Alarming "Harassment" Trend
nick...@my-deja.com
trends in the United States:
http://www.lawnewsnet.com/stories/A4044-1999Aug2.html
http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vs990809.htm
I found these references at Walter Olson's Web site for today, Sep. 7:
the site URL is "http://www.overlawyered.com".
The case is Aguilar v. Avis, that's Avis as in the rental car company.
The suit was filed in California, USA; the California Supreme Court has
ruled that a particular person may not utter any racial epithets in the
future. True, people are sued in the USA all the time for "harassment"
and saying improper things, but this takes it a step further; this
person is banned from saying certain things *in the future*. Though
apparently this person was quite crude, calling people of Mexican
origin "wetbacks" and things of that nature, banning his right to
speech is no way an answer. If the company wishes to terminate him,
they should have that right, but the CA Supreme Court has effectively
stepped in and prohibited him from saying certain things.
Why am I posting this story to these groups here? Imagine the
consequences should this spill over to "sexual harassment" issues. It
is not difficult to conceive of men being banned from saying certain
things *ever*, or even from looking at certain people. In my
viewpoint, the government absolutely should not intrude into the realm
of free speech. I side with the dissenters in this issue.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
the_doo...@my-deja.com
>
> Why am I posting this story to these groups here? Imagine the
> consequences should this spill over to "sexual harassment" issues. It
> is not difficult to conceive of men being banned from saying certain
> things *ever*, or even from looking at certain people. In my
> viewpoint, the government absolutely should not intrude into the realm
> of free speech. I side with the dissenters in this issue.
Yes, the feminazis might decide that saying words like "draftsman" or
"chairman" or spelling "women" instead of "wymin" is harrassment.
Scary as shit. And I am serious.
nick...@my-deja.com
> > Why am I posting this story to these groups here? Imagine the
> > consequences should this spill over to "sexual harassment" issues.
It
> > is not difficult to conceive of men being banned from saying certain
> > things *ever*, or even from looking at certain people. In my
> > viewpoint, the government absolutely should not intrude into the
realm
> > of free speech. I side with the dissenters in this issue.
>
> Yes, the feminazis might decide that saying words like "draftsman" or
> "chairman" or spelling "women" instead of "wymin" is harrassment.
> Scary as shit. And I am serious.
>
Hello there! Thanks for taking the time to post a response.
Unfortunately, I must agree with you. When the courts start regulating
(as "Aguilar v. Avis" proves, they already *have* started) what you can
say before you say it, it's difficult to say just where that will end.
I wish I could laugh off your above statement, but I can't.
Dawn O' The Dead
>Hi everyone. Here's another example of alarming speech-suppression
>trends in the United States:
<snip of ParanoiaBoy and his links o' fear>
Please stop crossposting your bitter dreck to soc.singles.
Thank you.
Dawn
-----------------
A deadline is negative inspiration. Still, it's better than no
inspiration at all. -- Rita Mae Brown
Gerry Harbison
Dawn O' The Dead wrote:
> Please stop crossposting your bitter dreck to soc.singles.
Please stop cross-posting your complaints to soc.men
nick...@my-deja.com
java...@pacifier.com (Dawn O' The Dead) wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 13:31:13 GMT, nick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Hi everyone. Here's another example of alarming speech-suppression
> >trends in the United States:
>
> <snip of ParanoiaBoy and his links o' fear>
>
>
>
> Dawn
Hello Dawn,
I must refuse your request. Singles out there, particularly single men
in my viewpoint, have a right to know about things like this and how it
can affect them, particularly given the effects of harassment charges in
the US today. Also, I'm posting articles from 3rd-party news sources,
on something that the CA Supreme Court ruled on. These are hardly
fantasies of mine, so your trying to make this seem like "bitter boy
dreams", as you're fond of saying, falls even flatter than usual.
Given that a lot of single men in America may think that it's OK to
pursue potential romantic partners, or even female friends, in a work
setting, I feel they should know about these things to see what can
happen if they make a misstep.
Nick
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> >
> > Why am I posting this story to these groups here? Imagine the
> > consequences should this spill over to "sexual harassment" issues. It
> > is not difficult to conceive of men being banned from saying certain
> > things *ever*, or even from looking at certain people. In my
> > viewpoint, the government absolutely should not intrude into the realm
> > of free speech. I side with the dissenters in this issue.
>
> Yes, the feminazis might decide that saying words like "draftsman" or
> "chairman" or spelling "women" instead of "wymin" is harrassment.
> Scary as shit. And I am serious.
Oh boy...now the schools all gotta have "wymyn's swymyn" teams...
[hmmm, it's almost a palindrome...]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Dawn O' The Dead wrote:
>
>
Dawn has emotional problems with being exposed to truth.....
Dawn O' The Dead
>> Please stop crossposting your bitter dreck to soc.singles.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Dawn
>
>Hello Dawn,
>
>I must refuse your request. Singles out there, particularly single men
>in my viewpoint, have a right to know about things like this and how it
>can affect them, particularly given the effects of harassment charges in
>the US today. Also, I'm posting articles from 3rd-party news sources,
>on something that the CA Supreme Court ruled on. These are hardly
>fantasies of mine, so your trying to make this seem like "bitter boy
>dreams", as you're fond of saying, falls even flatter than usual.
You are absolutely right, Nick. Amazing I never saw it before now.
Now that I see things your way, I understand that singles out there,
particularly single men in my viewpoint, also have a right to know
about the threat of the Alien Space Brothers and their connection to
the CIA's black helicopters, and how it can affect them, particularly
given the effects of mind control by the Shadow Government in the US
today.
I will be posting articles from 3rd-party news sources on crop
circles, government conspiracies to infect our drinking water with
mind-control chemicals and the use of nanotechnology to imbed all
citizens with ID chips so that our every move may be tracked by
triangulated satellite signals. These are hardly fantasies of mine,
so look forward to reading every news item I can dredge up from
newspapers, the Internet and crackpot specialty magazines!
Jet
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:51:07 GMT, nick...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >I must refuse your request. Singles out there, particularly single men
> >in my viewpoint, have a right to know about things like this and how it
> >can affect them, particularly given the effects of harassment charges in
> >the US today. Also, I'm posting articles from 3rd-party news sources,
> >on something that the CA Supreme Court ruled on. These are hardly
> >fantasies of mine, so your trying to make this seem like "bitter boy
> >dreams", as you're fond of saying, falls even flatter than usual.
You bitter boys really need to get over your "evil feminists" obsession. If
I wanted to, I could find 4 or 5 articles everyday about men who kill their
(ex)girlfriends/wives. In fact, half the time a woman is murdered, it's done
by the (ex)man in her life. Which is worse, getting sued, or murdered? Hint:
you can always get a new job and new stuff. By avoiding romantic
relationships with men, a woman cuts her chance of being murdered in half.
But wouldn't I seem like a paranoid nutcase if I kept posting articles about
men killing women?
J
J'ohn J'ones
Dawn O' The Dead <java...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:37ded9ab....@news.pacifier.com...
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:51:07 GMT, nick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
marky
<ge...@129.93.40.43> wrote:
>
>
>Dawn O' The Dead wrote:
>
>> Please stop crossposting your bitter dreck to soc.singles.
>
>Please stop cross-posting your complaints to soc.men
now _that_ is an oxymoron.
Jet
<nick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7r4ofc$ndr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7r46od$1gfk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> Why Jet!! With all the excitement that's been going around lately, I
> would've thought you'd have posted something by this time. Believe it
> or not, I was actually getting concerned about where you were, and
> thought it strange you hadn't been by to lob something. Well, welcome
> back! Now, to what you have here....
Why, thank you.
> Jet, try to listen carefully. I can't deny the damage men do. I don't
> try. There are plenty of scumbags out there. (Scumbags which American
> women seem to invariably flock to, but that's for another post.)
But again, you twist it around to show something bad about *women*.
> When
> these scumbags do such damage to people's lives, I'm all for harsh
> punishment. Some guy kills his girlfriend, or wife? No problem here
> with 20-to-life. The point is, women perpetuate domestic violence
> themselves, on their male romantic partners--and female ones, to blow
> another stereotype away. I suggest studying Patrica Pearson's "When
> She Was Bad". As far as getting sued v. getting murdered; I don't
> know, from what I hear of getting sued, it's pretty damn harsh.
I bet I know what your choice would be if someone put a gun to your head and
said they would either blow you away or sue you...
> One
> guy who got sued, and whose story was profiled in ABC correspondent
> John Stossel's special "The Trouble with Lawyers", actually had a heart
> attack as a result of the stresses caused by an unfair lawsuit.
> (Fortunately, he did survive.)
Nobody survives being murdered.
I'm not being snide, I'm being quite
> honest. The thing is, radical feminists believe women can do no wrong,
> that women never falsely report sexual harassment, rape, etc., that
> women never kill without extremely good reason, and that's WRONG.
>
I think these "radical feminists" are a bitter boy myth.
>
> Hint:
> > you can always get a new job and new stuff. By avoiding romantic
> > relationships with men, a woman cuts her chance of being murdered in
> half.
>
> What about abusive female relationships? Hey, you know Laurie Cabot,
> the famous "witch of Salem"? Real Wiccan, down-to-the-earth type,
> right? She was once accused (in the past couple of years) of getting
> into such a heated argument with a female roommate, she pulled a gun on
> her!! And hey, tired of abusive asshole American men? Why not do
> something about it? Go right ahead to Italy, to France, etc., and have
> yourself a great time! Trouble is, they don't put up at all with
> radical fem b.s. If you can get past that, have fun!
You missed my whole point. You find a few oddball cases, and act as if they
are the norm. It would be like my trying to paint the average American male
as a murderer. Yes, there are asshole women, and asshole men.
> > But wouldn't I seem like a paranoid nutcase if I kept posting
> articles about
> > men killing women?
> Not to me, no. You have your concerns.
You missed my point.
I'm not for murder, no matter
> who commits it. However, if a man claimed domestic violence as a
> reason for killing his partner, he'd probably be laughed out of court
> on the way to a life sentence.
But there you go, turning this into a slam against women. Have you
considered therapy to help you get over what happened to you?
J
Blair Zajac
<java...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:51:07 GMT, nick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> Please stop crossposting your bitter dreck to soc.singles.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> Dawn
> >
> >Hello Dawn,
> >
> >I must refuse your request. Singles out there, particularly single men
> >in my viewpoint, have a right to know about things like this and how it
> >can affect them, particularly given the effects of harassment charges in
> >the US today. Also, I'm posting articles from 3rd-party news sources,
> >on something that the CA Supreme Court ruled on. These are hardly
> >fantasies of mine, so your trying to make this seem like "bitter boy
> >dreams", as you're fond of saying, falls even flatter than usual.
>
> You are absolutely right, Nick. Amazing I never saw it before now.
>
> Now that I see things your way, I understand that singles out there,
> particularly single men in my viewpoint, also have a right to know
> about the threat of the Alien Space Brothers and their connection to
> the CIA's black helicopters, and how it can affect them, particularly
> given the effects of mind control by the Shadow Government in the US
> today.
>
> I will be posting articles from 3rd-party news sources on crop
> circles, government conspiracies to infect our drinking water with
> mind-control chemicals and the use of nanotechnology to imbed all
> citizens with ID chips so that our every move may be tracked by
> triangulated satellite signals. These are hardly fantasies of mine,
> so look forward to reading every news item I can dredge up from
> newspapers, the Internet and crackpot specialty magazines!
>
> Dawn
Will Dawn post details about the Waco incident regarding what is
claimed by those groups that she disparages above, or will she continue
to believe the Clinton administration?
nick...@my-deja.com
Dawn--
People don't have to "look forward" to seeing my sources; I post them
right away. They're hardly from crackpot magazines. I've taken
stories from the Boston Globe, Walter Olson's books and Web site, Dr.
Daphne Patai's books, the New York Law Journal, etc etc. I also cite
cases which have been decided upon by the US courts, whether at the
federal or the state level.
You know that foolish nonsense you tried feebly to joke on above? You
can't post anything, because there are no credible sources! Dawn, if
people thought I really was a nut, well, they could look right to the
sources I post and I'd be discredited right away! Only, that's not
happening, is it? The sources I post are credible, and lend evidence
to my views on where US society is headed.
This is why I've cited credible sources on as many of my posts as I've
been able to; to lend independent support to my views. Pretty hard to
debate when I cite US court decisions, and articles from some of the
most credible periodicals in the world.
If you have credible sources for your "alien attack" posts, why, go
ahead and post them!
Oh, and while you've been engaging in what you think is humor, did you
actually *read* any of the books or articles I posted about? On this
thread, did you actually read the two articles to which I drew people's
attention, and the blurb on Mr. Olson's Web site? Or are you merely
content to swipe blindly?
nick...@my-deja.com
"Jet" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:51:07 GMT, nick...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >I must refuse your request. Singles out there, particularly
single men
> > >in my viewpoint, have a right to know about things like this and
how it
> > >can affect them, particularly given the effects of harassment
charges in
> > >the US today. Also, I'm posting articles from 3rd-party news
sources,
> > >on something that the CA Supreme Court ruled on. These are hardly
> > >fantasies of mine, so your trying to make this seem like "bitter
boy
> > >dreams", as you're fond of saying, falls even flatter than usual.
Why Jet!! With all the excitement that's been going around lately, I
would've thought you'd have posted something by this time. Believe it
or not, I was actually getting concerned about where you were, and
thought it strange you hadn't been by to lob something. Well, welcome
back! Now, to what you have here....
> You bitter boys really need to get over your "evil feminists"
obsession.
In my opinion, Jet, radical feminism DOES perpetuate an evil agenda,
one that too closely parallels Dr. Robert Jay Lifton's criteria for a
totalist organization/government. I recommend picking up, or going to
your local library and checking out, a copy of Dr. Lifton's book,
"Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism". Especially pay
attention to the chapter titled "Ideological Totalism", where Dr.
Lifton sets forth what are now known as the "eight criteria", which
cult experts look to today as determining factors in judging whether a
group is actually a destructive cult. Compare them--honestly--to what
feminism nowadays preaches, and how the agenda perpetuates itself.
If
> I wanted to, I could find 4 or 5 articles everyday about men who kill
their
> (ex)girlfriends/wives. In fact, half the time a woman is murdered,
it's done
> by the (ex)man in her life. Which is worse, getting sued, or
murdered?
Jet, try to listen carefully. I can't deny the damage men do. I don't
try. There are plenty of scumbags out there. (Scumbags which American
women seem to invariably flock to, but that's for another post.) When
these scumbags do such damage to people's lives, I'm all for harsh
punishment. Some guy kills his girlfriend, or wife? No problem here
with 20-to-life. The point is, women perpetuate domestic violence
themselves, on their male romantic partners--and female ones, to blow
another stereotype away. I suggest studying Patrica Pearson's "When
She Was Bad". As far as getting sued v. getting murdered; I don't
know, from what I hear of getting sued, it's pretty damn harsh. One
guy who got sued, and whose story was profiled in ABC correspondent
John Stossel's special "The Trouble with Lawyers", actually had a heart
attack as a result of the stresses caused by an unfair lawsuit.
(Fortunately, he did survive.) I'm not being snide, I'm being quite
honest. The thing is, radical feminists believe women can do no wrong,
that women never falsely report sexual harassment, rape, etc., that
women never kill without extremely good reason, and that's WRONG.
Hint:
> you can always get a new job and new stuff. By avoiding romantic
> relationships with men, a woman cuts her chance of being murdered in
half.
What about abusive female relationships? Hey, you know Laurie Cabot,
the famous "witch of Salem"? Real Wiccan, down-to-the-earth type,
right? She was once accused (in the past couple of years) of getting
into such a heated argument with a female roommate, she pulled a gun on
her!! And hey, tired of abusive asshole American men? Why not do
something about it? Go right ahead to Italy, to France, etc., and have
yourself a great time! Trouble is, they don't put up at all with
radical fem b.s. If you can get past that, have fun!
> But wouldn't I seem like a paranoid nutcase if I kept posting
articles about
> men killing women?
>
> J
Not to me, no. You have your concerns. I'm not for murder, no matter
who commits it. However, if a man claimed domestic violence as a
reason for killing his partner, he'd probably be laughed out of court
on the way to a life sentence.
>
kim
"Jet" <postm...@127.0.0.1> felt compelled to state:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:51:07 GMT, nick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >I must refuse your request. Singles out there, particularly single men
>> >in my viewpoint, have a right to know about things like this and how it
>> >can affect them, particularly given the effects of harassment charges in
>> >the US today. Also, I'm posting articles from 3rd-party news sources,
>> >on something that the CA Supreme Court ruled on. These are hardly
>> >fantasies of mine, so your trying to make this seem like "bitter boy
>> >dreams", as you're fond of saying, falls even flatter than usual.
>
>You bitter boys really need to get over your "evil feminists" obsession. If
>I wanted to, I could find 4 or 5 articles everyday about men who kill their
>(ex)girlfriends/wives. In fact, half the time a woman is murdered, it's done
>by the (ex)man in her life. Which is worse, getting sued, or murdered? Hint:
>you can always get a new job and new stuff. By avoiding romantic
>relationships with men, a woman cuts her chance of being murdered in half.
>But wouldn't I seem like a paranoid nutcase if I kept posting articles about
>men killing women?
Why, as a matter of fact only this weekend a man took out his wife and
her parents in a suburb of Vancouver. I believe the newspaper said
the kids (2 boys) were in the house at the time.
Kim
nick...@my-deja.com
Again, I can't deny men do this. Those who do deserve harsh punishment.
However, women do this stuff as well, which feminists always want to
deny, or blame it some backwards way on men, rather than admit that
women are people and thus can do all of the evil the human animal is
capable of, as well as the good.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 16:26:31 -0700, when the moons aligned perfectly,
> "Jet" <postm...@127.0.0.1> felt compelled to state:
>
> >
> >> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:51:07 GMT, nick...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >I must refuse your request. Singles out there, particularly single men
> >> >in my viewpoint, have a right to know about things like this and how it
> >> >can affect them, particularly given the effects of harassment charges in
> >> >the US today. Also, I'm posting articles from 3rd-party news sources,
> >> >on something that the CA Supreme Court ruled on. These are hardly
> >> >fantasies of mine, so your trying to make this seem like "bitter boy
> >> >dreams", as you're fond of saying, falls even flatter than usual.
> >
> >You bitter boys really need to get over your "evil feminists" obsession. If
> >I wanted to, I could find 4 or 5 articles everyday about men who kill their
> >(ex)girlfriends/wives. In fact, half the time a woman is murdered, it's done
> >by the (ex)man in her life. Which is worse, getting sued, or murdered? Hint:
> >you can always get a new job and new stuff. By avoiding romantic
> >relationships with men, a woman cuts her chance of being murdered in half.
> >But wouldn't I seem like a paranoid nutcase if I kept posting articles about
> >men killing women?
>
> Why, as a matter of fact only this weekend a man took out his wife and
> her parents in a suburb of Vancouver. I believe the newspaper said
> the kids (2 boys) were in the house at the time.
>
Nobody is denying that men kill. But, the difference is:
When a man kills a woman, MEN call for his imprisonment and/or execution.
When a woman kills a man, WOMEN go into a sob-fest about how terribly awful
it is that she even has to stay in jail up to and during her trial.
Hope that hurts.
In_Nomine
Jet wrote in message <7r4u7f$43i0$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
><nick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7r4ofc$ndr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <7r46od$1gfk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>> would've thought you'd have posted something by this time. Believe it
>> or not, I was actually getting concerned about where you were, and
>> thought it strange you hadn't been by to lob something. Well, welcome
>> back! Now, to what you have here....
>
>
>> Jet, try to listen carefully. I can't deny the damage men do. I don't
>> try. There are plenty of scumbags out there. (Scumbags which American
>> women seem to invariably flock to, but that's for another post.)
>
>
>> these scumbags do such damage to people's lives, I'm all for harsh
>> punishment. Some guy kills his girlfriend, or wife? No problem here
>> with 20-to-life. The point is, women perpetuate domestic violence
>> themselves, on their male romantic partners--and female ones, to blow
>> another stereotype away. I suggest studying Patrica Pearson's "When
>> She Was Bad". As far as getting sued v. getting murdered; I don't
>> know, from what I hear of getting sued, it's pretty damn harsh.
>
and
>said they would either blow you away or sue you...
nowadays, I'd say pull the trigger. At leats the pain wouldn't last the rest
of my life, and you'd could say I abused you and get off scot free.
>> One
>> guy who got sued, and whose story was profiled in ABC correspondent
>> John Stossel's special "The Trouble with Lawyers", actually had a heart
>> attack as a result of the stresses caused by an unfair lawsuit.
>> (Fortunately, he did survive.)
>
>Nobody survives being murdered
> I'm not being snide, I'm being quite
>> honest. The thing is, radical feminists believe women can do no wrong,
>> that women never falsely report sexual harassment, rape, etc., that
>> women never kill without extremely good reason, and that's WRONG.
>>
>
>I think these "radical feminists" are a bitter boy myth.
for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so far up
your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time if you
can't even acknowledge the existance of militant radical feminists in our
midst.
>> Hint:
>> > you can always get a new job and new stuff. By avoiding romantic
>> > relationships with men, a woman cuts her chance of being murdered in
>> half.
>>
>> What about abusive female relationships? Hey, you know Laurie Cabot,
>> the famous "witch of Salem"? Real Wiccan, down-to-the-earth type,
>> right? She was once accused (in the past couple of years) of getting
>> into such a heated argument with a female roommate, she pulled a gun on
>> her!! And hey, tired of abusive asshole American men? Why not do
>> something about it? Go right ahead to Italy, to France, etc., and have
>> yourself a great time! Trouble is, they don't put up at all with
>> radical fem b.s. If you can get past that, have fun!
>
>You missed my whole point. You find a few oddball cases, and act as if they
>are the norm. It would be like my trying to paint the average American male
>as a murderer. Yes, there are asshole women, and asshole men.
the point being made here is not that asshole women are the norm, far from
it. the point here is that there ARE asshole women. somrthing that the
feminist movement will deny till it's blue in the face. even though there is
proof to that effect.
>> > But wouldn't I seem like a paranoid nutcase if I kept posting
>> articles about
>> > men killing women?
>
>> Not to me, no. You have your concerns.
>
>You missed my point.
>
> I'm not for murder, no matter
>> who commits it. However, if a man claimed domestic violence as a
>> reason for killing his partner, he'd probably be laughed out of court
>> on the way to a life sentence.
>
>But there you go, turning this into a slam against women. Have you
>considered therapy to help you get over what happened to you?
how is this a slam against women? If a woman is abused and kills her partner
because of it she goes free. that is a fact. If the roles are reversed and
the man is being abused and kills his partner because of it, he is a
murderer. I realize that it is hard for you to accept things like truth when
you have been fed nothing but feminist propaganda pablum, but you could at
the very least make an effort to think for yourself and not regurgitate
soggy half digested NOW pamphlets...
In_Nomine
Truth may or may not be believed,
But that does not alter truth. Truth Is.
Speakers of Truth understand this.
They also understand that truth always wins,
but sometimes with the winning comes death.
Dawn O' The Dead
wrote:
>In article <37ded9ab....@news.pacifier.com>, Dawn O' The Dead
><java...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>> Now that I see things your way, I understand that singles out there,
>> particularly single men in my viewpoint, also have a right to know
>> about the threat of the Alien Space Brothers and their connection to
>> the CIA's black helicopters, and how it can affect them, particularly
>> given the effects of mind control by the Shadow Government in the US
>> today.
>>
>> I will be posting articles from 3rd-party news sources on crop
>> circles, government conspiracies to infect our drinking water with
>> mind-control chemicals and the use of nanotechnology to imbed all
>> citizens with ID chips so that our every move may be tracked by
>> triangulated satellite signals. These are hardly fantasies of mine,
>> so look forward to reading every news item I can dredge up from
>> newspapers, the Internet and crackpot specialty magazines!
>>
>> Dawn
>
>
>Will Dawn post details about the Waco incident regarding what is
>claimed by those groups that she disparages above, or will she continue
>to believe the Clinton administration?
I need to thoroughly deconstruct your question to try and figure out
what you're asking.
"... those groups that she disparages above": are you referring to
squads of Black Helicopters, the alien space brothers, the Shadow
Government, the creators of crop circles, or the government? And it
what way did I disparage any of those groups?
"...will she continue to believe the Clinton administration" makes
some seriously erroneous assumptions. The first is that I believe the
current administration has told me the truth about something - hell,
anything. The answer is "hardly ever".
Your second error is really one of over-simplifying. Do you want to
know if I believe the Commander-In-Chief's line of BS, or the line of
BS from Janet Reno? Or the line of BS from the FBI? Or perhaps the
line of BS from the boys at the BATF?
Or - and this in important - did you really just miss the humor in my
post, and needed to diss me because you think I'm an eeeeeee-vil
feminist and made an immediate assumption about my position without
bothering to think it through?
nick...@my-deja.com
In article <42vB3.662$jX5....@sapphire.mtt.net>,
"In_Nomine" <In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jet wrote in message <7r4u7f$43i0$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> ><nick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7r4ofc$ndr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> In article <7r46od$1gfk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> >> Why Jet!! With all the excitement that's been going around lately,
I
> >> would've thought you'd have posted something by this time. Believe
it
> >> or not, I was actually getting concerned about where you were, and
> >> thought it strange you hadn't been by to lob something. Well,
welcome
> >> back! Now, to what you have here....
> >
> >Why, thank you.
> >
> >> Jet, try to listen carefully. I can't deny the damage men do. I
don't
> >> try. There are plenty of scumbags out there. (Scumbags which
American
> >> women seem to invariably flock to, but that's for another post.)
> >
> >But again, you twist it around to show something bad about *women*.
American women's awful taste in men speaks for itself.
> >> When
> >> these scumbags do such damage to people's lives, I'm all for harsh
> >> punishment. Some guy kills his girlfriend, or wife? No problem
here
> >> with 20-to-life. The point is, women perpetuate domestic violence
> >> themselves, on their male romantic partners--and female ones, to
blow
> >> another stereotype away. I suggest studying Patrica Pearson's
"When
> >> She Was Bad". As far as getting sued v. getting murdered; I don't
> >> know, from what I hear of getting sued, it's pretty damn harsh.
> >
> >I bet I know what your choice would be if someone put a gun to your
head
> and
> >said they would either blow you away or sue you...
I'd prefer to have my life spared, and then grumble when I had to pay my
lawyer to defend me in a lawsuit...
> nowadays, I'd say pull the trigger. At leats the pain wouldn't last
the rest
> of my life, and you'd could say I abused you and get off scot free.
Hard to argue with this.
> >> One
> >> guy who got sued, and whose story was profiled in ABC correspondent
> >> John Stossel's special "The Trouble with Lawyers", actually had a
heart
> >> attack as a result of the stresses caused by an unfair lawsuit.
> >> (Fortunately, he did survive.)
> >
> >Nobody survives being murdered
Thank you for your philosophical insight. And also thank you for
showing your great reservoir of compassion.
> > I'm not being snide, I'm being quite
> >> honest. The thing is, radical feminists believe women can do no
wrong,
> >> that women never falsely report sexual harassment, rape, etc., that
> >> women never kill without extremely good reason, and that's WRONG.
> >>
> >
> >I think these "radical feminists" are a bitter boy myth.
>
> for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so far
up
> your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time if
you
> can't even acknowledge the existance of militant radical feminists in
our
> midst.
Gotta side with In Nomine there. Lord knows I've posted enough sources,
especially recently. How about the recent stuff on Mary Daly alone? If
she's a myth, who has Boston College been paying all these years? Or
how about MacKinnon? Dworkin? Are they figments of our imaginations?
How about all the court cases I've cited? Are they fantasies, as well?
And the women who *do* act like assholes have a support system which
encourages such behavior. It's hardly a few oddball cases. Jet,
Pargeon and Marg seem to not want to read my sources; does that extend
to you as well?
> >> > But wouldn't I seem like a paranoid nutcase if I kept posting
> >> articles about
> >> > men killing women?
> >
> >> Not to me, no. You have your concerns.
> >
> >You missed my point.
I don't think I did. If it's something you're concerned with, go ahead
and voice your opinions. That's what free speech is about. Then, we'd
dismiss you as a crackpot--until you posted credible sources for your
arguments, then we'd take a look and study it more.
> > I'm not for murder, no matter
> >> who commits it. However, if a man claimed domestic violence as a
> >> reason for killing his partner, he'd probably be laughed out of
court
> >> on the way to a life sentence.
> >
> >But there you go, turning this into a slam against women. Have you
> >considered therapy to help you get over what happened to you?
This IS my therapy--doing what I can to undermine the system which
encouraged what happened to me, so it doesn't happen to other men.
> how is this a slam against women? If a woman is abused and kills her
partner
> because of it she goes free. that is a fact. If the roles are reversed
and
> the man is being abused and kills his partner because of it, he is a
> murderer.
This is true.
I realize that it is hard for you to accept things like
truth when
> you have been fed nothing but feminist propaganda pablum, but you
could at
> the very least make an effort to think for yourself and not
regurgitate
> soggy half digested NOW pamphlets...
> In_Nomine
Thinking for yourself is the key, absolutely. Well put, In Nomine.
> Truth may or may not be believed,
> But that does not alter truth. Truth Is.
> Speakers of Truth understand this.
> They also understand that truth always wins,
> but sometimes with the winning comes death.
>
>
John Fereira
>>
>><nick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7r4ofc$ndr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>> In article <7r46od$1gfk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> Why Jet!! With all the excitement that's been going around lately, I
>>> would've thought you'd have posted something by this time. Believe it
>>> or not, I was actually getting concerned about where you were, and
>>> thought it strange you hadn't been by to lob something. Well, welcome
>>> back! Now, to what you have here....
>>
>>Why, thank you.
>>
>>> Jet, try to listen carefully. I can't deny the damage men do. I don't
>>> try. There are plenty of scumbags out there. (Scumbags which American
>>> women seem to invariably flock to, but that's for another post.)
>>
>>But again, you twist it around to show something bad about *women*.
>>
I see you ignored this part. Jet was pointing out that there are *some* bad
women out there and rather than just agree and say, "yes, I admit there
are some bad men out there" Nick had to go one step further and attempt
to denigrate American women for "flocking to" those bad men.
>>> When
>>> these scumbags do such damage to people's lives, I'm all for harsh
>>> punishment. Some guy kills his girlfriend, or wife? No problem here
>>> with 20-to-life. The point is, women perpetuate domestic violence
>>> themselves, on their male romantic partners--and female ones, to blow
>>> another stereotype away. I suggest studying Patrica Pearson's "When
>>> She Was Bad". As far as getting sued v. getting murdered; I don't
>>> know, from what I hear of getting sued, it's pretty damn harsh.
>>
>>I bet I know what your choice would be if someone put a gun to your head
>and
>>said they would either blow you away or sue you...
>
>nowadays, I'd say pull the trigger. At leats the pain wouldn't last the rest
>of my life, and you'd could say I abused you and get off scot free.
She said "someone put a gun to your head". Why did you make the
assumption that it she was even involved in this hypothetical scenario?
It must be really sad to live in fear of what a woman *could* do. If you
honestly believe that being dead is favorable to being sued I would
strongly suggest that you seek professional therapy.
>>
>>I think these "radical feminists" are a bitter boy myth.
>
>for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so far up
>your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time if you
>can't even acknowledge the existance of militant radical feminists in our
>midst.
"In our midst". How many militant radical feminist have you met personally?
When is the last time that your life is directly affected by a militant
radical femist? Is it really worth living your entire life in fear of 135
million people because of what a tiny percentage of female population
have said? Oh, that's right, you'd rather be dead.
>>You missed my whole point. You find a few oddball cases, and act as if they
>>are the norm. It would be like my trying to paint the average American male
>>as a murderer. Yes, there are asshole women, and asshole men.
>
>the point being made here is not that asshole women are the norm, far from
>it. the point here is that there ARE asshole women. somrthing that the
>feminist movement will deny till it's blue in the face. even though there is
>proof to that effect.
Care to provide evidence that "the feminist movement" categorically denies
that there are asshole women or is this something that "everyone knows
is true".
John Fereira
Ithaca, NY
ja...@cornell.edu
Steve Chaney
>In article <37ded9ab....@news.pacifier.com>, Dawn O' The Dead
><java...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>
>Will Dawn post details about the Waco incident regarding what is
>claimed by those groups that she disparages above, or will she continue
>to believe the Clinton administration?
Name me one Democrat who has come out against the administration about this
issue.
All the people who demanded an investigation are Congressional Republicans.
Democrats - elected ones and their constituents - are banking on the fact
that the public has a Jim Dutton attitude about it all:
They're the Branch Davidians, they resisted, they were killed, end of
story. Nobody fucks with the big bad Government and lives.
Also see: Randy Weaver's wife.
Or:
Move over, Governor Rhodes, move over, Kent State, here comes Field
Marshal Reno and Der Fuhrer Clinton
Oh and did I ever mention the M.O.V.E. incident?
- Steve
"In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Jew...." - Pastor Martin Niemoller
kim
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@flash.net> felt compelled to state:
>kim wrote:
>> Why, as a matter of fact only this weekend a man took out his wife and
>> her parents in a suburb of Vancouver. I believe the newspaper said
>> the kids (2 boys) were in the house at the time.
>>
>
>Nobody is denying that men kill. But, the difference is:
>
>When a man kills a woman, MEN call for his imprisonment and/or execution.
>When a woman kills a man, WOMEN go into a sob-fest about how terribly awful
> it is that she even has to stay in jail up to and during her trial.
And you are doing what to change this POV?
>Hope that hurts.
Not really.
Kim
kim
nick...@my-deja.com felt compelled to state:
>In article <37d5cd35...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> ki...@akamail.com (kim ) wrote:
(snip)
>> Why, as a matter of fact only this weekend a man took out his wife and
>> her parents in a suburb of Vancouver. I believe the newspaper said
>> the kids (2 boys) were in the house at the time.
>
>Again, I can't deny men do this. Those who do deserve harsh punishment.
> However, women do this stuff as well, which feminists always want to
>deny, or blame it some backwards way on men, rather than admit that
>women are people and thus can do all of the evil the human animal is
>capable of, as well as the good.
The feminists, the feminists, the feminists.
When are *you* going to stop blaming a small segment of the population
(radical feminists) for all that is ill in society?
Get a grip. Mebbe I should blame the black helicopters for making
too much noise if I can't sleep.
Kim
Breezy
<nick...@my-deja.com> wrote
> women perpetuate domestic violence
> themselves,
Did you mean perpetrate?
Either way, I would like to know exactly what you mean
by this comment.
Faith
Dawn O' The Dead
Sounds like a slightly more articulate twist on, "Da beeyatches are
askin' fer it."
nick...@my-deja.com
ja...@cornell.edu (John Fereira) wrote:
> In article <42vB3.662$jX5....@sapphire.mtt.net>, "In_Nomine"
<In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
int.news.prodigy.com>...
> >>
> >><nick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7r4ofc$ndr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >>> In article <7r46od$1gfk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>> Why Jet!! With all the excitement that's been going around
lately, I
> >>> would've thought you'd have posted something by this time.
Believe it
> >>> or not, I was actually getting concerned about where you were, and
> >>> thought it strange you hadn't been by to lob something. Well,
welcome
> >>> back! Now, to what you have here....
> >>
> >>Why, thank you.
> >>
> >>> Jet, try to listen carefully. I can't deny the damage men do. I
don't
> >>> try. There are plenty of scumbags out there. (Scumbags which
American
> >>> women seem to invariably flock to, but that's for another post.)
> >>
> >>But again, you twist it around to show something bad about *women*.
> >>
>
*some* bad
> women out there and rather than just agree and say, "yes, I admit
there
> are some bad men out there" Nick had to go one step further and
attempt
> to denigrate American women for "flocking to" those bad men.
>
> >>> these scumbags do such damage to people's lives, I'm all for harsh
> >>> punishment. Some guy kills his girlfriend, or wife? No problem
here
> >>> with 20-to-life. The point is, women perpetuate domestic violence
> >>> themselves, on their male romantic partners--and female ones, to
blow
> >>> another stereotype away. I suggest studying Patrica
Pearson's "When
> >>> She Was Bad". As far as getting sued v. getting murdered; I don't
> >>> know, from what I hear of getting sued, it's pretty damn harsh.
> >>
> >>I bet I know what your choice would be if someone put a gun to your
head
> >and
> >>said they would either blow you away or sue you...
> >
> >nowadays, I'd say pull the trigger. At leats the pain wouldn't last
the rest
> >of my life, and you'd could say I abused you and get off scot free.
>
> assumption that it she was even involved in this hypothetical
scenario?
> It must be really sad to live in fear of what a woman *could* do.
If you
> honestly believe that being dead is favorable to being sued I would
> strongly suggest that you seek professional therapy.
>
> >>
> >
> >for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so
far up
> >your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time
if you
> >can't even acknowledge the existance of militant radical feminists
in our
> >midst.
>
personally?
> When is the last time that your life is directly affected by a
militant
> radical femist? Is it really worth living your entire life in fear
of 135
> million people because of what a tiny percentage of female population
> have said? Oh, that's right, you'd rather be dead.
>
if they
> >>are the norm. It would be like my trying to paint the average
American male
> >>as a murderer. Yes, there are asshole women, and asshole men.
> >
> >the point being made here is not that asshole women are the norm,
far from
> >it. the point here is that there ARE asshole women. somrthing that
the
> >feminist movement will deny till it's blue in the face. even though
there is
> >proof to that effect.
>
denies
> that there are asshole women or is this something that "everyone knows
> is true".
Fereira, your above nonsense is something which I'd like to ignore for
now; I've answered those questions, anyway.
However, to answer the above question, I can present the writings of
Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, and Mary Daly as direct evidence.
If I come across specific quotes to support that (I'm sure I've got a
few stashed away), I'll post them and their sources.
Don't forget Ms. "I Shot Andy Warhol" Valerie Solanas.
Can you hold a conversation, John, or can you merely whine pitifully
over Usenet after some feminist women have "paved the way" for you
enough so you feel safe?
> John Fereira
> Ithaca, NY
> ja...@cornell.edu
>
nick...@my-deja.com
ki...@akamail.com (kim ) wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 13:02:54 GMT, when the moons aligned perfectly,
> nick...@my-deja.com felt compelled to state:
>
> >In article <37d5cd35...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> > ki...@akamail.com (kim ) wrote:
>
> (snip)
> >> Why, as a matter of fact only this weekend a man took out his wife
and
> >> her parents in a suburb of Vancouver. I believe the newspaper
said
> >> the kids (2 boys) were in the house at the time.
> >
> >Again, I can't deny men do this. Those who do deserve harsh
punishment.
> > However, women do this stuff as well, which feminists always want to
> >deny, or blame it some backwards way on men, rather than admit that
> >women are people and thus can do all of the evil the human animal is
> >capable of, as well as the good.
>
> The feminists, the feminists, the feminists.
>
> When are *you* going to stop blaming a small segment of the population
> (radical feminists) for all that is ill in society?
I assign blame where and when I feel it's warranted. Perhaps you've
read the sources I've posted recently? Care to comment on those?
> Get a grip. Mebbe I should blame the black helicopters for making
> too much noise if I can't sleep.
>
> Kim
>
>
Dawn O' The Dead
wrote:
>for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so far up
>your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time if you
>can't even acknowledge the existance of militant radical feminists in our
>midst.
<looking around>
<peering under table>
<looking out window>
Huh. Maybe they all went out for lunch together.
James Buster
Steve Chaney <gunhed@net_999.com> wrote:
>All the people who demanded an investigation are Congressional Republicans.
But Reno is investigating her own organization. The conflict of
interest is obvious. A Reno-lead DOJ raid took the documents. Since it
will be a week or two, if ever, for an independent investigator to be
appointed, it seems obvious to me that the purpose of the the raid was
to sanitize the evidence before the independent investigator gets it.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
John Reinhagen
Hash: SHA1
From the hand of Dawn O' The Dead:
>On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 19:16:30 GMT, welco...@savageoasis.fc.net (John
>Reinhagen) wrote:
>
>>From the hand of Dawn O' The Dead:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 15:13:04 GMT, "In_Nomine" <In_N...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so far up
>>>>your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time if you
>>>>can't even acknowledge the existance of militant radical feminists in our
>>>>midst.
>>>
>>><looking around>
>>>
>>><peering under table>
>>>
>>><looking out window>
>>>
>>>Huh. Maybe they all went out for lunch together.
>>
>>You missed the mirror.
>
>LOL! A radical feminist, I ain't. Good try, though.
Really. Then you shpould provide some better explanation for your message
of earlier today, message ID <37e203de....@news.pacifier.com>, in
which you equated the statement "women perpetuate domestic violence themselves"
with "Da beeyatches are askin' fer it".
Most feminists wouldn't go to such lengths to deny that women commit
domestic violence, even if they lie about the rate at which it happens. To
deny the possibility altogether, or to label someone who does acknowledge
it as an apologist for abuse, puts you pretty far out there. "Radical
feminist" is probably an understatement to describe such a person.
Incidentally, if you choose to lie about the context of the original
statement, you ought to realize that the original message (ID
<7r4ofc$ndr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>) is available to refute such an attempt. I
realize that you are lazy enough to try to make such an assertion in the
hope that it won't be examined and without checking the facts yourself, but
not all of us are so afflicted with couch-potato bloat that a few more
clicks on the screen constitute a huge problem.
>IOW, it was quick, it was clever, but it was wrong.
You got two out of three right, which for you is miraculously good. If you
are not a radical feminist, you're something even worse -- abuse-excusing
bitch.
JCR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjfW3A4ACgkQkAnmSAt2ma98HQCgxjVWxyx2AjgmilbnJwKS1HoY
GYMAoOeDch4pThMuNFjMw7CqSTgfbGK2
=p4tj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
kim
nick...@my-deja.com felt compelled to state:
> ki...@akamail.com (kim ) wrote:
>> nick...@my-deja.com felt compelled to state:
(snip)
>> When are *you* going to stop blaming a small segment of the population
>> (radical feminists) for all that is ill in society?
>
>I assign blame where and when I feel it's warranted.
Wow. You have sure given them feminists a lot of power in that they
are responsible for the ills of society.
You have no blame left over for organized religion or the government?
I really didn't know that the feminists were more powerful than them.
>Perhaps you've
>read the sources I've posted recently? Care to comment on those?
Not particularly. If I wanted to find bad things on any topic, I am
sure I could.
Butchaknow, I don't.
Kim
Steve Chaney
>
>The myth is that these whack jobs are a major force that all men should
>fear. And that a few freak cases represent the norm.
Mostly a myth. The media and Congress do, in fact, listen to them.
Even when they say "Let Paula Jones twist in the wind."
(Thank God the judges don't say that :-)
>I'll say this again, I could post 4 or 5 cases a day of men murdering the
>women in their lives. I could tell women to avoid romantic relationships
>with men, because that will cut their chances of getting murdered in half. I
>could paint men as a bunch of murdering scum. But that would make me a
>paranoid nutcase, just like you.
No, that would make you a troll who's just out to piss off some bitterboys
who choose to blame womankind for the gruesome excesses of a fucked up
political machine run by evil men and evil women.
Or:
Check your weapons loadout
Happy bombing
-- Steve
Dawn O' The Dead
Reinhagen) wrote:
>Really. Then you shpould provide some better explanation for your message
>of earlier today, message ID <37e203de....@news.pacifier.com>, in
>which you equated the statement "women perpetuate domestic violence themselves"
>with "Da beeyatches are askin' fer it".
>
>Most feminists wouldn't go to such lengths to deny that women commit
>domestic violence, even if they lie about the rate at which it happens. To
>deny the possibility altogether, or to label someone who does acknowledge
>it as an apologist for abuse, puts you pretty far out there. "Radical
>feminist" is probably an understatement to describe such a person.
>
>Incidentally, if you choose to lie about the context of the original
>statement, you ought to realize that the original message (ID
><7r4ofc$ndr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>) is available to refute such an attempt. I
>realize that you are lazy enough to try to make such an assertion in the
>hope that it won't be examined and without checking the facts yourself, but
>not all of us are so afflicted with couch-potato bloat that a few more
>clicks on the screen constitute a huge problem.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Somebody needs a hobby.
Clarice
Dawn O' The Dead wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:00:38 -0700, "Jet" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >Another bitter boy myth used as an excuse to spew hatred at women. Face it,
> >women reject *you* because you are a loser. Not even a green card whore will
> >fuck you.
>
> Look out. You might get Clarice mad at you.
What the hell are you talking about?
I gave the Professional Aaron Kulkis Flamers around here shit over the term
'green card whore' insult in reference to Irina not because reading it made me
mad, but because there is absolutely zero evidence Irina actually IS one.
nttawwi
I was merely trying to uncover something you wouldn't understand: the truth.
And the truth, as far as I can discern it, is that Irina has not fucked nor
married Aaron. So there is no way anyone can dis her as a whore and make it
stick. Especially not hypocritical lying sacks of shit such as yourself.
Oh, you say you were tyring to dis ME, not Irina.
How very ironic. I'd been in love and living _in the US_ with the man I married
for almost four years before we actually got married. There is nothing he got
from me after he married me that he wasn't getting before, or vice versa. Getting
married for the green card was a mutual decision made because it was the easiest,
fastest
and cheapest way to citizenship, not because it was my only option.
Jet knows all this, btw.
Jealous, Liargirl?
aka 'I claimed to be sexually attractive at the very same time my live-in
boyfriend refused to fuck me for months on end'.
C.
--
Drug possession. Not that I'd appreciate all the freedoms I'd have
to give up just to see him hang for it.
- Steve Chaney displays his hatred for the Tokeman and endorses fascism.
Message-ID: <7n2ci7$a0d$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>
--
Cuz I got US Marshals hunting him down right now with a
custom made noose. He's gonna hang at high noon baby.
We gonna git that anonyninny yessiree.
Bust out wit ECHELON and all that shit.
Tokeboy can run but he cant hide! Muhahahahah
- Steve Chaney fantasizes about being Adolf Hitler.
Message-ID: <7nc1ft$o6e$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>
Clarice
Dawn O' The Dead wrote:
Such as, for example, posting your entire miserable life's history to usenet in gory
detail so the whole world can mock you for it.
Way
2
Go
Blair Zajac
<java...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 21:59:53 -0700, Blair Zajac <bza...@tcsn.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37ded9ab....@news.pacifier.com>, Dawn O' The Dead
> ><java...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
> >> Now that I see things your way, I understand that singles out there,
> >> particularly single men in my viewpoint, also have a right to know
> >> about the threat of the Alien Space Brothers and their connection to
> >> the CIA's black helicopters, and how it can affect them, particularly
> >> given the effects of mind control by the Shadow Government in the US
> >> today.
> >>
> >> I will be posting articles from 3rd-party news sources on crop
> >> circles, government conspiracies to infect our drinking water with
> >> mind-control chemicals and the use of nanotechnology to imbed all
> >> citizens with ID chips so that our every move may be tracked by
> >> triangulated satellite signals. These are hardly fantasies of mine,
> >> so look forward to reading every news item I can dredge up from
> >> newspapers, the Internet and crackpot specialty magazines!
> >>
> >> Dawn
> >
> >
> >Will Dawn post details about the Waco incident regarding what is
> >claimed by those groups that she disparages above, or will she continue
> >to believe the Clinton administration?
>
> I need to thoroughly deconstruct your question to try and figure out
> what you're asking.
>
> "... those groups that she disparages above": are you referring to
> squads of Black Helicopters, the alien space brothers, the Shadow
> Government, the creators of crop circles, or the government? And it
> what way did I disparage any of those groups?
>
> "...will she continue to believe the Clinton administration" makes
> some seriously erroneous assumptions. The first is that I believe the
> current administration has told me the truth about something - hell,
> anything. The answer is "hardly ever".
>
> Your second error is really one of over-simplifying. Do you want to
> know if I believe the Commander-In-Chief's line of BS, or the line of
> BS from Janet Reno? Or the line of BS from the FBI? Or perhaps the
> line of BS from the boys at the BATF?
>
> Or - and this in important - did you really just miss the humor in my
> post, and needed to diss me because you think I'm an eeeeeee-vil
> feminist and made an immediate assumption about my position without
> bothering to think it through?
>
> Dawn
>
I don't care about Dawn's gender. If something posted sounds
inconsistent, etc., and I feel in the mood, I'll respond to it.
The point that I want to make is summarized by the phrase, 'At times,
even the paranoid have a reason to be paranoid.'
When posting something intended to be humorous, one should be fairly
positive that the posting is well written to ensure that one does not
get an unintended reaction. Don't blame the reader when the message
does not come accross as intended -- it is the writer that is at fault.
Blair Zajac
<ja...@cornell.edu> wrote:
snip
>
> "In our midst". How many militant radical feminist have you met personally?
> When is the last time that your life is directly affected by a militant
> radical femist? Is it really worth living your entire life in fear of 135
> million people because of what a tiny percentage of female population
> have said? Oh, that's right, you'd rather be dead.
>
snip
>
> John Fereira
> Ithaca, NY
> ja...@cornell.edu
It is suggested that John take advantage of the history courses offered
at Cornell regarding the quantification of the impact of a given group
of people. For example, in Russia prior is its coming apart, just 6
(six) percent! of the population were members of the Communist party.
I wonder what was the percent of Germans that supported Hitler prior to
his taking control of Germany?
From my experience, there is a 10% factor in all movements -- fashion,
politics, food preferences, name them, that the rest of the population
follows along.
So it is with regard to the feminist movement. There is a very large
following so one needs to be aware of the size of the movement. Futher,
based on John's name, there appears to be at least two males that
support feminism -- John and Bill Clinton.
John Reinhagen
Hash: SHA1
From the hand of Dawn O' The Dead:
>On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 22:01:21 GMT, welco...@savageoasis.fc.net (John
>Reinhagen) wrote:
>
>>Really. Then you shpould provide some better explanation for your message
>>of earlier today, message ID <37e203de....@news.pacifier.com>, in
>>which you equated the statement "women perpetuate domestic violence themselves"
>>with "Da beeyatches are askin' fer it".
>>
>>Most feminists wouldn't go to such lengths to deny that women commit
>>domestic violence, even if they lie about the rate at which it happens. To
>>deny the possibility altogether, or to label someone who does acknowledge
>>it as an apologist for abuse, puts you pretty far out there. "Radical
>>feminist" is probably an understatement to describe such a person.
>>
>>Incidentally, if you choose to lie about the context of the original
>>statement, you ought to realize that the original message (ID
>><7r4ofc$ndr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>) is available to refute such an attempt. I
>>realize that you are lazy enough to try to make such an assertion in the
>>hope that it won't be examined and without checking the facts yourself, but
>>not all of us are so afflicted with couch-potato bloat that a few more
>>clicks on the screen constitute a huge problem.
>
>Blah blah blah blah blah.
>
>Somebody needs a hobby.
Definitely -- those who hang out on soc.singles haranguing anyone who
disagrees with their man-hating crap should go out, shed a few unneeded
pounds and see what life is like in the real world when people don't look at
them with varying degrees of pity and horror.
I am sure you would have bitched much louder if I hadn't substantiated my
remarks. Of course, you're assuming it took a lot of effort to find out any
of that stuff, since you are quite incompetent to do it efficiently. Rest
assured that it's no trouble at all for anyone who knows what they're doing.
If your best reply to the observation that you excuse female abusers by
lying about their existence and about the people who discuss that existence
is that it must have taken a little effort to find that out, then you're
both a moral imbecile and a couch potato beyond compare.
JCR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjfXAjgACgkQkAnmSAt2ma8cHgCgiI8if+3/zw5+fwPN7kLhu/5g
gQIAnig2UPc4vc3PW3gcrMVhq5WP1Z/t
=JTse
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Breezy
<nick...@my-deja.com> wrote
> People don't have to "look forward" to seeing my sources;
Well that's good, cuz I don't
Dawn, if
> people thought I really was a nut
Sometimes you feel like a nit...er nut
Faith
MK
Dead) wrote:
>>the US today. Also, I'm posting articles from 3rd-party news sources,
>>on something that the CA Supreme Court ruled on. These are hardly
>>fantasies of mine, so your trying to make this seem like "bitter boy
>>dreams", as you're fond of saying, falls even flatter than usual.
>
>
>Now that I see things your way, I understand that singles out there,
>particularly single men in my viewpoint, also have a right to know
>about the threat of the Alien Space Brothers and their connection to
>the CIA's black helicopters,
Please show how Alien Space Brothers are dropped from CIA
helicopters into Supreme Court.
Marcin Krol
---------------------------------------------------
Reality is something that does not disappear after
you cease believing into it - VALIS, Philip K. Dick
---------------------------------------------------
Delete _spamspamlovelyspam_ from address to email me
alan
>Please show how Alien Space Brothers are dropped from CIA
>helicopters into Supreme Court.
they're the guys who actually were responsible
for economic opposition to communism during the
cold war, not the west...
(snicker)...
--
support c4m
let our men walk again...!
In_Nomine
John Fereira wrote in message <7r65d5$66v$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...
>>>
>>><nick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7r4ofc$ndr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>> In article <7r46od$1gfk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> Why Jet!! With all the excitement that's been going around lately, I
>>>> would've thought you'd have posted something by this time. Believe it
>>>> or not, I was actually getting concerned about where you were, and
>>>> thought it strange you hadn't been by to lob something. Well, welcome
>>>> back! Now, to what you have here....
>>>
>>>Why, thank you.
>>>
>>>> Jet, try to listen carefully. I can't deny the damage men do. I don't
>>>> try. There are plenty of scumbags out there. (Scumbags which American
>>>> women seem to invariably flock to, but that's for another post.)
>>>
>>>But again, you twist it around to show something bad about *women*.
>>>
>
bad
>women out there and rather than just agree and say, "yes, I admit there
>are some bad men out there" Nick had to go one step further and attempt
>to denigrate American women for "flocking to" those bad men.
how is it denigration when someone points out a definite and identifiable
trend?
>>>> When
>>>> these scumbags do such damage to people's lives, I'm all for harsh
>>>> punishment. Some guy kills his girlfriend, or wife? No problem here
>>>> with 20-to-life. The point is, women perpetuate domestic violence
>>>> themselves, on their male romantic partners--and female ones, to blow
>>>> another stereotype away. I suggest studying Patrica Pearson's "When
>>>> She Was Bad". As far as getting sued v. getting murdered; I don't
>>>> know, from what I hear of getting sued, it's pretty damn harsh.
>>>
>>>I bet I know what your choice would be if someone put a gun to your head
>>and
>>>said they would either blow you away or sue you...
>>
>>nowadays, I'd say pull the trigger. At leats the pain wouldn't last the
rest
>>of my life, and you'd could say I abused you and get off scot free.
>
>She said "someone put a gun to your head". Why did you make the
>assumption that it she was even involved in this hypothetical scenario?
>It must be really sad to live in fear of what a woman *could* do. If you
>honestly believe that being dead is favorable to being sued I would
>strongly suggest that you seek professional therapy.
I have seen the results of malicious lawsuits brought on by others. I am
trying hard enough as it is to eke out a living, If I were sued, what would
be the point of continuing on simply to have everything I own and earn given
to someone else against my will.
I do not live in fear of what a woman could do. I am cautious after seeing
what has been done. there is a difference, and who the hell are you that you
think that my viewpoint on the subject is worthy of Profesional help? Fuck
you.
>>>I think these "radical feminists" are a bitter boy myth.
>>
>>for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so far up
>>your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time if you
>>can't even acknowledge the existance of militant radical feminists in our
>>midst.
>
>"In our midst". How many militant radical feminist have you met
personally?
>When is the last time that your life is directly affected by a militant
>radical femist? Is it really worth living your entire life in fear of 135
>million people because of what a tiny percentage of female population
>have said? Oh, that's right, you'd rather be dead.
lets see... where do I begin.... I work around the offices the Nova Scotia
Advisory Council on the Staus of Women. A government funded feminazi
bootcamp. I meet them every day. Every day I have to suffer the indignity of
being loked upon with derision by these females simply because I am male. I
have done nothing against these women to deserve their contempt, yet they
seem to find fault with everything I do. I have recieved reprimands on my
permanent employment record simply because they complained to my boss about
me, but I have yet to find out exactly what it is that I have done. For the
record, I do not live in fear of anybody, but I do maintain an air of
caution around anybody who claims the title of feminist, not because they
are women, but because I have seen firsthand what feminism has done to me.
>>>You missed my whole point. You find a few oddball cases, and act as if
they
>>>are the norm. It would be like my trying to paint the average American
male
>>>as a murderer. Yes, there are asshole women, and asshole men.
>>
>>the point being made here is not that asshole women are the norm, far from
>>it. the point here is that there ARE asshole women. somrthing that the
>>feminist movement will deny till it's blue in the face. even though there
is
>>proof to that effect.
>
>Care to provide evidence that "the feminist movement" categorically denies
>that there are asshole women or is this something that "everyone knows
>is true".
In a study on DV in Alberta, approx. 700 couples were interviewed. this
study took place approx. 10 years ago.. I apologize I don't have the URL but
others on this NG are familiar with what I am talking about and if you read
this, could you please post the appropriate url, thanks... anyway, the study
concluded that women and men are EQUALLY likely to abuse their partner in a
domestic relationship, in fact the study showed that women abused their
partners more, and that they tended to be the ones who swung first. For the
last ten years, NOW and other femisnist organizations, have used the
findings of that study to support their allegations on Man on Woman abuse,
while conveniently disregarding anything that suggested the opposite. This
is but one proof that feminism is not about equality but is in fact hell
bent on portraying males as evil domineering abusers, while at the same time
showing women as the helpless victims of these evil monsters.
jim dutton
In_Nomine <In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jet wrote in message <7r4u7f$43i0$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>of my life, and you'd could say I abused you and get off scot free.
>>I think these "radical feminists" are a bitter boy myth.
>
>for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so far up
>your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time if you
>can't even acknowledge the existance of militant radical feminists in our
>midst.
Do they carry bandolaroes? Do they have large amazonian breastesss's?
>the point being made here is not that asshole women are the norm, far from
>it. the point here is that there ARE asshole women. somrthing that the
>feminist movement will deny till it's blue in the face. even though there is
>proof to that effect.
Is this based on experience with your mother? I believe you man.
Lookout dudette there's a women behind that Butch.
-Jeem, ARARARAGGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGGH
========================================================================
http://www.enteract.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
When I found the skull in the woods, the first thing I did was call the police.
But then I got curious about it. I picked it up, and started wondering who
this person was, and why he had deer horns. - Jack Handey
========================================================================
Pook
in our midst? They don't mean much. They are( for obvious reasons)
largely ignored and insignificant. Even if they had their own army
there is no need for concern...it would easily be dismissed.
Dawn O' The Dead
mark@_spamspamlovelyspam_btweng.krakow.pl (MK) wrote:
>>Now that I see things your way, I understand that singles out there,
>>particularly single men in my viewpoint, also have a right to know
>>about the threat of the Alien Space Brothers and their connection to
>>the CIA's black helicopters,
>
>Please show how Alien Space Brothers are dropped from CIA
>helicopters into Supreme Court.
The ones that aren't advanced enough to teleport simply rappel, silly.
Aliens are very good at that stuff.
Dawn O' The Dead
(Fernandinande) wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 11:26:39 +0000, Pook <po...@india.com> expounded:
>
><Who the hell cares even if there *are* such militant radical feminists
><in our midst? They don't mean much. They are( for obvious reasons)
><largely ignored and insignificant. Even if they had their own army
><there is no need for concern...it would easily be dismissed.
>
>The police already carry the guns and do the dirty work for 'em. Duh.
Aaaaahhhhh. The police and the feminists are in on to *together*. I
see. Good thing I have my Eeee-vil Feminist membership card on me at
all times and know the secret handshake so I can have the state's
armed thugs do my bidding.
Know who else is in on it? I'm not supposed to tell you, but ...
Starbucks. Yup, it's true. I used to work there. The employees are
trained to give men decaf espresso ** and not tell them***, while all
the feminists get extra whipped cream on their mochas.
Dawn
(and don't even get me started about all the free bar soap...)
nick...@my-deja.com
"In_Nomine" <In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> John Fereira wrote in message <7r65d5$66v$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...
> >In article <42vB3.662$jX5....@sapphire.mtt.net>, "In_Nomine"
> <In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi, "In Nomine". Thanks again for a very good post. I had a couple of
comments, below...
1st, good response to Fereira. 2nd, you may be interested in studying
the American system of tort law, to see how out-of-control it's become.
It's my understanding that English-speaking countries are starting to
mimic more and more the American tort system, especially Canada.
I'd welcome you to visit Walter Olson's "http://www.overlawyered.com"
Web site, and also check into his two books:
Olson, Walter. "The Litigation Explosion: What Happened When America
Unleashed the Lawsuit." 1992.
Olson, Walter. "The Excuse Factory: How Employment Law Is Paralyzing
the American Workplace." Free Press, 1997.
This really struck a chord with me. The old "we can't tell you who
complained because they would feel uncomfortable" stuff, and its close
cousin, "they didn't tell you to their face because they'd feel
uncomfortable about it". From having been through unwarranted sexual
harassment allegations, I understand your point better than I'd like to.
I'm sorry, In Nomine. Perhaps as more people speak out, the more this
nonsense will decline.
Tell me, did you see the story about the woman in Canada who complained
about Bugs Bunny cartoons, and it was nearly taken off the air?
I'm sorry a place as beautiful as Nova Scotia (visited once, did the
Cabot Trail, great place) has been affected by this nuttiness.
Another source: Patricia Pearson's book, "When She Was Bad."
Thank you very, very much for this information, In Nomine.
> In_Nomine
>
> Truth may or may not be believed,
> But that does not alter truth. Truth Is.
> Speakers of Truth understand this.
> They also understand that truth always wins,
> but sometimes with the winning comes death.
>
>
John Reinhagen
Hash: SHA1
From the hand of Dawn O' The Dead:
>On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 09:28:39 GMT, Fernandinande?@mindXspring.com
>(Fernandinande) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 11:26:39 +0000, Pook <po...@india.com> expounded:
>>
>><Who the hell cares even if there *are* such militant radical feminists
>><in our midst? They don't mean much. They are( for obvious reasons)
>><largely ignored and insignificant. Even if they had their own army
>><there is no need for concern...it would easily be dismissed.
>>
>>The police already carry the guns and do the dirty work for 'em. Duh.
>
>Aaaaahhhhh. The police and the feminists are in on to *together*.
Was that last sentence supposed to convey literal meaning? It looks like a
prime example of what happens when stupid people try to sound smart.
You have already pretended that male DV victims don't exist and that anyone
who says they do is making excuses for the abuse of women, so it's probably
useless to tell you that many courts and police departments enforce sexist
DV policies. Why would you care? You're a sexist shit.
I am given to understand that heart attacks hurt. Sorry 'bout that.
JCR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjfX2Y8ACgkQkAnmSAt2ma85nwCg2sdKna78/VwAo9Uub6lsTWkn
B78AoJAYyubBuLxw7YMUlDa6F58hzjEY
=waSg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
stall...@my-deja.com
java...@pacifier.com (Dawn O' The Dead) wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 09:28:39 GMT, Fernandinande?@mindXspring.com
> (Fernandinande) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 11:26:39 +0000, Pook <po...@india.com> expounded:
> >
> ><Who the hell cares even if there *are* such militant radical
feminists
> ><in our midst? They don't mean much. They are( for obvious reasons)
> ><largely ignored and insignificant. Even if they had their own army
> ><there is no need for concern...it would easily be dismissed.
> >
> >The police already carry the guns and do the dirty work for 'em.
Duh.
>
> see. Good thing I have my Eeee-vil Feminist membership card on me at
> all times and know the secret handshake so I can have the state's
> armed thugs do my bidding.
>
> Know who else is in on it? I'm not supposed to tell you, but ...
> Starbucks. Yup, it's true. I used to work there. The employees are
> trained to give men decaf espresso ** and not tell them***, while all
> the feminists get extra whipped cream on their mochas.
>
> Dawn
> (and don't even get me started about all the free bar soap...)
>
> -----------------
> A deadline is negative inspiration. Still, it's better than no
> inspiration at all. -- Rita Mae Brown
>
Dawn is obviously an idiot..nothing more needs to be said.
Stall
stall...@my-deja.com
nick...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi everyone. Here's another example of alarming speech-suppression
> trends in the United States:
>
> http://www.lawnewsnet.com/stories/A4044-1999Aug2.html
>
> http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vs990809.htm
>
> I found these references at Walter Olson's Web site for today, Sep. 7:
> the site URL is "http://www.overlawyered.com".
>
> The case is Aguilar v. Avis, that's Avis as in the rental car company.
> The suit was filed in California, USA; the California Supreme Court
has
> ruled that a particular person may not utter any racial epithets in
the
> future. True, people are sued in the USA all the time for
"harassment"
> and saying improper things, but this takes it a step further; this
> person is banned from saying certain things *in the future*. Though
> apparently this person was quite crude, calling people of Mexican
> origin "wetbacks" and things of that nature, banning his right to
> speech is no way an answer. If the company wishes to terminate him,
> they should have that right, but the CA Supreme Court has effectively
> stepped in and prohibited him from saying certain things.
This decision sets a very dangerous precedence.
the slippery slope is alive and well.
Watch out for the future.
Pook
by these feminists? I wasn't aware such trivial groups had any
influence on society. My understanding was always that society
placated such "movements" in the interest of "steam" or "squack"
control. Gee....I guess I was wrong....
John Fereira
>In article <7r65d5$66v$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
> ja...@cornell.edu (John Fereira) wrote:
>> In article <42vB3.662$jX5....@sapphire.mtt.net>, "In_Nomine"
><In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> Care to provide evidence that "the feminist movement" categorically
>denies
>> that there are asshole women or is this something that "everyone knows
>> is true".
>
>Fereira, your above nonsense is something which I'd like to ignore for
>now; I've answered those questions, anyway.
No, actually, you haven't. You'll get another chance to answer at least
a couple of them below.
>
>However, to answer the above question, I can present the writings of
>Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, and Mary Daly as direct evidence.
>If I come across specific quotes to support that (I'm sure I've got a
>few stashed away), I'll post them and their sources.
So basically you're saying that the three women listed above are "the feminist
movement"? I think that most people would agree that at least Dworkin and
MacKinnon are the radical feminist fringe, and that even American women that
consider themselves feminist do not agree with everything these two women
say. I would further guess that most women that consider themselves to hold
feminist believes think that those that are on the radical fringe are nutcases
as well.
In other words, the "feminist movement", or women/men that might have some
feminist beliefs do not share the views of the radical fringe (those you use
to provide evidence of your assertions). What it boils down to is that you
are living in fear of 135 million women based on what a miniscule percentage
of those women believe.
>Can you hold a conversation, John, or can you merely whine pitifully
>over Usenet after some feminist women have "paved the way" for you
>enough so you feel safe?
I can hold a conversation just fine. More importantly, unlike yourself,
I can hold a conversation on a wide variety of topics.
nick...@my-deja.com
java...@pacifier.com (Dawn O' The Dead) wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 09:28:39 GMT, Fernandinande?@mindXspring.com
> (Fernandinande) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 11:26:39 +0000, Pook <po...@india.com> expounded:
> >
> ><Who the hell cares even if there *are* such militant radical
feminists
> ><in our midst? They don't mean much. They are( for obvious reasons)
> ><largely ignored and insignificant. Even if they had their own army
> ><there is no need for concern...it would easily be dismissed.
> >
> >The police already carry the guns and do the dirty work for 'em.
Duh.
>
> see. Good thing I have my Eeee-vil Feminist membership card on me at
> all times and know the secret handshake so I can have the state's
> armed thugs do my bidding.
Dawn, why not take a look into Cathy Young's article that I posted
recently? Also, a couple of weeks ago, I posted another one on the
abuses of the "deadbeat dad" system. Plus the recent lawsuit filed in
federal court alleges the Massachusetts court system of being unfairly
biased in favor of women in child custody and divorce hearings; I posted
that one, too.
> Know who else is in on it? I'm not supposed to tell you, but ...
> Starbucks. Yup, it's true. I used to work there. The employees are
> trained to give men decaf espresso ** and not tell them***, while all
> the feminists get extra whipped cream on their mochas.
Is that why they all weigh so much?
> Dawn
> (and don't even get me started about all the free bar soap...)
>
> -----------------
> A deadline is negative inspiration. Still, it's better than no
> inspiration at all. -- Rita Mae Brown
>
nick...@my-deja.com
j...@enteract.com (jim dutton) wrote:
> In article <42vB3.662$jX5....@sapphire.mtt.net>,
> In_Nomine <In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote:
the rest
> >of my life, and you'd could say I abused you and get off scot free.
>
>
> >
> >for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so
far up
> >your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time
if you
our
> >midst.
>
> Do they carry bandolaroes? Do they have large amazonian
breastesss's?
>
from
> >it. the point here is that there ARE asshole women. somrthing that
the
> >feminist movement will deny till it's blue in the face. even though
there is
> >proof to that effect.
>
>
> Lookout dudette there's a women behind that Butch.
>
> -Jeem, ARARARAGGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGGH
>
To "In Nomine" and others...
See what happens when certain people don't take their medication and you
let them loose into a serious forum?
========================================================================
> http://www.enteract.net/~jjd
> Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no
Hottentot.
> Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't
no more
> When I found the skull in the woods, the first thing I did was call
the police.
> But then I got curious about it. I picked it up, and started wondering
who
> this person was, and why he had deer horns. - Jack Handey
>
========================================================================
>
>
nick...@my-deja.com
po...@india.com wrote:
> Who the hell cares even if there *are* such militant radical feminists
> in our midst? They don't mean much. They are( for obvious reasons)
> largely ignored and insignificant. Even if they had their own army
> there is no need for concern...it would easily be dismissed.
Hello Pook,
Sure, the temptation's there to do that, and for the most part I think
American society DOES largely ignore them. But, are the insignificant?
HARDLY. The radical feminist arm seems to have had a lot of success in
changing how court decisions are made in America, what rules there are
which govern places of employment, etc. I welcome you to look into the
sources I've posted for more information.
> On 9 Sep 1999 15:05:26 GMT, j...@enteract.com (jim dutton) wrote:
>
> >>for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so
far =
> up
> >>your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time
if =
> you
> >>can't even acknowledge the existance of militant radical feminists
in =
> our
> >>midst.
> >=20
> > Do they carry bandolaroes? Do they have large amazonian
breastesss's?
> >
>
>
nick...@my-deja.com
> >helicopters into Supreme Court.
>
> for economic opposition to communism during the
> cold war, not the west...
>
> (snicker)...
While all these exchanges are properly amusing, does anyone have any
thoughts as to the relationship of the 'Aguilar v. Avis' case to the
potential consequences in sexual harassment litigation in the USA? How
about the 'Aguilar v. Avis' case on its own?
> --
> support c4m
>
> let our men walk again...!
>
>
jim dutton
Pook <po...@india.com> wrote:
>>>for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so far =
>up
>>>your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time if =
>you
>>>can't even acknowledge the existance of militant radical feminists in =
>our
>>>midst.
>>=20
>> Do they carry bandolaroes? Do they have large amazonian breastesss's?
>>
>
========================================================================
http://www.enteract.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"I love my country -- I fear my government" -- ??
========================================================================
Aaron R. Kulkis
Have you ever wondered what large amounts of explosives would do to the
ACSW building? (Purely as a civil-defense-oriented thought exercise.)
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> You are assuming the police carry out laws and provisions influenced
Yes. In Michigan, if an officer responds to a "domestic disturbance" call,
he is REQUIRED to bring somebody back in handcuffs.
Guess WHO that's going to be......
Regardless of who called, and what the circumstances are, it's the guy
who is going to be arrested.
> I wasn't aware such trivial groups had any
> influence on society. My understanding was always that society
> placated such "movements" in the interest of "steam" or "squack"
> control. Gee....I guess I was wrong....
>
> On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 09:28:39 GMT, Fernandinande?@mindXspring.com
> (Fernandinande) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 11:26:39 +0000, Pook <po...@india.com> expounded:
> >
> ><Who the hell cares even if there *are* such militant radical feminists
> ><in our midst? They don't mean much. They are( for obvious reasons)
> ><largely ignored and insignificant. Even if they had their own army
> ><there is no need for concern...it would easily be dismissed.
> >
> >The police already carry the guns and do the dirty work for 'em. Duh.
> >
Pook
On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 11:37:56 GMT, Fernandinande?@mindXspring.com
(Fernandinande) wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 12:19:24 +0000, Pook <po...@india.com> expounded:
>
><You are assuming the police carry out laws and provisions influenced
><by these feminists? I wasn't aware such trivial groups had any
><influence on society. My understanding was always that society
><placated such "movements" in the interest of "steam" or "squack"
><control. Gee....I guess I was wrong....
>
>Well, here's a short list of how they were 'placated' (votes and
>jobs assured): VAWA, 'CS', child custody, AA, "speech codes".
Pook
On 9 Sep 1999 17:17:25 GMT, j...@enteract.com (jim dutton) wrote:
>In article <yJfXN8NRV=6w8rkw6IWEoSI=6P...@4ax.com>,
>Pook <po...@india.com> wrote:
>>>>for God's sake woman! open your eyes! you have your head shoved so far =
>>up
>>>>your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time if =
>>you
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> You are assuming the police carry out laws and provisions influenced
> by these feminists? I wasn't aware such trivial groups had any
> influence on society. My understanding was always that society
> placated such "movements" in the interest of "steam" or "squack"
> control. Gee....I guess I was wrong....
Police arrest violations of the law. They are not in a position to
question the validity of a law.
Steve Chaney
>Uhm...i didn't write that
>
>On 9 Sep 1999 17:17:25 GMT, j...@enteract.com (jim dutton) wrote:
Dimwit Dutton is a child, and he is trolling you.
Leave him be.
Unless you want to wind up being accused of threatening to go beat him up.
Or worse, of being pseudo-white.
Or something
-- Steve
It's hard to say what next will spew from Dimwit Dutton's psychotic punchbowl
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> In article <nLzXN8cJnepq1W...@4ax.com>, Pook <po...@india.com> wrote:
> >Uhm...i didn't write that
> >
> >On 9 Sep 1999 17:17:25 GMT, j...@enteract.com (jim dutton) wrote:
>
> Dimwit Dutton is a child, and he is trolling you.
>
> Leave him be.
>
> Unless you want to wind up being accused of threatening to go beat him up.
> Or worse, of being pseudo-white.
>
> Or something
Hey.....speaking of Dutton and threats and challenges and stuff...
He claimed that we had a date to have a fight at a boink or some
such nonsense..
I challenged him to come break into my house, and I would shoot him.
The fucking coward STILL hasn't shown up!
jim dutton
Steve Chaney <gun...@net.999.com> wrote:
>In article <nLzXN8cJnepq1W...@4ax.com>, Pook <po...@india.com> wrote:
>>Uhm...i didn't write that
>>
>>On 9 Sep 1999 17:17:25 GMT, j...@enteract.com (jim dutton) wrote:
>
>Dimwit Dutton is a child, and he is trolling you.
>
>Leave him be.
>
>Unless you want to wind up being accused of threatening to go beat him up.
>Or worse, of being pseudo-white.
>
>Or something
>
>
>It's hard to say what next will spew from Dimwit Dutton's psychotic punchbowl
-Jeem, *smooch*
========================================================================
http://www.enteract.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience?" --
Paul 1 Corinthians 10:29
========================================================================
jim dutton
Aaron R. Kulkis <aku...@flash.net> wrote:
>Hey.....speaking of Dutton and threats and challenges and stuff...
>He claimed that we had a date to have a fight at a boink or some
>such nonsense..
Actually everyone saw the post where you said you were gonna shoot
me. I called you on your cowardice. Similar to the 3 women you stalked.
Until one of there boyfriends had a talk with you where you coward out
as well.
>I challenged him to come break into my house, and I would shoot him.
>The fucking coward STILL hasn't shown up!
Spoken like a true gutless feeb.
-Jeem, HIs midget genes are acting up
========================================================================
http://www.enteract.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"His integrity was a matter of character, not law. - Ron Brown"
========================================================================
Pook
dying, the police would respond within weeks.....
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 02:05:02 GMT, nick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>So much for people's assertions that the "radical fringe elements" of
>feminism don't have much sway. Telling the police what to do--I
>consider that a fair measure of power.
>
Jet
In_Nomine <In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:swPB3.778$jX5....@sapphire.mtt.net...
> bad
> >women out there and rather than just agree and say, "yes, I admit there
> >are some bad men out there" Nick had to go one step further and attempt
> >to denigrate American women for "flocking to" those bad men.
>
> how is it denigration when someone points out a definite and identifiable
> trend?
You bitter boys spend all day searching the papers and the web, find a
couple of freak cases a month, and then call it a "trend", as long as it
reflects badly on women. What do you have to say about the fact that *half*
the women who are murdered are killed by the (ex)man in her life?
> I have seen the results of malicious lawsuits brought on by others. I am
> trying hard enough as it is to eke out a living, If I were sued, what
would
> be the point of continuing on simply to have everything I own and earn
given
> to someone else against my will.
> I do not live in fear of what a woman could do. I am cautious after seeing
> what has been done. there is a difference, and who the hell are you that
you
> think that my viewpoint on the subject is worthy of Professional help?
Fuck
> you.
More proof you need it. I have read about people getting killed by airplanes
falling on them. Are you worried about that happening? Or do you just hate
women because you are a reject and look for an excuse to justify your
hatred?
> lets see... where do I begin.... I work around the offices the Nova Scotia
> Advisory Council on the Status of Women. A government funded feminazi
> bootcamp. I meet them every day. Every day I have to suffer the indignity
of
> being loked upon with derision by these females simply because I am male.
Ooooooo! The pain, the pain. Now you sound like those nutjobs that want to
make looking at a woman for more than 8 seconds a crime.
>I
> have done nothing against these women to deserve their contempt, yet they
> seem to find fault with everything I do. I have received reprimands on my
> permanent employment record simply because they complained to my boss
about
> me, but I have yet to find out exactly what it is that I have done.
Well, why don't you look at your records? How do you know there is a
complaint on there, if you haven't looked at them?
J
Jet
Aaron R. Kulkis <aku...@flash.net> wrote in message
> Have you ever wondered what large amounts of explosives would do to the
> ACSW building? (Purely as a civil-defense-oriented thought exercise.)
Now Aaron is using explosives as a dick compensator.
J
Jet
> Pook wrote:
> >
> > You are assuming the police carry out laws and provisions influenced
>
> Yes. In Michigan, if an officer responds to a "domestic disturbance"
call,
> he is REQUIRED to bring somebody back in handcuffs.
>
> Guess WHO that's going to be......
>
> Regardless of who called, and what the circumstances are, it's the guy
> who is going to be arrested.
Oh, the horror, getting arrested for battery, what is this world coming to?
J
Jet
<nick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7r9osm$e94$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Fereira, the US supreme court and the various state supreme courts--
> plus don't forget the ACLU, who sided with the speech-suppression side,
> believe it or not, in the "Aguilar v. Avis" decision...these are the
> "radical fringe"? Mary Daly may be considered a radical fringe
> element--one that teaches at Boston College!! This isn't someone
> yelling on a street corner, but who is on the faculty at one of
> America's most prestigious institutions of higher learning! Also, I'm
> quite sure Catherine MacKinnon is on the faculty at the U. of Michigan,
> and is a law professor. "Radical fringe"? Hardly.
Actually, college campuses are hothouses for nut cases. They couldn't hold
down a job in the outside world.
J
Kish
> lets see... where do I begin.... I work around the offices the Nova Scotia
> Advisory Council on the Status of Women. A government funded feminazi
> bootcamp. I meet them every day. Every day I have to suffer the indignity
of
> being loked upon with derision by these females simply because I am male.
>I
> have done nothing against these women to deserve their contempt, yet they
> seem to find fault with everything I do. I have received reprimands on my
> permanent employment record simply because they complained to my boss
about
> me, but I have yet to find out exactly what it is that I have done.
Don't know what you've done, eh? Hmm...Maybe they'd rather not be called "a
government funded feminazi bootcamp?"
Just guessing.
Kish
Jet
<nick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7r9p07$e9t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <37D7F11F...@flash.net>,
> So much for people's assertions that the "radical fringe elements" of
> feminism don't have much sway. Telling the police what to do--I
> consider that a fair measure of power.
Like I said before: Arresting people for battery!? What is this world coming
to? It's all part of that eeeevil feminist conspiracy.
J
nick...@my-deja.com
ja...@cornell.edu (John Fereira) wrote:
> In article <7r6g0k$t7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, nick...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >In article <7r65d5$66v$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
> > ja...@cornell.edu (John Fereira) wrote:
> ><In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
>
> >denies
> >> that there are asshole women or is this something that "everyone
knows
> >> is true".
> >
> >Fereira, your above nonsense is something which I'd like to ignore
for
> >now; I've answered those questions, anyway.
>
> No, actually, you haven't. You'll get another chance to answer at
least
> a couple of them below.
> >
> >However, to answer the above question, I can present the writings of
> >Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, and Mary Daly as direct
evidence.
> >If I come across specific quotes to support that (I'm sure I've got a
> >few stashed away), I'll post them and their sources.
>
> So basically you're saying that the three women listed above are "the
feminist
> movement"?
They help define it, yes.
I think that most people would agree that at least Dworkin and
> MacKinnon are the radical feminist fringe, and that even American
women that
> consider themselves feminist do not agree with everything these two
women
> say. I would further guess that most women that consider themselves
to hold
> feminist believes think that those that are on the radical fringe are
nutcases
> as well.
>
> In other words, the "feminist movement", or women/men that might
have some
> feminist beliefs do not share the views of the radical fringe (those
you use
> to provide evidence of your assertions). What it boils down to is
that you
> are living in fear of 135 million women based on what a miniscule
percentage
> of those women believe.
So do the six divorced men who've sued the Mass. court system because
they perceive it to be systematically biased against men. Authors such
as Daphne Patai and Camille Paglia are made uncomfortable by
feminists. Decisions like "Ellison v. Brady", "Robinson v.
Jacksonville Shipyards", "Davis v. Monroe County School District", and
the implications demonstrated by the recent "Aguilar v. Avis" decision
also make me (and others) nervous.
Fereira, the US supreme court and the various state supreme courts--
plus don't forget the ACLU, who sided with the speech-suppression side,
believe it or not, in the "Aguilar v. Avis" decision...these are the
"radical fringe"? Mary Daly may be considered a radical fringe
element--one that teaches at Boston College!! This isn't someone
yelling on a street corner, but who is on the faculty at one of
America's most prestigious institutions of higher learning! Also, I'm
quite sure Catherine MacKinnon is on the faculty at the U. of Michigan,
and is a law professor. "Radical fringe"? Hardly.
> >Can you hold a conversation, John, or can you merely whine pitifully
> >over Usenet after some feminist women have "paved the way" for you
> >enough so you feel safe?
>
> I can hold a conversation just fine. More importantly, unlike
yourself,
> I can hold a conversation on a wide variety of topics.
But THIS one is so very interesting, and potentially has great impact
on millions of people's lives...
> John Fereira
> Ithaca, NY
> ja...@cornell.edu
>
nick...@my-deja.com
aku...@flash.net wrote:
> Pook wrote:
> >
> > You are assuming the police carry out laws and provisions influenced
> > y these feminists?
>
> Yes. In Michigan, if an officer responds to a "domestic disturbance"
call,
> he is REQUIRED to bring somebody back in handcuffs.
I've heard of this in other states as well. I believe (and really
should research more into, and I promise to) that my state of
Massachusetts has a similar law.
So much for people's assertions that the "radical fringe elements" of
feminism don't have much sway. Telling the police what to do--I
consider that a fair measure of power.
> Guess WHO that's going to be......
>
> Regardless of who called, and what the circumstances are, it's the guy
> who is going to be arrested.
>
> > I wasn't aware such trivial groups had any
> > influence on society. My understanding was always that society
> > placated such "movements" in the interest of "steam" or "squack"
> > control. Gee....I guess I was wrong....
> >
> > On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 09:28:39 GMT, Fernandinande?@mindXspring.com
> > (Fernandinande) wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 11:26:39 +0000, Pook <po...@india.com>
expounded:
> > >
> > ><Who the hell cares even if there *are* such militant radical
feminists
> > ><in our midst? They don't mean much. They are( for obvious reasons)
> > ><largely ignored and insignificant. Even if they had their own army
> > ><there is no need for concern...it would easily be dismissed.
> > >
> > >The police already carry the guns and do the dirty work for 'em.
Duh.
> > >
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
> C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
> D: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
James Buster
Jet <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>What do you have to say about the fact that *half* the women who are
>murdered are killed by the (ex)man in her life?
It's meaningless. Half of women murdered are murdered by "intimates"
only because so few women are murdered.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
Bob Baker
>
><nick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7r9p07$e9t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <37D7F11F...@flash.net>,
>> feminism don't have much sway. Telling the police what to do--I
>> consider that a fair measure of power.
>
>to? It's all part of that eeeevil feminist conspiracy.
Woman hits man, man calls cops, man arrested ... yep, that's fair.
B. Baker
Show me a man that says he and his wife have an
equal partnership and I'll show you a man talking
about a law firm or a bridge game.
Bill Cosby
In_Nomine
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <37D7EE1B...@flash.net>...
>> <In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> news:7r4ofc$ndr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> >>>> In article <7r46od$1gfk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >>>> Why Jet!! With all the excitement that's been going around lately,
I
>> >>>> would've thought you'd have posted something by this time. Believe
it
>> >>>> or not, I was actually getting concerned about where you were, and
>> >>>> thought it strange you hadn't been by to lob something. Well,
welcome
>> >>>> back! Now, to what you have here....
>> >>>
>> >>>Why, thank you.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Jet, try to listen carefully. I can't deny the damage men do. I
don't
>> >>>> try. There are plenty of scumbags out there. (Scumbags which
American
>> >>>> women seem to invariably flock to, but that's for another post.)
>> >>>
>> >>>But again, you twist it around to show something bad about *women*.
>> >>>
>> >
>> bad
>> >women out there and rather than just agree and say, "yes, I admit there
>> >are some bad men out there" Nick had to go one step further and attempt
>> >to denigrate American women for "flocking to" those bad men.
>>
>> how is it denigration when someone points out a definite and identifiable
>> trend?
>>
>> >>>> these scumbags do such damage to people's lives, I'm all for harsh
>> >>>> punishment. Some guy kills his girlfriend, or wife? No problem
here
>> >>>> with 20-to-life. The point is, women perpetuate domestic violence
>> >>>> themselves, on their male romantic partners--and female ones, to
blow
>> >>>> another stereotype away. I suggest studying Patrica Pearson's "When
>> >>>> She Was Bad". As far as getting sued v. getting murdered; I don't
>> >>>> know, from what I hear of getting sued, it's pretty damn harsh.
>> >>>
>> >>>I bet I know what your choice would be if someone put a gun to your
head
>> >>and
>> >>>said they would either blow you away or sue you...
>> >>
>> >>nowadays, I'd say pull the trigger. At leats the pain wouldn't last the
>> rest
>> >>of my life, and you'd could say I abused you and get off scot free.
>> >
>> >She said "someone put a gun to your head". Why did you make the
>> >assumption that it she was even involved in this hypothetical scenario?
>> >It must be really sad to live in fear of what a woman *could* do. If
you
>> >honestly believe that being dead is favorable to being sued I would
>> >strongly suggest that you seek professional therapy.
>>
>> trying hard enough as it is to eke out a living, If I were sued, what
would
>> be the point of continuing on simply to have everything I own and earn
given
>> to someone else against my will.
>> I do not live in fear of what a woman could do. I am cautious after
seeing
>> what has been done. there is a difference, and who the hell are you that
you
Fuck
>> you.
>>
>> >>>I think these "radical feminists" are a bitter boy myth.
>> >>
>> >>your ass you can't see the light of day! you are in denial big time if
>> >>can't even acknowledge the existance of militant radical feminists in
our
>> >>midst.
>> >
>> >"In our midst". How many militant radical feminist have you met
>> personally?
>> >When is the last time that your life is directly affected by a militant
135
>> >million people because of what a tiny percentage of female population
>> >have said? Oh, that's right, you'd rather be dead.
>>
Scotia
>> bootcamp. I meet them every day. Every day I have to suffer the indignity
of
>
>ACSW building? (Purely as a civil-defense-oriented thought exercise.)
Unfortunately, the location of the office prevents any such thoughts from
occurring to me. the collateral damage to other structures ( a Canadian Tire
hardware outlet next door) prevents me from considering the explosives
thing. :>
In_Nomine
Jet wrote in message <7ra7df$2ese$3...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>> bad
>> >women out there and rather than just agree and say, "yes, I admit there
>> >are some bad men out there" Nick had to go one step further and attempt
>> >to denigrate American women for "flocking to" those bad men.
>>
>> how is it denigration when someone points out a definite and identifiable
>> trend?
>
>couple of freak cases a month, and then call it a "trend", as long as it
>the women who are murdered are killed by the (ex)man in her life?
care to give a cite on this or are we supposed to take your word on it???
>> I have seen the results of malicious lawsuits brought on by others. I am
>> trying hard enough as it is to eke out a living, If I were sued, what
>would
>> be the point of continuing on simply to have everything I own and earn
>given
>> to someone else against my will.
>> I do not live in fear of what a woman could do. I am cautious after
seeing
>> what has been done. there is a difference, and who the hell are you that
>you
>> think that my viewpoint on the subject is worthy of Professional help?
>Fuck
>> you.
>
>More proof you need it. I have read about people getting killed by
airplanes
>falling on them. Are you worried about that happening? Or do you just hate
>women because you are a reject and look for an excuse to justify your
>hatred?
never have I said I hate women. please to not put words in my mouth. In
fact, you might try arguing with facts instead of hurling insults at people
who disagree with you. It really shows the level of maturity that you are at
when the best comeback you can think of is "reject". honestly, try and think
for a change... you never know, you might actually like it.
>> lets see... where do I begin.... I work around the offices the Nova
Scotia
>> Advisory Council on the Status of Women. A government funded feminazi
>> bootcamp. I meet them every day. Every day I have to suffer the indignity
>of
>> being loked upon with derision by these females simply because I am male.
>
>Ooooooo! The pain, the pain. Now you sound like those nutjobs that want to
>make looking at a woman for more than 8 seconds a crime.
your poor attempt at sarcasm disappoints me. I thought you might have at
least TRIED to write a truly caustic response. instead all i get to read is
this pap. Here i thought you were this supreme bitch with a biting wit, but
alas, you are a supreme disappointment. too bad.
I
>> have done nothing against these women to deserve their contempt, yet they
>> seem to find fault with everything I do. I have received reprimands on my
>> permanent employment record simply because they complained to my boss
>about
>> me, but I have yet to find out exactly what it is that I have done.
>
>Well, why don't you look at your records? How do you know there is a
>complaint on there, if you haven't looked at them?
Were you born stupid or were you dropped as a child? How the hell do you
think I know I have the complaints?? the complaints themselves are vague and
noncommittal... primarily there not for what they are but for who filed
them...
In_Nomine
Truth may or may not be believed,
But that does not alter truth. Truth Is.
Speakers of Truth understand this.
They also understand that truth always wins,
but sometimes with the winning comes death.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> <nick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7r9p07$e9t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <37D7F11F...@flash.net>,
> > So much for people's assertions that the "radical fringe elements" of
> > feminism don't have much sway. Telling the police what to do--I
> > consider that a fair measure of power.
>
> Like I said before: Arresting people for battery!? What is this world coming
> to? It's all part of that eeeevil feminist conspiracy.
How about arresting the individual who was the VICTIM of battary.
If a man calls the cops because his wife has gone off the deep end,
most of the time, HE is the one who will be arrested, not her.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Only half right...
Jet's no wit, but she does bite...she bites big-time..
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> <nick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7r9osm$e94$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Fereira, the US supreme court and the various state supreme courts--
> > plus don't forget the ACLU, who sided with the speech-suppression side,
> > believe it or not, in the "Aguilar v. Avis" decision...these are the
> > "radical fringe"? Mary Daly may be considered a radical fringe
> > element--one that teaches at Boston College!! This isn't someone
> > yelling on a street corner, but who is on the faculty at one of
> > America's most prestigious institutions of higher learning! Also, I'm
> > quite sure Catherine MacKinnon is on the faculty at the U. of Michigan,
> > and is a law professor. "Radical fringe"? Hardly.
>
> down a job in the outside world.
Nevertheless, MacKinnon, Dworkin, and other nut-jobs are the ones
writing the position papers that eventually get turned into law.
>
> J
Just Wondering
is the one who has been battered. Even if HE is the one with the injuries.
Even if HE did nothing wrong, HE still goes to jail. SHE can do anything
SHE wants, even if SHE admits starting it, even if the cops see HER assault
the man, HE will still go to jail.
Happens here in Minnesota too.
JW
Jet <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:7ra7dl$2ese$5...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <aku...@flash.net> wrote in message
> news:37D7F11F...@flash.net...
> > Pook wrote:
> > >
> > > You are assuming the police carry out laws and provisions influenced
> > > y these feminists?
> >
> > Yes. In Michigan, if an officer responds to a "domestic disturbance"
> call,
> > he is REQUIRED to bring somebody back in handcuffs.
> >
> > Guess WHO that's going to be......
> >
> > Regardless of who called, and what the circumstances are, it's the guy
> > who is going to be arrested.
>
> Oh, the horror, getting arrested for battery, what is this world coming
to?
>
> J
>
>
Jet
In_Nomine <In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:nj8C3.1193>
Unfortunately, the location of the office prevents any such thoughts from
> occurring to me. the collateral damage to other structures ( a Canadian
Tire
> hardware outlet next door) prevents me from considering the explosives
> thing. :>
Why don't you just get laid? That way you won't be such a bitter boy.
J
Jet
> Only half right...
> Jet's no wit, but she does bite...she bites big-time..
And I suck...and swallow.
J
Jet
> Jet wrote:
> How about arresting the individual who was the VICTIM of battary.
>
> If a man calls the cops because his wife has gone off the deep end,
> most of the time, HE is the one who will be arrested, not her.
Whatever you say, Aaron. We all know how you never twist things.
J
Jet
Just Wondering <as...@rnc.net> wrote in message
news:fY9C3.920$S5.9...@ptah.visi.com...
> No one should have to tell you this, but the man will be arrested even if
> is the one who has been battered. Even if HE is the one with the
injuries.
> Even if HE did nothing wrong, HE still goes to jail. SHE can do anything
> SHE wants, even if SHE admits starting it, even if the cops see HER
assault
> the man, HE will still go to jail.
Any proof? Sounds like a bitter boy myth to me! For some reason, I find it
hard to believe that if I just decided to beat the crap out of some guy,
that HE would go to jail.
J
Jet
*half*
> >the women who are murdered are killed by the (ex)man in her life?
>
> care to give a cite on this or are we supposed to take your word on it???
I don't feel obligated to give cites on things that have been reported over
and over again in the major media. Look it up.
> never have I said I hate women.
But we can tell you do from your posts. Are you going to try to pull a Mark
and babble about how you didn't use the exact word "hate"?
please to not put words in my mouth. In
> fact, you might try arguing with facts instead of hurling insults at
people
> who disagree with you. It really shows the level of maturity that you are
at
> when the best comeback you can think of is "reject". honestly, try and
think
> for a change... you never know, you might actually like it.
Oh, sweet irony. Do they teach you to hurl insults right after bitching
about insults at Bitter Boy University? All you BBU graduates do it.
> >Well, why don't you look at your records? How do you know there is a
> >complaint on there, if you haven't looked at them?
>
> Were you born stupid or were you dropped as a child? How the hell do you
> think I know I have the complaints??
You're the one who said you didn't find out exactly what was done.
>the complaints themselves are vague and
> noncommittal... primarily there not for what they are but for who filed
> them...
You bitter boys often have a strange way if twisting things, why not post
exactly what the complaints were? I find it hard to believe they picked you
out at random to file a complaint against you.
Why not go to the people that filed them and talk to them about it, I would.
J
Just Wondering
Its happened to a couple of friends of mine.
read the law. Here in minnesota, its written gender neutral, but all of the
case law is male perp and female victim. It bothers me that all I have to
do is say "He abused me" and whatever man I point at will be arrested. I
need no proof and I don't need to specify what he did. Too much room for
abuse.
JW
John Lavoy
Jet wrote:
> In_Nomine <In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xu8C3.1194$jX5....@sapphire.mtt.net...
> >
> > Jet wrote in message <7ra7df$2ese$3...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
> What do you have to say about the fact that
> *half*
> > >the women who are murdered are killed by the (ex)man in her life?
> >
> > care to give a cite on this or are we supposed to take your word on it???
>
> I don't feel obligated to give cites on things that have been reported over
> and over again in the major media. Look it up.
Any number of things have been reported in major media, such as the Super Bowl
Hoax, the 25% of all women have been raped myth, and the mysteriously
undocumented 50,000 deaths from anorexia. Is this the media you are citing? Or
is there a different media?
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Aaron R. Kulkis <aku...@flash.net> wrote in message
>news:37D91D37...@flash.net...
>> Only half right...
>> Jet's no wit, but she does bite...she bites big-time..
>And I suck...and swallow.
...but only those who _you_ choose -- and thus Aaron's perpetual snit, because
he's not one of the chosen.
(I don't feel his pain, either. :-)
--PLH, who wouldn't even run over Aaron -- why would I want to mess up The Red
Menace?
Just Wondering
> > >Well, why don't you look at your records? How do you know there is a
> > >complaint on there, if you haven't looked at them?
> >
> > Were you born stupid or were you dropped as a child? How the hell do
you
> > think I know I have the complaints??
>
> You're the one who said you didn't find out exactly what was done.
>
> >the complaints themselves are vague and
> > noncommittal... primarily there not for what they are but for who filed
> > them...
>
> You bitter boys often have a strange way if twisting things, why not post
> exactly what the complaints were? I find it hard to believe they picked
you
> out at random to file a complaint against you.
>
> Why not go to the people that filed them and talk to them about it, I
would.
The person complaining is never identified. the complaint is also never
specifically told. The reasoning behind it is that if you know who it is,
you will harras them, and if you know what the specific complaint is, you
might be able to guess who they are.
At one job, I was told that any complaints would be kept strictly
confidential, the offending person would never know who made it, unless in
went to court or something, and then you would have the protection of the
cops. My question is, how do you defend yourself if you don't know what you
did? and how do you keep from doing it again? The only way I can see is
to never talk to anyone unless its about work, and never talk to anyone
alone. either that or record all your conversations with everyone (provided
that it is legal where you are).
JW
John Lavoy
Jet wrote:
> Just Wondering <as...@rnc.net> wrote in message
> news:fY9C3.920$S5.9...@ptah.visi.com...
> > No one should have to tell you this, but the man will be arrested even if
> HE
> > is the one who has been battered. Even if HE is the one with the
> injuries.
> > Even if HE did nothing wrong, HE still goes to jail. SHE can do anything
> > SHE wants, even if SHE admits starting it, even if the cops see HER
> assault
> > the man, HE will still go to jail.
>
> Any proof? Sounds like a bitter boy myth to me! For some reason, I find it
> hard to believe that if I just decided to beat the crap out of some guy,
> that HE would go to jail.
And if such proof were available, you would change your mind? Would you at
least believe that if a woman attacks a man and he pushes her to the ground to
forestall the attack, he will get arrested? How about if a woman assualts a
man with a baseball bat and when he takes it away from her he twists her wrist,
and he gets arrested? How about if a man comes home finds his wife sleeping
with another man, children in the next room, and they have an argument: the
police are called by neighbors. No blows, no threats. He gets arrested. How
about if a woman attacks a man in a car, scratches his face and refuses to let
him walk away from the situation. He hits her in order to get away and out of
the car. She even tells the police she started it and that it was her fault.
They arrest him.
Now if these things were true, wouldn't you be somewhat alarmed?
jim dutton
Just Wondering <as...@rnc.net> wrote:
>No one should have to tell you this, but the man will be arrested even if HE
>is the one who has been battered. Even if HE is the one with the injuries.
>Even if HE did nothing wrong, HE still goes to jail. SHE can do anything
>SHE wants, even if SHE admits starting it, even if the cops see HER assault
>the man, HE will still go to jail.
>> >
>> > Yes. In Michigan, if an officer responds to a "domestic disturbance"
>> call,
>> > he is REQUIRED to bring somebody back in handcuffs.
>> > Guess WHO that's going to be......
>> >
>> > Regardless of who called, and what the circumstances are, it's the guy
>> > who is going to be arrested.
Typical KKKulkiss retardation. I used to have my ex thrown out on her ear.
Repeatedly. And since when are you lifetime prepubescent dweebs
qualified to talk about women, relationships or law.
STick to lectures you are experts in, like choking your sock puppets.
Here's an idea. Rather then spending the night all balled up in the corner
trying to give yourself a humjob why don't you parasites see if you
can kiss the grill on a fast semi.
The median intelligence of humanity will take an exponential leap.
-Jeem, Maggots on a turd offer more then you chuckleheads
========================================================================
http://www.enteract.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience?" --
Paul 1 Corinthians 10:29
========================================================================
jim dutton
>if
>> HE
>> > is the one who has been battered. Even if HE is the one with the
>> injuries.
>> > Even if HE did nothing wrong, HE still goes to jail. SHE can do
>anything
>> > SHE wants, even if SHE admits starting it, even if the cops see HER
>> assault
>> > the man, HE will still go to jail.
>>
>> hard to believe that if I just decided to beat the crap out of some guy,
>> that HE would go to jail.
>>
>
>read the law. Here in minnesota, its written gender neutral, but all of the
>case law is male perp and female victim. It bothers me that all I have to
>do is say "He abused me" and whatever man I point at will be arrested. I
>need no proof and I don't need to specify what he did. Too much room for
>abuse.
>JW
If they were your friends that alone should have them on the way to the pokey.
Personaly I'd have warmed up my billyclub on them first.
-Jeem, Only other retards of your ilk would believe your BS.
========================================================================
http://www.enteract.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"Moral indignation is in most cases 2 percent moral, 48 percent indignat
ion and 50 percent envy." -- Vittorio De Sica
========================================================================
jim dutton
John Lavoy <jla...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>
>jim dutton wrote:
>
>> In article <fY9C3.920$S5.9...@ptah.visi.com>,
>> Just Wondering <as...@rnc.net> wrote:
>> >No one should have to tell you this, but the man will be arrested even if HE
>> >is the one who has been battered. Even if HE is the one with the injuries.
>> >Even if HE did nothing wrong, HE still goes to jail. SHE can do anything
>> >SHE wants, even if SHE admits starting it, even if the cops see HER assault
>> >the man, HE will still go to jail.
>> >> news:37D7F11F...@flash.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes. In Michigan, if an officer responds to a "domestic disturbance"
>> >> call,
>> >> > he is REQUIRED to bring somebody back in handcuffs.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>number of them it is a clear policy directive that an arrest will be made or the
>officer will have to come in and explain to a supervisor why it didn't happen.
Nice backpedal ya fuckin weasel.
They always arrest the guy. Except when they explain what happened when
they went out on a call. Like they always have to do.
Don't breed chickenshitboy. You'll weaken the gene pool.
-Jeem, women realize this
========================================================================
http://www.enteract.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
jim dutton
John Lavoy <jla...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:
>> Any proof? Sounds like a bitter boy myth to me! For some reason, I find it
>> hard to believe that if I just decided to beat the crap out of some guy,
>> that HE would go to jail.
>
>least believe that if a woman attacks a man and he pushes her to the ground to
>forestall the attack, he will get arrested? How about if a woman assualts a
>man with a baseball bat and when he takes it away from her he twists her wrist,
>and he gets arrested? How about if a man comes home finds his wife sleeping
>with another man, children in the next room, and they have an argument: the
>police are called by neighbors. No blows, no threats. He gets arrested. How
>about if a woman attacks a man in a car, scratches his face and refuses to let
>him walk away from the situation. He hits her in order to get away and out of
>the car. She even tells the police she started it and that it was her fault.
>They arrest him.
So how long has the fairer sex been kicking your effeminate ass?
>Now if these things were true, wouldn't you be somewhat alarmed?
If fairy tales could come true.
-Jeem, what a perfect world
========================================================================
http://www.enteract.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little long
er. " -- Henry Kissinger
========================================================================