2010 broken down into manageable pieces.
Grizzlie Antagonist
1005/3 = 335
335/5 = 67
67 is a prime number,so that's as far as we go.
2010 = 2 X 3 X 5 X 67
Not bad. In numeric terms, that's fairly manageable, if not optimally
so.
Masculist
wrote:
Yeah whatever. Hey GA, it's me! Welcome back. Did you miss me?
Tom
Grizzlie Antagonist
<masc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 12:09�am, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> 2010/2 = 1005
>> 1005/3 = 335
>> 335/5 = 67
>> 67 is a prime number,so that's as far as we go.
>>
>> 2010 = 2 X 3 X 5 X 67
>>
>> Not bad. �In numeric terms, that's fairly manageable, if not optimally
>> so.
>
>Yeah whatever.
Yeah whatever nothing.
This is VITAL! A numerically digestible year is a manageable year.
2003 is a PRIME NUMBER. It wasn't divisible by anything other than
itself and 1.
At least, 2010 breaks into a few pieces.
> Hey GA, it's me!
Hello, Tom.
> Welcome back. Did you miss me?
>Tom
I didn't miss your infatuation with Sarah Palin.
Masculist
wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:25:14 -0800 (PST), Masculist
>
> >On Jan 1, 12:09 am, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >> 2010/2 = 1005
> >> 1005/3 = 335
> >> 335/5 = 67
> >> 67 is a prime number,so that's as far as we go.
>
> >> 2010 = 2 X 3 X 5 X 67
>
> >> Not bad. In numeric terms, that's fairly manageable, if not optimally
> >> so.
>
> >Yeah whatever.
>
> Yeah whatever nothing.
>
> This is VITAL! A numerically digestible year is a manageable year.
>
> 2003 is a PRIME NUMBER. It wasn't divisible by anything other than
>
> At least, 2010 breaks into a few pieces.
Gee thanks, that certainly is good news.
> > Hey GA, it's me!
>
> Hello, Tom.
>
> > Welcome back. Did you miss me?
> >Tom
>
> I didn't miss your infatuation with Sarah Palin.
Moi? "Infatuated" with Sarah? I was just having a little fun.
What's a poor disenfranchised boy to do? While I still love the way
Sarah looks, she has a long ways to go to satisfy my political needs.
Apparently she has a lot of populist support however. I would think
you as a republican would finally be happy to have a feminist as
Commander In Chief. Afterall, you guys started the thing and
benefitted the most from pushing your feminists on our poor Sixties
generation men. You know, those profligate drug addicts that you
waged a drug war on. Heh GA...you won and Sarah is living proof of
it.
Tom
Grizzlie Antagonist
<masc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 1:17锟絘m, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:25:14 -0800 (PST), Masculist
>>
>> <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 1, 12:09锟絘m, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> 2010/2 = 1005
>> >> 1005/3 = 335
>> >> 335/5 = 67
>> >> 67 is a prime number,so that's as far as we go.
>>
>> >> 2010 = 2 X 3 X 5 X 67
>>
>> >> Not bad. 锟絀n numeric terms, that's fairly manageable, if not optimally
>> >> so.
>>
>> >Yeah whatever.
>>
>> Yeah whatever nothing.
>>
>> This is VITAL! 锟紸 numerically digestible year is a manageable year.
>>
>> 2003 is a PRIME NUMBER. 锟絀t wasn't divisible by anything other than
>> itself and 1..
>>
>> At least, 2010 breaks into a few pieces.
>
>Gee thanks, that certainly is good news.
>
>> > 锟紿ey GA, it's me!
>>
>> Hello, Tom.
>>
>> > 锟絎elcome back. 锟紻id you miss me?
>> >Tom
>>
>> I didn't miss your infatuation with Sarah Palin.
>
>Moi? "Infatuated" with Sarah? I was just having a little fun.
>What's a poor disenfranchised boy to do? While I still love the way
>Sarah looks,
Obviously, it doesn't take much to satisfy you.
> she has a long ways to go to satisfy my political needs.
That's better.
She has a long way to go to satisfy my political needs also --
primarily due to the fact that she wasn't born with a cock -- though
like most biatches holding office, she tries hard enough to grow one.
>Apparently she has a lot of populist support however.
Sodomize them in spades. The men, in particular, must be suicidal.
> I would think
>you as a republican would finally be happy to have a feminist as
>Commander In Chief.
I'm not a republican (but you yourself have urged voting Republican on
several occasions), and I'm not otherwise rising to the bait.
> Afterall, you guys started the thing and
>benefitted the most from pushing your feminists on our poor Sixties
>generation men.
So you responded by growing long hair like women, treating your
maladies with drugs,and otherwise behaving irresponsibly like women.
> You know, those profligate drug addicts that you
>waged a drug war on. Heh GA...you won and Sarah is living proof of
>it.
>
>Tom
No, it was inevitably a losing cause. Hippies and other low-life
street people breed faster than they can be wiped out.
Andrew Usher
> > I didn't miss your infatuation with Sarah Palin.
>
> Moi? "Infatuated" with Sarah? I was just having a little fun.
> What's a poor disenfranchised boy to do? While I still love the way
> Sarah looks, she has a long ways to go to satisfy my political needs.
> Apparently she has a lot of populist support however. I would think
> you as a republican would finally be happy to have a feminist as
> Commander In Chief.
If you dislike Republicans, why would you want to support someone
(Palin) that represents pretty much everything bad about the
Republican party?
Andrew Usher
Society
Tom as "Masculist" <masc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6b43b82-f0f3-4c20...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> >
> > 2010/2 = 1005
> > 1005/3 = 335
> > 335/5 = 67
> > 67 is a prime number,so that's as far as we go.
> >
> > 2010 = 2 X 3 X 5 X 67
> >
> > Not bad. In numeric terms, that's fairly manageable,
> > if not optimally so.
>
> Yeah whatever. Hey GA, it's me!
> Welcome back. Did you miss me?
Welcome back, GA. Happy new year.
John Derbyshire answered an inquirer who wondered,
"is there anything interesting to say about the number 2010?"
and concluded his remarks with,
...there is no number so benighted that there isn't something
mildly noteworthy to say about it. (This latter fact can be
proved rigorously.) We are all special!
<http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODhmYmI5OTc0MDVlZTgxNzRhMDVlNGM4ZWYxYTUxOGY=>
I guess the proof depends on very small values of 'mild.' ;-)
2010 seemed to be especially dull as numbers go.
--
With enough education and brains
the average man would make a good lawyer -
and so would the average lawyer.
Gracie Allen
Grizzlie Antagonist
<Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>Tom as "Masculist" <masc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a6b43b82-f0f3-4c20...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> >
>> > 2010/2 = 1005
>> > 1005/3 = 335
>> > 335/5 = 67
>> > 67 is a prime number,so that's as far as we go.
>> >
>> > 2010 = 2 X 3 X 5 X 67
>> >
>> > Not bad. In numeric terms, that's fairly manageable,
>> > if not optimally so.
>>
>> Yeah whatever. Hey GA, it's me!
>> Welcome back. Did you miss me?
>
>Welcome back, GA. Happy new year.
>
>John Derbyshire answered an inquirer who wondered,
>"is there anything interesting to say about the number 2010?"
>and concluded his remarks with,
>
> ...there is no number so benighted that there isn't something
> mildly noteworthy to say about it. (This latter fact can be
> proved rigorously.) We are all special!
>
> <http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODhmYmI5OTc0MDVlZTgxNzRhMDVlNGM4ZWYxYTUxOGY=>
>
>I guess the proof depends on very small values of 'mild.' ;-)
>2010 seemed to be especially dull as numbers go.
Hello, Society. Thank you. I have probably started off the new year
by ensuringthat Tom Smith isn't going to communicate with me any more
unless it's for the purpose of sending me anonymous hate mail.
Well, it was his own fault.
All that I did was to start a little old thread about examining the
new year from a strictly mathematical point of view -- same as I do
with every new year -- and he has to respond with yet ANOTHER attempt
to sing the praises of Woodstock Nation .
And he has to try to show how being a hippie -- an OLD one yet -- is
somehow anti-feminist.
And as for John Derbyshire, he may be a "conservative" of sorts, but
I've had no use for him since he wrote the article that I've linked
below.
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Culture/womansworld.html
Oh, I know what you're going to say. I know what you're going to say.
And I know what Polish Knight would probably say.
You're going to point to this paragraph:
"Even war, that most quintessential of masculine activities, is
probably a thing of the past. For war you need a large supply of young
men. With the great demographic collapse of modern times, that supply
is drying up. Soft, feminized, over-civilized, under-militarized
societies of the past were likely to be jolted back into vigor, or
just overrun, by warriors from the wild places. Now there are no more
wild places. While one should never be complacent about these things,
and it is possible that a starship fleet of unwashed plunderers,
cutlasses in their teeth and knives in their boots, is on its way from
Alpha Centauri even as I write, the odds are good that the human race
ain't gonna study war no more."
And then you're going to say, look at the date of that article --
August 28, 2001.
Yes, Derb is on the verge of being proven spectacularly wrong. Well,
to hell with him anyway!
Heidi Graw
>On Jan 1, 12:09 am, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
> 2010/2 = 1005
> 1005/3 = 335
> 335/5 = 67
> 67 is a prime number,so that's as far as we go.
>
> 2010 = 2 X 3 X 5 X 67
>
> Not bad. In numeric terms, that's fairly manageable, if not optimally
> so.
Let's take it a bit further:
67...6 + 7 = 13...for some this is an unlucky number, for others a lucky
one.
In your profession it would amount to judge and jury. This may be
a profitable year for those working in the legal system.
For Christians the 13 may represent Jesus and his 12 apostles, one
of who is a traitor. Remain alert and watch out for possible treachery.
13...1 + 3 = 4...four is the death number according to Chinese beliefs.
The war effort will continue.
67...or 13, or 4....take your pick and assign a meaning.
As for me, it's going to be a lucky 13 year! ;-)
Heidi
Masculist
wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 10:52:52 -0800 (PST), Masculist
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 2, 1:17 am, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>> >> >On Jan 1, 12:09 am, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> 2010/2 = 1005
> >> >> 1005/3 = 335
> >> >> 335/5 = 67
> >> >> 67 is a prime number,so that's as far as we go.
>
> >> >> 2010 = 2 X 3 X 5 X 67
>
> >> >> so.
>
> >> >Yeah whatever.
>
> >> Yeah whatever nothing.
>
>
> >> 2003 is a PRIME NUMBER. It wasn't divisible by anything other than
> >> itself and 1..
>
> >> At least, 2010 breaks into a few pieces.
>
> >Gee thanks, that certainly is good news.
>
>
> >> Hello, Tom.
>
> >> > Welcome back. Did you miss me?
> >> >Tom
>
> >> I didn't miss your infatuation with Sarah Palin.
>
> >Moi? "Infatuated" with Sarah? I was just having a little fun.
> >What's a poor disenfranchised boy to do? While I still love the way
> >Sarah looks,
>
> Obviously, it doesn't take much to satisfy you.
>
> > she has a long ways to go to satisfy my political needs.
>
> That's better.
>
> She has a long way to go to satisfy my political needs also --
> primarily due to the fact that she wasn't born with a cock -- though
> like most biatches holding office, she tries hard enough to grow one.
Thanks to you I've been thinking about Sarah again. As for her
"growing a cock" at least she has a semblance of one compared to most
of our male politicians. Of course it's all thanks to the
"Gynocracy", but that's a fact of life isn't it?
> >Apparently she has a lot of populist support however.
>
> Sodomize them in spades. The men, in particular, must be suicidal.
Those men aren't suicidal...they're sodomizing you/us!
> > I would think
> >you as a republican would finally be happy to have a feminist as
> >Commander In Chief.
>
> I'm not a republican (but you yourself have urged voting Republican on
> several occasions), and I'm not otherwise rising to the bait.
Smart boy.
> > Afterall, you guys started the thing and
> >benefitted the most from pushing your feminists on our poor Sixties
> >generation men.
>
> So you responded by growing long hair like women,
In the late Sixties women had short hair and their feminist men did
also. Us long hairs were the He-Men of our time.
> treating your
> maladies with drugs,
What "maladies"? We were healthy strapping men having a good time
while you fumed and became bitter. We knew we were on the "outside"
while you still thought you were "inside". Who was smarter?
> and otherwise behaving irresponsibly like women.
Hey, the women were very responsible by sending us to War and
extending their power to the Left.
> > You know, those profligate drug addicts that you
> >waged a drug war on. Heh GA...you won and Sarah is living proof of
> >it.
>
> >Tom
>
> No, it was inevitably a losing cause. Hippies and other low-life
> street people breed faster than they can be wiped out.
Here's where your problem is GA. You wanted vengeance against us
while spinning your wheels against the true enemy. All it did was
buttress the true enemy, our women both Left and Right. But then what
could any of us do? Take on our own women in a democracy where they
were organized to the hilt and we weren't? Maybe you should have held
out an olive branch to the hippies and took a libertarian posture on
drugs instead of wanting vengeance on them by sending them to jail.
Our situation ultimately is the fault of bitter male haters like you.
Step aside, Tommy is on the case. <smile>
Tom
Masculist
wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 21:17:43 -0800, "Society"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Tom as "Masculist" <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:a6b43b82-f0f3-4c20...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>
> >> > 2010/2 = 1005
> >> > 1005/3 = 335
> >> > 335/5 = 67
> >> > 67 is a prime number,so that's as far as we go.
>
> >> > 2010 = 2 X 3 X 5 X 67
>
> >> > Not bad. In numeric terms, that's fairly manageable,
> >> > if not optimally so.
>
> >> Yeah whatever. Hey GA, it's me!
> >> Welcome back. Did you miss me?
>
> >Welcome back, GA. Happy new year.
>
> >John Derbyshire answered an inquirer who wondered,
> >"is there anything interesting to say about the number 2010?"
> >and concluded his remarks with,
>
> > ...there is no number so benighted that there isn't something
> > mildly noteworthy to say about it. (This latter fact can be
> > proved rigorously.) We are all special!
>
>
> >I guess the proof depends on very small values of 'mild.' ;-)
> >2010 seemed to be especially dull as numbers go.
>
> Hello, Society. Thank you. I have probably started off the new year
> by ensuringthat Tom Smith isn't going to communicate with me any more
> unless it's for the purpose of sending me anonymous hate mail.
>
> Well, it was his own fault.
Stop being so sensitive. You have never said anything that REALLY
pissed me off. I've lived for 40 years with men who had an attitude
about us "free livers" of the Sixites. No big deal. They shot all of
us in the foot. It's time for us to unite and turn our wrath on the
real enemy. It's long overdue.
Tom
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
Why don't you inhale carbon monoxide and make it a lucky year for your
family?
Grizzlie Antagonist
I had spotted the flaw in his reasoning. I had spotted it all along.
Women are not SUPPOSED to have cocks. It's unnatural.
> Of course it's all thanks to the
>"Gynocracy", but that's a fact of life isn't it?
>> >Apparently she has a lot of populist support however.
>>
>> Sodomize them in spades. �The men, in particular, must be suicidal.
>
>Those men aren't suicidal...they're sodomizing you/us!
They're sodomizing themselves.
>> > �I would think
>> >you as a republican would finally be happy to have a feminist as
>> >Commander In Chief.
>>
>> I'm not a republican (but you yourself have urged voting Republican on
>> several occasions), and I'm not otherwise rising to the bait.
>
>Smart boy.
>
>> > Afterall, you guys started the thing and
>> >benefitted the most from pushing your feminists on our poor Sixties
>> >generation men.
>>
>> So you responded by growing long hair like women,
>
>In the late Sixties women had short hair and their feminist men did
>also. Us long hairs were the He-Men of our time.
Yeah, dropping out of society and adopting a philosophy based on pure
hedonism.
That took a lot of raw masculine nerve. Long-haired freaks!
>> treating your
>> maladies with drugs,
>
>What "maladies"?
You tell me.
> We were healthy strapping men having a good time
...either at the expense of rich parents or on the public tit while
other healthy strapping men were in Vietnam.
>while you fumed and became bitter. We knew we were on the "outside"
>while you still thought you were "inside". Who was smarter?
You didn't get "smarter" until those of you who didn't blow your minds
on drugs cut your hair and used the power of the liberal press to worm
your way inside.
60's philosophy has been the dominant culture for a long time now.
>> and otherwise behaving irresponsibly like women.
>
>Hey, the women were very responsible by sending us to War and
>extending their power to the Left.
>
>> > You know, those profligate drug addicts that you
>> >waged a drug war on. �Heh GA...you won and Sarah is living proof of
>> >it.
>>
>> >Tom
>>
>> No, it was inevitably a losing cause. �Hippies and other low-life
>> street people breed faster than they can be wiped out.
>
>Here's where your problem is GA. You wanted vengeance against us
>while spinning your wheels against the true enemy.
Hippies ARE/WERE the true enemy.
> All it did was
>buttress the true enemy, our women both Left and Right. But then what
>could any of us do? Take on our own women in a democracy where they
>were organized to the hilt and we weren't? Maybe you should have held
>out an olive branch to the hippies and took a libertarian posture on
>drugs instead of wanting vengeance on them by sending them to jail.
>Our situation ultimately is the fault of bitter male haters like you.
>Step aside, Tommy is on the case. <smile>
>
>Tom
This may come as a shock to you, but hippies are NOT anti-feminists.
Growing your hair long, refusing to bathe, living off of someone else,
and "doing" drugs are not anti-feminist political statements.
Being "cool" is not an anti-feminist political statement.
To do ANYTHING right means to be very very hot.
Masculist
Heidi Graw
>"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:o0s1k5lfgr6caotnd...@4ax.com...
(snip)
>Grizzlie wrote:
> Why don't you inhale carbon monoxide and make it a lucky year for your
> family?
Hey, hubby already tied a Hercules knot around my neck. The man
refuses to let me go. Btw, the Hercules knot represents the strongest
bond possible. It's also a symbol of health and vitality. The man loves
me, what can I say? LOL...I ain't going nowhere. This Hercules knot
hubby tied around my neck also contains a diamond to represent the
brightest of love a man can have for a woman. We are bonded so tight
that even death cannot ever part us. ;-)
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> >Grizzlie wrote:
> > Why don't you inhale carbon monoxide and make it a lucky year for your
> > family?
>
> Hey, hubby already tied a Hercules knot around my neck. The man
> refuses to let me go. Btw, the Hercules knot represents the strongest
> bond possible. It's also a symbol of health and vitality. The man loves
> me, what can I say? LOL...I ain't going nowhere. This Hercules knot
> hubby tied around my neck also contains a diamond to represent the
> brightest of love a man can have for a woman. We are bonded so tight
> that even death cannot ever part us. ;-)
I second GA.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
>"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2e68e73c-dc7d-41d7...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 3, 2:46 pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
>> >Grizzlie wrote:
>> > Why don't you inhale carbon monoxide and make it a lucky year for your
>> > family?
>>Heidi wrote:
>> Hey, hubby already tied a Hercules knot around my neck. The man
>> refuses to let me go. Btw, the Hercules knot represents the strongest
>> bond possible. It's also a symbol of health and vitality. The man loves
>> me, what can I say? LOL...I ain't going nowhere. This Hercules knot
>> hubby tied around my neck also contains a diamond to represent the
>> brightest of love a man can have for a woman. We are bonded so tight
>> that even death cannot ever part us. ;-)
>I second GA.
>Andrew Usher
Well...too bad. If you want nothing to do with me, just plop me into
your killfile. Simple, eh?
Heidi
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
>
>>"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:o0s1k5lfgr6caotnd...@4ax.com...
>(snip)
>
>>Grizzlie wrote:
>> Why don't you inhale carbon monoxide and make it a lucky year for your
>> family?
>
>Hey, hubby already tied a Hercules knot around my neck.
He didn't make the noose tight enough.
> The man
>refuses to let me go. Btw, the Hercules knot represents the strongest
>bond possible. It's also a symbol of health and vitality. The man loves
>me, what can I say? LOL...I ain't going nowhere. This Hercules knot
>hubby tied around my neck also contains a diamond to represent the
>brightest of love a man can have for a woman. We are bonded so tight
>that even death cannot ever part us. ;-)
>
>Heidi
In bed, death probably would make no noticeable difference for either
of you.
Heidi Graw
>
> In bed, death probably would make no noticeable difference for either
> of you.
Oh, I know you can hardly wait to dance and piss on my grave.
But, not to worry, I'll be sure to have hubby invite you to my
funeral. He already bought himself a tractor with a front-end
loader and a back-hoe attached. He's gonna go out and dig
some holes. I told him that Walmart now sells coffins. He can
pick up one, toss me in and be done with it. LOL...to that he
replied, "I could never do that. I love you to much for that." ;-)
Heidi
Ted
Yes. Left/right argumentation is a rich source of distractions from
the common problem.
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
>
Well, he could always flush you down the toilet.
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
Yes it is, but leftists are still evil.
However, I am hopeful that, if nothing else, Sarah Palin will cause
the Left to appreciate the joy of misogyny.
Masculist
wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 13:14:32 -0800 (PST), Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com>
Dream on. You're the only misogynist I have ever met. They are rare
and it is a psychological disorder. Get help soon!
One thing the Left and Right feminists have in common, besides custody
issues, is the drug war. Hmmm...gee, in that sense Grizzlie is very
much a feminist.
That said, I do enjoy you being back. I'm sorry we disagree so much
but that's life isn't it?
Tom
Grizzlie Antagonist
What?
When did you decide THAT?
It's not as if I haven't heard it before, but you and I have been
posting on this ng for what eight-nine-ten years or more...
...and NOW, after all this time, YOU, of all people, decide to tell me
that misogyny is a psychological disorder???????????
Well, misogyny ISN'T a psychological disorder; it's common sense.
But that isn't even the point. If I ever said that YOU had a
psychological disorder, you'd probably say something to the effect
that the mental health industry has been taken over by the feminists
and that my pop diagnosis was proof that I was in league with them.
If misogyny is a psychological disorder, how would you classify THIS
then?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/f74726dd36cd175d?hl=en
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:20:26 GMT
Local: Thurs, Sep 13 2001 12:20 pm
Subject: Declaring War on the Feminists and Recruiting Bin Laden
An Open letter to Bin Laden:
Dear Bin,
Nice work on Tuesday, but don't get too puffed up because we did make
those jets pretty darn available to you.
Listen, the reason I'm writing is that we are having some severe
problems here in America with our own women. They took over our
government thrity years ago with the help of those imperialist pussies
that you are fighting. We are always going to need the imperialist
pussies, but we can do without the feminists. I suggest a deal where
we work together and get the imperialist pussies off your back if you
help us get the feminists off ours.
All you have to do is call yousreselves "Moslem Masculists" and us
anti-imperialists over here will do the same, you know, but adjust it
for our particular religion, like "Wiccan Masculist" or "Existential
Masculist".
This way we can all work together for joy and harmony and won't need
to resort to bombing the shit out of us poor pussy Americans.
Let's start organizing our first "Masculist March on Washington" and
invite all the Palestinians and Iraqui's to join us American
Masculists.
We could sing things like "We should overcome" or do what I did in my
youth and yell with clinched fist thrusting above our heads, "1-2-3-4
we don't want your fucking pussy imperialism".
Brothers for a pussyless future,
Tom
Stephen Morgan
> > >benefitted the most from pushing your feminists on our poor Sixties
> > >generation men.
>
> > So you responded by growing long hair like women,
>
> In the late Sixties women had short hair and their feminist men did
> also. Us long hairs were the He-Men of our time.
We still are.
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:03:59 -0800 (PST), Masculist
>
>
>
There used to be a TV programme on the BBC about vets. Not the type
that go on about 'Nam or wherever, the type that cure animals. There
was a woman on there with a whole collection of jarred testicles which
she's removed from animals. Trude Mostue. Norwegian.
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 13:14:32 -0800 (PST), Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com>
Do you still hate women because you love them, GA?
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
Find Mass Murderers in White Coats by Lenny Lapon, a member of the
psychiatric patients liberation movement. Good book.
I think Tom and Osama would get along well. Ever read "Diary of a Lost
Girl" by Kola Boof? Apparently ObL is a playboy who loves his weed and
has a huge penis.
Masculist
wrote:
GA proved repeatedly that he wasn't a misogynist by constantly kissing
up to the girls here. He's full of it on that subject and others.
What was I thinking when I invited him back? I forgot about others
who were relieved to see him go. BTW, my post about Bin Laden was
satire. The guy is always trying to defame me.
It was in the early days that he was useful when due to our
discussions here we drew out the Canadian SOW feminists who made an
international incident out of our soc.men posts. That was a delicious
victory that for some reason he doesn't want to be associated with.
Sometimes I think GA is actually a feminist counter insurgent. That
would explain alot of his "stuff". OK, I'm putting him in the
killfile in my brain.
Tom
Masculist
wrote:
That's the spirit Steve. The true spirit of the late Sixties Hippies
was anti-feminist. We made guys like GA look like the pussies they
were.
Tom
Andrew Usher
> > > In the late Sixties women had short hair and their feminist men did
> > > also. Us long hairs were the He-Men of our time.
>
> > We still are.
>
> That's the spirit Steve. The true spirit of the late Sixties Hippies
> was anti-feminist. We made guys like GA look like the pussies they
> were.
Even if you were right on this, what would it matter to today? You
seem stuck in the past about this.
Andrew Usher
Grizzlie Antagonist
Do I still hate women because I love them?
Well, look at it this way, SM.
Women are more dangerous to men who are intrigued by them than to men
who aren't intrigued by them.
So it makes perfect sense to hate that which is a danger to you,
doesn't it?
You pretend not to know anything about this because you posture
yourself as a eunuch - as someone with absolutely no sexual interest
in anyone or anything.
But you'd be unique among young men if that were true. I'm reasonably
certain that you're only posturing.
As I grow older, I become less intrigued by women. I'm still a
misogynist though, so my misogyny must have become less based on
intrigue and more purely visceral.
The short answer to your question is, it's not as true now as it was
when I initially made that observation.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Just the opposite is true. There are very few "girls here" that I
have ever gotten along with.
Smitty, on the other hand, kissed up to Jennifer Larson, OhSoJourner
and a host of other feminazis.
Smitty -- the revolutionary who wants me institutionalized for
expressing an extremist point of view -- behaving suspiciously like
(what he would call) a pussy establishmentarian.
Smitty -- the left-wing hippie who inveighs against "Republican
pussies" and then loses what's left of his drug-addled senses as a
result of an infatuation with the most prominent Republican in the
country to OWN a pussy -- who's a feminazi to boot.
>What was I thinking when I invited him back?
When you "invited" me back? When did you ever "invite" me back? Why
would I wait for an invitation from you? I "came back" on my own time
-- after I found the time and inclination to figure out how to work
the latest version of Agent.
> I forgot about others
>who were relieved to see him go.
Oh, bullshit. <mimicking> "...others who were relieved to see him go"
Man, gesturing to the crowd is something that women and cowards do.
> BTW, my post about Bin Laden was
>satire.
Hah! Since when?
> The guy is always trying to defame me.
Bin Laden? He couldn't care less about you.
>It was in the early days that he was useful when due to our
>discussions here we drew out the Canadian SOW feminists who made an
>international incident out of our soc.men posts. That was a delicious
>victory that for some reason he doesn't want to be associated with.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
>Sometimes I think GA is actually a feminist counter insurgent. That
>would explain alot of his "stuff". OK, I'm putting him in the
>killfile in my brain.
>
>Tom
No, you're not. You'll come crawling back to me in no time.
Mark Borgerson
lloydso...@yahoo.com says...
accomplish the same ends?
Mark Borgerson
Grizzlie Antagonist
The two are not incompatible.
Mark Borgerson
I didn't say that they were. I was wondering whether the extra
emotional expenditure beyond simple avoidance produced a positive
return on investment.
Mark Borgerson
Ted
> In article <egj5k5d03p3tir89mc7bohksgekmc67...@4ax.com>,
> lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 21:12:01 -0800, Mark Borgerson
>
> > >In article <bld5k5da5dsukag7j158u93a9edq5ln...@4ax.com>,
> > >lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com says...
"Simple avoidance" can't always accomplish the same ends, though.
>
> > >Mark Borgerson
>
> > The two are not incompatible.
>
> I didn't say that they were. I was wondering whether the extra
> emotional expenditure beyond simple avoidance produced a positive
> return on investment.
It must depend on the nature of what you're trying to avoid. Is it
safe to leave alone? Or is it going to come after you... in which
case a dose of hatred might pay off.
Grizzlie Antagonist
<mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
It does.
I trust that I've put your mind at ease.
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 6:35�pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
Good point.
When I was younger, "it" did indeed come after me on occasion, and
hatred was a good repellant, though "it" could be amazingly persistent
in spite of that.
Now that I'm older, "it" doesn't come after me at all.
But given the difference in life expectancy between men and women and
the disproportionate number of senior women in comparison to senior
men, that could change.
My senior years are still not due to arrive in some time, but they
might turn out to be the golden years of misogyny.
Mark Borgerson
To some extent, you have. However I wonder if your misogyny is
overt or covert? Can you think and act the same way with your
coworkers and the general public that you do under the shield
of anonymity? Hatred without action would seem to equal frustration.
Hmmmm----have I just described the Rebublican Party? ;-)
Mark Borgerson
Masculist
> In article <2ul5k5tmmoum5rrvlp54pn6bur0qg95...@4ax.com>,
> lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 21:35:46 -0800, Mark Borgerson
> > >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 21:12:01 -0800, Mark Borgerson
>
> > >> >In article <bld5k5da5dsukag7j158u93a9edq5ln...@4ax.com>,
GA is a pussy and probably a Marxist. The truth is leading marxists
and repub men aren't much different on the drug issue. GA's misogyny
is pure bullshit and is an attempt to defame soc.men. His family
background is marxist, big time leading marxist at that! Now he works
as a lawyer in California Corrections. Dem pork. Look at who he has
talked to the most since coming back...Heidi.
He says he doesn't know what I'm talking about with the incident over
the Canadian SOW's here years ago. Unless he pulled his posts it's
all still here and even if he had mine are here that reproduce his
proving it happened.
Tom
> Mark Borgerson
Masculist
Good question Andrew. There's two reasons and they are connected.
The first is the impact the late Sixties had on the culture and
politics. It was huge and is still being felt. I saw it decade after
decade living in college towns. The second reason is that I was in
the middle of it and paid big time dues for the whole thing. When the
marxists and feminists took over in '72 they intentionally coopted
what the hippies did in the late Sixties for their agenda. The
hippies in the late Sixties hated the marxists and feminists and this
is all well documented.
So in effect, the shit head marxists and feminists used the sacrifices
of guys like me for their agenda. I'm payback.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
I'm not a eunuch. I'm a horny-handed son of toil. Well, no.
I'm not particularly intrigued by women, though. Too familiar with
them. Sex doesn't appeal to me. Too much dealing with people.
Ted
wrote:
> > Women are more dangerous to men who are intrigued by them than to men
> > who aren't intrigued by them.
...and most dangerous of all to men who merely think that they aren't
intrigued by them.
>
>
> I'm not particularly intrigued by women, though.
You sure about that?
> Too familiar with
> them.
> Sex doesn't appeal to me.
Sex is over-rated. The main lever women use to get their way with men
is the appeal to the ego.
Grizzlie Antagonist
<mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
I've discussed this before. The short answer is "no" and so my
misogyny is necessarily covert.
At the same time, I get along with some women as individuals.
As the great Daniel Fifth used to say, misogyny doesn't entail
categorical hatred of women, just generalized hatred.
> Hatred without action would seem to equal frustration.
>
>Hmmmm----have I just described the Rebublican Party? ;-)
>
>Mark Borgerson
What about hatred WITH action?
That would be a description of the Democratic Party.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Holy shit!
Grow UP, will you?
Jesus! Sixty-one years old. And he doesn't trust anyone over the age
of 30!
Grizzlie Antagonist
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 12:52�pm, Masculist <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > I didn't miss your infatuation with Sarah Palin.
>>
>> Moi? �"Infatuated" with Sarah? �I was just having a little fun.
>> What's a poor disenfranchised boy to do? �While I still love the way
>> Sarah looks, she has a long ways to go to satisfy my political needs.
>> Apparently she has a lot of populist support however. �I would think
>> you as a republican would finally be happy to have a feminist as
>> Commander In Chief.
>
>If you dislike Republicans, why would you want to support someone
>(Palin) that represents pretty much everything bad about the
>Republican party?
>
>Andrew Usher
Good question.
It's because hippie drugs have addled his mind, and long hair blocks
the entrance of any new idea into his head even temporarily, even if
all that it would do is exit the other end.
Stephen Morgan
> On Jan 6, 8:26 am, Stephen Morgan <grauniad2libe...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Jan, 04:00, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Women are more dangerous to men who are intrigued by them than to men
> > > who aren't intrigued by them.
>
> ...and most dangerous of all to men who merely think that they aren't
> intrigued by them.
>
>
>
> > I'm not particularly intrigued by women, though.
>
> You sure about that?
Oh yes.
> > Too familiar with
> > them.
> > Sex doesn't appeal to me.
>
> Sex is over-rated. The main lever women use to get their way with men
> is the appeal to the ego.
But my ego is so massive, so rigid, no amout of fluttered eyelashes or
flattery could bend my iron will.