Response to J: If you drive men away, free software ends.

464 views
Skip to first unread message

Mikhail Kvaratskhelia

unread,
Oct 11, 2009, 7:11:46 PM10/11/09
to
Response to J: If you drive men away, free software ends.

If you turn your back on men, if you make men feel unwelcomed, if you
drive men away, you close the book on free/opensource software.

Free software will not exist without men. You may think you can "move
on" and pass the torch to women and try to exclude "mysoginist" or
"sexist" minded men, but you will only cause the triumph Richard M.
Stallman and of the programmers of the world who have created the free
software movement, who are almost all men, to be no more.

As for ages of marraige: the age of majority was never the age of
marraige untill the middle 1990s. Before then, in the southern states,
a man could marry a 12, or 13, or 14 year old young woman. Previously
in the north this was true aswell. By the middle of the 1990s the old
beliefs of the south, that which was decendant from the Scottish
settlers of the region (and some Irish), that once a female was able
to have children that she could be married to a man, was defeated.

I remeber when the laws were changed. I remeber the recent triumphs of
feminism.
I remeber when men of that region started to be persecuted for "child
rape" when they had relations with their brides. This is now the norm
since then; the south finally fell.

As for men and useful weaponry: men cannot easily aquire automatic
weapons, rocket propelled munitions, or any anti-vehicle arms. Nor can
they aquire armored vehicles that can hold land. Men who try to aquire
modern, effective, arms end up in prison for decades. Men have NO
power against the forces of their women-representative government.

As for historic female figures: that has nothing to do with what is
most advantagious to men.

As for rape within marraige: men were exempt from prosecution before
the 1970s in most parts of the USA.

The ONLY thing that will push this back is an armed rebellion that can
NEVER happen.

Men going to jail for hitting their wives is bad for men.

Men going to jail for raping their wives is bad for men.

Men losing their jobs because they said or did a "sexist" thing is bad
for men.

Men being pushed out of opensource projects at the behest of WORTHLESS
feminist women is bad for men and that which men create.

(Also, Men being jailed for raping young unbetrothed unmarried females
of childbearing age is also bad for men. The Bible has a solution: the
man marries the girl he raped (Dueteronomy 22), This should be law as
it is to the benifit of men.)

It is NOT good for _men_ if people OTHER THAN _men_ are represented:
it dilutes the power of men. Today women can override the wishes of
men in everything. Men do not have final say, and what little say they
do have is worthless.

As for a women being "politically divided": virtually all women
support women's rights and liberty. Virtually all women support
women's privledge to vote. Virtually all women support men being
jailed for marital rape. Virtually all women support their privledge
to divorce their husband if they so need to. That is NOT disunity.
That is COHESION; something that men do not have except in war. Men
NEVER have cohesion in peace.

You, sir, are a fool, you are also talking PAST me, and you are an
enemy of the interests of Men.

Death To women's Rights.
Viva Men's Liberty... somehow
--MikeeUSA--


()()()

Previous Response to J:

The 19th ammendment allowed women to out vote men (women make up 51
percent of the population, vs 49 for men (men manage to die younger
and more often)). It was not to the benifit of men.

After the 19th ammendment was past men lost the right to have useful
weaponry (machineguns etc) with which to potentially overthrow the
government of the majority (women ellected representatives) who ruled
them.

Then men lost the right to have sex with their wives at will, as the
courts were reformed and statutes revised. Men now are sent to prison
for 25 years for rape within marraige.

Men lost the right to marry and have relations with young females of
childbearing age (virgins usually). Now they can only marry 18 or 16
plus year old women who have allready been around, and know their
rights. In the past men could marry 12, 13, 14 year old young women
who would bond with their husband and love them.

Yes, democracy is more representative of the majority of human beings
living in the country today, but that is not to the advantage of men.
Men being the only people represented is more advantagious to men than
men being slightly less than half the people represented.

As for Nina Reiser: she deserved to die for what she put Hans through.
She did die. Justice, men's retributitive justice, was done. She will
never live again, she is finished; she is dead.

Now I'm sure some man will stand up proudly and say he's glad that men
today live under the opression that is women's political empowerment:
this is common; men will ___Gladly___ sell eachother down the river to
gain marginal advantage against eachother.

Men can only be a widely cohesive group under the banner of arms (and
threat of their use). Men always fail in peaceful democratic
countries, it is only women who are served by full democracy because
while the men are scattered and fighting amongst themselves the women
hold their line on women's liberation and women's rights... and some
men even join in their chant hoping to edge out other men in the
genetic race.

chrisv

unread,
Oct 12, 2009, 8:51:46 AM10/12/09
to
Mikhail Kvaratskhelia wrote:

>Response to

*plonk*

chrisv

unread,
Oct 12, 2009, 1:57:01 PM10/12/09
to
Some idiot forging "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote
news:ri96d519cha2ptnr5...@4ax.com...

> Mikhail Kvaratskhelia wrote:
>
>>Response to
>
> *plonk*
>
Fsck you arsehole troll!

<To Mikhail Kvaratskhelia>

Ignore the forger

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages