Many seek the comfort and certainty of
social absolutes, but in the end they are only fooling
themselves - infering order and meaning where none exists.
In a thousand years, human societies will be as vastly
different from todays as todays is - in practice and mindset -
from the feudal and theocratic states so popular a thousand
years ago. In 2999, folks will look back and say "How the
hell could they have BELIEVED in all that crap ???".
Which "crap" will they be talking about ? Short of being
quick-frozen, we shall never know.
-j
Mitchell Holman
}>}> OK ... then *I* will ... lesbians are NORMAL. Not
}>}> "usual", but normal - just as left-handed people are
}>}> not "usual", but also normal.
}>}
}>}Ooh, a discussion of the word, "normal". I love it.
}>}
}>}(interesting side note: this argument would have to be reversed with the
}>}ancient Romans!). It's line-drawing time. Would you consider, say,
}>the
}>}thousands of years of history of child molestation, both accepted and
}>}unaccepted, in our history.
}>
}>
}> When has child molesting been "accepted" in the US?
}
}Well, history encompasses a bit more than the United States.
}
Well, you *did* say "our history".
So whose history were you talking about?
Mitchell Holman
"Oh, you are talking about the 22nd ammendment, asked for
and signed by Harry Truman. That was with a democrat majority
in Congress"
Mark Balcom, 11/23/98, unaware that presidents don't sign
Amendments, and in any case the Congress in question was
controlled by the GOP.
JJWHITEJR
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> In article <19991219224512...@ng-cs1.aol.com>, flyk...@aol.com.ZZZ (Flykiller) wrote:
> }> OK ... then *I* will ... lesbians are NORMAL. Not
> }> "usual", but normal - just as left-handed people are
> }> not "usual", but also normal.
> }
> }Ooh, a discussion of the word, "normal". I love it.
> }
> }OK, so nospam(j) says that lesbians are just as normal as left-handed people
> }(interesting side note: this argument would have to be reversed with the
> }ancient Romans!). It's line-drawing time. Would you consider, say,
> }child-molesters to be normal? In defense of their normality, I will cite the
> }thousands of years of history of child molestation, both accepted and
> }unaccepted, in our history.
>
> When has child molesting been "accepted" in the US?
The San Francisco public library provides a meeting room for NAMBLA.
That's right here in the good old USA.
Flykiller
>>> exclude certain classes of child molestors though since they
>>> infringe on both the "liberty" and "happiness" of their targets.
>>
>>Which classes infringe? Which ones don't? And if the targets express a
>desire
>>for the infringement, can you still claim an infringement has taken place,
>>regardless of its class?
> Ah ... you want to trap me into defending the un-pc
> child molestors. Nope, won't fall for it. My statement
> stands as-is without elaboration.
No trap intended. If there is a trap, your statement, as is, is it. As for
your statement, without elaboration it hints at much, but specifies nothing.
"Certain classes"? "Infringe"? Both "liberty" and "happiness" in quotes?
Before you said that you put "normal" in quotes because the range of human
behavior and experience is so variable. Is this why you put "liberty" and
"happiness" in quotes? This is pretty, but evasive. I would ask you to
specify limits and conditions, some real-world stuff.
>Many seek the comfort and certainty of
> social absolutes, but in the end they are only fooling
> themselves - infering order and meaning where none exists.
True indeed. And others avoid clarity and concreteness, at all costs.
Please elaborate on your previous statement.
Flykiller
>>>Many seek the comfort and certainty of
>>> social absolutes, but in the end they are only fooling
>>> themselves - infering order and meaning where none exists.
>>
>>True indeed. And others avoid clarity and concreteness, at all costs.
>>Please elaborate on your previous statement.
>
> your thinking for you, now would I ?
My thinking? I'm not going to put words in your mouth. It's your thought, I
asked you to complete it.
Well, I guess it's time for this long quote from Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".
"Sun Tzu was a native of Ch'i who by means of his book on the art of war
secured an audience with Ho-Lu, King of Wu.
Ho-Lu said, "I have read your thirteen chapters, Sir, in their entirety. Can
you conduct a minor experiment in control of the movement of troops?"
Sun Tzu replied, "I can."
Ho-Lu asked, "Can you conduct this test using women?"
Sun Tzu said, "Yes."
The king thereupon agreed and sent from the palace one hundred and eighty
beautiful women.
Sun Tzu then divided them into two companies and put the King's two favorite
concubines in command. He instructed them all how to hold the halberds. He
then said, "Do you know where the heart is, and where the right and left hands
and the back are?"
The women said, "We know."
Sun Tzu said, "When I give the order "Front", face in the direction of the
heart; when I say "Left", face toward the left hand; when I say "Right" toward
your right; when I say "Rear", face in the direction of your backs."
The women said, "We understand."
When these regulations had been announced the executioner's weapons were
arranged.
Sun Tzu then gave the orders three times and explained them five times, after
which he beat on the drum the signal "Face Right." The woman all roared with
laughter.
Sun Tzu said, "If regulations are not clear and orders not thoroughly
explained, it is the commander's fault." He then repeated the orders three
times and explained them five times, and gave the drum signal to face to the
left. The women again burst into laughter.
Sun Tzu said, "If instructions are not clear and commands not explicit, it is
the commander's fault. But when they have been made clear, and are not carried
out in accordance with military law, it is a crime on the part of the
officers." Then he ordered that the commanders of the right and left flanks be
beheaded.
The King of Wu, who was reviewing the proceedings from his terrace, saw that
his two beloved concubines were about to be executed. He was terrified, and
hurriedly sent and aide with this message: "I already know that the general is
able to employ troops. Without these two concubines my food will not taste
sweet. It is my desire that they not be executed."
Sun Tzu replied, "Your servant has already received your appointment as
Commander and when the commander is at the head of the army he need not accept
all the sovereign's orders."
Consequently he ordered the two women who had commanded the ranks be executed
as an example. He then used the next two seniors as company commanders.
Thereupon he repeated the signals on the drum, and the women faced left, right,
to the front, to the rear, knelt and rose all in strict accordance with the
prescribed drill. They did not dare make the slightest noise.
Sun Tzu then sent a messenger to the King and informed him: "The troops are
now in good order. The King may descend to review and inspect them. They may
be employed as the King desires, even to the extent of going through fire and
water."
The King of Wu said, "The General may go to his hostel and rest. I do not wish
to come and inspect them."
Sun Tzu said, "The King likes only empty words. He is not capable of putting
them into practice.""
Libertarianism and its associated views will never be anything more than a
sideshow in American politics. It is capable of nothing more than criticism,
and is unable to construct a nation that people can actually live in.
Conservativism builds. Liberalism destroys. Libertarianism catcalls.
Mark Balcom
The democrats approved of BJ Clintoon molesting Monica. She is a child.
:)
j
>>>j wrote :
>> Oh no, Fly ... I wouldn't want to be accused of doing
>> your thinking for you, now would I ?
>My thinking? I'm not going to put words in your mouth. It's your thought, I
>asked you to complete it.
>
>Well, I guess it's time for this long quote from Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".
> .
> .
>Libertarianism and its associated views will never be anything more than a
>sideshow in American politics. It is capable of nothing more than criticism,
>and is unable to construct a nation that people can actually live in.
>Conservativism builds. Liberalism destroys. Libertarianism catcalls.
I've read the "Art Of War" - but I don't think that story
really applies here.
I don't entirely disagree with your comments about Libertarianism
(the big-"L" kind) and what you say can sometimes apply even to
small-"L" libertarianism as well. It's easy to rationalize more
rights for individuals than societies of those individuals can
bear. Of course, it's equally easy to rationalize the deprivation
of more individual rights than a society ought to bear. You should
hear all of the really good "reasons" you should not be allowed
to posess a firearm ...
Perhaps the Libertarians have just cause for issuing those
catcalls. As I see it, "conservatism" builds - and destroys
and liberalism builds - and destroys. Neither philosophy is
particularly oriented towards the idea of liberty-in-general
but instead just a narrow subset. The higher the level of
fanaticism, the narrower the subset becomes.
"L"ibertarianism itself is illiberal - not so much through
any DIRECT ideological requirements but through CONSEQUENCES
of certain ideological positions. A "L"ibertarian nation is
ultimately a nation controlled by big-money corporations ...
whose officers you don't get to vote for and whose edicts
you can't afford to ignore. Not a very libertine scenerio.
"l"ibertarianism - taken to irrational degrees - can result
in a flavor of anarchy. Anarchy is slavery ... it makes you
hostage to the mearest whim of your neighbor ... leaving
no time to persue any interest beyond your immediate
security.
Fanaticism sucks.
But I still don't think that lesbians represent a "threat"
of such magnitude that fanatics or anyone else would be
justified in stamping them out. I mean, if your system
can't stand up to a few lesbians, well, it wasn't much
of a system in the first place, was it ? Some Big Bad
Wolf or another was bound to come along and blow it down.
Be relieved if it was only lesbians who brought down
this house of straw instead of some SERIOUS enemy with
big sharp pointy teeth.
-j
Trevor 486
>The democrats approved of BJ Clintoon molesting Monica
Please post exact quotes showing proof to this end.
>She is a child.
>
She was "of age" as they say.
Perhaps when you are of an age as you are everyone is a child.
robw
*********************************
You don't need pants for the victory dance...
*********************************
Flykiller
>>
>> The San Francisco public library provides a meeting room for NAMBLA.
>>
>> That's right here in the good old USA.
>
>
>The democrats approved of BJ Clintoon molesting Monica. She is a child.
Yeah, but so's Clinton, so I don't think "molestation" is the right word.
me...@my-deja.com
about Sun Tzu. The message has nothing at all to do with "liberalism"
or "conservativism". It has to do with authority.
> Well, I guess it's time for this long quote from Sun Tzu's "The Art
of War".
>
> "Sun Tzu was a native of Ch'i who by means of his book on the art of
war
> secured an audience with Ho-Lu, King of Wu.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Balcom
>
> >> > When has child molesting been "accepted" in the US?
> >>
> >> The San Francisco public library provides a meeting room for NAMBLA.
> >>
> >> That's right here in the good old USA.
> >
> >
> >The democrats approved of BJ Clintoon molesting Monica. She is a child.
>
> Yeah, but so's Clinton, so I don't think "molestation" is the right word.
>
You have a good point.
Did you notice that "trevor" (who is not worthy of an answer) denues the
fact that democrats (him included) approved?
Typical.
:)
Mark
Flykiller
>about Sun Tzu.
Yeah, you're right.
>The message has nothing at all to do with "liberalism"
>or "conservativism".
True.
>It has to do with authority.
Well, that's one point off on your comprehension score. It has to do with
talking vs accomplishing.
Flykiller
>>
>> Yeah, but so's Clinton, so I don't think "molestation" is the right word.
>>
>
>You have a good point.
Yeah, I know. Wish I didn't.
>Did you notice that "trevor" (who is not worthy of an answer) denues the
>fact that democrats (him included) approved?
Really? I seem to remember a great deal of talk about "the Alpha-male", and
about "sexually repressed republicans are just jealous", and about Clinton just
being an attractive guy, a hunk, a winsome boy.
No, I didn't notice Trevor. Trevor is in my killfile, along with a bunch of
others. Let him affirm or deny, it doesn't matter. Like those of Clinton, his
words are dismissed as being driven, not by honesty, but by expediency. When
their words are true, they don't notice. When their words are false, they
don't care. Democrats don't care what they say, as long as it gets them
through any given moment.
Trevor 486
>Did you notice that "trevor" (who is not worthy of an answer) denues the
>fact that democrats (him included) approved?
>
Did you notice that I was only disputing the fact that Monica was NOT a minor
at any time in the sexual relationship with Clinton.
I never said I approved.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> In article <19991220123102...@ng-fl1.aol.com>, flyk...@aol.com.ZZZ (Flykiller) wrote:
> }>}> OK ... then *I* will ... lesbians are NORMAL. Not
> }>}> "usual", but normal - just as left-handed people are
> }>}> not "usual", but also normal.
> }>}
> }>}Ooh, a discussion of the word, "normal". I love it.
> }>}
> }>}OK, so nospam(j) says that lesbians are just as normal as left-handed people
> }>}(interesting side note: this argument would have to be reversed with the
> }>}ancient Romans!). It's line-drawing time. Would you consider, say,
> }>}child-molesters to be normal? In defense of their normality, I will cite
> }>the
> }>}thousands of years of history of child molestation, both accepted and
> }>}unaccepted, in our history.
> }>
> }>
> }
> }
>
> Well, you *did* say "our history".
>
> So whose history were you talking about?
HUMAN HISTORY, ya moron!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of Jimmy Baker's harangues against
adultery while secretly committing adultery with Jessica Hawn.
Linus F. Zimmerman
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >
> > In article <19991220123102...@ng-fl1.aol.com>, flyk...@aol.com.ZZZ (Flykiller) wrote:
> > }>}> OK ... then *I* will ... lesbians are NORMAL. Not
> > }>}> "usual", but normal - just as left-handed people are
> > }>}> not "usual", but also normal.
> > }>}
> > }>}Ooh, a discussion of the word, "normal". I love it.
> > }>}
> > }>}OK, so nospam(j) says that lesbians are just as normal as left-handed people
> > }>}(interesting side note: this argument would have to be reversed with the
> > }>}ancient Romans!). It's line-drawing time. Would you consider, say,
> > }>}child-molesters to be normal? In defense of their normality, I will cite
> > }>the
> > }>}thousands of years of history of child molestation, both accepted and
> > }>}unaccepted, in our history.
> > }>
> > }>
> > }> When has child molesting been "accepted" in the US?
> > }
> > }Well, history encompasses a bit more than the United States.
> > }
> >
> > Well, you *did* say "our history".
> >
> > So whose history were you talking about?
>
> HUMAN HISTORY, ya moron!
>
More proof that he is not part of the human race.
LZ