We are living in good times, by historic standard
Bodhisattvacat
people by saying that at the time of Jesus's coming the world was, like
now, going through bad times.
I do not find that we live in bad times, and certainly not worse than
in most of recorded history. I find two things wrong with current
America: George Bush and the feminazis. Both of these are fixable
problems, and neither necessitate religion to solve.
The reasoning to get rid of Bush is: You can't be a true Bible believer
and an American patriot at the same time. The New Testament says that
all power comes from God, and that slaves should obey their masters;
America was formed through principled, rationally thought-out rebellion
against an empire that believed that and used that damnable belief to
tyrannize and oppress its subjects. If we were to believe Paul in his
statements, then we have to conclude that the founders of America
rebelled against God, and therefore their work - the nation we now
live in, the nation that possesses liberty and prosperity and that for
two centuries has inspired the world - is against God and should
return to being an English colony. To claim that America was founded
on Christian principles, is to fail to read the Bible and to fail to
read America's founding documents. America was founded on ideas of
European "Age of reason"; ideas that recognized the liberty and dignity
of human beings and defended them against religious jerks like Luther
who believed people to be "maggots and filth" and used this belief to
subject people to suffering and slavery.
The reasoning to get rid of feminazis is: They fail to strive to be
their best, and they attack the women who do strive to be their best.
Most women are better than them, and they deserve better spokespeople -
ones who have wisdom, compassion, perspective, grace, excellence,
courage, kindness, decency and goodness of heart; who represent the
best, not the worst, in women, and thus provide women with
representation that they deserve and that earns them love and respect
necessary for true empowerment, rather than hate and resentment against
women that men take out on their unfortunate wives. Women deserve
leaders who see in feminine qualities wonderful things that aren't
there in masculine qualities, and help women be the best thing they
can be, embracing the legitimate parts of women's rights agenda: equal
pay in the workplace and protection from physical abuse. Who, whether
they think they are better than others or not, are in fact better than
feminazis because, unlike feminazis, they strive to be their best -
and make the world around them the brightest, most beautiful, most
rich possible.
Removal of Bush, with his bankrupting of America to the tune of $500
billion a year when America should be saving for retirement of baby
boomers, and end of feminazism, with its destruction of American
womanhood and robbery of American men of the best parts of being alive,
can be accomplished through reason and intellect. It does not require
intervention of Angel Moroni or Jesus Christ to achieve.
What the evangelists say is wrong with the world - that people are
free to chart the course of their lives, rather than be possessed by
one or another orthodoxy - that people can use their minds, make
interracial and intergenerational couplings, fight sexual abuse and
conspiracy of silence in societies that hide these sins behind a
brutally maintained front of family values, report truthfully on both
overt and hidden crime and help the victims of culturally endemic,
well-defended injustice, create an incentive for men and women to
treat their partners right through the threat of divorce, cultivate and
shape themselves according to best ideas borrowed from the whole world
and not just ones that evolved in boring, oppressive, violent, abusive,
degrading cultures that claim to be godly and traditional - is in fact
what's right with the world. And the world is a better place as a
result of these changes, for they bring to the world we live in
intelligence, compassion, honesty, transparency, wisdom, meaningful
liberty, good thought, good taste and goodwill.
Emperor Norton Gojira IV/I
>The evangelists, whether Christian or Mormon, approach disaffected
>people by saying that at the time of Jesus's coming the world was, like
>now, going through bad times.
'Why is it that Elvis is dead but I'm in hell?'
ash
['Break out the AC/DC.']
--
"We shoulda drank th' cognac an' walked to git gas."
_________________________________________________________________
Give me Liberty or give me a nice house in France from whence I
can hunt some Liberty down. Or you can eat lead. Get off my wave.
Two|Riven against a Black Sun|six|...that which we are we are|One
catbrier
> their best, and they attack the women who do strive to be their best.
> Most women are better than them, and they deserve better spokespeople -
> ones who have wisdom, compassion, perspective, grace, excellence,
> courage, kindness, decency and goodness of heart; who represent the
> best, not the worst, in women, and thus provide women with
> representation that they deserve and that earns them love and respect
> necessary for true empowerment, rather than hate and resentment against
> women that men take out on their unfortunate wives. Women deserve
> leaders who see in feminine qualities wonderful things that aren't
> there in masculine qualities, and help women be the best thing they
> can be, embracing the legitimate parts of women's rights agenda: equal
> pay in the workplace and protection from physical abuse. Who, whether
> they think they are better than others or not, are in fact better than
> feminazis because, unlike feminazis, they strive to be their best -
> and make the world around them the brightest, most beautiful, most
> rich possible.
It probably hasn't occurred to you, Ilya, that if it were not for the
work of older feminists, I'd be an unhappy Swedish farmwife in
Minnesota, farting out my 4th or 5th little blond monster. Would I
have become "the best that I could be" without their untiring efforts
to end the paternalistic lock that used to exist in the professions? I
think not. Which is often your problem - you post without thinking
clearly, in the absence of sound historical perspective, and
reflexively.
I should like to think that I am my own best "spokeswoman!"
Cat
Bodhisattvacat
>
> It probably hasn't occurred to you, Ilya, that if it were not for the
> work of older feminists, I'd be an unhappy Swedish farmwife in
> Minnesota, farting out my 4th or 5th little blond monster.
Older feminists I like and agree with. It's the younger ones who are
destructive.
Would I
> have become "the best that I could be" without their untiring efforts
> to end the paternalistic lock that used to exist in the professions? I
> think not. Which is often your problem - you post without thinking
> clearly, in the absence of sound historical perspective, and
> reflexively.
Feminism is like unions: it did good and now it has outlasted its
usefulness. Most of 1990s feminists were completely destructive. You
should know.
> I should like to think that I am my own best "spokeswoman!"
And you deserve to be one, too. Unlike hateful harpies who claim to
speak for women even as they attack the beautiful women who want to be
their best.
David
[...]
> Feminism is like unions: it did good and now it has
> outlasted its usefulness.
Wrong on both counts. Go kiss some more flowers.
D.
--
"I don't think that I can take it, cuz it took so long to bake it."
...................................................................
(C) 2004 TheDavid^TM | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
catbrier
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.0408...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > It probably hasn't occurred to you, Ilya, that if it were not for the
> > work of older feminists, I'd be an unhappy Swedish farmwife in
> > Minnesota, farting out my 4th or 5th little blond monster.
>
> Older feminists I like and agree with. It's the younger ones who are
> destructive.
And exactly what are they destroying? (Please don't use abstractions!)
WHAT, specifically, are they destructive of?
> Would I
> > have become "the best that I could be" without their untiring efforts
> > to end the paternalistic lock that used to exist in the professions? I
> > think not. Which is often your problem - you post without thinking
> > clearly, in the absence of sound historical perspective, and
> > reflexively.
>
> Feminism is like unions: it did good and now it has outlasted its
> usefulness. Most of 1990s feminists were completely destructive. You
> should know.
Actually, unions have not "outlived their usefulness". Consider the
situation most American workers are in since the Reagan program of
"union busing", loss of pay, loss of benefits, etc., and they are
still needed.
The "screamers" haven't destroyed me or anyone else. They just make
asses of themselves by their constant screaming. The "Religious Right"
is far more dangerous and destructive Ilya.
How many doctors have been murdered by "feminists?" How many bombs
have these feminists set off?
> > I should like to think that I am my own best "spokeswoman!"
>
> And you deserve to be one, too. Unlike hateful harpies who claim to
> speak for women even as they attack the beautiful women who want to be
> their best.
I think you are biting a straw dog. One can always find a few
lunatics, like Mackinnon to hate or ridicule. But does she do as much
REAL damage as Karl Rove or Dick Cheney? Is she any more psychotic
than Pat Robertson or Gerry Falwell? And what about your friend Rush
Limbaugh, whose phrase you've adopted? The man lies everytime he opens
his mouth!
It seems to me Ilya, there are much bigger fish to fry.
;D
Cat
Varizo...
> work of older feminists, I'd be an unhappy Swedish farmwife in
I get the inpression that hes not talking about the original
suffreagette women, but some of the rabid manhating femmininsts that
are around today. Its given women the freedom to go out fighting in
the streets, and attacking each other and men, with broken bottles,
and the police always being called, and because of these screaming
screeching violent lowlife girls that hav been moved into my area by
the local authortiys buying propertys for them to be moved into, this
area has gone into the gutter, rubbish evrywhere, a load of old crap
being sold on there front steps and noise and smells of fried food and
chips evrywhere, they breed like backteria and as soon as there kids
are old enough to, they r breeding too. So if femminists are
responsbabl for that sort of thing in sociaty then its not a good
thing at all. I think that you are lucky in that you liv in a nice
decent area so you dont get to see any of this or hav to put up with
it, but its not pleasant, and maybe Ilya gets to see it all around him
too, and that will make sombodys perspecktiv diffrent, i do think that
he concentrates on it all too much tho, hes letting them affect him
too much, and he needs to switch off from it somtimes or he will just
make himself miserabal keep thinking about it all.
V.
catbrier
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.0408...@posting.google.com>...
> > It probably hasn't occurred to you, Ilya, that if it were not for the
> > work of older feminists, I'd be an unhappy Swedish farmwife in
>
> I get the inpression that hes not talking about the original
> suffreagette women, but some of the rabid manhating femmininsts that
> are around today.
You mean a very tiny minority that he has exaggerated as significant?
He should stop reading soc.men.
>Its given women the freedom
etc.
>So if femminists are
> responsbabl for that sort of thing in sociaty
Non-sense. There is no single cause to social decay.
> I think that you are lucky in that you liv in a nice
> decent area so you dont get to see any of this or hav to put up with
> it, but its not pleasant, and maybe Ilya gets to see it all around him
> too, and that will make sombodys perspecktiv diffrent, i do think that
> he concentrates on it all too much tho, hes letting them affect him
> too much, and he needs to switch off from it somtimes or he will just
> make himself miserabal keep thinking about it all.
> V.
Blaming poverty and social decay on "feminists" is silly. The
screaming harpies you speak of are not feminists and are probably too
illiterate to even read what radical feminists publish.
There are probably more "feminists" in the city close to where I live,
per square mile, than in your sad ghetto. They live in quiet streets
with manicured trees and flowers, and in well-decorated apartments.
Cat
The Danimal
> drr0...@yahoo.com (Bodhisattvacat) wrote in message news:<4f2532f6.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.0408...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > It probably hasn't occurred to you, Ilya, that if it were not for the
> > > work of older feminists, I'd be an unhappy Swedish farmwife in
> > > Minnesota, farting out my 4th or 5th little blond monster.
> >
> > Older feminists I like and agree with. It's the younger ones who are
> > destructive.
>
> And exactly what are they destroying? (Please don't use abstractions!)
> WHAT, specifically, are they destructive of?
You remind me of the French doctors who tried to determine
exactly how long it took victims of the guillotine to lose
consciousness. They would catch the falling heads,
shout at them, "Can you hear me?" and look for a response.
If you do manage to get Ilya to level a specific charge at
a specific person, that will be something like the first time
the young Helen Keller managed to communicate her first
clear message to the outside world.
> > Would I
> > > have become "the best that I could be" without their untiring efforts
> > > to end the paternalistic lock that used to exist in the professions? I
> > > think not.
That's a good question. The primary barrier to the success of
women in the professions was the reluctance of many young
women to pursue those professions. Even 100 years ago there
were a few women who made the effort and broke through.
But wider participation had to wait for someone to perusade
larger numbers of young women it was OK for them to try.
So, why have feminists not had the same impact in Afghanistan?
Could it be the untiring efforts of feminists are not the whole
story here?
Perhaps it is first necessary for inventive men to build
the machinery that makes life easier. Then women can enter
the work force without a built-in disadvantage. Life in
Afghanistan is physically much harder today than life in
the United States. Women need a soft environment before
they can compete with men.
> > > Which is often your problem - you post without thinking
> > > clearly, in the absence of sound historical perspective, and
> > > reflexively.
> >
> > Feminism is like unions: it did good and now it has outlasted its
> > usefulness. Most of 1990s feminists were completely destructive. You
> > should know.
>
> Actually, unions have not "outlived their usefulness".
A word like "usefulness" is meaningless until someone specifies
"to whom."
Unions will always be useful to their paid staff members, at
a minimum. As well as to the politicians whose election campaigns
they help finance.
Just about every group is useful to someone. Criminals, for
example, are useful to the legal profession, and to police
and criminologists who get paid to manage and/or study them.
> Consider the
> situation most American workers are in since the Reagan program of
> "union busing", loss of pay, loss of benefits, etc., and they are
> still needed.
What impact have unions had on the competitiveness of the
railroad industry in America?
In theory, railroads should be able to ship products more
cheaply than trucks, and yet railroads have steadily lost
market share to truckers.
> The "screamers" haven't destroyed me or anyone else.
Not true. Feminists have interfered with scientific research
that threatens to show inherent differences between boys and
girls. Individual scientists do not have much political
clout. It's much easier for funding agencies to cut off
funding for controversial research than to stand by their
man.
Political pressure groups routinely oppose scientific
research that might challenge their various dogmas.
For example, see the campaigns by creationists to water
down the teaching of evolution in high school textbooks.
Some feminists have joined forces with the religious
right to persecute pornographers. The religious right
might have managed without feminist help, but in a
democracy two pressure groups can persecute better than
one.
Then there is also the matter of the destruction of millions
of fetuses. While I do not object to women destroying
their fetuses if that's what they want to do, and if they
agree to pay for the privilege by granting men the similar
right to opt out of paying for children they don't want,
destruction is still destruction.
Then there is the destruction of men's wallets via
divorce theft.
> They just make
> asses of themselves by their constant screaming.
Come now, you can't have it both ways. Either feminists have the
power to influence society, or they do not.
The fact that you aren't a farmwife right now says feminists
do have influence. You asserted as much up above.
Obviously what feminists say matters a lot. According to you
their words have led to a complete reordering of American
society.
So if those SAME PEOPLE start propagating the idea that
something is inherently wrong with the normal male sex
drive, that should give pause to any normal male.
> The "Religious Right"
> is far more dangerous and destructive Ilya.
>
> How many doctors have been murdered by "feminists?"
Possibly quite a few potential doctors, although the proportion
would probably be lower than in the general population,
because from what I read somewhere, unwanted babies are less
likely than wanted babies to grow up to be successful adults.
But I'm sure that among those millions of aborted fetuses
there had to be some that would have grown up to be doctors
anyway.
Note that I don't see any practical difference between
killing a future person's chances in the womb vs. killing
a future person's chances by refraining from procreational
sex.
The average man kills about five million potential humans
every day. There's genocide in every wasted squirt.
It's very peculiar that spooge doesn't get the same respect
that an embryo does. Even though very few religious kooks
could tell the difference under a microscope between a
human zygote and a frog zygote.
> How many bombs have these feminists set off?
The vast majority of religious right-wingers do not set off
bombs and do not advocate the setting off of bombs. They
merely formulate the rhetoric that excites a few kooks.
That is, people who incite with their rhetoric do quite a
bit more than "just make asses of themselves by their
constant screaming." There's always the chance that somewhere
out there a person of action might take the screamers seriously,
and throw pornographers in jail, or persecute scientists who
discover forbidden truths.
> > > I should like to think that I am my own best "spokeswoman!"
> >
> > And you deserve to be one, too. Unlike hateful harpies who claim to
> > speak for women even as they attack the beautiful women who want to be
> > their best.
>
> I think you are biting a straw dog. One can always find a few
> lunatics, like Mackinnon to hate or ridicule. But does she do as much
> REAL damage as Karl Rove or Dick Cheney?
The "few lunatics" have managed to insinuate their views into
our very language. For example, check out the film genres on
All-Movie Guide:
http://www.allmovie.com/avg_qbrowse.html
Note the genre called "Exploitation." Not "Erotica," not
"Films featuring beautiful nude women." Instead the site
attaches a pejorative label to an entire genre of film.
What's up with that? All-Movie Guide is probably run by a
bunch of people who aren't exactly fans of Rove and Cheney,
and here they are helping to institutionalize the view
that there is something improper about the normal man's
sex drive.
Creating and sustaining the myth that to be a normal man
and to have a normal man's desires and responses is somehow
abnormal and shameful is pretty damaging, if you ask me
(or a lot of other normal men).
The fascinating bit is that a site like All-Movie Guide
feels no need to argue its case. Films featuring beautiful
nude women are "Exploitation" and the site can state that
without any expectation that someone could need convincing.
That should tell you how far the views of people like
MacKinnon have reached into the orthodoxy.
> Is she any more psychotic
> than Pat Robertson or Gerry Falwell?
She has more influence over the views of movie critics, it
appears.
> And what about your friend Rush
> Limbaugh, whose phrase you've adopted? The man lies everytime he opens
> his mouth!
Not if he should point out the humor in the phrase
"cruelty-free pate".
> It seems to me Ilya, there are much bigger fish to fry.
Sure, for you. But not for Ilya.
Rove and Cheney alarm SUV liberals, but maybe they don't
alarm Ilya. Maybe Ilya understands that if you want to drive
SUVs in a world with dwindling oil supplies, it becomes
necessary to maintain a standing army in the Middle East,
as the U.S. has done continuously since the 1970's. Not just
maintain the army, but use it often enough to show the locals
how serious you are about those SUVs.
-- the Danimal
David
[...]
> If you do manage to get Ilya to level a specific charge at
> a specific person, that will be something like the first time
> the young Helen Keller managed to communicate her first
> clear message to the outside world.
Clearly you missed the posts where he accused me and others who
had been favorably disposed to him of heinous sins.
David
[...]
> Perhaps it is first necessary for inventive men to build
> the machinery that makes life easier. Then women can enter
> the work force without a built-in disadvantage.
WAS first necessary in "the West" in the 19th-20th centuries.
Now there's nothing stopping women from inventive women from
building machinery.
Then too, what's so great about "enter[ing] the work force"?
> Life in Afghanistan is physically much harder today than life
> in the United States. Women need a soft environment before
> they can compete with men.
If by a "soft" environment you mean one where powerful men are
open to letting women do so, instead of insisting that their
external genitalia be hacked off and then selling them to tribal
elders as sex toys and domestic slaves, I might just agree.
One good progressive step will be mothers teaching their sons to
treat girls and women as people who are just as good as they are.
D.
Dr Chaos
Dan, have you heard of a union called "the Teamsters"? They do trucks too.
And if you think just a wee bit harder there may be lots of other reasons
to explain that observation.
Like,
*) distance. how close is your supermarket from the rail depot? Can
the stockers *walk* over, and get the shipment just for
that store from the freight train? No. You need a truck.
So if you are paying for the labor to unload and load already,
why do it more than once? Trucks win.
*) flexibility. How easily can you change the route of a truck?
Today, with GPS and cell phones, about one minute. How easily can
you change the routes of train? Well, probably a few weeks to
months in advance to make sure you don't have other conflicts. And
it will change the routes of lots of items on that train. Trucks win.
*) capital. How much capital is tied up in transit? That's a real
cost to business. With Walmart logistics and modern optimization algorithms,
they can very efficiently ship individualized packets of products, just enough,
from producers to consuming stores very accurately. With trains, you
have to ship lots to a big depot, where it sits in inventory, in real estate
that you are paying for (carrying cost), and then you have to truck it out after
loading it. Trucks win again.
*) efficiency improvements. Improvements in highways and trucks
have made them more fuel efficient and faster in substantial ways
over the decades. With rail,
since the invention of the diesel-electric in maybe the 1930's
(all trains have been hybrids or all electric for a long time), there is
little thermodynamic headroom left.
*) People don't mind building new roads near them as much as new train routes
because they can use the same roads, but they can't use the rails.
Rail clearly wins only when you have to transport very high mass and high volume
products which are substitutable commodities in a way which is overall fixed
from supplier to consumer and with predictable volumes, many weeks or months in
advance.
classic example: coal to electric utility plants.
The Danimal
> The Danimal wrote:
> > What impact have unions had on the competitiveness of the
> > railroad industry in America?
> >
> > In theory, railroads should be able to ship products more
> > cheaply than trucks, and yet railroads have steadily lost
> > market share to truckers.
>
> Dan, have you heard of a union called "the Teamsters"? They do trucks too.
Yes, but many truckers are owner-operators, and there is
less scope for "featherbedding" work rules, because how
many extra employees can the Teamsters mandate to put on
a truck?
I'm aware of the physical flexibility advantages of trucks,
how the automobile-driven dispersion of markets has made
flexibility more necessary than it used to be, and the
enormous infrastructure subsidy trucks enjoy (they don't
have to supply the capital to build the roads they use),
but the impact of unions on the trucking industry
has been less deleterious than the impact of unions on
the railroad industry. Railroads represent a much-more
stratified, concentrated, hierarchical target for unions
to exploit.
A union can force railroad companies to put extra unnecessary
workers on trains. How can they do that with trucks? There
are too many trucks and too much competition among truckers.
-- the Danimal
Varizo
>Perhaps it is first necessary for inventive men to build
>the machinery that makes life easier. Then women can enter
>the work force without a built-in disadvantage. Life in
>Afghanistan is physically much harder today than life in
>the United States. Women need a soft environment before
>they can compete with men.
Good point Danny.
>Political pressure groups routinely oppose scientific
>research that might challenge their various dogmas.
There do seem to be some femminists that are like that. they dont like somthing that dont fit in with there
prinsipals.
>Some feminists have joined forces with the religious
>right to persecute pornographers. The religious right
>might have managed without feminist help, but in a
>democracy two pressure groups can persecute better than
>one.
Another good point Dan, but the manhating sort of femminists wont like it.
>Then there is also the matter of the destruction of millions
>of fetuses. While I do not object to women destroying
>their fetuses if that's what they want to do, and if they
>agree to pay for the privilege by granting men the similar
>right to opt out of paying for children they don't want,
>destruction is still destruction.
>
>Then there is the destruction of men's wallets via
>divorce theft.
Blokes are always conplaining about that sort of thing, and yet some femminists are *still* saying that women are
treated worse in evry way in sociaty, wot they want is for women to be treated *better* in evry way, and in the
majoritty of life where it counts, it seems like they are!
>The average man kills about five million potential humans
>every day. There's genocide in every wasted squirt.
That might even be more for you Danny, i bet your at it all the time you sexmaniak, i mean your always talkiing
about it arnt you. [and thats just me being lite hearted Dan, dont take it the wrong way, its a joke].
>It's very peculiar that spooge doesn't get the same respect
>that an embryo does.
Dyou mean that troll bloke who livs in Canada, or is that a name for somthing else?
>Even though very few religious kooks
>could tell the difference under a microscope between a
>human zygote and a frog zygote.
Arnt we all made of the same atoms as the stars or somthing?
>That is, people who incite with their rhetoric do quite a
>bit more than "just make asses of themselves by their
>constant screaming." There's always the chance that somewhere
>out there a person of action might take the screamers seriously,
>and throw pornographers in jail, or persecute scientists who
>discover forbidden truths.
Thats right, nothiing realy hapens in isolation does it, evything seems to hav some effect somwhere else, like that
butterfly in Japan that is suposed to hav some effect on the other side of the world, but i cant remenber how its
suposed to tho.
>The "few lunatics" have managed to insinuate their views into
>our very language. For example, check out the film genres on
>All-Movie Guide:
>
>http://www.allmovie.com/avg_qbrowse.html
>
>Note the genre called "Exploitation." Not "Erotica," not
>"Films featuring beautiful nude women." Instead the site
>attaches a pejorative label to an entire genre of film.
>What's up with that? All-Movie Guide is probably run by a
>bunch of people who aren't exactly fans of Rove and Cheney,
>and here they are helping to institutionalize the view
>that there is something improper about the normal man's
>sex drive.
>
>Creating and sustaining the myth that to be a normal man
>and to have a normal man's desires and responses is somehow
>abnormal and shameful is pretty damaging, if you ask me
>(or a lot of other normal men).
Exactly! But then again yours is probaly much higher than anybody elses cos you think about that sort of thing all
the time and it must be awful to be so frusstrated, but those sort of femminist women wouldent understand that cos
they r not intaressted in anybody elses point of view if its diffrent to wot theres is.
>The fascinating bit is that a site like All-Movie Guide
>feels no need to argue its case. Films featuring beautiful
>nude women are "Exploitation" and the site can state that
>without any expectation that someone could need convincing.
But i think that generaly those sosrt of film,s are still called eroticka arnt they, i mean in the vidio shops an
that, i hav to be honest they dont intresst me, but if other ppl want to watch them i dont see that its got anything
to do with femminissts, i mean nobody is forcing them to watch them or anuything are they?
V.
PS Xposted to the goth NG cos they like talking about that subject there.
Varizo
>You mean a very tiny minority that he has exaggerated as significant?
>He should stop reading soc.men.
Well i never go to soc men so i dont kno wot gets said there, but ive seen some views by some ppl who call
thereselves femminists on the internett, and heard some of them in real life too and ive never said that they
are all like it, but the ones who are are not exactly nice ppl, theres a lot of hate there, and unfortuanatley,
like Dan says they are the ones who often get lisstend to , its the ppl who shout the loudest and make the most
fuss who get taken notice of the most, and a lot of these real manhating femminsists are very very bolshy and
aggressiv and they keep on an on until tthey get somwhere with it, the better ones should be doing somthing to
shut them up, but they would probaly just be shouted dowm if they tried.
>There are probably more "feminists" in the city close to where I live,
>per square mile, than in your sad ghetto.
I hate wot its turned into, cos that is just the point, it never use to be like that here, it was never
*wonderful* but it was nothing like it is now, it got like this since they built all the sosial housing and
moved a load of lowlife in, wot happend then was that ppl who were abel to moved away, but some of us havent
been abel to do that, now that my Dad is back in my life again, he wants me to go an liv with him, and he is in
a much nicer area, but theres no garuntee with that that they wont start putting sosial housing thaere as well
and move a load of lowlife into that area too, and also, it would meean me moving away from my GF and all my
freinds which i dont realy want to hav to do.
V.
tednat
catbrier
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > drr0...@yahoo.com (Bodhisattvacat) wrote in message news:<4f2532f6.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.0408...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > > It probably hasn't occurred to you, Ilya, that if it were not for the
> > > > work of older feminists, I'd be an unhappy Swedish farmwife in
> > > > Minnesota, farting out my 4th or 5th little blond monster.
> > >
> > > Older feminists I like and agree with. It's the younger ones who are
> > > destructive.
> >
> > And exactly what are they destroying? (Please don't use abstractions!)
> > WHAT, specifically, are they destructive of?
>
> You remind me of the French doctors who tried to determine
> exactly how long it took victims of the guillotine to lose
> consciousness. They would catch the falling heads,
> shout at them, "Can you hear me?" and look for a response.
That's the most absurd and illogical analogy I have ever read on-line.
(Wait, no - there are certain other notorious netkooks who have come
up with assertions even more bizzare.) But then, despite
your...ummm... fetish... for sexual robots, I never really considered
you a netkook!
My question to Ilya does not require analogies or abstractions. It
asks for specifics.
The word "feminist" has become so completely misrepresented and
insanely generalized on-line as to have no further literal
significance. And these same insanely overgeneralized "feminists" are
being blamed for everything from upsetting the cosmic order to the
ruination of western civilization.
Asking some one who makes wild and illogical assertions to give
unambiguous specifics seems to cause an equal slide into chaos.
Another thing - "Dan-imal" I don't fake anything with my boyfriend. I
don't have to. Please do not project your frustrations onto me. It's
not my fault that the current technology can't fulfill your dream.
IOW - let's a least remain civil?
And furthermore...you're wearing the SUV thing very thin. We could
solve the energy problems in this country if only we invested half the
federal fiscal resources we squander on an interventionary military
presence in the world on energy research. And yes - energy
independence is a matter of national security. I think it is laudable
that you ride a bike and don't own a car. Congratulations! I actually
do a lot of my work on-line and love the idea that I am always chained
to a desk. But I also love the personal connections I have with my
colleagues. Your personal choices, regardless of their thrift, cannot
define how every other person should choose to live.
I maintain that we can have efficient SUVs and energy independence.
But America's energy goals cannot be left in the hands of individuals
whose ONLY motive is multiple condos and motorboats in every port. Our
national energy strategy must be recontextualized.
Cat
catbrier
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, The Danimal wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Perhaps it is first necessary for inventive men to build
> > the machinery that makes life easier. Then women can enter
> > the work force without a built-in disadvantage.
>
> WAS first necessary in "the West" in the 19th-20th centuries.
> Now there's nothing stopping women from inventive women from
> building machinery.
And the point?
> Then too, what's so great about "enter[ing] the work force"?
Having the choice is an important component. But women have always
worked. The genteel existence of bourgeoisie women in Victorian
England (model for neo-conservative thinking) does not reflect how the
majority of 19th century women actually lived.
Go back in time and mention the "soft living" of women in a
chauvanistic world - after her 16 hour day in a textile mill.
> > Life in Afghanistan is physically much harder today than life
> > in the United States. Women need a soft environment before
> > they can compete with men.
This statement is anti-historical pomposity! Who lived in this "soft
environment?" Was it "soft" when beating one's wife was consider
justifiable?
> If by a "soft" environment you mean one where powerful men are
> open to letting women do so, instead of insisting that their
> external genitalia be hacked off and then selling them to tribal
> elders as sex toys and domestic slaves, I might just agree.
There is a deep-seated fear of female sexuality in some men. On-line,
the continuous misogenistic whine coming from some individuals is
obviously an expression of personal weakness. In the barbaric portion
of the world - fear and its concomitant misogeny expresses itself in
mutilation and the imprisonment of the chador.
> One good progressive step will be mothers teaching their sons to
> treat girls and women as people who are just as good as they are.
>
> D.
Mothers do. And mothers who were never taught that they themselves
were as good as boys as little girls carry the blemish and pass it on.
It's fairly obvious that my own upbringing was tolerant and
supportive. Despite my humble agrarian origins, both my mother and my
father, my whole family, enabled my individual "eccentricities."
Cat
catbrier
> (The Danimal) says
> >Perhaps it is first necessary for inventive men to build
> >the machinery that makes life easier. Then women can enter
> >the work force without a built-in disadvantage. Life in
> >Afghanistan is physically much harder today than life in
> >the United States. Women need a soft environment before
> >they can compete with men.
>
> Good point Danny.
Historically silly.
> >Political pressure groups routinely oppose scientific
> >research that might challenge their various dogmas.
>
> There do seem to be some femminists that are like that. they dont like somthing that dont fit in with there
> prinsipals.
The greatest attack on science comes from the religious right - which
is largely male-dominated.
> >Some feminists have joined forces with the religious
> >right to persecute pornographers. The religious right
> >might have managed without feminist help, but in a
> >democracy two pressure groups can persecute better than
> >one.
>
> Another good point Dan, but the manhating sort of femminists wont like it.
All 10 of them.
> >Then there is also the matter of the destruction of millions
> >of fetuses. While I do not object to women destroying
> >their fetuses if that's what they want to do, and if they
> >agree to pay for the privilege by granting men the similar
> >right to opt out of paying for children they don't want,
> >destruction is still destruction.
> >
> >Then there is the destruction of men's wallets via
> >divorce theft.
>
> Blokes are always conplaining about that sort of thing, and yet some femminists are *still* saying that women are
> treated worse in evry way in sociaty, wot they want is for women to be treated *better* in evry way, and in the
> majoritty of life where it counts, it seems like they are!
A caricature at best.
> >The average man kills about five million potential humans
> >every day. There's genocide in every wasted squirt.
>
> That might even be more for you Danny, i bet your at it all the time you sexmaniak, i mean your always talkiing
> about it arnt you. [and thats just me being lite hearted Dan, dont take it the wrong way, its a joke].
Nature "aborts" more than people do. This is a stupid point on his
part. And where selective abortion takes place - far more female than
male fetus are aborted. (India and China.)
> >It's very peculiar that spooge doesn't get the same respect
> >that an embryo does.
>
> Dyou mean that troll bloke who livs in Canada, or is that a name for somthing else?
>
> >Even though very few religious kooks
> >could tell the difference under a microscope between a
> >human zygote and a frog zygote.
>
> Arnt we all made of the same atoms as the stars or somthing?
>
> >That is, people who incite with their rhetoric do quite a
> >bit more than "just make asses of themselves by their
> >constant screaming." There's always the chance that somewhere
> >out there a person of action might take the screamers seriously,
> >and throw pornographers in jail, or persecute scientists who
> >discover forbidden truths.
>
> Thats right, nothiing realy hapens in isolation does it, evything seems to hav some effect somwhere else, like that
> butterfly in Japan that is suposed to hav some effect on the other side of the world, but i cant remenber how its
> suposed to tho.
(One wonders how long you will keep up this bad grammer
affectation Mr. V.)
> >The "few lunatics" have managed to insinuate their views into
> >our very language. For example, check out the film genres on
> >All-Movie Guide:
> >
> >http://www.allmovie.com/avg_qbrowse.html
> >
> >Note the genre called "Exploitation." Not "Erotica," not
> >"Films featuring beautiful nude women." Instead the site
> >attaches a pejorative label to an entire genre of film.
> >What's up with that? All-Movie Guide is probably run by a
> >bunch of people who aren't exactly fans of Rove and Cheney,
> >and here they are helping to institutionalize the view
> >that there is something improper about the normal man's
> >sex drive.
> >
> >Creating and sustaining the myth that to be a normal man
> >and to have a normal man's desires and responses is somehow
> >abnormal and shameful is pretty damaging, if you ask me
> >(or a lot of other normal men).
>
> Exactly! But then again yours is probaly much higher than anybody elses cos you think about that sort of thing all
> the time and it must be awful to be so frusstrated, but those sort of femminist women wouldent understand that cos
> they r not intaressted in anybody elses point of view if its diffrent to wot theres is.
And the denizens of soc.men are open-minded? Please!
> >The fascinating bit is that a site like All-Movie Guide
> >feels no need to argue its case. Films featuring beautiful
> >nude women are "Exploitation" and the site can state that
> >without any expectation that someone could need convincing.
>
> But i think that generaly those sosrt of film,s are still called eroticka arnt they, i mean in the vidio shops an
> that, i hav to be honest they dont intresst me, but if other ppl want to watch them i dont see that its got anything
> to do with femminissts, i mean nobody is forcing them to watch them or anuything are they?
> V.
> PS Xposted to the goth NG cos they like talking about that subject there.
And other feminists promote woman-focused pornography! It seems that
you both spend a lot of time talking about an extreme minority - even
among feminists! It's your (both your) narrow focus on this tiny
minority that empowers them in your own minds, if not in fact.
Cat
catbrier
> (catbrier) says
> >You mean a very tiny minority that he has exaggerated as significant?
> >He should stop reading soc.men.
>
> Well i never go to soc men so i dont kno wot gets said there, but ive seen some views by some ppl who call
> thereselves femminists on the internett, and heard some of them in real life too and ive never said that they
> are all like it, but the ones who are are not exactly nice ppl, theres a lot of hate there, and unfortuanatley,
> like Dan says they are the ones who often get lisstend to , its the ppl who shout the loudest and make the most
> fuss who get taken notice of the most, and a lot of these real manhating femminsists are very very bolshy and
> aggressiv and they keep on an on until tthey get somwhere with it, the better ones should be doing somthing to
> shut them up, but they would probaly just be shouted dowm if they tried.
This is still too overly generalized to mean much. It's like painting
a shadow. Which "feminists", what statements? This is why I pressed
Ilya for specifics.
> >There are probably more "feminists" in the city close to where I live,
> >per square mile, than in your sad ghetto.
>
> I hate wot its turned into, cos that is just the point, it never use to be like that here, it was never
> *wonderful* but it was nothing like it is now, it got like this since they built all the sosial housing and
> moved a load of lowlife in, wot happend then was that ppl who were abel to moved away, but some of us havent
> been abel to do that, now that my Dad is back in my life again, he wants me to go an liv with him, and he is in
> a much nicer area, but theres no garuntee with that that they wont start putting sosial housing thaere as well
> and move a load of lowlife into that area too, and also, it would meean me moving away from my GF and all my
> freinds which i dont realy want to hav to do.
> V.
Public housing may be bad - but would your life be better if all these
poor people were wandering the streets? Will dead babies in the gutter
make your neighborhood a more beautiful place?
Public housing without meaningful employment is futile.
"No society can surely be surely be flourishing and happy, of which
the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. (Adam
Smith, Wealth of Nations.)
Cat
mother
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04081...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>drr0...@yahoo.com (Bodhisattvacat) wrote in message news:<4f2532f6.04081...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.0408...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
Sorry, but you should ask yourself why you're so ready to make
all these ridiculous assumptions from the use of one word on
'All-Movie Guide'?
As a matter of fact "Exploitation" is a recognised film genre that
includes erotica as well as several other things:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Exploitation_film
Perhaps you should adjust you pre-conceptions (as well as your
pants).
<hugs>
Certic
catbrier <catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8901e207.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > PS Xposted to the goth NG cos they like talking about that
subject there.
>
> And other feminists promote woman-focused pornography! It seems that
> you both spend a lot of time talking about an extreme minority -
even
> among feminists! It's your (both your) narrow focus on this tiny
> minority that empowers them in your own minds, if not in fact.
------
Be aware, as the "goth NG" is, that Varizo is a troll. Don't feed him.
--
It hurts sometimes more than we can bear.
If we could live without passion, maybe
we'd know some kind of peace.
But we would be hollow.
Empty rooms, shuttered and dank...
Without passion, we'd be truly dead.
Varizo
> > butterfly in Japan that is suposed to hav some effect on the other side of the world, but i cant remenber how its
> > suposed to tho.
>
> (One wonders how long you will keep up this bad grammer
> affectation Mr. V.)
Well i dont kno wot you mean by that, there was nothiing wrong with my grammar in that as far as i can see. i hav heard
somthing about how if a butterfly flaps its wings or somthing in Japan or somwwhere that it has some effect on the other
side of the world, how was wot i said bad grammar? {And i get fed up with ppl keep going on about it, why cant ppl just
concentrate on wot it is thats being talked about insted of keep sidetracking into spelling misstakes or grammar problems.
Sorry but i do get pissed off with it cos with some ppl its all that they ever talk about and they usualy start going on
about that sort of thing when sombody has said somthing that they hav got no answer to, and you dont usualy do that sort
of thing so i dont kno why you are now.
you think about that sort of thing all
> > the time and it must be awful to be so frusstrated, but those sort of femminist women wouldent understand that cos
> > they r not intaressted in anybody elses point of view if its diffrent to wot theres is.
>
> And the denizens of soc.men are open-minded? Please!
Well i dont kno wot any of its got to do with soc men, i never go to that NG like ive said befor.
> > But i think that generaly those sosrt of film,s are still called eroticka arnt they, i mean in the vidio shops an
> > that, i hav to be honest they dont intresst me, but if other ppl want to watch them i dont see that its got anything
> > to do with femminissts, i mean nobody is forcing them to watch them or anuything are they?
> And other feminists promote woman-focused pornography! It seems that
> you both spend a lot of time talking about an extreme minority - even
> among feminists! It's your (both your) narrow focus on this tiny
> minority that empowers them in your own minds, if not in fact.
Im not sure who yuou mean, dyou mean me and Dan, or me and Dave [from the goth NG]? They are both realy inteligent and
seem to kno wot they are talking about, we dont agree on evrything but i respect ppl who are inteligent and kno how to
talk to ppl and they do. Or did you mean me and Ilya? Cos ive said befor that i dont agree with evrything that he says but
somtimes he talks such a lot of sence. The troubel with the sort of femminists that we are complaining about is that they
ahv got a bit of a problem with men, and they cant stand men deep down and they are often the ones who shout the loudest
and get taken the most notice of , cos they are bolshy and aggressiv . [U wouldent believe how long its taken me trying to
type this post, new keyboard and i havaent got use to it yet].
V.
Varizo
news:<cgd9bk$qnb$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> catbrier <catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8901e207.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > Varizo <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:<41269E84...@netscape.net>...
>
> > > PS Xposted to the goth NG cos they like talking about that
> subject there.
> >
> > And other feminists promote woman-focused pornography! It seems that
> > you both spend a lot of time talking about an extreme minority -
> even
> > among feminists! It's your (both your) narrow focus on this tiny
> > minority that empowers them in your own minds, if not in fact.
> ------
> Be aware, as the "goth NG" is, that Varizo is a troll. Don't feed him.
Cat knows me well enough by now to kno that im *not* a troll! Shes
inteligent enough to kno whos a troll and who isent, if i was then she
wouldent ever bother to talk to me, we dont always agree on evrything
either, but cos we are both capabal of having a dissagreement without
having to be abusiv or insult each other, she is one of the *few* ppl on
the internett who i hav got any time for, its a shame that some of the ppl
in the goth NG dident take lessons from Cat in how to behave on the
internett and then it would be a much nicer place and i wouldent hav to
keep sticking up for myslef to morons like you!!! [And i dont mean
*evybody* from the goth NG, WhiskyDave is alrite].
V.
Varizo
> > aggressiv and they keep on an on until tthey get somwhere with it, the better ones should be doing somthing to
> > shut them up, but they would probaly just be shouted dowm if they tried.
>
> This is still too overly generalized to mean much. It's like painting
> a shadow. Which "feminists", what statements? This is why I pressed
> Ilya for specifics.
I think that the orriginal suffragette women did alot of good, and that men and women should get the same amount of
pay for doing the same job, but there are a lot of aggressiv women around who call thereselves femminists and go out
picking fights with blokes to try an prove somthing, i kno that youve said that they are not real femminists, but
thats wot they call themselvces and so ppl are obviousley going to assosiate those sort of women with bad aspeckts of
femminisim, i dont ever hear any of the good ones, just the manhating ones who think that theyve got somthing to
prove.
> > and move a load of lowlife into that area too, and also, it would meean me moving away from my GF and all my
> > freinds which i dont realy want to hav to do.
> > V.
>
> Public housing may be bad - but would your life be better if all these
> poor people were wandering the streets? Will dead babies in the gutter
> make your neighborhood a more beautiful place?
Well it wouldent be like that if these ppl wernt in the area would it? Not in england. {Dead babys in the gutter i
mean]. But they hav brought the area *down* to there levil and that is the problem, ppl hav moved away who could
aford to, but some of us are stuck here, and its difficult to make ppl understand if its not happening to them or in
there area, but these ppl are v rough and v aggressiv and dont change how they behave cos they hav been moved into a
better area but just go on the same as wot they always hav done, they breed so much that seems to be wot the main
problem is, its not just me saying that, its wot the ppl who are *outnumberd* by them are saying. Is it fair thatt
they make life miserabal for other ppl and go around thretening ppl and making it so tht the police are always in the
area, when they never use to be, and leaving all there rubbish out in the street when that sort of thing dident use
to happen until they were moved into the area by the housing assosiations building homes for them. I can if i want,
go and liv with my Dad, cos he wants me to, but i dont want to move away from my GF and my freinds, and i like the
actual place that i liv in, its just the ppl who hav moved in to the area, it deterriorated realy quick as soon as
they moved in.
> "No society can surely be surely be flourishing and happy, of which
> the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. (Adam
> Smith, Wealth of Nations.)
But that is just assuming that if sombody is poor in the sence that they arnt rich , then they are lowlife as well,
but thats not true, ppl dont hav to be nasty aggressiv morons just cos they are poor, a lot of those ppl in the
sosial housing hav got loads more money than a lot of ppl, [and theyve certanley got more than me] cos they get
given money [in bennifits from the goverment] for evry kid that they hav, and they always seeem to hav loads of kids,
its wellknown that some girls get pregnant on purpose cos they kno that they will get a place to liv and money to liv
on for going out on the town at nite, its wellknown in my area, loads of them do it, and its got much much worse
since all the sosial housing was built.
V.
Varizo
> Nature "aborts" more than people do. This is a stupid point on his
> part. And where selective abortion takes place - far more female than
> male fetus are aborted. (India and China.)
And they kill them too after they are born dont they. Theres whole disscussions going on about thata t the moment. I heard
a programme on Radio 4 a few months ago, where it said that in India there was the same number of women as of men, but
that there should of been 2 thousand more women, cos theere is always that amount more of women than of men in evry
sociaty. amd the fact that there was about the *same* number of women as of men, was how it was reaalised that there was
about 2 thousand women missing, and they found out it was cos the female babys are being killed at birth, which made me
wonder why are females thought so low of in evry culturre, and its often women who kill the babys, but in the programme it
said that somtimes the women were being killed too if they had another daughter insted of a son.
It makes you wonder why women are thought so little of in so many diffrent sociatys on earth, and why should there be
always a much greater number of women than of men, i cant think of any reason for it, it dosent seem sensiabl to hav more
women in the world than men, surely its better for evrybody if the amount of both sexses is equal?
V.
The Danimal
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > Nature "aborts" more than people do.
Especially if you count all those sperm cells that never get
a chance to enjoy their right to life.
Now where were we: a trillion and one, a trillion and two, [...]
> > This is a stupid point on his
> > part. And where selective abortion takes place - far more female than
> > male fetus are aborted. (India and China.)
> It makes you wonder why women are thought so little of in so many diffrent sociatys on earth,
By the people who have to pay to rear them! That's a very
different group than the people who value women as sex partners.
That is, a female infant may be a liability to her parents right
now, and the male infants who would value her in about 18 years
have no say in the matter yet.
Those men in China and India who aren't having sex today because
some greedy parents killed their potential brides 16 to 25 years
ago certainly value women---just ask them. After those men meet
their basic survival needs, there isn't much they value more
than young, attractive women. But there is no way for those men
to raise their own women. It takes too long, and that's not how
the system works anyway. Even if a man could pay for a woman's
upbringing, she would probably end up falling in love with
some other man.
> and why should there be
> always a much greater number of women than of men, i cant think of any reason for it, it dosent seem sensiabl to hav more
> women in the world than men, surely its better for evrybody if the amount of both sexses is equal?
Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. The 2nd Ed. has a
section in which Dawkins describes the evolution of sex ratios.
Also see:
http://core.ecu.edu/biol/summersk/summerwebpage/biol3520/EVOLsexratios.htm
Search the Internet for "evolution sex ratios" to find plenty of
scientific investigation into your burning question.
Your "why?-type" question raises another one: why should there always
be so many people asking why about things as if no scientist had
ever investigated the same questions, I can't think of any reason
for it, it doesn't seem sensible to have so many people who have
no idea what scientists have done for them, especially since the
average person is paying taxes to keep scientists working, surely
it's better for everybody to look up answers to their questions
on the Internet rather than just sitting there wondering like dullards
about questions they have already paid to have investigated?
-- the Danimal
Pete Turk
<var...@netscape.net> writes
>catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.0408221146.1be28
>7...@posting.google.com>...
>> Varizo <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<41269F17.F1158E07@netscape
>.net>...
>femminsists are very very bolshy and
>> > aggressiv and they keep on an on until tthey get somwhere with it, the
>better ones should be doing somthing to
>> > shut them up, but they would probaly just be shouted dowm if they tried.
>>
>> This is still too overly generalized to mean much. It's like painting
>> a shadow. Which "feminists", what statements? This is why I pressed
>> Ilya for specifics.
>
>I think that the orriginal suffragette women did alot of good, and that men and
>women should get the same amount of
>pay for doing the same job, but there are a lot of aggressiv women around who
>call thereselves femminists and go out
>picking fights with blokes to try an prove somthing, i kno that youve said that
>they are not real femminists, but
>thats wot they call themselvces and so ppl are obviousley going to assosiate
>those sort of women with bad aspeckts of
>femminisim, i dont ever hear any of the good ones, just the manhating ones who
>think that theyve got somthing to
>prove.
>
No, you won't hear them, for one simple reason -- they don't
make themselves heard.
They'll quietly know they're OK, often not thinking of
themselves as _women_ primarily at all, but as bus-conductor,
tax-inspector, factory-worker, what-have-you who happen to be
a woman.
And it's only the exceptional circumstances:
-- they see a man and WOW!
-- they focus on some man and realise they want to grow old
with him and have carloads of kids with him.
-- they have a daughter who's suddenly become a woman.
etc. etc.
that they'd ever think of themselves as a woman _first_.
And the only time they feel like discussing the "women's issue"
is when she joins in the middle of the debate with something
like "Well, I'm not a feminist, but ..."
The audible ones you talk about -- the ones I called
"destructibles" to Ilya the other day -- will most likely have
an agenda that has nothing to do with the generality of women at
all:
they feel put-upon, side-lined or have the analogous situation
that'd turn non-strong non-women into bitter soc.men denizens.
At one time, we could say something like "When we move to
Norwich/York/Worcester etc. it'll all be so different."
But the sad fact is that we're a small island: a day's car
travel gets you to nearly everywhere in it. If you can
get there, so can 'they'! ...
So IMO, the real problem _is_ poverty at bottom, but far more
its resultant lack of social-cohesion, self- and other-
respect, and the feeling that you _matter_, that you make a
difference.
And that would take decades, generations to tackle -- I think
the best model to follow might just be whatever South-Africa is
doing in this area.
>
>> "No society can surely be surely be flourishing and happy, of which
>> the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. (Adam
>> Smith, Wealth of Nations.)
>
>But that is just assuming that if sombody is poor in the sence that they arnt
>rich , then they are lowlife as well,
>but thats not true, ppl dont hav to be nasty aggressiv morons just cos they are
>poor, a lot of those ppl in the
>sosial housing hav got loads more money than a lot of ppl, [and theyve
>certanley got more than me] cos they get
>given money [in bennifits from the goverment] for evry kid that they hav, and
>they always seeem to hav loads of kids,
>its wellknown that some girls get pregnant on purpose cos they kno that they
>will get a place to liv and money to liv
>on for going out on the town at nite, its wellknown in my area, loads of them do
>it, and its got much much worse
>since all the sosial housing was built.
>V.
But this is Adam Smith talking, who died in 1790,
well over 200 years ago when things were VERY
different.
If _he_ talks about being poor and miserable, he'd
mean something FAR more like a street-beggar in urban
India rather than London in 2004. For instance, do
you know of anyone so poor that they don't have a
TV? the price of a pint every day? a place to wash and
shave?
And talking of street-beggars in the UK, I notice
that for the most part they're bright-eyed, not backward
in chatting or otherwise verbally giving as good as they
get.
Very seldom have I seen the _utter_ hopeless despair,
half-closed eyes, dirty, clothes literally rags, plus a
scrawny hand sticking mutely out from under them ...
At least not here in England.
You probably won't have seen that often either --
but I feel certain Adam Smith would have done.
Re-read his quote, V., and see what you think.
'I have been commissioned to write
an autobiography and I would be
grateful to any of your readers
who could tell me what I was doing
between 1960 and 1974.'
-- Jeffery Bernard
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA President and Moonshadow
--
May your doorstep ever be dirty.
-- Romany blessing
Pete Turk
<var...@netscape.net> writes
>catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.0408221124.4e707
>0...@posting.google.com>...
>> Varizo <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<41269E84.353C0338@netscape
>.net>...
>> > Thats right, nothiing realy hapens in isolation does it, evything seems to
>hav some effect somwhere else, like that
>> > butterfly in Japan that is suposed to hav some effect on the other side of
>the world, but i cant remenber how its
>> > suposed to tho.
>>
>> (One wonders how long you will keep up this bad grammer
>> affectation Mr. V.)
>
>Well i dont kno wot you mean by that, there was nothiing wrong with my grammar
>in that as far as i can see. i hav heard
>somthing about how if a butterfly flaps its wings or somthing in Japan or
>somwwhere that it has some effect on the other
>side of the world, how was wot i said bad grammar? {And i get fed up with ppl
>keep going on about it, why cant ppl just
>concentrate on wot it is thats being talked about insted of keep sidetracking
>into spelling misstakes or grammar problems.
>Sorry but i do get pissed off with it cos with some ppl its all that they ever
>talk about and they usualy start going on
>about that sort of thing when sombody has said somthing that they hav got no
>answer to, and you dont usualy do that sort
>of thing so i dont kno why you are now.
>
>
Cat, I can understand when Varizo feels exasperated.
London has a variety of ways of talking -- I (and lots more)
happen to talk the way I do, and think no more of it --
and V's in the _self-same_ situation as me.
He could chat to my neighbours and their families for hours
on end, and they'd certainly never notice HOW he speaks,
let alone find him affected, or think any the less of him.
Varizo, I, and probably millions more, have this one thing
in common:
we'd rather people noticed what we said rather than
how we said it ...
>:|
'You ain't heard nothing yet, folks!'
-- Al Jolson 'The Jazz Singer'
T.Bone
Well said! I always concentrate on what a person is _saying_ rather
than on how they spell or use grammar
I for one can't see why _some_ people (and it is only some) have a
problem with V's posts.
I quite enjoy his posts, they seem so _alive_, if that makes any kind
of sense to anyone.
I also think he's been brave to talk about his appalling childhood,
and the abuse he suffered at the hands of his horrendous mother, she
sounds positively dreadful.
I've been dismayed at times, to see how he has been treated online for
having the courage to talk about his background.
I'm pleaseed to hear that he and his dad are seeing each other again
now, V is obviously very close to his father, but it sounds like his
girlfriend is having difficulty adjusting to V having his dad back in
his life, which she has no right to do.
(Tried sending e-mails to V about all this, but he doesn't appear to
have a working e-mail address).
catbrier
It is not what Varizo says so much as his mode of expression. There is
a profound incongruity between the subtlty of his thought and the
vehicle by which it is transmitted. My profession discourages blind
credulity.
The "Butterfly Analogy" is often used to convey an impression of how
"Chaos Theory" works. Do you see the problem Pete? Consider the
presentation of "Varizo", and then ask yourself how this person, as
presented, can inarticulately articulate some of the ideas he does.
I don't care, of course, other than the fact that it is extremely hard
to read what he posts. Especially when there are no paragraph breaks
and the spelling is all over the map.
Is Varizo attempting to create a cockney accent? ('Wot' for 'what',
etc.)
Look, I am an indifferent speller myself and I never go back to edit
anything.
Does this ring any bells Pete?
No offense is meant to anyone on my part.
Cat
oldgoth
<snip>
Hello, would you mind not crossposting, I've crossposted here as I don't
know which group you're reading but in future if you could snip all the
groups apart from 'yours' you'd be doing a lot of people a big favour.
Thanks.
martin oldgoth
website: www.insanitorium.co.uk
September 18th - Narcissus Pool & Deviant UK - £5.00 adv / £6.00 door
"You're not drunk if you can lay on the floor without holding on" - Dean
Martin
catbrier
You mean the hidebound bigots of the world? Bigotry is always based on
ignorance. So countries that don't value women usually don't value
learning and science and a host of other things. Take a good look at
Pakistan.
> By the people who have to pay to rear them!
And how would they, themselves, be reared without grandmothers,
mothers, and older sisters?
> That's a very
> different group than the people who value women as sex partners.
Ignorance and religious belief seem to go hand-in-hand. Valuing sex
for its own sake is problematic for people like that.
> That is, a female infant may be a liability to her parents right
> now, and the male infants who would value her in about 18 years
> have no say in the matter yet.
True.
> Those men in China and India who aren't having sex today because
> some greedy parents killed their potential brides 16 to 25 years
> ago certainly value women---just ask them.
I would rather they squirm in their own cultural snakepit. (An
all-male snakepit.)
> After those men meet
> their basic survival needs, there isn't much they value more
> than young, attractive women. But there is no way for those men
> to raise their own women. It takes too long, and that's not how
> the system works anyway. Even if a man could pay for a woman's
> upbringing, she would probably end up falling in love with
> some other man.
How hopelessly flabberghasting. Women do work and usually support
their own existences in fields, mills, factories, and quarries. Pull
your head out of the snakepit.
> > and why should there be
> > always a much greater number of women than of men, i cant think of any reason for it, it dosent seem sensiabl to hav more
> > women in the world than men, surely its better for evrybody if the amount of both sexses is equal?
>
> Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. The 2nd Ed. has a
> section in which Dawkins describes the evolution of sex ratios.
> Also see:
>
> http://core.ecu.edu/biol/summersk/summerwebpage/biol3520/EVOLsexratios.htm
>
> Search the Internet for "evolution sex ratios" to find plenty of
> scientific investigation into your burning question.
>
> Your "why?-type" question raises another one: why should there always
> be so many people asking why about things as if no scientist had
> ever investigated the same questions, I can't think of any reason
> for it, it doesn't seem sensible to have so many people who have
> no idea what scientists have done for them, especially since the
> average person is paying taxes to keep scientists working, surely
> it's better for everybody to look up answers to their questions
> on the Internet rather than just sitting there wondering like dullards
> about questions they have already paid to have investigated?
>
> -- the Danimal
In order to find a good answer one must first construct a good
question.
Cat
bob
>
>Well said! I always concentrate on what a person is _saying_ rather
>than on how they spell or use grammar
Or _punctuation_, for that matter.
>I for one can't see why _some_ people (and it is only some) have a
>problem with V's posts.
I have no _idea_ who V is or why this thread was _crossposted_ into
alt.angst. Did you _hear_ that someone stole one of the scream
paintings?
>I quite enjoy his posts, they seem so _alive_, if that makes any kind
>of sense to anyone.
Since I have no idea _who_ you are talking about it makes _little_
sense to me.
>I also think he's been brave to talk about his appalling childhood,
>and the abuse he suffered at the hands of his horrendous mother, she
>sounds positively dreadful.
Do tell.
>I've been dismayed at times, to see how he has been treated online for
>having the courage to talk about his background.
He's doing it wrong. Talking about my background landed me loads of
chyx. Unfortunately, most of them were whacks.
>I'm pleaseed to hear that he and his dad are seeing each other again
>now, V is obviously very close to his father, but it sounds like his
>girlfriend is having difficulty adjusting to V having his dad back in
>his life, which she has no right to do.
I feel as if I know V now. Thanks for the background information. BTW,
do you watch soap operas?
>(Tried sending e-mails to V about all this, but he doesn't appear to
>have a working e-mail address).
I wonder how it got broken? Any ideas?
Pete Turk
<catbr...@yahoo.com> writes
>dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in message news:<cac1ad88.0408240627.2a4d52c
>7...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> Those men in China and India who aren't having sex today because
>> some greedy parents killed their potential brides 16 to 25 years
>> ago certainly value women---just ask them.
>
>I would rather they squirm in their own cultural snakepit. (An
>all-male snakepit.)
>
And so would I.
The trouble is, the science and technology that enables
'them' to indulge in selective foetal slaughter has also
given us all globalisation, the ability to travel world-wide
quickly and safely. Problems and solutions both now tend to
leak beyond once-local snakepits.
'They' caused a problem, and now 'they' have to solve it.
But suppose 'they' solve it by acquiring the missing
20 million from the non-snakepit, i.e. 'us'.
We've just foisted an oil-war when 'we' found ourselves
short. The people 'we' foisted it on certainly didn't
cause that shortage. 'We' did.
And now there is a shortage of women (in the Danimal
sense of women-as-a-commodity). We didn't cause that
particular shortage, but we do live in the same world
as those who did.
Will 'we' now have a "woman-war" foisted on 'us'?
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA President and Moonshadow
David
[...]
> And now there is a shortage of women (in the Danimal
> sense of women-as-a-commodity). We didn't cause that
> particular shortage, but we do live in the same world
> as those who did.
>
> Will 'we' now have a "woman-war" foisted on 'us'?
No shooting war is necessary. Just breed more daughters (as some
angsters I know have done) -- and in the meantime encourage male
homosexual behavior. It should work itself out in a generation.
David
[...]
> But this is Adam Smith talking, who died in 1790,
> well over 200 years ago when things were VERY
> different.
> If _he_ talks about being poor and miserable, he'd
> mean something FAR more like a street-beggar in urban
> India rather than London in 2004.
Point taken, but...
> For instance, do you know of anyone so poor that they
> don't have a TV?
Yes. I mean, I'm in Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.A., not London, England,
but here we have people who live "in the rough" on our city streets who
not only lack a TV but a place to plug one in.
> the price of a pint every day?
That's one thing that doesn't seem too hard to come buy, if one begs on
the street for a while -- and if one is not very picky about what one
drinks (probably from the bottle, in a parking lot or something).
> a place to wash and shave?
Surely: I can testify that here we really do have poor folks who smell.
It's hard to keep clean when you're living on the street, as the ancient
expedient of public bathhouses never quite took off here. One can be as
sensible as anyone who's not "down on his luck" and still smell "off".
It's even forbidden to "tresspass" into State university's gymnasium's
shower halls when they're otherwise underutilized, and they'd rather pay
people to keep out the "riff-raff" than to supervise them washing there.
We like our smelly poor, we make so many of them!
> And talking of street-beggars in the UK, I notice
> that for the most part they're bright-eyed, not backward
> in chatting or otherwise verbally giving as good as they
> get.
Where do London's beggars shower and plug in their TVs? If bums
have got it so posh there maybe I should immigrate!
> Very seldom have I seen the _utter_ hopeless despair,
> half-closed eyes, dirty, clothes literally rags, plus a
> scrawny hand sticking mutely out from under them ...
>
> At least not here in England.
That's been a common sight in the San Francisco Bay Area. Granted
such people seldom starve as they eat garbage, and granted their
problems might stem as much from their own mental illness as from
societal injustice, but still. I've seen hopeless despair (as hope-
less as one can get while eating from garbage bins anyway), raving
nutters (they're not just on Usenet!), an alcoholic epileptic on
Polk Street in San Francisco who wore an old football helmet for
his falls to the pavement and a preacher in Berkeley dressed in a
filthy blanket bemoaning our failure to be baptised by him....
But generally, at least in major cities, we're good enough about
feeding our poor -- provided they can get themselves together to
go to the various charities' "dining halls". We fall short in a
few other areas though.
T.Bone
> news:8901e207.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > Varizo <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:<41269E84...@netscape.net>...
>
> > > PS Xposted to the goth NG cos they like talking about that
> subject there.
> >
> > And other feminists promote woman-focused pornography! It seems that
> > you both spend a lot of time talking about an extreme minority -
> even
> > among feminists! It's your (both your) narrow focus on this tiny
> > minority that empowers them in your own minds, if not in fact.
> ------
> Be aware, as the "goth NG" is, that Varizo is a troll. Don't feed him.
Hi V, I'm from the Goth newsgroup, and I know you're not a troll.
So please don't think we all think the same there. We don't you know!
BTW I've deleted UPG, which means I can say a little more to you,
without being flamed by the dissenting voices of the regulars there,
who, FWIW, I feel have treated you extremely unfairly.
I was already lurking in that particular newsgroup when you first
arrived there, and you settled in quite unobtrusively, causing no
probs for anyone. Until one of the regulars took a dislike to you and
began baiting you at every opportunity, (hint, no names mentioned, but
when he mentioned he had a "BA" after his name, and you asked if it
stood for "bloody arsehole", that _eventually_ was what shut him up!),
of course, by then, more of the regs had moved in to support him and
you had the whole clique on your back.
I could see it wasn't your fault, but you really should have ignored
them, responding too frequently to troll posts is never a good idea I
feel, though I can appreciate why you did it.
The problem with that, is you made him, and many of the others there,
look extremely stupid and they won't forgive you for it.
I can see that though they have accused _you_ of being the troll, it
is quite clear to me that they have been nothing more than trolls
themselves, though as they all justify each other's actions, they
remain oblivious to their own shortcomings.
I hope this post dispels the notion you may have had that we are 'all
the same' there.
I find your posts very _alive_, and I have never been annoyed or
offended by you, (even though you are very rude at times, LOL), you
have made some very good observations, which, of course, have been
ignored and the regs have gone blathering on about your spelling
instead.
I am quite happy to respond to your posts in UPG, but I expect I will
be flamed, and then 'plonked' for it! LOL
I tried writing you e-mails at both of your addresses, but they were
returned as "undeliverable". Please feel free to drop me a line if you
have a working e-mail address, and would like to chat about anything.
I would love to hear from you.
Dr Chaos
> dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in message news:<cac1ad88.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Varizo <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>>>It makes you wonder why women are thought so little of in so many diffrent > >sociatys on earth,
>
>
> You mean the hidebound bigots of the world? Bigotry is always based on
> ignorance. So countries that don't value women usually don't value
> learning and science and a host of other things. Take a good look at
> Pakistan.
>
>
>>By the people who have to pay to rear them!
>
>
> And how would they, themselves, be reared without grandmothers,
> mothers, and older sisters?
Well, in fact, that's why they want sons and not daughters.
Everybody is ignoring the actual facts driving this.
To wit: wives move in with the husband's family. When parents
are elderly, their son goes to work to support them, and his wife,
their daugher-in-law, stays home to take care of the house and
take care of them.
If they had a daughter, the daughter would be married, with
children, taking care of somebody else's elderly parents.
If they have a son, he may be miserable and unmarried if he isn't
sufficiently rich, but then he can at least spend his money
on taking care of his parents without spending a dime on the non-existent
wife.
It isn't ignorance or stupidity---it is clear local
utility-maximization. A son is just as good as a daughter (in theory)
for propagating genes, and a son is much more financially useful in their old age.
Dr Chaos
>
> And furthermore...you're wearing the SUV thing very thin. We could
> solve the energy problems in this country if only we invested half the
> federal fiscal resources we squander on an interventionary military
> presence in the world on energy research.
No we couldn't.
It's sort of like investing lots of money to "cure" obesity. The cure
is already known: STEP AWAY FROM THE CHEEZY POOFS.
It's sort of like investing lots of money to develop nuclear fusion for
energy. We already know the answer, but people don't want to hear it: fission
works.
but when they hear that they emote
"na-na-na-na-i'm-not-listening-i'm-an-environmentalist-and-
buy-organic-arugula-at-Whole_Foods-and-i'm-like-definitely-NO_TO_NOOOKS-
even-though-i-transport-my-spawn-in-my-lexus-suv-can't-be-too-safe-because
ITS-FOR-THE-CHILLLLLLLLREN"
research isn't the problem: you can already buy a Prius, thanks to
Asian engineering, no thanks to Detroit.
But again it doesn't matter if people don't want to step away from
their cheezy vrooms.
> And yes - energy
> independence is a matter of national security. I think it is laudable
> that you ride a bike and don't own a car. Congratulations! I actually
> do a lot of my work on-line and love the idea that I am always chained
> to a desk. But I also love the personal connections I have with my
> colleagues. Your personal choices, regardless of their thrift, cannot
> define how every other person should choose to live.
>
> I maintain that we can have efficient SUVs and energy independence.
Energy independence is dumb---cutting off money to Islamic radicals is smart.
That's entirely petroleum, not energy. (LNG imports will be very necessary).
For every Presidential-speech-strawcar ""efficient"" SUV-of-Tomorrowland,
there's a twice as efficient Civic that you can buy TODAY. (but don't take away
my bling bling 'sclade)
Here are some of my favorite things, which will not change, no matter how much
research we do.
1) law of gravity (in the full Einstein equivalence principle equating with inertia)
2) law of thermodynamics
3) law of fluid mechanics.
1+2 = heavier vehicles will consume more fuel to move, always.
3 = larger frontal-area vehicles will have more air resistance, always.
Most people don't know what that great marketing tool "Coefficient of Drag"
(Cd) is. They think "lower is better". Which is true.
However, the actual drag is proportional to the Cd times the FRONTAL AREA,
i.e. the area traced out if you took a head on photograph.
> But America's energy goals cannot be left in the hands of individuals
> whose ONLY motive is multiple condos and motorboats in every port.
huh? condos and motorboats?
1) condos use less energy than McMansions (but energy which doesn't
come from islamic-radical-funding petroleum isn't as dangerous)
2) personal motorboats are Darwinizers at work, but aren't a major
factor in petroleum consumption.
> Our
> national energy strategy must be recontextualized.
recontextualized my ass.
People need to stop driving their fucking Hummers and Excretions
and Escalations. NOW.
> Cat
John Fereira
news:cgohvk$akd$1...@news1.ucsd.edu:
>
> research isn't the problem: you can already buy a Prius, thanks to
> Asian engineering, no thanks to Detroit.
We've actually been looking at getting a Prius. In my neck of the woods
there is one year waiting list for delivery. We're considering a Civic
hybrid instead.
BTW, Ford is coming out with a gas-electric hybrid SUV. The 4WD version is
$28K.
Varizo
>> always a much greater number of women than of men, i cant think of any
>reason for it, it dosent seem sensiabl to hav more
>> women in the world than men, surely its better for evrybody if the amount
>of both sexses is equal?
>
>Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. The 2nd Ed. has a
>section in which Dawkins describes the evolution of sex ratios.
>Also see:
>
>http://core.ecu.edu/biol/summersk/summerwebpage/biol3520/EVOLsexratios.htm
Thanx for the link Dan, i dont hav time too do much on the internett in 2 nites a week, so i wouldent be looking for that stuff
myself.
>, surely
>it's better for everybody to look up answers to their questions
>on the Internet
Well like i just said, i dont hav time to go looking for stuff, not realy, i just talk to ppl in NGs, and anyway, its much
nicer just asking a question and hav you post a link for me Danny. Its so much more personal somhow. I like the personal touch.
I mean, why should i look for it myself anyway when i can just ask a question and hav you post a link for me? Thats
interracktion with sombody, whos on the other side of the world to me. Thats nice, i like that. Did you see those links that i
posted the other week, of pictures of beautiful women, i thought of you, and Ilya, i thought that youd like it, i thought it
might cheer him up a bit which is the main reason why i posted it there, but for you too. cos i kno that you like things like
that.
V.
Dr Chaos
I know. and how much does an ordinary non-hybrid civic cost and what efficiency
does it have?
The Ford has imported the 1st generation Toyota hybrid tech (1st Prius)
Toyota will soon be on their 3rd once the Ford is out.
Varizo
> we'd rather people noticed what we said rather than
> how we said it ...
Exactly Pete. Thanx.
[Anyway, i think that theres somthing lacking in ppl who hav to keep going on about
spelling, [and i dont mean Cat, cos i kno that she dont usualy say nothing about
that sort of thing, its the other morons who never talk about anything else and
ignore *evrything* that your trying to say, and thats probaly cos youve said somthing
that they dont like anyway, and so that why they focus on some spelling misstakes, to
get back at you that way] some ppl go on and on about spelling all the time and wont
disscuss anything thats being talked about if theres any spelling misstakes that they
can talk about insted, its boreing for one thing, i mean they dont *hav* to mention
it do they, if they dont like somthing cos of spelling misstakes, then they dont hav
to bother reading it do they? i thiik that its a problem in *them*, like they r being
*forced* to read somthing w a few spelling misstakes just so they can start going on
about it.
V.
Varizo
>The "Butterfly Analogy" is often used to convey an impression of how
>"Chaos Theory" works. Do you see the problem Pete? Consider the
>presentation of "Varizo", and then ask yourself how this person, as
>presented, can inarticulately articulate some of the ideas he does.
>I don't care, of course, other than
Right, now i think that your being just a bit insulting now. Cos it looks like you r saying that just
cos i cant spell some words then i cant kno about anything, and spelling abilitty is not any sign of
inteligence.
I dont kno nothing about where that butterfly saying comes from , i only kno that ive heard it
somwhere, i thought that it was somthing that the bubhists said, i actaully kno a lot of inteligent
ppl , i dont wasste my time in knowing thickoes, which is one reason why i dont like lowlife and
morronick thick ignorrant ppl, so you r saying that that butterfly saying is somthing to do with kaos
therory? i dont realy kno much about that, exsept that ive seen pictures on a rave album which i liked
and when i asked about it, i was told that it was the mandalbrott set and the album was called Kaos
therory as well, and i asked about tthat on a rave NG once, and they posted me a link all about it,
but i dont rememernbr if that was wehre i heard about that butterfly thing, it could hav been that
sombody told me about it, i hav allsorts of intaressting conversations with inteligent ppl, dont make
the misstake of thinking that im stupid and dont hav no intresst in nothing just cos i hav a few
spelling problems, cos too many ppl make that misstake and its insulting.
>Is Varizo attempting to create a cockney accent? ('Wot' for 'what',
Now your just being daft now. First off , im not a cockney and dont sound like one neithre, i dont
think that i even hav a acsent at all realy, i think that im quite wellspoken realy tho not wot youd
call posh, loads of ppl spell *wot* for *what*, that is not a spelling misstake, its just wot loads of
ppl do on the internett, its pronounced exactly the same, what is pronounced as wot isent it? or are
you saying that its pronounced diffrentley cos i dont see how it could be.
V.
Varizo
>Hi V, I'm from the Goth newsgroup, and I know you're not a troll.
>So please don't think we all think the same there. We don't you know!
Thanx. I kno that not evrybody is a load of stupid wankers there, [Whisky Dave is brilliant] but most of
them are a miserabal lof of bastards and youll find out for yourslef if you agree with me an Dave too
many times.
>I was already lurking in that particular newsgroup when you first
>arrived there, and you settled in quite unobtrusively, causing no
>probs for anyone. Until one of the regulars took a dislike to you and
>began baiting you at every opportunity, (hint, no names mentioned, but
>when he mentioned he had a "BA" after his name, and you asked if it
>stood for "bloody arsehole", that _eventually_ was what shut him up!),
Yeh that was that stupid david damarell cunt or wotever his stupid name is. I said somthing about
somting that id read about the Vicktrroionas censorying The Bible cos it was somtiug that i read in The
Softback Previews caltalogeu, whcih a ffend of mine use to get, and that stupid cunt startd argeuing
about it and going on and on about it, and it wasent even me who said it, i was only meintioning wot id
seen wrtitedn down in a catalogue. and he started replying to evrything that i said, but just for
trolling, and cos hes one of the liv in trolls there and they all stick 2gether tehy all started backing
him up, and taht ws how it all started. and yeh he started bragging about how he had a *BA* after his
name, and i just said *Bloody Areshole?* and your right, i never heard another thing from the cunt aftrr
taht.
>I am quite happy to respond to your posts in UPG, but I expect I will
>be flamed, and then 'plonked' for it! LOL
You can if you want, but yeh , you probaly will be. Im surpriesd that they havent killfiled Dave, i
think that some of the miserys hav, but not cos he replys to me, but cos he argues back at them too for
rthe hypocrassey , spesialy thta hester woman who calls herself a femminsit, Dave is always makeing her
look fucking stupid, its realy funny.
>Please feel free to drop me a line if you
>have a working e-mail address, and would like to chat about anything.
>I would love to hear from you.
I dont realy hav time to be sending emails to ppl, and the owner has blocked my main email adress cos of
pervy ones that i was getting , and the others i dont use, only for posting to NGs.
V.
Varizo
>"Pete Turk" <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:YGjOFJAO...@ragtag.demon.co.uk...
>
><snip>
>
>Hello, would you mind not crossposting, I've crossposted here as I don't
>know which group you're reading but in future if you could snip all the
>groups apart from 'yours' you'd be doing a lot of people a big favour.
Hes from the goth NG Pete, and some of them there cant stand to see anything
Xposted, theyve got a real problem with it, probaly cos the more ppl that
see some of the crap that they come out with, the more ppl there would be to
challange them, and they dont like to be challanged there about anything, no
matter how *wrong* they might be about anything, and that fucker is one of
the ones whos got a real problem with seeing anybody say anything decent to
me, hes one of the ones whos been slagging me off for ages and not lieking
it when ive answerd back, and if sombody is slagging me off then thats
alrite, but if sombody talks to me alrite and its obvious that im not the
troll that he likes to accuse me of being, then he dont like it and trys to
shut you up, the internetts full of them, hypocritts ,control freaks and
morons, there evrywhere, and that NG has more than most, tho Dave [Whisky
Dave] is from there and hes perfectley alrite tho.
V.
Varizo
> If _he_ talks about being poor and miserable, he'd
> mean something FAR more like a street-beggar in urban
> India rather than London in 2004. For instance, do
> you know of anyone so poor that they don't have a
> TV? the price of a pint every day? a place to wash and
> shave?
Well exactly, a lot of those sort of ppl hav got more than other ppl hav got, i
ahvent even got a tele, so i havent got a vidio or a dv player or sattalite or any of
those sort of things that the lowlife *hav* got and probaly take for granted too. Im
not saying thatt i feel that i should hav those things, i dont even *want* any of
that, cos i dont need it, and like most of the lowlife hav got cars as well, but i
wouldent want one of them either, they pollute the planet and more ppl should stop
being selfish and getting a car just cos they *want* one, its diffrent if they hav
*got* to hav one cos they liv so out of the way that theres no other allternativ or
somthing else that means that they relay need one, but loads of ppl will just hav a
car cos they think that its *normal* cos *evrybody else* has got one, and most ppl
are just like stupid sheep and dont ever think for themselves about anything much,
and just acsept that you hav a car cos its wot ppl do, and youve got to be the same
as evrybody else, stupid and boreing is wot i think about ppl like that ,that want
somthing just cos its wot they think that evybody else does.
V.
mother
Or, in other words, women are considered less valuable because
society is structured in a way that makes women less valuable.
How can it possibly be 'utility-maximization' (an ugly euphemism if
ever there was one) when so much human potential is either aborted,
killed or abandoned?
The 'actual facts' you give are correct but only scratch the surface.
Surely one of the basic problems is that a family's wealth/property/
inheritance (even the family name if you want to be picky) is passed on
exclusively to male children. Consider the tradition of dowries in India;
a daughter isn't entitled to any of her family's wealth, unless she gets
married - and even then it's not given to her, but goes straight to her
husband.
The 'actual facts' also ignore the reality that most women don't just 'stay
at home looking after the family' (which isn't exactly worthless) but also
work just as hard as men to contrubute to the household income.
You yourself (possibly unconsciously) go along with this myth when
describing an un-married male: "...he can at least spend his money
on taking care of his parents without spending a dime on the
non-existent wife".
Or perhaps you are just describing the mind set of people in that
particular culture? (In which case I apologize).
I too wouldn't directly condemn parents if they were forced into only
having male children because of the culture they happened to be born
into. However, by going along with it they bear some degree of
responsibility; and as such are being just as bigoted, ignorant and
stupid as everyone else.
<hugs>
cbianco
>recontextualized my ass.
>People need to stop driving their fucking Hummers and Excretions
>and Escalations. NOW.
matt, if jack hadntve scared himself off this board, your sentence
wouldve prompted him to take an inexpensive shot at your intellectual
culture in an attempt to rattle you away from Dissin da Set.
might wanna factor that into your commemorative assessment.
cbianco
hey how about: "people need to stop voting against their economic
interests NOW."
John Fereira
> John Fereira wrote:
>> Dr Chaos <mbNOSPA...@yahoo.dot.com> wrote in
>> news:cgohvk$akd$1...@news1.ucsd.edu:
>>
>>
>>>research isn't the problem: you can already buy a Prius, thanks to
>>>Asian engineering, no thanks to Detroit.
>>
>>
>> We've actually been looking at getting a Prius. In my neck of the
>> woods there is one year waiting list for delivery. We're considering
>> a Civic hybrid instead.
>>
>> BTW, Ford is coming out with a gas-electric hybrid SUV. The 4WD
>> version is $28K.
>
> I know. and how much does an ordinary non-hybrid civic cost and what
> efficiency does it have?
The civic comes in several versions. The DX, VP (Value package), LX, EX,
and Hybrid, ranging in price from about $14K up to $18.5K as features are
added. I believe the hybrid is essentially an LX with the addition of the
hybrid drive train and supporting electronics. It lists for just over $21K.
According to feuleconomy.gov the Civic with the 1.7L engine with automatic
transmission is 31/38 (city/hwy) and the hybrid 47/48. If we get a new
Civic it'll probably be the LX version.
>
> The Ford has imported the 1st generation Toyota hybrid tech (1st Prius)
I didn't know that. The new hybrid model is a gas/electric version of the
Ford Escape which gets 18/23 for their hybrid version. Ford also claims to
be working on a fuel cell vehicle (a version of the Focus) and I know Honda
has had the FCX available to "corporate buyers" for at least a year.
> Toyota will soon be on their 3rd once the Ford is out.
>
If you want to consider the Insight a choice.
catbrier
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > Varizo <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<41269F17...@netscape.net>...
> femminsists are very very bolshy and
> > > aggressiv and they keep on an on until tthey get somwhere with it, the better ones should be doing somthing to
> > > shut them up, but they would probaly just be shouted dowm if they tried.
> >
> > This is still too overly generalized to mean much. It's like painting
> > a shadow. Which "feminists", what statements? This is why I pressed
> > Ilya for specifics.
>
> I think that the orriginal suffragette women did alot of good, and that men and women should get the same amount of
> pay for doing the same job, but there are a lot of aggressiv women around who call thereselves femminists and go out
> picking fights with blokes to try an prove somthing, i kno that youve said that they are not real femminists, but
> thats wot they call themselvces and so ppl are obviousley going to assosiate those sort of women with bad aspeckts of
> femminisim, i dont ever hear any of the good ones, just the manhating ones who think that theyve got somthing to
> prove.
I know a number of women who call themselves "feminists" and they
don't go around starting brawls with men. In fact, these same
feminists also consider themselves pacivists and environmentalists. So
I don't know, specifically, of whom you are speaking.
> > > and move a load of lowlife into that area too, and also, it would meean me moving away from my GF and all my
> > > freinds which i dont realy want to hav to do.
> > > V.
> >
> > Public housing may be bad - but would your life be better if all these
> > poor people were wandering the streets? Will dead babies in the gutter
> > make your neighborhood a more beautiful place?
>
> Well it wouldent be like that if these ppl wernt in the area would it? Not in england. {Dead babys in the gutter i
> mean]. But they hav brought the area *down* to there levil and that is the problem, ppl hav moved away who could
> aford to, but some of us are stuck here, and its difficult to make ppl understand if its not happening to them or in
> there area, but these ppl are v rough and v aggressiv and dont change how they behave cos they hav been moved into a
> better area but just go on the same as wot they always hav done, they breed so much that seems to be wot the main
> problem is, its not just me saying that, its wot the ppl who are *outnumberd* by them are saying. Is it fair thatt
> they make life miserabal for other ppl and go around thretening ppl and making it so tht the police are always in the
> area, when they never use to be, and leaving all there rubbish out in the street when that sort of thing dident use
> to happen until they were moved into the area by the housing assosiations building homes for them.
But these "ppl" can't be classified accurately as "feminists." They
are street toughs. There is no logical connection between the people
you mention above and "feminists." And you can't blame feminists for
street toughs. Predatory economic practices that marginalize the poor
create that bi-product.
And these people have to live somewhere - correct?
>I can if i want,
> go and liv with my Dad, cos he wants me to, but i dont want to move away from my GF and my freinds, and i like the
> actual place that i liv in, its just the ppl who hav moved in to the area, it deterriorated realy quick as soon as
> they moved in.
In order for housing programs to work - there has to be a serious
follow-up program, good job prospects, training and retraining, and
good law-enforcement. It simply won't do to abandon a bunch of ghetto
dwellers in a new neighborhood and pretend the problem is solved.
> > "No society can surely be surely be flourishing and happy, of which
> > the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. (Adam
> > Smith, Wealth of Nations.)
>
> But that is just assuming that if sombody is poor in the sence that they arnt rich , then they are lowlife as well,
> but thats not true, ppl dont hav to be nasty aggressiv morons just cos they are poor, a lot of those ppl in the
> sosial housing hav got loads more money than a lot of ppl, [and theyve certanley got more than me] cos they get
> given money [in bennifits from the goverment] for evry kid that they hav, and they always seeem to hav loads of kids,
> its wellknown that some girls get pregnant on purpose cos they kno that they will get a place to liv and money to liv
> on for going out on the town at nite, its wellknown in my area, loads of them do it, and its got much much worse
> since all the sosial housing was built.
> V.
That's because perpetual poverty and joblessness becomes a cultural
milieu onto itself. Just giving people money doesn't work any more
than just giving them a place to live does. It's the "culture of
poverty" that must be changed. I believe all people who are able
should work at something. Instead of welfare - workfare.
The problem in the US, however, is that millions who are on welfare
actually have jobs and their jobs don't pay enough for them to live
productive and economically secure lives. Add to this the culture of
mass consumption where the message of "buy, buy, buy" is in their face
constantly. It creates cognitive dissonance. These people see the
corrupt powerful and wealthy, Ken Lay, Dick Cheney, et al, and also
watch the pimps and pushers grow rich and arrogant. Poverty,
corruption, ill-gotten wealth - it's all part of the same
socio-economic matrix.
Our economic model equates predation with success, and that's the
nexus of the problem.
Cat
mother
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Varizo <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<41269F17...@netscape.net>...
>>"No society can surely be surely be flourishing and happy, of which
>>the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. (Adam
>>Smith, Wealth of Nations.)
> But that is just assuming that if sombody is poor in the sence that they arnt rich , then they are lowlife as well,
> but thats not true, ppl dont hav to be nasty aggressiv morons just cos they are poor, a lot of those ppl in the
> sosial housing hav got loads more money than a lot of ppl, [and theyve certanley got more than me] cos they get
> given money [in bennifits from the goverment] for evry kid that they hav, and they always seeem to hav loads of kids,
> its wellknown that some girls get pregnant on purpose cos they kno that they will get a place to liv and money to liv
> on for going out on the town at nite, its wellknown in my area, loads of them do it, and its got much much worse
> since all the sosial housing was built.
When you say "it's well known that some girls get pregnant on purpose
[etc]"; do you know this as fact?
How do you know? Have you ever met a single mother in your entire life
who said she had a child just so she
could get more money from the government?
The whole idea is completely ludicrous anyway; a single mother with no
job and one kid will get £60 a week
in benefis. Each child after that will result in an extra £10.
Do you really think that's "loads more money than a lot of ppl"?
Don't you ever wonder what it must be like to feel a new person growing
inside of you? To feel it struggling and
fighting for life? And then suffer hours of intense pain as you
reluctantly give it up into what you know is a cruel world?
Have you ever thought about that?
Or does it add up to nothing in your mind apart from an extra £10 a week?
<hugs>
Mrs. Turtoni
John Fereira scribed :
The Highlander is looking like a pretty good replacement for
my Camry.
Faith
oldgoth
<snip stuff>
Can you not cross post please, most of us on UPG have killfiled Varizo as we
don't wish to read his rantings, to have them repeated via a cross post from
an unrelated group is a little annoying to say the least.
Thanks.
martin oldgoth (cross posting to get the point across)
Varizo...
> > t there are a lot of aggressiv women around who call thereselves femminists and go out
> > picking fights with blokes to try an prove somthing, i kno that youve said that they are not real femminists, but
> > thats wot they call themselvces and so ppl are obviousley going to assosiate those sort of women with bad aspeckts of
> > femminisim, i dont ever hear any of the good ones, just the manhating ones who think that theyve got somthing to
> > prove.
>
> I know a number of women who call themselves "feminists" and they
> don't go around starting brawls with men. In fact, these same
> feminists also consider themselves pacivists and environmentalists. So
> I don't know, specifically, of whom you are speaking.
Well thats cos they liv in my area, your in america, and in a nice
sort of area too by the sound of it.
> > to happen until they were moved into the area by the housing assosiations building homes for them.
> And these people have to live somewhere - correct?
Well it might help if they dident breed so much, theres always more of
them than of anybody else, but the thing is why do the aurthortys hav
to pick on a area that dident hav many of those sort of ppl living
there, and then they put them there and they just bring down the area
to there levil. and othr ppl move away and the ones who cant afford to
are left having to put up with thses rough horribal ppl and its not
nice at all. Im not being funny by saying this, but hav you actualy
got any of these sorts of ppl living on your doorstep? I mean hav the
local authoritys moved loads of them into your area and turrned it
like into a rough trailer park or wotevr it is that you hav over there
that is the eqwuivalaant? [And this bloody new keyboard is driving me
mad, i make even more typieng misstakes than with the old one and hav
to spend ages going back over evrythign, i cant get used to it useing
it yet].
V.
Varizo...
> When you say "it's well known that some girls get pregnant on purpose
> [etc]"; do you know this as fact?
> How do you know? Have you ever met a single mother in your entire life
> who said she had a child just so she
> could get more money from the government?
Yes i hav and more than one too, and no there not freinds of mine, but
they r absolute lowlife trash, they do it so that they dont hav to
find a job, they dont ahv to hav the kid after all theyve got the
choice of having free abortions if they want it, and when they dont
even kno who the father is and so theres no bloke putting pressure on
them to hav a kid that they dont want, ive heard them say how easy it
is having kids cos they r given drugs so they dont feel pain, and
anyway women in some countrys just get down by the side of the road
and hav there kid and go strait back to work in the fields or wotever,
so it cant be that awful, i kno that it can be for some but a lot hav
them realy easy.
> The whole idea is completely ludicrous anyway; a single mother with no
> job and one kid will get £60 a week
> in benefis. Each child after that will result in an extra £10.
Well i kno for a fact that some of them get a lot more than that, and
the goverment is suposed to be giving them 500 pounds for each kid
that they hav if they r not earning anything. Thats just going to
encourage even more of them to breed.
V.
Varizo...
> "catbrier" <catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8901e207.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip stuff>
>
> Can you not cross post please, most of us on UPG have killfiled Varizo as we
> don't wish to read his rantings, to have them repeated via a cross post from
> an unrelated group is a little annoying to say the least.
You and revullsiv, you and revullsiv! You both come trolling over here
and ordering ppl about. Well its funny then that ive got ppl giving me
support from the goth NG and saying that your both *wrong*, and
Bonehead has been posting stuff here supporting me, tho whether hes
just another stalker whos being nice about it and trying to creep
round me, i havent worked out yet, so sorry to him if im wrong about
that, but it wouldent be the 1st time that weridoes hav sent me emails
being all nice and then getting realy realy pervy, which is why i dont
hav emails now, and Boney said that hes been trying to send me some,
but like i said,sorry if im wrong about him, but all you are, is justa
fucking troll, and you dont speak for evybody in the goth group so
dont fucking act like you do!!!
V.
Varizo...
> news:8901e207.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip stuff>
>
> Can you not cross post please, most of us on UPG have killfiled Varizo as we
> don't wish to read his rantings, to have them repeated via a cross post from
> an unrelated group is a little annoying to say the least.
You and revullsiv, you and revullsiv! You both come trolling over here
The Danimal
> Dr Chaos wrote:
> > Well, in fact, that's why they want sons and not daughters.
> >
> > Everybody is ignoring the actual facts driving this.
> >
> > To wit: wives move in with the husband's family. When parents
> > are elderly, their son goes to work to support them, and his wife,
> > their daugher-in-law, stays home to take care of the house and
> > take care of them.
> >
> > If they had a daughter, the daughter would be married, with
> > children, taking care of somebody else's elderly parents.
> >
> > If they have a son, he may be miserable and unmarried if he isn't
> > sufficiently rich, but then he can at least spend his money
> > on taking care of his parents without spending a dime on the non-existent
> > wife.
> >
> > It isn't ignorance or stupidity---it is clear local
> > utility-maximization. A son is just as good as a daughter (in theory)
> > for propagating genes, and a son is much more financially useful in
> > their old age.
>
> Or, in other words, women are considered less valuable because
> society is structured in a way that makes women less valuable.
Not "considered"---women are less valuable in terms of
meeting survival needs in such a society.
The structure of primitive societies reflects
reality. Until men invent machines to do the heavy work,
muscle power is the prime tool for generating wealth.
Modern societies have managed (at least temporarily) to
offset the muscle power advantage of men by relegating a
large fraction of heavy work to machines. However, as the
machines are mostly consuming soon-to-vanish fossil fuels,
the current infrastructure for liberating women is not
sustainable.
World petroleum extraction, for example, may peak around the
year 2008* and then go into inexorable decline. This may
disappoint the billion Chinese who are looking forward to
purchasing their first automobiles. They will share their
pain by bidding up the price of petroleum as much as they
can.
*See:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691090866/103-5764026-2259825
Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage
by Kenneth S. Deffeyes
> How can it possibly be 'utility-maximization' (an ugly euphemism if
> ever there was one) when so much human potential is either aborted,
> killed or abandoned?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the numbers.
I.e., do the math.
Quantitative biologists routinely run simulations of population
dynamics and so on to answer rhetorical questions such as yours.
> The 'actual facts' you give are correct but only scratch the surface.
> Surely one of the basic problems is that a family's wealth/property/
> inheritance (even the family name if you want to be picky) is passed on
> exclusively to male children.
But this is an effect, rather than a cause. Traditional cultures
did not say "eenie meenie miney moe, MEN!" when selecting the
dominant gender. Instead nature made that decision for them by
equipping men with the muscle power necessary to become the
economically relevant gender in agricultural societies.
Before the invention of agriculture (circa 10K years ago), men and
women were on somewhat more equal economic footing, as studies of
hunter-gatherer cultures find that women who do the gathering
collect more food calories in an hour of work than men who do the
hunting (although the men bring home calories of higher quality,
i.e., protein content, and of course men are essential for
protecting the group against wild beasts and marauding men
from neighboring groups).
After the invention of agriculture, the greater strength and
work capacity of men (which they evolved during millions of
years of pursuing prey animals, and fighting with other men
over women) allowed men to exploit the sudden change in game
rules.
A high percentage of hunts end in failure. Farming and herding
are much more reliable. This enormously increased the economic
importance of men as humans shifted from hunting/gathering
to agriculture. Agriculture supports ten times as many
people per unit of land as hunting/gathering, so the adoption
of agriculture also led to the rise of large cities.
When humans started congregating in historically unprecedented
numbers, which humans were likely to rise to the top of the
social hierarchies that inevitably formed? Why, of course, the
most dominant men, who had millions of years' evolutionary
experience honing them to compete with other men for women.
For men there was always a higher reproductive payoff for
asserting dominance. Do the math: a dominant female could at
best feed the few offspring she herself could produce. But
a sufficiently dominant male could feed far more offspring,
by accumulating more wives, limited only by his dominance
(sperm production was rarely the limiting factor).
On average, the evolutionary psychologies of men and women
are different. Generally speaking, women tend to align themselves
with powerful men and cooperate with them; whereas men have
strong desires to sieze power.
> Consider the tradition of dowries in India;
> a daughter isn't entitled to any of her family's wealth, unless she gets
> married - and even then it's not given to her, but goes straight to her
> husband.
For the bulk of India's poor, there isn't any family wealth
to inherit.
Of the few families who do have something to pass on, the
women in those families for the most part endorse their
current system. Why do you suppose they do that?
> The 'actual facts' also ignore the reality that most women don't just 'stay
> at home looking after the family' (which isn't exactly worthless) but also
> work just as hard as men to contrubute to the household income.
Actually they do not "work just as hard as men." Their perceived
effort level may be the same, but their actual work output is
less, and the value they generate is less on average because value
generation in pre-industrial, agricultural societies depends
to a large extent on muscle power.
A man who is chopping wood, harvesting grain, digging ditches,
building stone walls, mining coal, etc., can be substantially
more productive than a woman when the going gets rough, on average.
Primitive societies tend to be very conservative because the pace
of change historically was very slow. Many generations might pass
without seeing a single significant technological innovation.
This means that over time, everything has been pretty much tried,
and things that did not work were rejected. The social order tends
to become very rigid.
Contrast that with our modern societies which have, at least for
the time being, fueled a boom in innovation largely by burning
fossil fuels at an exponentially increasing rate. As long as
the fuels hold out, this allows each generation to change many
of the game rules compared to the previous generation.
The amount of change that occurs now in one human lifespan is
enormous. When things are changing, it becomes easier to question
the old traditions, because the physical conditions that led to
those traditions are no longer relevant.
> You yourself (possibly unconsciously) go along with this myth when
> describing an un-married male: "...he can at least spend his money
> on taking care of his parents without spending a dime on the
> non-existent wife".
What "myth" are you talking about?
> Or perhaps you are just describing the mind set of people in that
> particular culture? (In which case I apologize).
Do you think it is a coincidence that the status of women is low
in EVERY post-agricultural/pre-industrial society?
> I too wouldn't directly condemn parents if they were forced into only
> having male children because of the culture they happened to be born
> into. However, by going along with it they bear some degree of
> responsibility; and as such are being just as bigoted, ignorant and
> stupid as everyone else.
No, they only seem bigoted, ignorant, and stupid to you because
your outlook has been skewed by massive infusions of technology
and fossil fuels.
Try living for a few years with no modern conveniences whatsoever,
exactly as these traditional people do, and see how your feminist
ideals hold up.
I saw a TV show about some man who lives in the woods in
somewhere in the mountains of North Carolina using *ONLY*
the tools and technologies available to the first European
pioneers. He's done his research well and by all accounts
reproduced an authentic pioneer existence. He opens his cabin
to visits by schoolchildren on field trips and so on. They
visit, and leave. For several years he has been trying to
find a woman to be his wife and live with him. For some
reason, he cannot interest any women in returning to the
year 1750.
Can you imagine life with no central heat, no running water,
no grocery stores, no feminine hygeine products, no cosmetics,
no deodorants, no effective household cleaning products, no
electricity, no telephones, no TV, no automobiles, no washing
machines, etc.? Take away all those modern conveniences,
put a man and woman together in the woods, and who is going
to be the boss? At least 95% of the time, the man automatically
is the boss in that situation. When push comes to shove, as it
regularly does in harsh conditions, the man can push and shove
twice as hard as the woman.
Women don't want to go back to 1750 not only because of the
physical discomfort but because it would require them to
submit to patriarchy again.
-- the Danimal
Sharon B
<cac1ad88.04083...@posting.google.com>:
>Can you imagine life with no central heat,
btdt
>no running water,
btdt, too
>no grocery stores, no feminine hygeine products,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that's just inhumane for ALL concerned, Dan
>no cosmetics,
>no deodorants, no effective household cleaning products, no
>electricity, no telephones, no TV, no automobiles, no washing
>machines,
washboards SUCK, wringer washers ain't bad
>etc.? Take away all those modern conveniences,
>put a man and woman together in the woods, and who is going
>to be the boss?
Depends.
>At least 95% of the time, the man automatically
>is the boss in that situation.
If he's a rank greenhorn like most men today are, then he d*mn well
better be following *my* instructions rather than attempting any
bossin', or I'll leave his Darwin-bound dead weight azz sittin' all
alone to fend for himself.
>When push comes to shove, as it
>regularly does in harsh conditions, the man can push and shove
>twice as hard as the woman.
when you're standing on a ridge top, what matters is who pushes
*first*....which is something to be kept in mind when the man takes a
notion to start the pushing and shoving twice as hard thang. hth.
other than your percentages for modern men being way askew, I agree
that for experienced woodsmen like Jim or John F., for example, it
makes better sense to let them break trail.....they can do it easier
which means faster progress. Other than that, it's knowledge not
strength when it comes to woodscraft.
>Women don't want to go back to 1750 not only because of the
>physical discomfort but because it would require them to
>submit to patriarchy again.
um....no. but when we hit these New Dark Ages, head south and I'll
make sure you don't freeze/starve.....just don't bring your ardent
l'il English friend. You get to split the wood, cuz your muscles are
bigger. I'll allow you to use my wood splitters and maul :-P
[cuz someone says I want to be a human rights advocate]
oh, and I HAVE a working siege weapon
varizo....don't MAKE me drag my trebuchet out to pelt you with those
tomatoes rotting in my garden.....
[i'm SAVING it for The Great Pumpkin Launches this fall....I've
already cut The Great Pumpkin, 'tis sitting in my living room RIGHT
NOW....woo hoo!!!]
David
[...]
> washboards SUCK, wringer washers ain't bad
Grandma had a wringer washer; it was a pain. For small things she'd
use a washboard, which I've also done; washboards beat all hell out
of whapping your shirts on rocks in the creek.
As for the rest of your post, Ms. B., me too!!1!1!
catbrier
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > Varizo <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<412AA32D...@netscape.net>...
> > > t there are a lot of aggressiv women around who call thereselves femminists and go out
> > > picking fights with blokes to try an prove somthing, i kno that youve said that they are not real femminists, but
> > > thats wot they call themselvces and so ppl are obviousley going to assosiate those sort of women with bad aspeckts of
> > > femminisim, i dont ever hear any of the good ones, just the manhating ones who think that theyve got somthing to
> > > prove.
> >
> > I know a number of women who call themselves "feminists" and they
> > don't go around starting brawls with men. In fact, these same
> > feminists also consider themselves pacivists and environmentalists. So
> > I don't know, specifically, of whom you are speaking.
>
> Well thats cos they liv in my area, your in america, and in a nice
> sort of area too by the sound of it.
It's a rural area outside of a moderately sized city. But that's not
really the issue.
> > > to happen until they were moved into the area by the housing assosiations building homes for them.
>
> > And these people have to live somewhere - correct?
>
> Well it might help if they dident breed so much,
"Feminists", as a rule, practice birth control and strongly support
Planned Parenthood.
>theres always more of
> them than of anybody else, but the thing is why do the aurthortys hav
> to pick on a area that dident hav many of those sort of ppl living
> there, and then they put them there and they just bring down the area
> to there levil. and othr ppl move away and the ones who cant afford to
> are left having to put up with thses rough horribal ppl and its not
> nice at all. Im not being funny by saying this, but hav you actualy
> got any of these sorts of ppl living on your doorstep?
No, like I said, there is no neighborhood here (housing) to move them
into. I live in a rural area and my nearest neighbor is over 400 yards
away from me.
> I mean hav the
> local authoritys moved loads of them into your area and turrned it
> like into a rough trailer park or wotevr it is that you hav over there
> that is the eqwuivalaant?
Was it "feminists" that moved these people into your neighborhood?
> [And this bloody new keyboard is driving me
> mad, i make even more typieng misstakes than with the old one and hav
> to spend ages going back over evrythign, i cant get used to it useing
> it yet].
> V.
But you can't make a logical connection between "feminists" and the
alleged low-lifes in your neighborhood and you can't blame "feminists"
for that problem. My point is that there is no connection.
Cat
Sharon B
wrote in <Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@troll.weezl.org>:
>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Sharon B wrote:
>[...]
>
>> washboards SUCK, wringer washers ain't bad
>
>Grandma had a wringer washer; it was a pain. For small things she'd
>use a washboard, which I've also done; washboards beat all hell out
>of whapping your shirts on rocks in the creek.
ah......I take it you are/have been an avid outdoorsman thus have also
had that UNFORTUNATE experience, but as I recall it, I whapped the
clothing with the rocks, and not the other way 'round; but I can see
where the velocity of the swing would help beat the dirt out of the
fibers.
>As for the rest of your post, Ms. B., me too!!1!1!
heh, ya know......bad enough that you're stuck doing most everything
by yourself, stumbling over them getting in your way and trying to
keep them from Darwin-ing themselves, but to have them trying to
assume control, TOO??
I think NOT.
mother
> mother <mot...@bedtime.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cgopbd$h0g$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>>Dr Chaos wrote:
>>>It isn't ignorance or stupidity---it is clear local
>>>utility-maximization. A son is just as good as a daughter (in theory)
>>>for propagating genes, and a son is much more financially useful in
>>>their old age.
>>
>>Or, in other words, women are considered less valuable because
>>society is structured in a way that makes women less valuable.
>
>
> Not "considered"---women are less valuable in terms of
> meeting survival needs in such a society.
>
> The structure of primitive societies reflects
> reality. Until men invent machines to do the heavy work,
> muscle power is the prime tool for generating wealth.
Modern day India and China are not 'primitive societies' by any stretch
of the imagination.
Even ignoring this misconception, 'heavy work' only represents a small
part of what is required in agrocultural production. Anyway, whilst one
person might be 'digging ditches' the other is 'milking the cows'.
Which of them generates the most wealth?
>>How can it possibly be 'utility-maximization' (an ugly euphemism if
>>ever there was one) when so much human potential is either aborted,
>>killed or abandoned?
> The answer, my friend, is blowing in the numbers.
>
> I.e., do the math.
>
> Quantitative biologists routinely run simulations of population
> dynamics and so on to answer rhetorical questions such as yours.
I'd be genuinely interested to see these 'simulations'; any more details?
Possibly I've misunderstood, but you seem to be implying that it _must_
be beneficial to discard a few female children; otherwise they wouldn't
do it?
I don't think that holds up. For example, many societies (at one time or
other) have restricted female access to education. Surely a massive
waste of potential brain power. The potential benefits are over-ridden
in order to maintain the cultural and religious status quo - even if that
means a society becomes more impoverished as a result.
>>Surely one of the basic problems is that a family's wealth/property/
>>inheritance (even the family name if you want to be picky) is passed on
>>exclusively to male children.
>
>
> But this is an effect, rather than a cause. Traditional cultures
> did not say "eenie meenie miney moe, MEN!" when selecting the
> dominant gender. Instead nature made that decision for them by
> equipping men with the muscle power necessary to become the
> economically relevant gender in agricultural societies.
So, by your reasoning; the dominant gender is based purely on
physical strength and yet you live in a western society were 'muscle
power' is of absolutely no relevence to economic output at all? So how
do explain the fact that males are currently the dominant gender?
Your insistence that it's because 'they always have been' is
historically incorrect. Women in Medieval Europe had equal
status to men. Family inheritance was past down to the first born
of either gender (male or female) and with it came power and
influence. Women also fought along side men in any battles that
took place. Early Celtic history also reveals that women and men
were given equal value.
What happened was Christianty. It shouldn't be forgotten what an
enormous influence this religion has had on western society both
on the common perception of the 'here and now' and what happened
in 'the past'.
Just as 'tartan kilts' and 'bagpipes' are believed to be intrinsically
Scottish (even though they are a Victorian invention); so too are views
of history which maintain that women have always been subjugated
by men.
> For the bulk of India's poor, there isn't any family wealth
> to inherit.
>
> Of the few families who do have something to pass on, the
> women in those families for the most part endorse their
> current system. Why do you suppose they do that?
Going along with the current system does not necessarily mean they
endorce it. You might as well ask why African slaves in the 18th century
didn't just refuse to do any work?
Must be because they thought slavery was a good idea huh?
> Take away all those modern conveniences,
> put a man and woman together in the woods, and who is going
> to be the boss? At least 95% of the time, the man automatically
> is the boss in that situation.
The current status of women in India has nothing at all to do with 'two
people
left alone in the woods'. Is this how you justify any oppression of
women no
matter in what regard?
Anyway, your assumption that "the man automatically is the boss in that
situation" is nothing more than an assumption. I tend to think that in
all kinds
of human relations - 'equal partnership' is much more pofitable and
productive
than a 'dictatorship'.
But of course you have bigger muscles; so therefore you know best.
<hugs>
The Danimal
> The Danimal wrote:
> > mother <mot...@bedtime.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cgopbd$h0g$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >>Dr Chaos wrote:
>
> >>>It isn't ignorance or stupidity---it is clear local
> >>>utility-maximization. A son is just as good as a daughter (in theory)
> >>>for propagating genes, and a son is much more financially useful in
> >>>their old age.
> >>
> >>Or, in other words, women are considered less valuable because
> >>society is structured in a way that makes women less valuable.
> >
> >
> > Not "considered"---women are less valuable in terms of
> > meeting survival needs in such a society.
> >
> > The structure of primitive societies reflects
> > reality. Until men invent machines to do the heavy work,
> > muscle power is the prime tool for generating wealth.
>
> Modern day India and China are not 'primitive societies' by any stretch
> of the imagination.
Actually they are, when you consider the number of Indians
and Chinese living in abject poverty.
Even the poorest U.S. citizens are doing pretty well by
comparison, thanks to government welfare programs here,
made possible by the considerably higher per capita
wealth generation. When I was in college, the
students from India told me they saw no poor people in
the U.S. And I went to an urban college surrounded by
welfare ghettoes, which looked pretty bad to me. But by
Indian standards that is not poverty, it seems.
India and China do have small enclaves of prosperity amid
their larger seas of poverty. Inside the mass of a billion
or so largely impoverished Indians is the economic equivalent
of a nation like France.
But how much wealth a society has right now is not the only
issue. How long the society has been wealthy is the other.
It takes decades to change ancient traditions. A country that
industrialized only a generation ago hasn't had time to
revise its game rules yet.
Consider that Darwin explained human origins in 1859, and
even today about half of U.S. citizens still believe in
special creation.
> Even ignoring this misconception, 'heavy work' only represents a small
> part of what is required in agrocultural production.
But heavy labor is a critical part.
It's an advantage to be able to do more things.
> Anyway, whilst one
> person might be 'digging ditches' the other is 'milking the cows'.
The person who can do both jobs is worth more. Consider,
if the person who can only milk cows gets sick, the
stronger person can milk the cows. But if the strong
person gets sick, and the cows knock down their barn,
who will put the barn back up? Or if a tree falls on
the fence and the cows get out, who will remove the tree
and round up the cows? When there are no power tools,
men can cut wood and haul logs much faster than women,
on average. Even with power tools, most lumberjacks are
still men.
If food gets tight, the primitive couple has to give
priority to preserving the strength of the stronger person.
It would be too risky to favor the weaker person, because
then both could die if something bad happens that only the
stronger person could handle.
Generally a society can only afford to coddle the weak
when it is enjoying great surplus.
Consider how social welfare works among the Inuit. If a
sled dog goes down, they have to kill it. When grandpa
can no longer hunt, they push him out into the snow.
The whole culture is barely clinging to the edge of
survival, so there is no way they can be generous.
> Which of them generates the most wealth?
The person who can do both. How? Because in the course of
things, occasionally the need arises for someone to do
heavy work. A worker who can handle the heavy work gets
it done, and then goes back to whatever else he was doing.
A worker who cannot do the heavy work must stop and ask
someone else for help. This takes time, reduces productivity,
and slightly degrades the status of the person who must ask
for help.
In every job the worker faces a steady stream of varying
problems. A worker who can handle a larger range of
problems is more productive than a worker who must constantly
stop and seek assistance from others.
The natural source of authority is to have a wider range
of skills. If there are two workers, and one worker's skills
are a proper subset of the other's, the worker with more
skills will tend to be promoted ahead. That's just how it
works.
A parent can exercise authority over a child because the
parent can do more things. If the child could do all the
things the parent can do, the child no longer has to submit
to the parent. This is exactly what happens when the
child reaches adulthood. Being an adult means having
the power to tell your parents to go suck a lemon, if
that's what you wnat to do, because as an adult you have
(or should have) comparable skills.
> >>How can it possibly be 'utility-maximization' (an ugly euphemism if
> >>ever there was one) when so much human potential is either aborted,
> >>killed or abandoned?
>
> > The answer, my friend, is blowing in the numbers.
> >
> > I.e., do the math.
> >
> > Quantitative biologists routinely run simulations of population
> > dynamics and so on to answer rhetorical questions such as yours.
>
> I'd be genuinely interested to see these 'simulations'; any more details?
Google and ye shall find. My sentence contains enough keywords
to get traction on Google.
> Possibly I've misunderstood, but you seem to be implying that it _must_
> be beneficial to discard a few female children; otherwise they wouldn't
> do it?
The people doing the discarding must perceive a benefit. That's
more likely if the benefit is real, but people do sometimes
misperceive, or fail to realize immediately when conditions have
changed.
> I don't think that holds up. For example, many societies (at one time or
> other) have restricted female access to education. Surely a massive
> waste of potential brain power.
Not necessarily. Education costs money. To yield a return on
investment, education must make workers more productive.
In societies where most women drop out of the workforce to
raise large numbers of children, educating them may be a
needless luxury. There may be little point in having educated
mothers, when their sons can go to school to get educated
anyway.
> The potential benefits are over-ridden
> in order to maintain the cultural and religious status quo - even if that
> means a society becomes more impoverished as a result.
Societies currently in poverty lack the wealth to afford
universal education. They have to focus first on the people
most likely to produce a payoff.
Women don't need much education to bear and raise children.
They were doing it for 100,000 years before anybody thought
up the concept of formal education. And formal education is
generally best left to trained professionals anyway.
> >>Surely one of the basic problems is that a family's wealth/property/
> >>inheritance (even the family name if you want to be picky) is passed on
> >>exclusively to male children.
> >
> >
> > But this is an effect, rather than a cause. Traditional cultures
> > did not say "eenie meenie miney moe, MEN!" when selecting the
> > dominant gender. Instead nature made that decision for them by
> > equipping men with the muscle power necessary to become the
> > economically relevant gender in agricultural societies.
>
> So, by your reasoning; the dominant gender is based purely
Not "purely." But in other respects men and women are similar
(I.Q., manual dexterity, ability to learn new tasks, etc.),
so having one key advantage in one important area yields a
critical net advantage in a harsh environment.
A man can outsmart a bear, even though the bear has the strength
of ten men, but the man is much smarter than the bear. Women are
approximately equal to men in intelligence, on average, so
they cannot rely on superior brainpower to make up for a strength
disadvantage, in an environment where strength matters.
> on
> physical strength and yet you live in a western society were 'muscle
> power' is of absolutely no relevence to economic output at all? So how
> do explain the fact that males are currently the dominant gender?
Several reasons:
1. Women still have some children. Even one child massively
handicaps a young woman during the critical early phase of
her climb to the top of any profession. Most women who have
children *want* to work less so they can focus more on their
children. Most men want to keep working after they become fathers.
2. Muscle power is less important but not entirely unimportant.
Even in an office, sometimes there are boxes to be lifted and
so on. Being able to lift the boxes beats having to ask someone
else to lift them. Asking others for help always costs a bit of
political capital, over time this adds up, and the asker
has to pay for it somehow. A beautiful young woman can "pay"
for it with her beauty (men are eager to lift her boxes),
but the majority of women are not beautiful.
3. Women for some reason are just less interested, on average,
in the kinds of jobs that pay well and aren't very fun. Give
a young man a box of junk computer parts, and he might want to
tinker with them and see if he can build something that works.
A young woman would usually rather go shopping with her friends.
4. Because men were the physically dominant gender going back
at least 5 million years to our ape ancestors, men also have
the psychological adaptations to seek dominance. Having big
muscles won't help unless the brain has the right programming
to exploit them. As I wrote before, the evolutionary psychologies
of men and women are different.
5. Even if the playing field was perfectly level, a society
would still need several generations to change its habits.
> Your insistence that it's because 'they always have been' is
> historically incorrect. Women in Medieval Europe had equal
> status to men.
Sure they did. That's why the history of Medieval Europe
features an equal number of influential female leaders---
NOT.
Discover magazine ran an article listing the 500 most
influential people in history. Three were women.
> Family inheritance was past down to the first born
> of either gender (male or female) and with it came power and
> influence. Women also fought along side men in any battles that
> took place. Early Celtic history also reveals that women and men
> were given equal value.
You remind me of the black studies scholars who claim all
the great inventions came from Africa.
Note to feminists: history is NOT your friend, because most
of it took place before the explosion in fossil fuel use
which made equality for women somewhat imaginable.
> What happened was Christianty. It shouldn't be forgotten what an
> enormous influence this religion has had on western society both
> on the common perception of the 'here and now' and what happened
> in 'the past'.
Did Christianity bring about the low status of women in
India and China?
> Just as 'tartan kilts' and 'bagpipes' are believed to be intrinsically
> Scottish (even though they are a Victorian invention); so too are views
> of history which maintain that women have always been subjugated
> by men.
When we view history we are viewing mostly the activities
of men. Women have made very little history.
> > For the bulk of India's poor, there isn't any family wealth
> > to inherit.
> >
> > Of the few families who do have something to pass on, the
> > women in those families for the most part endorse their
> > current system. Why do you suppose they do that?
>
> Going along with the current system does not necessarily mean they
> endorce it. You might as well ask why African slaves in the 18th century
> didn't just refuse to do any work?
The slaves worked because the alternative was to be flogged.
Many slaves bore the scars of multiple floggings on their
backs.
Do Indian women bear similar scars? If not, then they endorse
their current system.
Believe it or not, those Muslim girls in France who are being
"oppressed" with their head scarves actually feel a sense of
shame when the French government compels them to take off
their head scarves. The emotion is similar to what an American
woman might feel if the government forced her to go topless.
Do American women feel oppressed because they are being forced
to hide their breasts? Maybe some do, but most women have
accepted their societies' standards for appropriate behavior,
whatever those standards might be.
Humans have a powerful urge to conform to the expectations
of their societies. Not everybody does, of course, but
people conform much more often than they rebel. That's because
humans are social animals. Being 'social' means conforming
most of the time.
Think of the sheer horror a person tends to feel when he or
she commits some extreme faux pas in front of a disapproving
audience. The human brain is genetically programmed to give
priority to avoiding the sensation of staring into a crowd of
disapproving faces. The reason for this is obvious: in a
primitive culture, getting on everybody's shit list tended
to mean your survival was in doubt.
So all those Indian women who by western standards cooperate
in the "oppression" of their daughters are probably just
doing what they seriously believe to be proper.
> Must be because they thought slavery was a good idea huh?
You could identify the ones who disagreed by the scars
on their backs.
After the slaves were freed, they did not all immediately
get up and leave. Most of them stayed on as sharecroppers
because they didn't know what else to do. It took generations
for millions of American blacks to migrate north to take
jobs in industry.
> > Take away all those modern conveniences,
> > put a man and woman together in the woods, and who is going
> > to be the boss? At least 95% of the time, the man automatically
> > is the boss in that situation.
>
> The current status of women in India has nothing at all to do with 'two
> people left alone in the woods'.
Actually it does. I am explaining how men have an advantage
when the going gets tough.
Incidentally, did you know that of the five women who have
summitted K2 (considered the world's most difficult mountain),
three died during the descent, and the other two later died
on other 8000 meter peaks? Men die on big mountains too,
of course, but not as fast as women.
> Is this how you justify any oppression of
> women no matter in what regard?
Learn the difference between "is" and "ought to." Every
basic sociobiology book explains the difference because
so many people such as yourself cannot realize
the difference on your own.
Newton explained gravity, he did not "justify" it.
> Anyway, your assumption that "the man automatically is the boss in that
> situation" is nothing more than an assumption.
Actually it's an observation, and I said it was only true
at least 95% of the time.
Occasionally a woman will comprehensively dominate a man.
In the Olympics, in every sport where women compete, the
champion woman can outperform at least 99% of all the
world's men. Sometimes 99.99% of all men.
But if you rank the top women against the top men, in sports
where men and women do the same things, the top women would
often not even qualify for the Olympics if they had to compete
against the men.
The differences between average men and women are similar.
You can see this on any bicycle club ride. On average, the
men are stronger riders than the women. The fastest woman
can beat most of the guys, but she will almost never be
the fastest rider. So the net effect is if you like to ride
fast, you will be riding mostly with men. Having a woman
along on a fast ride becomes kind of a novelty.
Sports are like a model for life in a physically demanding
environment. Fortunately for women in the U.S., the
temporary burning of so much fossil fuel has made the
environment much less physically demanding. Most people
in the U.S. have to turn on the TV to see people working
really hard.
> I tend to think that in all kinds
> of human relations - 'equal partnership' is much more pofitable and
> productive than a 'dictatorship'.
Evidently you think differently than those people in China
and India who kill their infant daughters.
> But of course you have bigger muscles; so therefore you know best.
I certainly know my emotions and biases do not predict what
Indians and Chinese will do. Neither do those people care
what you and I write on Usenet.
-- the Danimal
David
[...]
> Anyway, whilst one person might be 'digging ditches' the other is
> 'milking the cows'.
> Which of them generates the most wealth?
Sewers are good, cheese is also good. It's true that one can *sell*
cheese, but without a place to stow one's doo-doo one costs oneself
money later in sick-time and medical bills. Besides, food makes shit,
as I'm sure you know. So I say they're equally important.
Things digging is good for include burying poop and corpses. Or is
leaving dead bodies to rot in a street full of turds a good idea?
Dr Chaos
Most men's wives especially want them to keep working after they
become fathers.
> 2. Muscle power is less important but not entirely unimportant.
> Even in an office, sometimes there are boxes to be lifted and
> so on. Being able to lift the boxes beats having to ask someone
> else to lift them. Asking others for help always costs a bit of
> political capital, over time this adds up, and the asker
> has to pay for it somehow. A beautiful young woman can "pay"
> for it with her beauty (men are eager to lift her boxes),
> but the majority of women are not beautiful.
>
> 3. Women for some reason are just less interested, on average,
> in the kinds of jobs that pay well and aren't very fun.
The reason is obvious---making more money leads to differentially more
fun for men than for women.
> Give
> a young man a box of junk computer parts, and he might want to
> tinker with them and see if he can build something that works.
> A young woman would usually rather go shopping with her friends.
>
> 4. Because men were the physically dominant gender going back
> at least 5 million years to our ape ancestors, men also have
> the psychological adaptations to seek dominance. Having big
> muscles won't help unless the brain has the right programming
> to exploit them. As I wrote before, the evolutionary psychologies
> of men and women are different.
>
> 5. Even if the playing field was perfectly level, a society
> would still need several generations to change its habits.
>
>
>>Your insistence that it's because 'they always have been' is
>>historically incorrect. Women in Medieval Europe had equal
>>status to men.
>
>
> Sure they did. That's why the history of Medieval Europe
> features an equal number of influential female leaders---
> NOT.
>
> Discover magazine ran an article listing the 500 most
> influential people in history. Three were women.
>
>
>>Family inheritance was past down to the first born
>>of either gender (male or female) and with it came power and
>>influence. Women also fought along side men in any battles that
>>took place.
How many medieval suits of armor in museums were made for women?
>>I tend to think that in all kinds
>>of human relations - 'equal partnership' is much more pofitable and
>>productive than a 'dictatorship'.
>
>
> Evidently you think differently than those people in China
> and India who kill their infant daughters.
that's all economics.
Varizo...
> > sort of area too by the sound of it.
>
> It's a rural area outside of a moderately sized city. But that's not
> really the issue.
No but it proves that your lucky enough to be abel to liv somwhere
nice liike that,where u dont hav to hav any contact with the horribal
sorts of ppl like wot liv all around me.
> > got any of these sorts of ppl living on your doorstep?
>
> No, like I said, there is no neighborhood here (housing) to move them
> into. I live in a rural area and my nearest neighbor is over 400 yards
> away from me.
That sounds like Heaven to me. There wasent actualy the houses here to
begin with, they built them spesialy for all this scum to come and
move into.
> But you can't make a logical connection between "feminists" and the
> alleged low-lifes in your neighborhood and you can't blame "feminists"
> for that problem.
Well i dident think that i did, wot im saying is that theres a load of
lowlife moved into this area where they wernt befor, and that *some*
of the women who go out fighting in the streets and boast about
beating up blokes, call themselves femminists, but the orriginal point
that i made to wot Ilya [or sombody who replied to him, i cant
renemberw now] was that sombody was saying somthing anyway about the
freedom that women hav got now because of femminsits , and that some
of that freedom is meaning that they act like the worse sorts of men,
and thats why i said somthing about *is that wot gave them the right
to think that they can go out fighting each other, and blokes, in the
street*, cos it looks like at one time in history women dident use to
do that sort of thing.
Thats wot i ment.
V.
David
> *is that wot gave them the right to think that they can go out fighting
> each other, and blokes, in the street*, cos it looks like at one time in
> history women dident use to do that sort of thing.
What, are you afraid some big bad Feminist is gonna clean your clock?
What gave 'em the right, you say? Well, what gave men the right either?
Those that can, fight in the streets; those that can't, go "What is the
world coming to?"
Nub,
Dabey!
Varizo
And seeing wot the *minds* of some women are like, thats hardley surprising that there status is
low in evry sociaty on earth.
> > I too wouldn't directly condemn parents if they were forced into only
> > having male children because of the culture they happened to be born
> > into. However, by going along with it they bear some degree of
> > responsibility; and as such are being just as bigoted, ignorant and
> > stupid as everyone else.
>
> No, they only seem bigoted, ignorant, and stupid to you because
> your outlook has been skewed by massive infusions of technology
> and fossil fuels.
>
> Try living for a few years with no modern conveniences whatsoever,
> exactly as these traditional people do, and see how your feminist
> ideals hold up.
Thats right, femminsts hav only been abel to get somwhere with all the manhating crap because its a
soft sociaty that has alowed them to be abel to do that.
> I saw a TV show about some man who lives in the woods in
> somewhere in the mountains of North Carolina using *ONLY*
> the tools and technologies available to the first European
> pioneers. He's done his research well and by all accounts
> reproduced an authentic pioneer existence. He opens his cabin
> to visits by schoolchildren on field trips and so on. They
> visit, and leave. For several years he has been trying to
> find a woman to be his wife and live with him. For some
> reason, he cannot interest any women in returning to the
> year 1750.
>
> Can you imagine life with no central heat, no running water,
> no grocery stores, no feminine hygeine products, no cosmetics,
> no deodorants, no effective household cleaning products, no
> electricity, no telephones, no TV, no automobiles, no washing
> machines, etc.? Take away all those modern conveniences,
> put a man and woman together in the woods, and who is going
> to be the boss? At least 95% of the time, the man automatically
> is the boss in that situation. When push comes to shove, as it
> regularly does in harsh conditions, the man can push and shove
> twice as hard as the woman.
>
> Women don't want to go back to 1750 not only because of the
> physical discomfort but because it would require them to
> submit to patriarchy again.
See? thats why i love you Dan, your so inteligent!
Xposting it to the goth group for Dave. [Cos i love him too].
[dont get jelous Dan]. {Davey, you might want to show this to hester *im a femminist* huffy, it
might make her realise a few things about her wrong way of thinking. Danny makes sence, dont
he]?!!!
V.
Varizo
That sounds like the sort of thing that Dave has to put up with , being exspected to move heavy stuff
about at work cos the women are too presious and lazy to do it themselves, even tho hes said that hes
not physciakaly strong, thats wot i call unfairness, let the lazy bitches do it themselves.
Anyway, if theres anything that needs to be done that involves phsysickal strength, then my girlfriend
has to do it, cos shes stronger than me, but then shes happy about that and dont act liek some stupid
helpless female even tho she looks very beautiful and femmininne .
> Asking others for help always costs a bit of
> political capital, over time this adds up, and the asker
> has to pay for it somehow. A beautiful young woman can "pay"
> for it with her beauty (men are eager to lift her boxes),
> but the majority of women are not beautiful.
Fucking hell Danny, thats about one of the *truest* things that youve ever said!!! Its not just that
there *not beautiful* there ugly as fuck, some of them. And some of these women, its not just that they
look fucking ugly, its there atittude as well, the way that some of them march about in the town with
there arms folded across there chests, i saw one the other day marchihng along with its arms folded and
a hidious hard looking face, realy aggressiv looking, with some poor little bloke trailing along
behind her, looking at the pavement like he was frightend to move in case she thought that he was up to
somthing, he looked alrite, i think it must of been her son cos he lookded too young to be her
boyfriend, but he looked realy intimidated poor sod.
> 3. Women for some reason are just less interested, on average,
> in the kinds of jobs that pay well and aren't very fun. Give
> a young man a box of junk computer parts, and he might want to
> tinker with them and see if he can build something that works.
> A young woman would usually rather go shopping with her friends.
Probaly cos the majoritty of them are braindead morons and not intaressted in anything thats actualy
intaressting to think about.
Xposting it for Dave, show it to hester huffy, it should get right up her nose, or on her tits, i
beleive that both of those exspressions means the same thing, tho i could be wrong about that i spose.
V.
Varizo
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Varizo... wrote of women:
>
> > *is that wot gave them the right to think that they can go out fighting
> > each other, and blokes, in the street*, cos it looks like at one time in
> > history women dident use to do that sort of thing.
>
> What, are you afraid some big bad Feminist is gonna clean your clock?
>
> What gave 'em the right, you say? Well, what gave men the right either?
> Those that can, fight in the streets; those that can't, go "What is the
> world coming to?"
Thats crap. Most *inteligent* ppl dont want to go out fighting in the
streets, its only lowlife inbesiles fighting with there own kind. And
it never use to happen around here, until the local authoritys moved
all the scumbags into the houses that they had spesialy built for
them. Wot id like to kno, and a lot of other ppl aare asking too, is
who decides on wot area they are going to dump these morons into, and
why do they pick on one area and not another?
V.
T.Bone
SNIP
> Don't you ever wonder what it must be like to feel a new person growing
> inside of you? To feel it struggling and
> fighting for life? And then suffer hours of intense pain as you
> reluctantly give it up into what you know is a cruel world?
Apologies for jumping in, but most women are _relieved_ to have got
the birth process over and done with; and certainly not "reluctant" to
get it finished with. Who would want to prolong it?
catbrier
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.0409...@posting.google.com>...
> > var...@yahoo.com.sg (Varizo...) wrote in message news:<eb259c18.04083...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Well thats cos they liv in my area, your in america, and in a nice
> > > sort of area too by the sound of it.
> >
> > It's a rural area outside of a moderately sized city. But that's not
> > really the issue.
>
> No but it proves that your lucky enough to be abel to liv somwhere
> nice liike that,where u dont hav to hav any contact with the horribal
> sorts of ppl like wot liv all around me.
I doubt very seriously that you could call those horrible people
"feminists."
> > > got any of these sorts of ppl living on your doorstep?
> >
> > No, like I said, there is no neighborhood here (housing) to move them
> > into. I live in a rural area and my nearest neighbor is over 400 yards
> > away from me.
>
> That sounds like Heaven to me. There wasent actualy the houses here to
> begin with, they built them spesialy for all this scum to come and
> move into.
And every single last one of those poor people in public housing is
"scum?"
> > But you can't make a logical connection between "feminists" and the
> > alleged low-lifes in your neighborhood and you can't blame "feminists"
> > for that problem.
>
> Well i dident think that i did, wot im saying is that theres a load of
> lowlife moved into this area where they wernt befor, and that *some*
> of the women who go out fighting in the streets and boast about
> beating up blokes, call themselves femminists, but the orriginal point
> that i made to wot Ilya [or sombody who replied to him, i cant
> renemberw now] was that sombody was saying somthing anyway about the
> freedom that women hav got now because of femminsits , and that some
> of that freedom is meaning that they act like the worse sorts of men,
> and thats why i said somthing about *is that wot gave them the right
> to think that they can go out fighting each other, and blokes, in the
> street*, cos it looks like at one time in history women dident use to
> do that sort of thing.
> Thats wot i ment.
> V.
So you oppose granting women the same kind of freedom, in this case -
the freedom to engage in public brawls - that men seem to have always
possessed?
People are, well, people. Some of them will abuse their freedom and
most will not. I don't want my personal freedoms limited by what a
tiny number of crazy people do in your country.
I have never seen "feminists" engage in public street brawls with men.
Can you name a single "feminist" writer who promotes that kind of
behavior?
Cat
catbrier
rant deleted...
> People need to stop driving their fucking Hummers and Excretions
> and Escalations. NOW.
Granted. But those monsters do not constitute the only vehicles
classified as "SUVs." Therefore you are basing the lighter more
efficient along with the larger and less efficient by not making the
distinctions between "SUVs." As laufdable as the hybrids are, they
have too low a ground clearance to enable a back-country skier to get
into remote areas. If you don't ski and live on flat surfaces, it's
difficult to understand the issue properly.
Cat
catbrier
>
> >
> > research isn't the problem: you can already buy a Prius, thanks to
> > Asian engineering, no thanks to Detroit.
>
> We've actually been looking at getting a Prius. In my neck of the woods
> there is one year waiting list for delivery. We're considering a Civic
> hybrid instead.
>
> BTW, Ford is coming out with a gas-electric hybrid SUV. The 4WD version is
> $28K.
Part of that problem is Ford's rather low reliability record. The
Japanese are simply building more reliable vehicles. I looked a a
Prius and have a friends that own them. But they have a very low
ground clearance and my friends rarely, if ever, go off-road. I'm
impressed with what I've seen in the Jeep Liberty so far. More data is
necessary.
Cat
Michelle Vadeboncoeur
> John Fereira wrote:
> > Dr Chaos <mbNOSPA...@yahoo.dot.com> wrote in
> > news:cgohvk$akd$1...@news1.ucsd.edu:
> >
> >
> >>research isn't the problem: you can already buy a Prius, thanks to
> >>Asian engineering, no thanks to Detroit.
> >
> >
> > We've actually been looking at getting a Prius. In my neck of the woods
> > there is one year waiting list for delivery. We're considering a Civic
> > hybrid instead.
> >
> > BTW, Ford is coming out with a gas-electric hybrid SUV. The 4WD version is
> > $28K.
>
> does it have?
>
>
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "their 3rd." The 2004 Prius is
the
3rd generation Prius already. (1998-2000 model year Japanese-only
version,
2001-2003 worldwide compact sedan version, 2004-? worldwide midsize
hatchback with Hybrid Synergy Drive version). In Japan, Toyota has
the a hybrid Estima minivan/mpv (2001), a hybrid Alphard minivan/mpv
(2003),
and the mild-hybrid Crown large sedan. Unfortunately, Toyota isn't
exporting the minivans yet... They do intend on selling the Lexus
RX400H (hybrid version of the RX330 SUV) this spring, followed shortly
by the cousin Toyota Highlander hybrid. (Release dates have been
pushed out so that supplies can be diverted to the Prius line to
reduce
the multi-month waiting list for the Prius...)
Honda has had the Insight out in the US since 1999 (2000 model year),
and
the Civic since 2002. Rumor has a hybrid Accord out shortly.
Some sites:
Toyota Prius: http://www.prius.com/ or http://www.toyota.com/prius
Ford Escape hybrid (SUV):
http://www.fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/home/index.asp?bhcp=1
2005 Lexus RX400H (hybrid RX330) (SUV):
http://www.lexus.com/models/hybrid/
http://www.lexux-hybrid.com/
2005 Toyota Highlander hybrid (SUV):
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2004/highlander/minisite/index.html
Honda Civic Hybrid:
http://www.hondacars.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=Civic+Hybrid&bhcp=1
Honda Insight: http://www.hondacars.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=Insight&bhcp=1
2005 Honda Accord hybrid (midsize sedan):
http://www.hondacars.com/info/news/article.asp?ArticleID=2004010526827
Then there's the mild-hybrids (auto-stop only 42v systems) that GM is
using in their upcoming GMC Sierra and Chevy Silverado pickup trucks:
http://www.gm.com/automotive/innovations/altfuel/vehicles/pickup/hybridTruckFlyer.pdf
Nunya
You do have to be somewhat vigilant with the hybrids though. One: you can
hardly tell when they're running. The engine makes almost zero noise so you
don't know if the engine has died. Two: if you're in an accident, god help
the rescuers if they have to cut you out. In my area the car manufacturers
are actually donating one or two cars to the local fire depts/etc so they
can learn where to use the jaws of life without getting electrocuted cutting
through. :/
-Shell
John Fereira
>
> "catbrier" <catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8901e207.04091...@posting.google.com...
>> John Fereira <ja...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
>> news:<Xns9552D0DD42A8...@24.24.2.165>...
>>> Dr Chaos <mbNOSPA...@yahoo.dot.com> wrote in
>>> news:cgohvk$akd$1...@news1.ucsd.edu:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > research isn't the problem: you can already buy a Prius, thanks to
>>> > Asian engineering, no thanks to Detroit.
>>>
>>> We've actually been looking at getting a Prius. In my neck of the
>>> woods there is one year waiting list for delivery. We're considering
>>> a Civic hybrid instead.
>>>
>>> BTW, Ford is coming out with a gas-electric hybrid SUV. The 4WD
>>> version is $28K.
>>
>> Part of that problem is Ford's rather low reliability record. The
>> Japanese are simply building more reliable vehicles. I looked a a
>> Prius and have a friends that own them. But they have a very low
>> ground clearance and my friends rarely, if ever, go off-road. I'm
>> impressed with what I've seen in the Jeep Liberty so far. More data is
>> necessary.
If someone is looking for off road capabilities a Prius wouldn't be a good
choice, but not because it doesn't have good ground clearance.
>>
>> Cat
>
> You do have to be somewhat vigilant with the hybrids though. One: you
> can hardly tell when they're running. The engine makes almost zero
> noise so you don't know if the engine has died. Two: if you're in an
> accident, god help the rescuers if they have to cut you out. In my
> area the car manufacturers are actually donating one or two cars to the
> local fire depts/etc so they can learn where to use the jaws of life
> without getting electrocuted cutting through. :/
Electrocuted? Unless there is high voltage and high current the worse that
would likely happen is that they'd get a loud spark. I don't know what
kinds of voltages are needed for the electric motors but I doubt that
they're very high.
Varizo...
> And every single last one of those poor people in public housing is
> "scum?"
No but the majoritty of them seems to be, there all as rough as hell
and v v aggressiv. You cant tell me that ppl like that are *nice* ppl.
Nice ppl dont behave like tthat, tehy dont go around acting like they
do and makeing other ppl ffeel that theres a horribal threat towards
them from the horribal atmospherre that you get from these sorts of
ppl, horribal aggressiv attittuedes that theyve got is not somthing
thta i just imaginne, its real. Im not the only one who conpalins
about them, most of the ppl who are decent and who lived here befor
they moved in are always going on about it.
> So you oppose granting women the same kind of freedom, in this case -
> the freedom to engage in public brawls - that men seem to have always
> possessed?
I dont think that *anybody* should hav the freedom to do that and it
dont matter wot sex they are, they r just rough horribal ppl who are
violent.
> . I don't want my personal freedoms limited by what a
> tiny number of crazy people do in your country.
But how can your freedom be interferred with if there are laws to stop
ppl being violent in the streets? There are ment to be laws to stop
that sort of thing anyway, Blair is always going on about it and
having anti sosial laws or somthing, if those rough sorts of ppl
hadent been so encouraged in the 1st place then there wouldent be any
need for thoses laws now, thats wot ive heard ppl say anyway.
> I have never seen "feminists" engage in public street brawls with men.
> Can you name a single "feminist" writer who promotes that kind of
> behavior?
I dont kno any femminist writers, i was talking about some rough women
in my area , ive heard one of them who calls herself a femminist
boast about beating up blokes and is always saying crap like she can
take any bloke on, its pathetick, as if *all* blokes are like that
anyway. The rough aggressiv morons might be, but not inteligent blokes
who hav got a bit of culturre. Or even if they r not inteligent they
dont ahv to be rough and violent they can still be decent ppl.
V.
catbrier
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04091...@posting.google.com>...
> > And every single last one of those poor people in public housing is
> > "scum?"
>
> No but the majoritty of them seems to be, there all as rough as hell
> and v v aggressiv. You cant tell me that ppl like that are *nice* ppl.
I don't know, I haven't met them. I always try to withhold judgment
until I have evidence.
> Nice ppl dont behave like tthat, tehy dont go around acting like they
> do and makeing other ppl ffeel that theres a horribal threat towards
> them from the horribal atmospherre that you get from these sorts of
> ppl, horribal aggressiv attittuedes that theyve got is not somthing
> thta i just imaginne, its real.
Well, it does appear that they've upset you.
> Im not the only one who conpalins
> about them, most of the ppl who are decent and who lived here befor
> they moved in are always going on about it.
And you say that this was a rural area in which the British government
built housing projects, correct?
> > So you oppose granting women the same kind of freedom, in this case -
> > the freedom to engage in public brawls - that men seem to have always
> > possessed?
>
> I dont think that *anybody* should hav the freedom to do that and it
> dont matter wot sex they are, they r just rough horribal ppl who are
> violent.
But that has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with
socio-economic decay in the post-industrial west.
> > . I don't want my personal freedoms limited by what a
> > tiny number of crazy people do in your country.
>
> But how can your freedom be interferred with if there are laws to stop
> ppl being violent in the streets?
It appeared to me that you were blaming "feminists" for your
situation.
>There are ment to be laws to stop
> that sort of thing anyway, Blair is always going on about it and
> having anti sosial laws or somthing, if those rough sorts of ppl
> hadent been so encouraged in the 1st place then there wouldent be any
> need for thoses laws now, thats wot ive heard ppl say anyway.
People say all kinds of things. It doesn't make their perceptions in
any way accurate. There are people in my country who think that George
Bush is an effective leader. I think he's a moron.
> > I have never seen "feminists" engage in public street brawls with men.
> > Can you name a single "feminist" writer who promotes that kind of
> > behavior?
>
> I dont kno any femminist writers, i was talking about some rough women
> in my area , ive heard one of them who calls herself a femminist
> boast about beating up blokes and is always saying crap like she can
> take any bloke on, its pathetick, as if *all* blokes are like that
> anyway.
George Bush calls himself a "conservative." But there is nothing even
vaguely "conservative" in anything he has done. What that street
brawler calls herself is immaterial.
>The rough aggressiv morons might be, but not inteligent blokes
> who hav got a bit of culturre. Or even if they r not inteligent they
> dont ahv to be rough and violent they can still be decent ppl.
> V.
How would you define "cultured?" Would "cultured" include educated,
sophisticated, well-mannered, and governed by reason?
Cat
David
Well, Fedora Core 2 somehow didn't include a freecell game,
so I had to run the old Windows version with an emulator.
Thus the historic standard has gone down, in my book. So there.
D.
Michelle Vadeboncoeur
I doubt that the emergency responders would be cutting through the
bottom center of the car, through the bright orange (can't miss them)
cables...
anyhow, here are the Emergency Response Guides:
http://techinfo.toyota.com/public/main/erg.html
http://www.honda.ca/HondaEng/YouAndYourCar/UsefulInformation/esafetyinfo.htm
Varizo...
> var...@yahoo.com.sg (Varizo...) wrote in message news:<eb259c18.04091...@posting.google.com>...
> > about them, most of the ppl who are decent and who lived here befor
> > they moved in are always going on about it.
>
> And you say that this was a rural area in which the British government
> built housing projects, correct?
It wasent countryside, there was always houses, but not a load of
sosial housing, and not loads of rough ppl , which hav only come w the
sosial housing.
> > But how can your freedom be interferred with if there are laws to stop
> > ppl being violent in the streets?
>
> It appeared to me that you were blaming "feminists" for your
> situation.
No, i said that if femminisim has given women freedom to do things
like that, which they dident use to do befor apparantley, then how can
tht be a good thing. It might be good in other ways but not in thta
way.
> . There are people in my country who think that George
> Bush is an effective leader. I think he's a moron.
Yeh, i exspect that theres ppl in this country who think that tony
Blair is a good leaader but i think that hes a moron, and so do
evrybody else that i kno , all he realy cares about is inflickting
lowlife ppl onto evrybody else and exspecting us all to like it. I
dont kno if Geaorge Bush is as bad as blair but they realy like each
other a lot dont they. [At least George is better looking tho, not
that it means anything but at least over there your leader is better
looking than the stupid looking idiot that we,ve got].
> How would you define "cultured?" Would "cultured" include educated,
> sophisticated, well-mannered, and governed by reason?
I mean ppl who kno about things, and who are intellecktual and
inteligent, and think about things on a deeper levil than the rough
ppl who only think about smokeing and breeding and eating fried food
and burgers, and probaly ahving holidays in Spain and getting drunk
and being a nusance to the Spanish ppl when they r over there, and the
sort who go rioting thru the streets over football matches cos they
are nearaly always football fannaticks too. Load of fucking morons.
V.
catbrier
> > situation.
>
> No, i said that if femminisim has given women freedom to do things
> like that, which they dident use to do befor apparantley, then how can
> tht be a good thing. It might be good in other ways but not in thta
> way.
First of all, with or without full civil liberties, there have always
been these "rough people" around on the fringes of polite society.
Read some history - Kellow Chesney's "The Anti-Society: An Account of
the Victorian Underworld." Feminism didn't create "rough people." The
vulgarian is a product of unequal education and poverty. Not feminism.
> > . There are people in my country who think that George
> > Bush is an effective leader. I think he's a moron.
>
> Yeh, i exspect that theres ppl in this country who think that tony
> Blair is a good leaader but i think that hes a moron, and so do
> evrybody else that i kno , all he realy cares about is inflickting
> lowlife ppl onto evrybody else and exspecting us all to like it. I
> dont kno if Geaorge Bush is as bad as blair but they realy like each
> other a lot dont they.
George Bush doesn't care in any way about the poor underclasses in
America. He's the chosen leader of the party of wealth and privilege.
> [At least George is better looking tho, not
> that it means anything but at least over there your leader is better
> looking than the stupid looking idiot that we,ve got].
You've got to be joking! Bush looks almost as stupid as he is. There's
nothing wrong with Tony Blair's looks as far as I'm concerned.
> > How would you define "cultured?" Would "cultured" include educated,
> > sophisticated, well-mannered, and governed by reason?
>
> I mean ppl who kno about things, and who are intellecktual and
> inteligent, and think about things on a deeper levil than the rough
> ppl who only think about smokeing and breeding and eating fried food
> and burgers, and probaly ahving holidays in Spain and getting drunk
> and being a nusance to the Spanish ppl when they r over there, and the
> sort who go rioting thru the streets over football matches cos they
> are nearaly always football fannaticks too. Load of fucking morons.
> V.
People on welfare are usually unable to afford holidays in Portugal
and Spain. When I travel I tend to avoid the tourist resorts as much
as possible.
Cat
Varizo...
> America. He's the chosen leader of the party of wealth and privilege.
I thought you said tho that hes a conservativ but that he dont act
like one or he hasent realy got there poliseys or somthing. i thought
that it was the conservativs who are suposed to be on the side of the
more culturred ppl and not wanting to inflict the lowlife on evrybody
like they do in this country, i dont think that even the conservativs
ara any better over here, cos there is so many lowlife now where they
always breed more than anybody else that nobody knows where to put
them all, my GF has got some pretty radickal ideas about wot to do
withe them all tho, and to sterrilise the rest so that they cant breed
any more, but then none of thats going to happen and they are still
going to go on breeding and breeding more and more of the same,
horribal thick ugly rough violent ppl, and unless youve actualy got
them living in close proxsimitty to you and being hosstile towards you
cos they reconise that your not one of there kind, then its not realy
any good to be abel to sit back from a nice disstance away from them
and feel sorry for them and exspect to hav to inflict them on other
ppl. Im not saying that thats wot you r doing but you get these do
good types who never hav to put up w any of these sorts of ppl
themselves , [like blair for exsampel] but they make sure that they
stick them into nice areas where they wernt befor and then bring it
down to there levil and even if the area that they put them into
wasent wonderful to begin with, once they move in it gets a million
times worse, whcih is wots happend here, .
[and honestley i cant understand why this keyboard is so bloody awful
to use, its much much worse than the old one when the old one was
wroking alrite, nearly evry single word i hav to go back and put rite
cos if i ddident then it would be realy inpossibal to read anything.
like if i type out a sentance like *all the trrees aree greemn in the
summer* for exsampel, well that was just a tiny little exsampel of wot
its like if i dont put evrything rite and the old one wasent as bad as
this, is there any reason for why a new keyboard should be so dificult
to use conpared to the old one]? [sorry for rambling on about that,
but its realy starting to piss me off now].
> > [At least George is better looking tho, not
> > that it means anything but at least over there your leader is better
> > looking than the stupid looking idiot that we,ve got].
>
> You've got to be joking! Bush looks almost as stupid as he is. There's
> nothing wrong with Tony Blair's looks as far as I'm concerned.
Well i cant imaginne that anybody could ever think that Blairs nice
looking, but i spose thta some ppl might think that George is, i mean
i can see that to some ppl he might be considerd quite a good looking
man, im not saying that i do, but i can see that some ppl might, i
spose that Bill Clinton wasent bad looking either, i dont like any of
them anyway, but Blair is just stupid looking.
V.
catbrier
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04091...@posting.google.com>...
> > George Bush doesn't care in any way about the poor underclasses in
> > America. He's the chosen leader of the party of wealth and privilege.
>
> I thought you said tho that hes a conservativ but that he dont act
> like one or he hasent realy got there poliseys or somthing. i thought
> that it was the conservativs who are suposed to be on the side of the
> more culturred ppl and not wanting to inflict the lowlife on evrybody
> like they do in this country,
You're falsely associating wealth with culture, ignoring the crass
vulgarity of many wealthy people. Neo-conservatives are really not
"conservatives", they are imperialists.
Cat
Bat Fink
> var...@yahoo.com.sg (Varizo...) wrote in message news:<eb259c18.04092...@posting.google.com>...
> > catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > George Bush doesn't care in any way about the poor underclasses in
> > > America. He's the chosen leader of the party of wealth and privilege.
> >
>
> You're falsely associating wealth with culture, ignoring the crass
> vulgarity of many wealthy people. Neo-conservatives are really not
> "conservatives", they are imperialists.
>
> Cat
Nothing wrong with Imperialism. Tell that to the young people of
today...and they won't believe you!
catbrier
I'm 30 and I don't believe you either. Imperialism is laying waste
whole countries in the world.
Cat
Varizo...
> > that it was the conservativs who are suposed to be on the side of the
> > more culturred ppl and not wanting to inflict the lowlife on evrybody
> > like they do in this country,
>
> You're falsely associating wealth with culture, ignoring the crass
> vulgarity of many wealthy people. Neo-conservatives are really not
> "conservatives", they are imperialists.
Oh i kno that theres a lot of scumbags with money, it dont
autamatickaly make sombody a better person just cos they got money,
look at some of these footballers, they r as thick as shite and still
lowlife, like some lottery winners, they might move to a better area
and liv in a bigger house, but it wont make them culturred or
intellecktual if they wernt to begin with, they will probaly just move
to a better area and bring that down to there levil as well.
V.
catbrier
The best illustration of what you are saying is America's obsession
with professional athletes. Let me say first of all that the male
members of my extended family bleed purple. They are die-hard
Minnesota Vikings fans. And they are also hard-working, law abiding,
Lutherans.
But our national tolerance for the seemingly endless crimes committed
by professional atheltes in this country is a moral scandal. I don't
want to stigmatize all professional athletes as violent vulgarians,
because I've met a few who were not. My boyfriend is an ex-college
athlete and he is an extremely cultured and educated person.
Wealth buys privilige and power. But it cannot buy moral restraint,
integrity or brains.
Cat
Bat Fink
Nope. Imperialism is just capitalism with ice and a slice.
Varizo...
> > Wealth buys privilige and power. But it cannot buy moral restraint,
> > integrity or brains.
>
>
> Victoria (NOT x-posting!)
Wot is the point of replying to Cat when you *kno* that shes not gonna
see it? Well she will now cos ive Xposted it, but its a bit daft to be
saying somthing *to* sombody when you kno that they wont see it if you
dont Xpost it.
V.