Harry potter glorrifys violent women.
Varizo
sociaty,. hav u seen that advert for Harry Potter, where some female
turns round and punches some bloke in the face? Its treated like a joke,
can you imaginne the *fuss* that would be made if it was the other way
round? Imaginne wot the hysterickal screaming reacktion that would be
going on all over the world if Harry potter had shown some bloke turning
round and punching a woman in the face, that wouldent be treated like
some sort of joke. So somthing famous like that Harry potter shite,
thinks that its alrite and acseptabal to show violent females. More
typickal doubel standards. I saw it when i was round at my GFs place
earluer tonite, and i said somthing to her about it, and she dident
think that it was alrite to show things like that when it wouldent be
considerd acseptababl if it was the other way round. How come the
femminists arnt conplaining about that? cos they would be if it had been
a bloke turining round and punching some woman in the face, even if it
wasent ment to be taken serious, femminists ahv got absolowutely no
sence of humour when it comes to that sort of thing, so why is it seen
alrite to think its like somthing funny to show violent females when
theres loads of ppl in the world who hav known wot it is to suffer
becuase of violent women.
V.
Shiflet
"Varizo" <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:41A2B20D...@netscape.net...
> To anybody who actualy notices the doubel standards and hypocrasey in
> sociaty,.
What does this thread have to do with love, romance, singles, or gothic
people? Even horror is only borderline. Quit crossposting you fucking
retard.
Varizo...
> What does this thread have to do with love, romance, singles, or gothic
> people? Even horror is only borderline. Quit crossposting you fucking
> retard.
Its cos on those NGs they are always talking about things like that,
[which you wouldent kno about cos you dont go tthere, so you dont kno
wot yoiur talking about, so its you whos being a retard], and on alt
romance and alt love most of the threads by evrybody are Xposted which
is where i reaslied the sence of doing it too, so there!
V.
ags...@yahoo.com
Shiflet wrote:
> "Varizo" <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:41A2B20D...@netscape.net...
> > To anybody who actualy notices the doubel standards and hypocrasey
in
> > sociaty,.
>
> What does this thread have to do with love,
Sometimes you have to hit people to make them love you (if you believe
in tough love).
> romance,
Depending on the force of the impact, it can be seen as romantic or
kinky.
> singles,
If you do it often, you will be single.
> or gothic
> people?
Gothic people are sometimes into S&M.
> Even horror is only borderline.
Even though it should be seen as "horror", it's seen as amusement. I
think Varizo made a very good observation.
> Quit crossposting you fucking
> retard.
It's amazing, you had a chance to ignore this post and you blew it. To
top it off, you cross posted it to the newsgroups you felt were
irrelevant. And somehow Varizo is the "fucking retard"?
Regards...
(purposely cross posted)
MMET572
"Varizo..." <var...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:eb259c18.04112...@posting.google.com...
> "Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:<1Dyod.364$j%1....@fe09.lga>...
>> What does this thread have to do with love, romance, singles, or gothic
>> people? Even horror is only borderline. Quit crossposting you fucking
>> retard.
>
> Its cos on those NGs they are always talking about things like that,
> [which you wouldent kno about cos you dont go tthere, so you dont kno
> wot yoiur talking about, so its you whos being a retard]
Spot the irony - Varizo generalizing from a pathetically small sample.
DFooK
Paul Ryan
You're talking total shite.
ReVulse
> <bollocks removed>
I think that is a very good suggestion - It might make him stop.
#Andy#
Varizo...
> <bollocks removed>
>
> You're talking total shite.
Just tell me this then, 1st of all youd of had to of seen that Harry
Potter advert to kno wot im talkiing about, so if you havent seen it
then its you whos talking bollox and can fuck off until you hav seeen
it, but , if that advert had showed a bloke just turning round and
punching a woman in the face, spesialy for no reason, advertising a
kids film, then wot dyou think that the reacktion would be, spesialy
from the femminists? Insted of just coming out with a stupid
comment like wot youve done, why dont you say *why* you dont agree,
why dyou think that it seems to be considerd alrite to show a woman
being violent to a bloke for no reason, but it wouldent be considerd
alrite the other way round. Ppl like you can never giv proper reasons
for why you dont agree with wot sombody has said, you either ignore
the truth of it, or you hide behind diversion tacktics or change the
subject by coming out with insults insted. So, why dyou think its
alrite to show some woman being violent to some bloke for no reason?
And if you think its alrite then *why* is it alrite? And if it would
be wrong to show some bloke being violent to some woman for no reason,
then why would that be wrong?
V.
Varizo...
> Shiflet wrote:
> > "Varizo" <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:41A2B20D...@netscape.net...
> > > To anybody who actualy notices the doubel standards and hypocrasey
> in
> > > sociaty,.
> >
> > What does this thread have to do with love,
>
> Sometimes you have to hit people to make them love you (if you believe
> in tough love).
>
> > romance,
>
> Depending on the force of the impact, it can be seen as romantic or
> kinky.
>
> > singles,
>
> If you do it often, you will be single.
>
> > or gothic
> > people?
>
> Gothic people are sometimes into S&M.
>
> > Even horror is only borderline.
>
> Even though it should be seen as "horror", it's seen as amusement. I
> think Varizo made a very good observation.
Thanx. I think that i did too, but they dont like to hav to look at
things like that, cos it shows up doubel standards like its alrite for
women to be violent to blokes, but not the other way round, and its in
a film thats aimed at kids so its telling them that its alrite for
women to go around beating up blokes and its funny as well, but i dont
supose thatt the femminists would be laughing about it if it was shown
the other way round cos they got no sence of humour about that sort of
thing, where its women who are on the receiving end of violence from
men, but if its a bloke beign beaten up by some woman then its funny.
Well at least Hollyoaks dealt w domesstick violence where it was a
bloke getting beaten up by his wife, and wot about mothers who are
violent to there sons, theres enough blokes around who hav sufferd
becuse of some violent bitch of a woman so why is it still treated
like a joke. That stupid advert shows some woman turnign round and
punching some bloke in the face for no reason and its treated like
comickal entertainment. Lets all laugh next time some bitch gets a
fist in her face from some bloke.
> > Quit crossposting you fucking
> > retard.
>
> It's amazing, you had a chance to ignore this post and you blew it. To
> top it off, you cross posted it to the newsgroups you felt were
> irrelevant. And somehow Varizo is the "fucking retard"?
> Regards...
> (purposely cross posted)
I dont kno why he Xposted it to all the other NGs but left out alt
horror when that is where he livs, so he wont see wot i said to him
about it in reply, its a bit daft for sombody to post somthing to Ngs
where they dont even go to, so they wont get to see wot anybody says
in reply to them, but they leave out the one where they always go to
and where they saw wot they are replying to. I cant be botherd to
repost it so he,ll just hav to go to one of the other NGs if he wants
to see if anybody else ahs replied to him. Daft. [So im putting alt
horror back so he can see wot youve said to him, cos he probaly wont
otherwise].
V.
Shiflet
> I dont kno why he Xposted it to all the other NGs but left out alt
> horror when that is where he livs, so he wont see wot i said to him
> about it in reply, its a bit daft for sombody to post somthing to Ngs
> where they dont even go to, so they wont get to see wot anybody says
> in reply to them, but they leave out the one where they always go to
> and where they saw wot they are replying to. I cant be botherd to
> repost it so he,ll just hav to go to one of the other NGs if he wants
> to see if anybody else ahs replied to him. Daft. [So im putting alt
> horror back so he can see wot youve said to him, cos he probaly wont
> otherwise].
All that matters is that you're a fucking retard.
> V.
Miriam
So, why dyou think its
> alrite to show some woman being violent to some bloke for no reason?
> And if you think its alrite then *why* is it alrite? And if it would
> be wrong to show some bloke being violent to some woman for no reason,
> then why would that be wrong?
> V.
1) It's not 'some woman' being violent towards 'some bloke'. What's
more, there's a very good reason for it. The viewers know the
characters, and are probably of the opinion that Draco deserves a bit
of a slap from *someone*, male or female. Given that Hermione's taken
the brunt of his psychological abuse for the previous three books, why
shouldn't it be her? Or do you think she should just put up with the
emotional abuse, that being tormented simply for existing is something
a character should live with? You wouldn't be grizzling like this if
Ron hit Draco, even though Ron would have less personal justification.
2) You're a horror film fan. Are you seriously expecting me to believe
you've never seen a violent horror film in which someone of either
gender kills someone else of either gender? Why is that okay and Harry
Potter not?
Mim
whisky-dave
"Miriam" <mim...@go.com> wrote in message
news:a1bc74c2.0411...@posting.google.com...
>Given that Hermione's taken
> the brunt of his psychological abuse for the previous three books, why
> shouldn't it be her?
Tut Tut.... Violence is never the answer ;-)
> 2) You're a horror film fan. Are you seriously expecting me to believe
> you've never seen a violent horror film in which someone of either
> gender kills someone else of either gender? Why is that okay and Harry
> Potter not?
Maybe it's because Harry Potter meant for Kids isn't it.
BTW did you see the spelling compitition ?.
Did you also see the bit where the women asked a child to spell asphalt,
but the women announcer didn't know what it was or pronouned it wrongly,
so the poor kid spelt it it asfelt, because he didn't understand her,
so he got the spelling wrong.
And they don't use the word in a sentance so how the hell do you know
what spelling to use anyway ?
catbrier
The original question, taken completely out of its original context,
is a figure of how men with an ax to grind against women will reach
for anything, regardless of how ridiculously silly it might be, to try
to score a point in the on-line gender war. A war they are generally
fighting in their own minds.
Really Varizo, do you consider this movie scene a serious "gender
issue?" Aren't you at all chagrined that you have stooped to
misrepresenting a scene in "Harry Potter?"
Cat
Bat Fink
> "Miriam" <mim...@go.com> wrote in message
> news:a1bc74c2.0411...@posting.google.com...
>
> >Given that Hermione's taken
> > the brunt of his psychological abuse for the previous three books, why
> > shouldn't it be her?
>
> Tut Tut.... Violence is never the answer ;-)
Ahem, Bush?
>
>
> > 2) You're a horror film fan. Are you seriously expecting me to believe
> > you've never seen a violent horror film in which someone of either
> > gender kills someone else of either gender? Why is that okay and Harry
> > Potter not?
>
> Maybe it's because Harry Potter meant for Kids isn't it.
Its a conspiracy, have yet to be pottered. (Besides hasn't anyone seen
a Punch and Judy show?)
>
>
> BTW did you see the spelling compitition ?.
> Did you also see the bit where the women asked a child to spell asphalt,
> but the women announcer didn't know what it was or pronouned it wrongly,
> so the poor kid spelt it it asfelt, because he didn't understand her,
> so he got the spelling wrong.
> And they don't use the word in a sentance so how the hell do you know
> what spelling to use anyway ?
People tend to teach other people, in these cases often referred to
as, Teachers and Pupils, (No V not the eye kind), in a place called a
School, (later V! We will explain later).
One we have learned something, we can be said to have stored this in
memory.
That's How!
Dear Usenet,
I Apologise whole heartedly for any V content in this post.
Every effort was made to ensure that there would be no V content,
but this post was created in a group where V has been seen.
Always read the Label.
B Fink
Go n-ithe an cat thú is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat.
whisky-dave
"Bat Fink" <wings_of...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2447d665.04113...@posting.google.com...
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:<cohmk4$dsg$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>...
>> "Miriam" <mim...@go.com> wrote in message
>> news:a1bc74c2.0411...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> >Given that Hermione's taken
>> > the brunt of his psychological abuse for the previous three books, why
>> > shouldn't it be her?
>>
>> Tut Tut.... Violence is never the answer ;-)
>
> Ahem, Bush?
Nah hug a tree, you know it makes sense.
>> Maybe it's because Harry Potter meant for Kids isn't it.
>
> Its a conspiracy, have yet to be pottered.
Not a conspira-tree then.
> (Besides hasn't anyone seen
> a Punch and Judy show?)
I was never into Punch & Judy even as a kid I found it boring,
is P&J goth, hope not don't want to loose goth points.
And as for clowns I never really like them either, I can't say
they frightened me though, just bored me.
>> And they don't use the word in a sentance so how the hell do you know
>> what spelling to use anyway ?
>
> People tend to teach other people, in these cases often referred to
> as, Teachers and Pupils, (No V not the eye kind), in a place called a
> School, (later V! We will explain later).
> One we have learned something, we can be said to have stored this in
> memory.
> That's How!
Pretty pathetic to equate qood spelling with inteligence then isn't it.
There was the french/english kid that was asked to spell the word Psalm,
you could tell he didn't understand the word or hadn't heard it before,
so spelt it sarm IIRC.
Most of those that spelt words wrongly was either down to nerves or not
understanding the word and relying on how it was pronounced.
Shakespeare must be turning in his grave. :)
> Dear Usenet,
> I Apologise whole heartedly for any V content in this post.
> Every effort was made to ensure that there would be no V content,
> but this post was created in a group where V has been seen.
> Always read the Label.
Where V = 5 calculate the percentage of nuts contained in the packet.
> B Fink
> Go n-ithe an cat thú is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat.
Is it a Hairy Popper code ?
whisky-dave
"catbrier" <catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8901e207.04113...@posting.google.com...
> The original question, taken completely out of its original context,
> is a figure of how men with an ax to grind against women will reach
> for anything, regardless of how ridiculously silly it might be, to try
> to score a point in the on-line gender war. A war they are generally
> fighting in their own minds.
But isn't that true of both sexes, or is it only men that have axes to
grind.
> Really Varizo, do you consider this movie scene a serious "gender
> issue?" Aren't you at all chagrined that you have stooped to
> misrepresenting a scene in "Harry Potter?"
It is a worrying sign ;-) , as it was when Mary whitehouse wanted to ban
Tom & Jerry because of it's violent content.
No where's Eugene with that axe.
Bat Fink
> "Bat Fink" <wings_of...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2447d665.04113...@posting.google.com...
> > "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> > news:<cohmk4$dsg$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>...
> >> "Miriam" <mim...@go.com> wrote in message
> >> news:a1bc74c2.0411...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> >Given that Hermione's taken
> >> > the brunt of his psychological abuse for the previous three books, why
> >> > shouldn't it be her?
> >>
> >> Tut Tut.... Violence is never the answer ;-)
> >
> > Ahem, Bush?
>
> Nah hug a tree, you know it makes sense.
Have you ANY idea how hard sap is to get out of....hang on too much
info.
>
>
>
> >> Maybe it's because Harry Potter meant for Kids isn't it.
> >
> > Its a conspiracy, have yet to be pottered.
> Not a conspira-tree then.
Put the pun down and move away slowly.
>
> > (Besides hasn't anyone seen
> > a Punch and Judy show?)
>
> I was never into Punch & Judy even as a kid I found it boring,
> is P&J goth, hope not don't want to loose goth points.
> And as for clowns I never really like them either, I can't say
> they frightened me though, just bored me.
Babies being eaten by crocks? Not Arf.
>
>
> >> And they don't use the word in a sentance so how the hell do you know
> >> what spelling to use anyway ?
> >
> > People tend to teach other people, in these cases often referred to
> > as, Teachers and Pupils, (No V not the eye kind), in a place called a
> > School, (later V! We will explain later).
> > One we have learned something, we can be said to have stored this in
> > memory.
> > That's How!
>
> Pretty pathetic to equate qood spelling with inteligence then isn't it.
Memory has nothing to do with intelligence.
> There was the french/english kid that was asked to spell the word Psalm,
> you could tell he didn't understand the word or hadn't heard it before,
> so spelt it sarm IIRC.
And the point being?
> Most of those that spelt words wrongly was either down to nerves or not
> understanding the word and relying on how it was pronounced.
> Shakespeare must be turning in his grave. :)
On a serious note, am astounded by this sudden appearance of this
spelling stuff over here, I've seen that documentary about the
American National Spelling B.
The states some of the kids end up in, just because they can't spell a
certain word.
So what? I can't spell everything, thats why I have things like a
Dictionary.
Would anyone really by a novel by an author who could not, or more
appropriately I this case will not spell words correctly? I think
not.
I feel a tangent coming on so better stop.
>
>
> > Dear Usenet,
> > I Apologise whole heartedly for any V content in this post.
> > Every effort was made to ensure that there would be no V content,
> > but this post was created in a group where V has been seen.
> > Always read the Label.
>
> Where V = 5 calculate the percentage of nuts contained in the packet.
Give me a few years on that one...thats a BIG number.
>
> > B Fink
> > Go n-ithe an cat thú is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat.
>
> Is it a Hairy Popper code ?
Nope, its, well try and guess.
Marylittlegoth
Nothing to do with it. This is an unashamed flame, Varizo is talking shit
again. Maybe people have stopped trying to groom him and he's getting bored,
there's nothing like being ignored to piss off the narcissist.
Twunt.
--
marylittlegoth
"insert interesting quote here"
whisky-dave
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:<cok5gg$6so$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>...
>> "Bat Fink" <wings_of...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:2447d665.04113...@posting.google.com...
>> Nah hug a tree, you know it makes sense.
>
> Have you ANY idea how hard sap is to get out of....hang on too much
> info.
>
>> >> Maybe it's because Harry Potter meant for Kids isn't it.
>> >
>> > Its a conspiracy, have yet to be pottered.
>> Not a conspira-tree then.
>
> Put the pun down and move away slowly.
OK I'll leaf it alone.
>> > (Besides hasn't anyone seen
>> > a Punch and Judy show?)
>>
>> I was never into Punch & Judy even as a kid I found it boring,
> Babies being eaten by crocks? Not Arf.
I don't rememeber that much about it, I sort of switch of before the
interesting bit I guess.
>> Pretty pathetic to equate qood spelling with inteligence then isn't it.
>
> Memory has nothing to do with intelligence.
Ah good thought I'd forgotten. :)
>
>> There was the french/english kid that was asked to spell the word Psalm,
>> you could tell he didn't understand the word or hadn't heard it before,
>> so spelt it sarm IIRC.
>
> And the point being?
Fairness, this particular kid would have been very good at spelling
words like etiquette, but giving him/them a word they have never seen
written down, then only have the way it's spelling can be worked out
is how it's prounounced which relies on someone else getting that correct
first.
Also if they asked the word to be used as you should, then you'd lose
valiable
time and so lose marks, just because you asked for the word to either be
repeated or explained. Suppose they aksed you to spell :- rain, reign,
or hurd, heard. My mums a good speller and I asked her how to spell byte
and she got it wrong saying bite. :)
I also think they should have been given the same words to spell,
but then again the show wasn't really about spelling or finding the best
speller
in the country, it was about bringing viewers in and therefor revenue as
cheaply as possible.
>> Most of those that spelt words wrongly was either down to nerves or not
>> understanding the word and relying on how it was pronounced.
>> Shakespeare must be turning in his grave. :)
>
> On a serious note, am astounded by this sudden appearance of this
> spelling stuff over here, I've seen that documentary about the
> American National Spelling B.
> The states some of the kids end up in, just because they can't spell a
> certain word.
I did find that worrying, you could make or break a kid like that.
> So what? I can't spell everything, thats why I have things like a
> Dictionary.
Me two :)
> Would anyone really by a novel by an author who could not,
And why not, I'd buy because of a story of the ideas & information
the auther was putting across. That's why they have proof readers isn;t it.
> I feel a tangent coming on so better stop.
The green pills reduce them eventually.
>> Where V = 5 calculate the percentage of nuts contained in the packet.
>
> Give me a few years on that one...thats a BIG number.
Yeah, and if you put two Vs together you get a double U
now that makes sense ;-)
>> > B Fink
>> > Go n-ithe an cat thú is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat.
>>
>> Is it a Hairy Popper code ?
>
> Nope, its, well try and guess.
Ah, ok behind the bicycle shed 13:00 hours, trousers neatly folder over
the left shoulder, I understand.
Time for a quote.
There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary
and those that don't.
whisky-dave
"Marylittlegoth" <Marylittle...@NOSPAM.ntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:1Dsrd.432$3c1...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> Nothing to do with it. This is an unashamed flame, Varizo is talking shit
> again. Maybe people have stopped trying to groom him and he's getting
> bored, there's nothing like being ignored to piss off the narcissist.
So why re-hash it in a differnt thread and crosspost it,
there's some of us here that have moved on and tried to define one of
the problems he has, which is what is and isn't good spelling and how
correct spellings come about.
Stuart Lemora
> again. Maybe people have stopped trying to groom him and he's getting bored,
> there's nothing like being ignored to piss off the narcissist.
>
> Twunt.
Well if they're fed up with him can they start on our Twinkle? His
hair could do with a bit of a brush.
Stuart
Paul Ryan
There's an idea! :)
Paul
Paul Ryan
slight chance I have seen it.
ReVulse
> For your soddin' info matey I'm a big Harry Potter fan,
I'm very sorry to hear that. I hope you get better soon ;)
#Andy#
Marylittlegoth
>> > B Fink
>> > Go n-ithe an cat thú is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat.
>>
>> Is it a Hairy Popper code ?
>
> Nope, its, well try and guess.
It's Gaelic, but my Gaelic isn't up to a translation, my best guess is:
"the cat is eating, the devil the cat is eating"
But my Gaelic is poor and Gaelic has weird sentence structure.
Bat Fink
> "Bat Fink" <wings_of...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2447d665.04120...@posting.google.com...
> > "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> > news:<cok5gg$6so$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>...
> >> "Bat Fink" <wings_of...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:2447d665.04113...@posting.google.com...
>
> >> Nah hug a tree, you know it makes sense.
> >
> > Have you ANY idea how hard sap is to get out of....hang on too much
> > info.
> >
>
> >> >> Maybe it's because Harry Potter meant for Kids isn't it.
> >> >
> >> > Its a conspiracy, have yet to be pottered.
> >> Not a conspira-tree then.
> >
> > Put the pun down and move away slowly.
>
> OK I'll leaf it alone.
*rolls eyes*
>
~Snipped for you and me, me and you lots n lots for you to do...~
> >
> >> There was the french/english kid that was asked to spell the word Psalm,
> >> you could tell he didn't understand the word or hadn't heard it before,
> >> so spelt it sarm IIRC.
> >
> > And the point being?
> Fairness, this particular kid would have been very good at spelling
> words like etiquette, but giving him/them a word they have never seen
> written down, then only have the way it's spelling can be worked out
> is how it's prounounced which relies on someone else getting that correct
> first.
> Also if they asked the word to be used as you should, then you'd lose
> valiable
> time and so lose marks, just because you asked for the word to either be
> repeated or explained. Suppose they aksed you to spell :- rain, reign,
> or hurd, heard. My mums a good speller and I asked her how to spell byte
> and she got it wrong saying bite. :)
> I also think they should have been given the same words to spell,
> but then again the show wasn't really about spelling or finding the best
> speller
> in the country, it was about bringing viewers in and therefor revenue as
> cheaply as possible.
And I agree, I was always told by my mother to break a word up, and
99% of the time this does actually work, but again I agree if a
language is not your first
then you are gping to run into difficulties, I have major issues with
german and gaelic spelling, as in for the most part I can't, no
problems with pronounciation, just the spelling. Oh and this does not
mean that I'm fluent in either.
As for this latest craze, am completly against it, if parents want to
get all competative with each other they should participate, not force
some sad idea on thier own children. In my eyes its almost abuse, that
might be an extrem view but when you see these demented parents in
action you can almost feel your skin crawl.
>
> >> Most of those that spelt words wrongly was either down to nerves or not
> >> understanding the word and relying on how it was pronounced.
> >> Shakespeare must be turning in his grave. :)
> >
> > On a serious note, am astounded by this sudden appearance of this
> > spelling stuff over here, I've seen that documentary about the
> > American National Spelling B.
> > The states some of the kids end up in, just because they can't spell a
> > certain word.
>
> I did find that worrying, you could make or break a kid like that.
>
> > So what? I can't spell everything, thats why I have things like a
> > Dictionary.
> Me two :)
>
> > Would anyone really by a novel by an author who could not,
>
> And why not, I'd buy because of a story of the ideas & information
> the auther was putting across. That's why they have proof readers isn;t it.
Umm, if someone has a problem with the written word its more than
likely that they are not going to be able to express themselves via
this very well.
Thats my point.
>
>
> > I feel a tangent coming on so better stop.
>
> The green pills reduce them eventually.
>
> >> Where V = 5 calculate the percentage of nuts contained in the packet.
> >
> > Give me a few years on that one...thats a BIG number.
> Yeah, and if you put two Vs together you get a double U
> now that makes sense ;-)
So much sense it hurts. *Snigger*
>
> >> > B Fink
> >> > Go n-ithe an cat thú is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat.
> >>
> >> Is it a Hairy Popper code ?
> >
> > Nope, its, well try and guess.
>
> Ah, ok behind the bicycle shed 13:00 hours, trousers neatly folder over
> the left shoulder, I understand.
>
> Time for a quote.
>
> There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary
> and those that don't.
Sooooo old it stinks.
whisky-dave
"Marylittlegoth" <Marylittle...@NOSPAM.ntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:v8Ord.505$Wf...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
>
> But my Gaelic is poor and Gaelic has weird sentence structure.
>
I thought you just hung it around your neck to keep the vampires away. :)
the Girl who wanted to be God
> Well if they're fed up with him can they start on our Twinkle? His
> hair could do with a bit of a brush.
>
isnt twinkle sometimes used as baby/kids slang for your knob?
the thought of brushing someones pubes doesnt strike me as an attractive
offer!
marge xx
--
musings of margeness:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/godgirl/
stop the killing:
http://www.viva.org.uk/
Stuart Lemora
> isnt twinkle sometimes used as baby/kids slang for your knob?
>
> the thought of brushing someones pubes doesnt strike me as an attractive
> offer!
>
> marge xx
Christ, I hope that's not where he got the name from.
Stuart
Varizo...
And all that matters is that your a fucking troll!!! Cos youve come to
NGs that you dont go to , just to be a troll. Fuck off back to alt
horror, its the right place for the likes of you to be anyway! Full of
brain damaged pyschoes w personalitty dissorders! [Well parhaps not
all of them, but a lot,so you fit in alrite there].
V.
Varizo...
> > more, there's a very good reason for it. The viewers know the
> > characters, and are probably of the opinion that Draco deserves a bit
> > of a slap from *someone*, male or female. Given that Hermione's taken
> > the brunt of his psychological abuse for the previous three books, why
> > shouldn't it be her? Or do you think she should just put up with the
> > emotional abuse, that being tormented simply for existing is something
> > a character should live with?
Oh right , so wot your saying then is that he had been annoying her
for some time and so when she punched him in the face, even tho he
hadent actualy been violent to her, that cos he had been winding her
up for a while, that when she was violent towards him becuse of it,
that he was *asking for it*!! Just so long as evrybody knows wot your
saying. So then, if she had been winding *him* up for ages, and then
he turns round and punches her in the face, then *she* would of been
asking for it too! See, i dont think so somhow, cos it never works
like that that way round, cos it dont matter wot she might of done to
provoke him, if he had hit her, then theres no way in the world that
the femminists would ever say that she had been asking for it, in fact
i think you kno that even tho she hit him first, if he had turned
round and hit her back, and parhaps not even as hard as wot she hit
him, then ackording to some ppl, she would still of not been in the
wrong, but he would of for daring to hit her back, cos obviuously the
fact that she hit him first means that he deserved it, cos hes a
bloke, and thats the only reason, and you kno as well as wot i do,
that if it had been the other way round, you wouldent of said the same
thing as wot youve said in her favour.
> You wouldn't be grizzling like this if
> > Ron hit Draco, even though Ron would have less personal justification.
I dont kno about it and i dont want to, and there is probaly loads of
ppl who dont kno nothing about Harry Potteer, [and why should they]!
but they will see that advert, which might be taken out of contexst
but then they shouldent of done that, cos to ppl who dont kno wot the
story is it jsut looks llike a woman punching a bloke in the face
realy hard for nothing, and even if he had been provokeing her, which
you dont see none of in the advert, it dont giv her the right to be
violent like that, if it does, then it givs blokes the right to punch
some woman in the face whos been provokeing them! [but im forgetting
somthing arnt i, women never do that do they? only blokes say things
to provoke women, women never do nothign wrong like that ever, well
sorry for not reaslising, but sarcasam aside, you might think that she
had a *reason* to be visious even when at taht point it was
unprovokeed, but its showing kids that if a woman gets *upset* then
its alrite for her to punch sombody in the face because of it. Dont
you think that if they went around doing that to ppl , then eventualy
one of them would get punched in the face back?!! And would they be
told that it was there fault for starting it? No! Evybody would be on
*there* side, the goverment is suposed to be trying to stop violent
crime, and its suposed to be wrong to be violent, but that Hrry Potter
thing is like saying that its alrite to be violent as long as its a
woman whos being violent, and then only as long as shes beign violent
to a bloke, but not another woman. It should be givin g the message
that its wrong for anybody to be violent, its aimed at kids, things
like that are suposed to hav a certain sort of responsabilitty but
that is showing them that its alrite for a female to be violent to a
bloke, but not the other way round, and if any woman hits a bloke , he
is suposed to just take it and not ever try to deffend himself against
it, cos if he does, then hes a woman hater! *That* is the message that
is ciculataed in sociaty, and its wrong.
> > 2) You're a horror film fan. Are you seriously expecting me to believe
> > you've never seen a violent horror film in which someone of either
> > gender kills someone else of either gender?
I dont like violent horror films, my GF is the one who likes them, she
likes the realy brutal horribal ones, shes waiting to get a multi
regiojn dv player cos shes got some realy violent films like Flowers
Of Flesh And Blood, amd the rest of the Guinea Pig films, and shes
getting the uncut versian of Ichi The Killer, i wont watch films like
that cos they are just violent and grusome and vile and i use to think
that i wanted to watch those sort of films when i heard about them
like the Guinea pig ones, but after seeing some of Nightmares In A
Damaged Brain that my GF thougth was brilliant, and i hated it, im not
going to watch any more of htem spesialy sicne i found out more about
the Guinea Pig films, so i dont like those sort of violent films, i
like House By The Cemetarey and Zombie Flesheaters but ive never seen
the uncut versians, so i might not of liked them if i had, i dont
believe in censorign films but as long as ppl kno wot to exspect then
they can kno wot to avoid. The sort of horror films that i like are
liek The Six Sence, The Grudge, Jeepers Creepers, Shockwaves, The
Mothman Prophecys and Silent Window, none of them are wot youd call
realy violent at all, more just creepy, and with a good story, i use
to like Halloween and the 3rd one, but i dont feel now that ive got
much intrest in those sort of films , when i was a little kid i use to
think that it was cool to say that i liked all those sort of films my
freind ahs got loads and loads of horror films on tape, even old black
and white silent ones, Hexan [Haxan, Haxen]? is quite good some of it
anyway, but dont think that all horror films are violent, cos theyr
not.
> Why is that okay and Harry
> > Potter not?
> >
> > Mim
>
> The original question, taken completely out of its original context,
> is a figure of how men with an ax to grind against women will reach
> for anything, regardless of how ridiculously silly it might be, to try
> to score a point in the on-line gender war. A war they are generally
> fighting in their own minds.
It isent,cos my GF feels exactly the same way about things like that.
> Really Varizo, do you consider this movie scene a serious "gender
> issue?" Aren't you at all chagrined that you have stooped to
> misrepresenting a scene in "Harry Potter?"
All i kno is that in sociaty, if a bloke is violent to a woman then
evrybody thinks how dreadful and awful that is, and thats right too,
cos nobody shoudl be violent to anybody fullstop. But it its a woman
being violent to a bloke, its treated like its somthing funny to be
laughed at in one respect, and if anybody says anything agaisnt it,
the violent women is usualy praised, like wot you see happening here
cos ive dared to speak out agaisnt more exsampels of doubel standards
in sociaty. Dyou think that men who hav been living w violent women or
sombody who had to grow up with a violent mother is going to think
that its comickal or to jsut think nothjing of it like its jsut a joke
or somthing. I dont kno nothiing about Harry potter only that its
aimed at kids, and if anybody dont kno nothing about it and dont kno
who the characters are ment to be, then all your seeing is a advert
where a bolshey and aggressiv female turns round and punches a bloke
in the face for no reason at all in the contexst of that advert. If it
was him being shown turning round and punching her in the face for no
reason, then the femminist groups would be screaming about it all over
the world and saying that it is makeing light of violence against
women, but then it wouldn never be shown that way round anyway, but
they think that its alrite to show females beating up blokes, and its
aimed at kids which is telling them that its alrite. But then Harry
potter *is* written by a woman isent it, so i spose thats why.
I can imaginne the sort of thing that would get said about a male
author if he had created exactly the same scene but with the woman
being the one to get punched in the face by a bloke, in a kids
programme and hav it treated like a bit of a joke. Thats the point.
Exscuses will always be made for violent women, and anybody who says
anything agaisnt violent women will be slagged off for it, the fact is
that aggressiv and violent females are *admired*, spesialy by other
females, or its treated like a joke, and its no laughing matter if
your on the recieivng end of that sortt of thing from a violent woman.
They featured that sortt of thing in Hollyoaks not long ago, this
bloke Tony was involved with Mandy who was beating him up, and he
always use to take it, cos he *loved* her, and it got so that he was
frightend that she was going to kill him cos she was so violent, and
just *once* he hit back in self defence and evrybody hated him for it,
because *he* had hit *her*. There was a programme on the radio about
that sort fo thing a while ago too, it was saying how its much worse
for blokes in that situation, cos if its a woman whos the victum then
evrybody rallys round and feels sorry for her,but if its a bloke whos
the victum then hes more likely to just get laughed at and treated
like a joke, so not only is he having to suffer because of some
violent woman but he wont get any help or support from anybdody and is
liekly to get laughed at if he tells anybody, and if he stands up for
himself and hits her back then he will be publick enemey number one.
Why?
V.
Varizo...
> "Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:1Dyod.364$j%1....@fe09.lga...
> >
> > "Varizo" <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:41A2B20D...@netscape.net...
> >> To anybody who actualy notices the doubel standards and hypocrasey in
> >> sociaty,.
> >
> > What does this thread have to do with love, romance, singles, or gothic
> > people? Even horror is only borderline. Quit crossposting you fucking
> > retard.
>
> Nothing to do with it. This is an unashamed flame,
Yeh and its coming from shitflit, all that i did was to draw attention
to a advert directed at kids which shows a woman being violent to a
bloke for nothing and how its done to make her look like shes done
somthing good, but if it had been the other way round , ppl like you
would be screaming your head off about it like all the other shrill
hysterrickal retards that make heroes of violent women but go on about
*abuse* of women! Fucking hyporcritt!
> Varizo is talking shit
> again. Maybe people have stopped trying to groom him and he's getting bored,
> there's nothing like being ignored to piss off the narcissist.
>
> Twunt.
You can always tell when a *femminist* has heard a bit of truth, and
dont like it, they will ignore wot that truth is and sidestep the
issue as usual. I bet that evrytime some woman is violent towards a
bloke, you feel real *pride*!!!
V.
PS See, youve got the manahating variaty of femminists who will
deffend all women no matter wot, and youve got some men who will
blindly worship women so much that they will make exscuses for
anything that they do and never see no wrong in them ever, and then
youve got some ppl who can see the realitty of things, they are the
ones that femminsts and woman worshippers like to call missoginists!
Varizo...
a link to, its about time that ppl saw some of the truth , none of
this realy surprises me at all, ive always known that sociaty is
biassed towards women about this sort of thing, and makes exscuses
for anything violent that they do, and in that Harry potter advert
that violent woman is shown like somthing to be admired. It wasent
even in self defence, and ive seen in Hollyoaks too, girls are shown
punching some bloke in the face for nothing, usualy cos he said one
little thing that she dident liek, so he *asked for it*, can you see
it being acsepted without question if it was shown the other way
round, suposing some bloke just punched a woman in the face just cos
she said somthing that he dident like, and it was shown in the
contexst of a storyline, almost like it was a bit of a joke, the
femminists wouldent be laughing an thats a sure thing.
Anyway, ive copied some of the more relevent bits here=======
Violence against children by women is another issue where the public
attitude is very different than the facts revealed by formal studies.
* Women commit most child abuse in intact biological families. When
the man is removed from the family the children are at greater
risk.
* Mother-only households are more dangerous to children than father-
only households.
* Children are 3 times more likely to be fatally abused in
Mother-only Households than in Father-only Households, and many times
more
likely in households where the mother cohabits with a man other
than the biological father.
* Children raised in Single-mother Households are 8 times more likely
to become killers than children raised with their biological
father.
Other studies reveal more about female violence against children:
* Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely
than they hit their female children.
* Women commit 55% of child murders and 64% of their victims are male
children.
* Eighty two percent of the general population had their first
experience of violence at the hands of women, usually their mother.
Our culture learns to be violent from our mothers, not our fathers.
Yet, 3.1 million reports of child abuse are filed against men each
year, most of which are false accusations used as leverage in a
divorce or custody case.
Why We Don't Know the Truth
How could we all be so mistaken about family violence? Have we been
conned? Have we been taken in by one of the slickest "stings" ever
executed? Here is how the truth has been hidden.
Use of misleading statistics for political and financial gain:
* Men do not usually report their violent wives to police.
* Children do not usually report their violent mothers to the police.
* Women are far more likely to report violent men to the police.
* Women are encouraged to report spousal violence by countless
media reminders. Propaganda always includes the female victim and
the male perpetrator. Men are discouraged from claiming to be
victims of violent women.
* Some women call police because they are frightened by a minor
incident. Perhaps she thought calling the police was a "trump card"
in an argument. These women do not realize that with one phone call
they have invited the government and gender politics into their homes.
* Some women make false reports because there are legal, financial,
and child custody rewards for making a false report. Some divorce
attorneys and gender activists specialize in encouraging false
accusations, and actively coaching women how to falsely accuse.
Several researchers have documented that one of the common adaptive
tools of human females, used to compensate for smaller size and social
power, is to mimic victim behavior, including false accusations
against a power figure (boss, parent, counselor, teacher, husband,
lover, police, etc.). Adolescent girls are the demographic group most
prone to this adaptive tool.
These factors, and others, distort police statistics beyond usefulness
to anyone who is sincerely looking for the truth about family
violence.
However, misleading statistics are a deliberate fund raising tactic
for women's shelters. The shelter movement almost never mentions
scientific studies. This misuse of distorted police statistics to
push a "female victims" agenda is widespread and very misleading.
A falsely framed issue skews understanding and jeopardizes justice.
For example, former Massachusetts Bar Association President Elaine
Epstein stated, "It has become essentially impossible to effectively
represent a man against whom any allegation of domestic violence has
been made."
Many local women's shelters emphasize female victims reported to the
police, and ignore much larger numbers of women, children, and men who
are also victims of family violence. We quote from a brochure from a
battered women's shelter: "What Is Domestic Violence? Domestic
violence is an increasingly visible social and legal problem wherein
women are abused by their partners." Notice that it doesn't say that
this is one aspect of domestic violence, or that this is the aspect
that they deal with, but rather that this is domestic violence.
Surely domestic violence is violence which takes place at home, the
word 租omestic' referring to the definition "of or relating to the
household or the family. Female violence against children is another
taboo topic among gender activists.
Most leaders in the women's shelter movement are fully aware of the
broader scope of family violence but hold fast to the villain/victim
dogma. The directors of women's shelters almost always know that they
are deliberately misleading the public. Why? They must maintain their
power and fund raising base. If they lose their special "victim
status" they will rapidly go out of business. They do not want to be
replaced with a gender neutral, family friendly, community service
agency that implements policy on the basis of scientific studies
rather than gender propaganda.
As a member of an advisory committee for the local shelter I was
shocked at the attitudes of the ladies who ran the center: The ONLY
solution championed by the shelter was to get free from that big
bad male. The committee expressed concern about the underlying
anti-male bias which even showed up in the name of the shelter and
recommended that the name be changed to The Center for Victims of
Abuse - rather than Women's Strength.
The typical response of the abuse shelter workers upon first hearing
the results of the scientific studies is to "shoot the messenger". You
can almost hear their minds snap closed. There is an almost cult like
"party line" among victim advocates. Much of the belief system of
their "cult" has no more scientific or rational basis than that of
fanatical religious cults.
Acknowledging That Women Are Abusers Leads To Better Solutions
Women usually initiate spousal violence episodes (they hit first), and
women hit more frequently, as well as using weapons three times more
often then men. This combination of violent acts means that efforts to
find solutions to the family violence problem need to include
appropriate focus on female perpetrators. We need to recognize that
women are violent, and we need nationwide educational programs that
portray women as perpetrators. Other studies show that men are
becoming less violent at the same time that women are becoming more
violent. Educating men seems to be working. Educating women to be less
violent should now be the main thrust of public education programs.
The key issue, though, is who initiates this cycle of violence.
Steinmetz, Strauss and Gelles found to their initial surprise that
women are more likely to be the first initiators. Why? In part, the
belief that men can take it - - they can therefore be a punching bag
and not be expected to hit back.
Why do we vigorously denounce domestic violence against women and not
even know about domestic violence against men?
Women Abuse Men: It's More Widespread Than People Think
By Armin A. Brott. M.D.
From Special supplement to The Washington Post, 12/28/93 Despite all
the evidence about female-on-male violence, many groups actively try
to suppress coverage of the issue. Suzanne Steinmetz received verbal
threats and anonymous phone calls from radical women's groups
threatening to harm her children after she published "The Battered
Husband Syndrome" in 1978. She says she finds it ironic that the same
people who claim that women-initiated violence is purely self defense
are so quick to threaten violence against people who do nothing more
than publish a scientific study.
Steinmetz's story is not unique. Ten years after that study, R.L.
McNeely, a professor at the School of Social Welfare at the University
of Wisconsin, and Gloria Robinson-Simpson published "The Truth About
Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue." The article examined
various studies on domestic violence and concluded that society must
recognize that men are victims "or we will be addressing only part of
the phenomenon." Shortly thereafter, McNeely received letters from a
Pennsylvania women's organization threatening to use its influence in
Washington to pull his research funding. Robinson-Simpson, who
uncovered some of the most important data, largely was left alone.
According to McNeely, "she, a young assistant professor, was assumed
to have been "duped" by the senior male professor."
But once again, the radical feminist agenda of "man bad woman good"
has permeated the culture on an a fundamentally important issue, and
once again it has done a terrible disservice to the constituency
feminists are supposed to help-women.
===================
It just about says it all realy. It deffinitley explains about the
hypocrasey. Ive often wonderd why these ppl who worship women no
matter wot, will never giv an answer to the facts about violent women,
and in things like that Harry potter thing, [written by a woman] it
looks like violent women are admired and thought of as heroes, i think
that it suits them to hush it all up, cos they *want* women to be
violent, but they want them to be violent knowing that they will be
safe from ever being hit back, so women can be as violent as they
like, as long as its only towards males, but males musent ever hit
them back, cos the woman worshippers want to kno that the violent
women will be safe from violence themselves!
V.
Varizo...
> "Marylittlegoth" <Marylittle...@NOSPAM.ntlworld.com> wrote in
> message news:1Dsrd.432$3c1...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> > Nothing to do with it. This is an unashamed flame, Varizo is talking shit
> > again. Maybe people have stopped trying to groom him and he's getting
> > bored, there's nothing like being ignored to piss off the narcissist.
>
> So why re-hash it in a differnt thread and crosspost it,
Exactly! Its cos ive pointed out a truth, and she dont like it, i
think that shes one of the ones who calls herself a femminist, aand
has also conplained about Xposting, as long as its only me thats doing
it of course! such being her levil of hypocrisey and evrything, but
then she goes out of her way to Xpost herself, so more hypocrasey! And
im Xposting this cos if ppl like her are gooing to do it then why
shouldetn the rest of us!
> there's some of us here that have moved on and tried to define one of
> the problems he has, which is what is and isn't good spelling and how
> correct spellings come about.
Well we kno that they only focus on that to draw attention away from
some truth that they would rather wasent looked at cos it shows up
doubel standards that they wont complain about cos it works in there
favour.
V.
Joe McC
"Varizo..." <var...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:eb259c18.04120...@posting.google.com...
Bloody hell Varizo, you had me agreeing with you right up to the end, until
you declared it's all a big conspiracy to encourage women to become more
violent.
Almost a goal there, laddie.......
Sharon B
<eb259c18.04120...@posting.google.com>:
soc.fr00ts added for obvious reasons. you've finally found a home
Varizo...
>Bloody hell Varizo, you had me agreeing with you right up to the end,
until
>you declared it's all a big conspiracy to encourage women to become
more
>violent.
Wot im saying is, that some of these manhating women *admire* violent
women, as long as they are being violent towards blokes, but they want
to make sure that the women are safe to be violent without them
getting any violence directed back towards them, as a result of there
violence. Or why dont tehy never condemm violent women? That report
says it all, is shows up all the doubel standards and the hypocrasey.
The femminists are always strangely silent when it comes to anybody
whos talking about any male whos had to suffer because of a violent
woman, all that they ever seem to say is just accuse anybody who talks
about it of being a missoginist, or they will just focus on somtihng
else to draw atttention away from it, and now thqt ive read all of
that report, it all becomes more obvious why, its to suit there own
agennda, i just dident realise just how bad and corrupt that it was.
V.
Varizo...
>>ones that femminsts and woman worshippers like to call missoginists!
>
>soc.fr00ts added for obvious reasons. you've finally found a home
Oh right, so your idea of me Xposting to soc men , is when *you* go
and Xpost it there yourself!!! Well you might be too thick to realise
this, but if you Xpost somthing that ive said into another NG, that
is *not* the same as if id purposeley gone there myself. But i realise
that that might be a bit difficult for you to understand. {I supose
your hopeing for some more support from splooge, hiding behind a man
again that would be wouldent it. Does he agree with your idea of
biting off blokes pricks? I spose that he mighnt if he was a
massokist. At least he cant be as *boreing* as wot you are!
V.
The White Lady
Just cos your dad is a big soft bummer who let a woman beat him up,
what a fucking LOSER.
alt.gothic OG
> is a figure of how men with an ax to grind against women will reach
> for anything, regardless of how ridiculously silly it might be, to try
> to score a point in the on-line gender war. A war they are generally
> fighting in their own minds.
So, are you saying that it is acceptable to show female violence
against men in a media catered to children as a social norm?
It's interesting that when a woman argues that a movie or show is
advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
> Cat
Some pussy, it's best to leave alone.
Regards...
catbrier
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04113...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > The original question, taken completely out of its original context,
> > is a figure of how men with an ax to grind against women will reach
> > for anything, regardless of how ridiculously silly it might be, to try
> > to score a point in the on-line gender war. A war they are generally
> > fighting in their own minds.
>
> So, are you saying that it is acceptable to show female violence
> against men in a media catered to children as a social norm?
>
> It's interesting that when a woman argues
Which woman? When have I ever tried to have a film censured because of
it's content? You make the same mistake all these on-line boneheads
do; you think that just because SOME woman does something, ALL women
are answerable for it.
Shall we apply the same standard to Scott Peterson and YOU?
>that a movie or show is
> advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
> rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
> either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
>
> > Cat
>
> Some pussy, it's best to leave alone.
>
> Regards...
This is boarderline too stupid to respond to. No one speaks for an
entire gender. We speak for ourselves alone.
Cat
catbrier
Does she? How interesting. I fail to see the political or gender
implications of "Harry Potter." If you ask me there are far bigger
issues in the world to get exercised over.
Cat
Andre Lieven
alt.gothic OG (ags...@yahoo.com) writes:
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04113...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> The original question, taken completely out of its original context,
>> is a figure of how men with an ax to grind against women will reach
>> for anything, regardless of how ridiculously silly it might be, to try
>> to score a point in the on-line gender war. A war they are generally
>> fighting in their own minds.
>
> So, are you saying that it is acceptable to show female violence
> against men in a media catered to children as a social norm?
Indeed. What might children start to believe, when they see
literally thousands of ads where men and depicted as bufoons,
and targets ?
> It's interesting that when a woman argues that a movie or show is
> advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
> rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
> either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
Quite. For more information on how mass media is seriously
misandristic, see " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching Of Contempt
For Men In Popular Culture ", by Paul Nathanson & Katherine
Young, 2001, McGill/Queens University Press.
>> Cat
>
> Some pussy, it's best to leave alone.
Major truth.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
mother
> ags...@yahoo.com (alt.gothic OG) wrote in message news:<89b0dc3b.04120...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04113...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>The original question, taken completely out of its original context,
>>>is a figure of how men with an ax to grind against women will reach
>>>for anything, regardless of how ridiculously silly it might be, to try
>>>to score a point in the on-line gender war. A war they are generally
>>>fighting in their own minds.
>>
>>So, are you saying that it is acceptable to show female violence
>>against men in a media catered to children as a social norm?
>>
>>It's interesting that when a woman argues
>
> Which woman? When have I ever tried to have a film censured because of
> it's content? You make the same mistake all these on-line boneheads
> do; you think that just because SOME woman does something, ALL women
> are answerable for it.
Well, exactly. It's a typical 'straw-man' argument. 'OG' states what he
'thinks'
women would say and then calls it unreasonable.
As you said, he's fighting a war in his own head.
>>It's interesting that when a woman argues that a movie or show is
>>advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
>>rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
>>either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
This is just incorrect. Any criticism of violence in the movies (no
matter where
it comes from) is always judged in context. The idea that anything coming
from a female perspective is somehow considered sacrosanct is a complete
myth and I've yet to see any specific examples. Strange huh?
>>
>>Some pussy, it's best to leave alone.
>>
Very, very sad.
<hugs>
mother
> alt.gothic OG (ags...@yahoo.com) writes:
>
>>catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04113...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>The original question, taken completely out of its original context,
>>>is a figure of how men with an ax to grind against women will reach
>>>for anything, regardless of how ridiculously silly it might be, to try
>>>to score a point in the on-line gender war. A war they are generally
>>>fighting in their own minds.
>>
>>So, are you saying that it is acceptable to show female violence
>>against men in a media catered to children as a social norm?
>
>
> Indeed. What might children start to believe, when they see
> literally thousands of ads where men and depicted as bufoons,
> and targets ?
"literally thousands"? are you quite sure about that? How many can you
remember off the top of your head? I agree though it has been a common
ad stereotype recently to depict men as buffoons but this should be
viewed in context of society as a whole. What you are conveniently
ignoring are the "literally _more than_ thousands" of ads which have in
the past (and still do) represent women as brain dead housewives who
lose sleep because their 'whites' aren't quite white enough.
To simplify things to the extreme - you should seriously think about the
way humour works. Making fun of people generally considered to be
'well off' is a safe bet (they can take it). Doing the same to the
'underdogs'
in a society is a lot more risky and (although there are exceptions) liable
to seem cruel.
Consider the 'lovely'(gulp) "Home Alone" series of films where what was
thought of as 'amusing' was the little kid beating the shit out of a couple
of 'grown-ups'; Adult bloke repeadedly dropping bowling balls on the
heads of a couple of children would not have had exactly the same
mass appeal (not that I'd be complaining...)
Now ask yourself again why ad companies think it's ok to rip the piss
out of men. "Ad Companies" which are (by the way) controlled by men
in the vast majority.
>
>>It's interesting that when a woman argues that a movie or show is
>>advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
>>rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
>>either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
>
>
> Quite. For more information on how mass media is seriously
> misandristic, see " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching Of Contempt
> For Men In Popular Culture ", by Paul Nathanson & Katherine
> Young, 2001, McGill/Queens University Press.
>
>
>>>Cat
>>
>>Some pussy, it's best to leave alone.
>
>
> Major truth.
Aww, didums.
H Duffy
"mother" <mot...@bedtime.co.uk> wrote in message
news:coui7c$9qi$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Andre Lieven wrote:
{cross-posted argument with loons}
Mother, would you mind stripped out the cross-posts if you're going to
continue this?
Thanks.
H
the Girl who wanted to be God
> "the Girl who wanted to be God":
>
>> isnt twinkle sometimes used as baby/kids slang for your knob?
>>
>> the thought of brushing someones pubes doesnt strike me as an
>> attractive offer!
>>
>
>
i did wonder!
;op
marge xxx
ags...@yahoo.com
Marylittlegoth wrote:
>
> Nothing to do with it. This is an unashamed flame, Varizo is talking
shit
> again.
I think he brings up a good point.
> Maybe people have stopped trying to groom him and he's getting bored,
Maybe he said something that can be debated and argued?
> there's nothing like being ignored
Good job in ignoring him.
> to piss off the narcissist.
Are you qualified to make that diagnosis?
> Twunt.
Twat
> --
> marylittlegoth
>
> "Baaaaa Baaaaa"
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
catbrier wrote:
> > > The original question, taken completely out of its original
context,
> > > is a figure of how men with an ax to grind against women will
reach
> > > for anything, regardless of how ridiculously silly it might be,
to try
> > > to score a point in the on-line gender war. A war they are
generally
> > > fighting in their own minds.
> > So, are you saying that it is acceptable to show female violence
> > against men in a media catered to children as a social norm?
You never answered the "ridiculously silly" question. After all, it was
your response to this post by Varizo that I responded to you.
> > It's interesting that when a woman argues
>
> Which woman? When have I ever tried to have a film censured because
of
> it's content?
If you feel that you never stood up for women's rights in popular
culture (in regards to violence), then you are not the woman in
question.
> You make the same mistake all these on-line boneheads
> do; you think that just because SOME woman does something, ALL women
> are answerable for it.
No, I never stated that. My argument even stated "WHEN a woman...".
However, I do find it ironic that you imply that a man, who questions
negative social portrayal of men in popular culture, as a man who has
"an axe to grind against women". Yet, if I make the same implications
about women, you find fault in the statement. But that's Ok, because I
am sure you were talking out of animosity rather than out of fact.
> >that a movie or show is
> > advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
> > rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
> > either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
> >
> > > Cat
> >
> > Some pussy, it's best to leave alone.
> >
> > Regards...
>
> This is boarderline too stupid to respond to. No one speaks for an
> entire gender. We speak for ourselves alone.
But you fail to understand is that we do belong to a gender. I, for
example, belong to the male gender. My thoughts and feelings on subject
matter can be seen as acceptable to the average normal guy.
> Cat
Regards...
(purposely left cross posts in place because I have no idea which
newsgroup the original author subscribes to)
ags...@yahoo.com
mother wrote:
> >
> > Which woman? When have I ever tried to have a film censured because
of
> > it's content? You make the same mistake all these on-line boneheads
> > do; you think that just because SOME woman does something, ALL
women
> > are answerable for it.
>
> Well, exactly. It's a typical 'straw-man' argument. 'OG' states what
he
> 'thinks'
> women would say and then calls it unreasonable.
What CERTAIN women think to be exact. I based my perception on the
negative response to one man's observation of fact. If my perception
was off-based (which I doubt), then catbrier should not feel the need
to reply because it doesn't include her.
> As you said, he's fighting a war in his own head.
Somehow, I doubt it's in my head. My proof is in the 51% divorce rate
in the US. But I will tell you this, I am not a man of conflict in
regards to women's movement. I am able to tell women apart from the two
or more roles they might posses and adapt. I think that women started a
movement, which resulted in both positive and negative enhancements in
women's lives. It's true, some men are confused about how they should
act or behave around women. Hopefully, it will change with time. I'm
still waiting for the day where the following will could be part of
normal conversation:
man - "Hi, how's it going?"
woman - "Great. It's been a good day so far."
man - "That's good to hear. Fancy a Fuck?"
woman - "Not today, I'm going over to pick up my kids from my
ex-husband's house because I get them this weekend. I also need to go
to the bank so I can pay my child support and alimony payment to my
ex-husband and his live-in girlfriend. But, I'll give you my number and
maybe you can call me tomorrow and I can take you out to the local
steakhouse resturant. Afterwards, we can go back to your place and have
sex."
man - "OK, that sounds like a plan. I'll even will pay for the
condoms."
> >>It's interesting that when a woman argues that a movie or show is
> >>advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
> >>rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
> >>either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
>
> This is just incorrect.
Really? Ok, if you say so.
> Any criticism of violence in the movies (no
> matter where
> it comes from) is always judged in context.
True statement. Here's the real question "On what perception do you
base the context on?". The answer is what is socially acceptable at the
time.
> The idea that anything coming
> from a female perspective is somehow considered sacrosanct is a
complete
> myth and I've yet to see any specific examples. Strange huh?
Actually Andre Lieven showed you a research done on this subject.
The fact that you stated the following and that it is true is proof
that women's arguments are seen as being "sacrosanct":
"To simplify things to the extreme - you should seriously think about
the
way humour works. Making fun of people generally considered to be
'well off' is a safe bet (they can take it). Doing the same to the
'underdogs'
in a society is a lot more risky and (although there are exceptions)
liable
to seem cruel."
By your own admission, you are stating that it is ok for women to
complain about men because men are 'well off'?
> >>Some pussy, it's best to leave alone.
> >>
>
> Very, very sad.
I know, seeing how I love pussy.
>
> <hugs>
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
The White Lady wrote:
>
> Just cos your dad is a big soft bummer who let a woman beat him up,
> what a fucking LOSER.
Just out of curiousity, what should have this "big soft bummer" of a
man do in this situation?
Should he have just taken her outside in the backyard and shoot her in
the head, like the rest of the household pets who have gone mad? Maybe
he should have punched her back?
Please enlighten me on the correct course of action.
Regards...
mother
Sorry, I know it's annoying; I just can't help myself sometimes.
mim...@go.com
> Oh right , so wot your saying then is that he had been annoying her
> for some time and so when she punched him in the face, even tho he
> hadent actualy been violent to her,
There's a big difference between 'annoying someone' and
mental/emotional abuse. In the case of the Harry potter books,
Hermione's been suffering the magical form of racism because neither of
her parents are magical. Constant, prolonged verbal abuse, icluding the
expressed wish that she would die or be seriously injured in some way.
Are you saying that sort of hatred is okay because it's only words?
> So then, if she had been winding *him* up for ages, and then
> he turns round and punches her in the face, then *she* would of been
> asking for it too!
Well, yes. Assuming it was years of mental abuse, not merely 'annoying'
someone for a few days.
> if it had been the other way round, you wouldent of said the same
> thing as wot youve said in her favour.
I admit, I'd be startled if a male character hit a female one, and I've
already said that violence is never the answer to anything, but it'd be
every bit as understandable. *You're* the one who's keen to see men and
women as vastly different. To me, they're just people.
> I dont kno about it and i dont want to, and there is probaly loads of
> ppl who dont kno nothing about Harry Potteer, [and why should they]!
Regardless of what you do or don't know, would you be as offended if a
male character hit a male character? Would that be 'glorrifying'
violent men?
> you might think that she
> had a *reason* to be visious even when at taht point it was
> unprovokeed,
Apart from four years of being told she had no right to exist, she
should be dead, if he was able to arrange it she would be dead...
> Dyou think that men who hav been living w violent women or
> sombody who had to grow up with a violent mother is going to think
> that its comickal or to jsut think nothjing of it like its jsut a
joke
> or somthing.
This is two children fighting, not an adult fighting a child. Varizo,
until you understand the world is not all like your mother, and that
most women are not like your mother. We're not monsters. We're just
people. You can't keep reading your own personal situation into every
other situation in the world. There are other people on UPG who've
suffered domestic violence, and they don't automatically assume that
the world condones their abusers or that most people of the same gender
as their abusers are somehow out to get them.
I feel sorry for you, I really do. And I know you won't like that, but
I can't help it. As long as you continue to live in and be controlled
by your unhappy past, you don't have a happy future. What was done to
you is wrong. But it's not the norm. You *can* leave it behind. Not
forget it, that'll probably never be possible - but you could channel
your experience into voluntary work with abused children, or with
domestic violence charities and help other people, male and female. Be
a survivor, not a victim.
And now I'm descending into motivational-speak so shall shut up :)
whisky-dave
"Bat Fink" <wings_of...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2447d665.04120...@posting.google.com...
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
>> "Bat Fink" <wings_of...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:2447d665.04120...@posting.google.com...
>> > Put the pun down and move away slowly.
>>
>> OK I'll leaf it alone.
>
> *rolls eyes*
>
OK, it's now be left, or should that be right I've left it.
I could leave it alone, but what the plural if there's more than one.
Leaves, nah can't be, barking up the wrong tree there.
>> I also think they should have been given the same words to spell,
>> but then again the show wasn't really about spelling or finding the best
>> speller
>> in the country, it was about bringing viewers in and therefor revenue as
>> cheaply as possible.
>
> And I agree, I was always told by my mother to break a word up, and
> 99% of the time this does actually work, but again I agree if a
> language is not your first.
Trouble is breaking up words isn't really the solution.
How cocudl you work out how to spell elephant ?
Ele' as in electricity, and phant as in fantasy ?
> then you are gping to run into difficulties,
Tell me about it.
> As for this latest craze, am completly against it, if parents want to
> get all competative with each other they should participate, not force
> some sad idea on thier own children.
Yeah I agree, it's doesn't look fun for them, and some of those parents
look a bit evil.
>> > So what? I can't spell everything, thats why I have things like a
>> > Dictionary.
>> Me two :)
>>
>> > Would anyone really by a novel by an author who could not,
>>
>> And why not, I'd buy because of a story of the ideas & information
>> the auther was putting across. That's why they have proof readers isn;t
>> it.
>
> Umm, if someone has a problem with the written word its more than
> likely that they are not going to be able to express themselves via
> this very well.
> Thats my point.
Tell it to steven hawkings and the bloke that wrote the original Bible.
>> Time for a quote.
>>
>> There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary
>> and those that don't.
>
> Sooooo old it stinks.
But it proves the point, as confusious would say, or was it archemdes
before he had his famous bath, or was it Nostrodarmous(SP)
whisky-dave
> What you are conveniently
> ignoring are the "literally _more than_ thousands" of ads which have in
> the past (and still do) represent women as brain dead housewives who
> lose sleep because their 'whites' aren't quite white enough.
Too bloody right, except for the goths one which should be worrying about
thier blacks fading to grey.
> To simplify things to the extreme - you should seriously think about the
> way humour works. Making fun of people generally considered to be
> 'well off' is a safe bet (they can take it). Doing the same to the
> 'underdogs'
> in a society is a lot more risky and (although there are exceptions)
> liable
> to seem cruel.
Humour can be difficult, we're no longer able to use 'blacks/asians' etc.
so it looks like Gays and the disabled is OK. watch Little Britain.
> Now ask yourself again why ad companies think it's ok to rip the piss
> out of men. "Ad Companies" which are (by the way) controlled by men
> in the vast majority.
The ads are still predominantly aimed at women though, maybe they have
'used up' the 'womens work' avenue, and with the age of the new man
decided that a new approach is needed to stay on the top rung of the
advertising heap. i.e they'd do anything, morals is not their concern,
selling products is.
>> Quite. For more information on how mass media is seriously
>> misandristic, see " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching Of Contempt
>> For Men In Popular Culture ", by Paul Nathanson & Katherine
>> Young, 2001, McGill/Queens University Press.
I'l ask Santa for it. ;-)
Paul Ryan
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:22:44 +0000, Paul Ryan wrote:
>
>
>>For your soddin' info matey I'm a big Harry Potter fan,
>
>
> I'm very sorry to hear that. I hope you get better soon ;)
>
> #Andy#
:) Harry Potter rules.
Paul
Varizo
He dident *let* her beat him up, he use to hit the bitch back, and
somtimes he use to hit her cos she had hit me, and cos of that evrybody
was on her side, [and some wankers on the internett called him a
missoginist just for deffending me and himself agaisnt violence from a
woman], all that ever gets talked about is how women are the *victums*
and how evil all men are, and like that report proves , and like i kno
from my own personal exsperriance, most of sociaty will believe a woman
evry time, regardless of wot the actual realitty is, whcih is more
proof of how this sociaty favours women evry time and wont listen to
anythign that anybody else has to say, im glad that there *are* ppl out
there who are at last doing somthing about it, even if tehy are getting
thretend by femminists like it says in that report, that just shows up
these femminists for exactly wot they are.
V.
Varizo
But that Harry potter advert is just one exsampel of wot im going on
about. Its like if a woman is violent to a bloke, then its seen as a
bit of a joke, or its not taken serious, only if she injures him in
some way, and then exscuses will probaly be made for her, like oh well
he must of asked for it or somthing. And befor you say it, i *kno* that
not all women are liek that, and ive never said that they are.
And the reason that i mentionned my GF is cos she agrees with me about
that sort of thing and shes not the only woman who does either, and i
mentionned her because it looked like you were saying that only blokes
would be conplaining about it and then only blokes who hav got a axe to
grind about women, and that is not true, there were women mentionned in
that report who hav spoken out about it too, and one woman was
threatend by femminists who wrote that book about violent women who
beat up there husbands, and there were socalled femminists threatinging
to kill her kids, and then that other woman published a report about
it, along with a bloke, and the femminists threatend him but left her
alone cos they convinced themselves that she hadonly spokenout against
unfairness because she had been influenced by him, which wasent true,
but that is typickal of how they feel this blind alegiance to all women
just cos they are women, and that is just daft, my point is that
speaking out agaisnt unfairness is nothiing to do with being male or
female, its just about unfairness and ppl like those sort of femminists
are beign unfair, and have deffinitley got an axe to grind about men,
or they wouldent be coverign up all the facts about violent women, why
should some women think that theyve got to hav this stupid alegiance
towards all other women anyway? My GF, and another realy inteligent
woman i kno whos an artist, neither of them thinks much of other women,
in fact they think that most women are irritatiing and stupid, but
thats probly thru living in a lowlife area, cos all that most of the
women talk about is whos having a baby or whos just had one, or who
they got off with the nite befor or how drunk they got and all that
sort of thing, so to women like my freind and my GF those sort of women
are realy boreing, and compp;aining abouyt women like those sort is not
beign against all women is it, unless your saying that all women are
like the braindead varaiaty, and then if theyare then theres not much
hope for the world is there.
V.
Varizo
He did use to hit her back somtimes, and because i mentionned that fact
in the goth NG, the femminists there started calling him a *violent
missoginist*, such is the levil of hypocrasey from femminists.
V.
var...@yahoo.com.sg
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
> > alt.gothic OG (ags...@yahoo.com) writes:
> >>So, are you saying that it is acceptable to show female violence
> >>against men in a media catered to children as a social norm?
It happens so much that i think that some ppl just acsept it as noremal
that its alrite to show women beiing violent to blokes but not the
otehr way round, if it is, then the bloke is ment to be evil in some
way, but not the violent woman , its either a joke or shes seen as a
hero.
> To simplify things to the extreme - you should seriously think about
the
> way humour works. Making fun of people generally considered to be
> 'well off' is a safe bet (they can take it). Doing the same to the
> 'underdogs'
> in a society is a lot more risky and (although there are exceptions)
liable
> to seem cruel.
Why? when loads of the socalled underdogs are just nasty spiteful
visious scum who are as hard as nails and thick, wot makes you think
that socalled well off ppl dont hav feelings and so it dont matter if
ppl are horribal about them or not? It dont matter if sombody is rich
or poor, some rich ppl are bastards, some are realy nice, and some poor
ppl are bastards, and in lowlife areas the majoritty of socalled *poor*
ppl are bastards, tho theyve always got money for cigaretts and cars
and satallite dishes and microwaves and stuff like that so i dont see
how they are that poor anyway.
> >>It's interesting that when a woman argues that a movie or show is
> >>advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
> >>rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
> >>either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
Exactly! You notice that too then. Theres so many doubel standards
and theyr just acsepted and sociaty just clings onto them afraid to let
go for some reason. even when somthing is wrong in sociaty tehy would
still rather hang onto it than change it.
> > Quite. For more information on how mass media is seriously
> > misandristic, see " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching Of Contempt
> > For Men In Popular Culture ", by Paul Nathanson & Katherine
> > Young, 2001, McGill/Queens University Press.
> >
> >
> >>>Cat
> >>
> >>Some pussy, it's best to leave alone.
> >
> >
> > Major truth.
>
> Aww, didums.
Funny how any bloke who has any jusstiffiabal complaint about women
gets laughed at by women or called a missoginist, but if a woman
complains about a bloke, she is most lieklely to get sympathey ,
spesialy from otehr women, and if a bloke then came along and made some
stupid remark makeing light of it, then he would get called a
missoginist too. Pathetick.
V.
var...@yahoo.com.sg
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
> > alt.gothic OG (ags...@yahoo.com) writes:
> >>So, are you saying that it is acceptable to show female violence
> >>against men in a media catered to children as a social norm?
It happens so much that i think that some ppl just acsept it as noremal
that its alrite to show women beiing violent to blokes but not the
otehr way round, if it is, then the bloke is ment to be evil in some
way, but not the violent woman , its either a joke or shes seen as a
hero.
> To simplify things to the extreme - you should seriously think about
the
> way humour works. Making fun of people generally considered to be
> 'well off' is a safe bet (they can take it). Doing the same to the
> 'underdogs'
> in a society is a lot more risky and (although there are exceptions)
liable
> to seem cruel.
Why? when loads of the socalled underdogs are just nasty spiteful
visious scum who are as hard as nails and thick, wot makes you think
that socalled well off ppl dont hav feelings and so it dont matter if
ppl are horribal about them or not? It dont matter if sombody is rich
or poor, some rich ppl are bastards, some are realy nice, and some poor
ppl are bastards, and in lowlife areas the majoritty of socalled *poor*
ppl are bastards, tho theyve always got money for cigaretts and cars
and satallite dishes and microwaves and stuff like that so i dont see
how they are that poor anyway.
> >>It's interesting that when a woman argues that a movie or show is
> >>advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
> >>rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
> >>either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
Exactly! You notice that too then. Theres so many doubel standards
and theyr just acsepted and sociaty just clings onto them afraid to let
go for some reason. even when somthing is wrong in sociaty tehy would
still rather hang onto it than change it.
> > Quite. For more information on how mass media is seriously
> > misandristic, see " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching Of Contempt
> > For Men In Popular Culture ", by Paul Nathanson & Katherine
> > Young, 2001, McGill/Queens University Press.
> >
> >
> >>>Cat
> >>
> >>Some pussy, it's best to leave alone.
> >
> >
> > Major truth.
>
> Aww, didums.
Funny how any bloke who has any jusstiffiabal complaint about women
var...@yahoo.com.sg
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
> > alt.gothic OG (ags...@yahoo.com) writes:
> >>So, are you saying that it is acceptable to show female violence
> >>against men in a media catered to children as a social norm?
It happens so much that i think that some ppl just acsept it as noremal
that its alrite to show women beiing violent to blokes but not the
otehr way round, if it is, then the bloke is ment to be evil in some
way, but not the violent woman , its either a joke or shes seen as a
hero.
> To simplify things to the extreme - you should seriously think about
the
> way humour works. Making fun of people generally considered to be
> 'well off' is a safe bet (they can take it). Doing the same to the
> 'underdogs'
> in a society is a lot more risky and (although there are exceptions)
liable
> to seem cruel.
Why? when loads of the socalled underdogs are just nasty spiteful
visious scum who are as hard as nails and thick, wot makes you think
that socalled well off ppl dont hav feelings and so it dont matter if
ppl are horribal about them or not? It dont matter if sombody is rich
or poor, some rich ppl are bastards, some are realy nice, and some poor
ppl are bastards, and in lowlife areas the majoritty of socalled *poor*
ppl are bastards, tho theyve always got money for cigaretts and cars
and satallite dishes and microwaves and stuff like that so i dont see
how they are that poor anyway.
> >>It's interesting that when a woman argues that a movie or show is
> >>advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
> >>rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
> >>either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
Exactly! You notice that too then. Theres so many doubel standards
and theyr just acsepted and sociaty just clings onto them afraid to let
go for some reason. even when somthing is wrong in sociaty tehy would
still rather hang onto it than change it.
> > Quite. For more information on how mass media is seriously
> > misandristic, see " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching Of Contempt
> > For Men In Popular Culture ", by Paul Nathanson & Katherine
> > Young, 2001, McGill/Queens University Press.
> >
> >
> >>>Cat
> >>
> >>Some pussy, it's best to leave alone.
> >
> >
> > Major truth.
>
> Aww, didums.
Funny how any bloke who has any jusstiffiabal complaint about women
var...@yahoo.com.sg
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
> > alt.gothic OG (ags...@yahoo.com) writes:
> >>So, are you saying that it is acceptable to show female violence
> >>against men in a media catered to children as a social norm?
It happens so much that i think that some ppl just acsept it as noremal
that its alrite to show women beiing violent to blokes but not the
otehr way round, if it is, then the bloke is ment to be evil in some
way, but not the violent woman , its either a joke or shes seen as a
hero.
> To simplify things to the extreme - you should seriously think about
the
> way humour works. Making fun of people generally considered to be
> 'well off' is a safe bet (they can take it). Doing the same to the
> 'underdogs'
> in a society is a lot more risky and (although there are exceptions)
liable
> to seem cruel.
Why? when loads of the socalled underdogs are just nasty spiteful
visious scum who are as hard as nails and thick, wot makes you think
that socalled well off ppl dont hav feelings and so it dont matter if
ppl are horribal about them or not? It dont matter if sombody is rich
or poor, some rich ppl are bastards, some are realy nice, and some poor
ppl are bastards, and in lowlife areas the majoritty of socalled *poor*
ppl are bastards, tho theyve always got money for cigaretts and cars
and satallite dishes and microwaves and stuff like that so i dont see
how they are that poor anyway.
> >>It's interesting that when a woman argues that a movie or show is
> >>advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
> >>rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
> >>either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
Exactly! You notice that too then. Theres so many doubel standards
and theyr just acsepted and sociaty just clings onto them afraid to let
go for some reason. even when somthing is wrong in sociaty tehy would
still rather hang onto it than change it.
> > Quite. For more information on how mass media is seriously
> > misandristic, see " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching Of Contempt
> > For Men In Popular Culture ", by Paul Nathanson & Katherine
> > Young, 2001, McGill/Queens University Press.
> >
> >
> >>>Cat
> >>
> >>Some pussy, it's best to leave alone.
> >
> >
> > Major truth.
>
> Aww, didums.
Funny how any bloke who has any jusstiffiabal complaint about women
Varizo.
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:10:21 -0800, Varizo... wrote:
>
> > "Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:<iBSqd.15191$dJ5....@newsfe01.lga>...
> >> All that matters is that you're a fucking retard.
> >
> > And all that matters is that your a fucking troll!!! Cos youve come
to
> > NGs that you dont go to , just to be a troll. Fuck off back to alt
> > horror, its the right place for the likes of you to be anyway! Full
of
> > brain damaged pyschoes w personalitty dissorders! [Well parhaps not
> > all of them, but a lot,so you fit in alrite there].
> > V.
>
> You brain-dead little fuck. If you look above you will see that YOU
> specifically xposted to alt.horror so Shiflet could see your reply.
THAT
> is where he was responding from. Obviously you still don't quite
grasp
> the concept of xposting.
Your the one whos too thick to realise that its a bit bloody stupid for
sombody to post somthign spesificaly to NGs that they dont even go to,
so that they dont get to see any of the replys, which is exactly why i
put alt horror back for one of them. Retard!
> When Shiflet sent his reply he removed alt.horror from the xpost list
> before posting.
>
> Just to try and make things a bit clearer, I am responding to this on
UPG.
> However, I am now going to remove UPG from the xpost list so you will
> only see this on alt.love, alt.romance & soc.singles.
Alt love and alt romance actualy cos i dont actualy go to soc singles
to read anything, so you cant even get your facts right.
> As I don't
> subscribe to any of those groups I won't see any replies to this
post.
Well you will now!!!! And i kno that you would of done anyway, cos you
purposely do google searches looking for where ive been, like wot youve
done in the past with things that ive posted, you fucking hypocritt!
> If you are still confused, ask a grown up to help you. Maybe your
> boyfriend, sorry I mean your Dad, can help you.
>
> Fuck off and die.
It realy realy gets to you dosent it, that ive got a warm and loving
relationship with my Dad and most likely that you dont even kno who
yours is, well like ive said to you befor, that is not my fault, you
are projeckting your resentment about your situation onto me, and i
feel sorry for you somtimes but then i remeeber wot a utter vile and
nasty bit of scum you realy are so i jsut feel contempt insted.
V.
PS I heard on the radio today that kids whos fathers take a activ
involvment in there upbringing and are intaressted in them and love
them , well those kids are far less likely to grow up to be mentally
ill than the kids who dident hav a father or one who cared about them,
so that explains about lot about ppl like you, and a lot of the other
nasty ppl on the internett, they are trying to get back at the world
cos there dad dident love them or they dident hav one around. Well you
cant go on blaming ppl who did hav there Dad for the fact that you
probaly dident hav one, its not anybody elses fault.
Varizo!
> H Duffy wrote:
> > "mother" <mot...@bedtime.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:coui7c$9qi$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >>Andre Lieven wrote:
> >
> > {cross-posted argument with loons}
> >
> > Mother, would you mind stripped out the cross-posts if you're going
to
> > continue this?
> >
> > Thanks.
Well thats funny that is, i seem to remremerbr *you* Xposting over and
over again a few months ago, cos i thought at the time wot a hypocritt
you were to be complianing about it one minitte and then doing it
yourself the next! and loads of times too, i remerbre seeing it. .
Funny how its one rule for you and a diffrent one for evrybody else?
But then i musent forget that this *is* hester *im a femminist* huffy
that im tallking to here, so i cant exspect anything else exsept doubel
standards and hypocrasey!
> Sorry, I know it's annoying; I just can't help myself sometimes.
And neither could she, when she was Xposting like mad a little while
ago! Bloody hypocritt that she is.
V.
Varizo!
> Varizo... wrote:
>
> > Oh right , so wot your saying then is that he had been annoying her
> > for some time and so when she punched him in the face, even tho he
> > hadent actualy been violent to her,
>
> There's a big difference between 'annoying someone' and
> mental/emotional abuse. In the case of the Harry potter books,
> Hermione's been suffering the magical form of racism because neither
of
> her parents are magical. Constant, prolonged verbal abuse, icluding
the
> expressed wish that she would die or be seriously injured in some
way.
>
> Are you saying that sort of hatred is okay because it's only words?
Are you saying that she was right to punch him in the face? He wasent
being violent, she was. My point is, that if she had been saying all
that stuff to him for ages, just liek wot you say hed been saying to
her, and then he decided that hed ahd enough of it and so he turns
round and punches her in the face, would you say that why shouuld he be
critisised for it cos she had been asking for it???? That is the point.
> > So then, if she had been winding *him* up for ages, and then
> > he turns round and punches her in the face, then *she* would of
been
> > asking for it too!
>
> Well, yes. Assuming it was years of mental abuse, not merely
'annoying'
> someone for a few days.
But in the contexst of that advert, unless sombody is a Harry ptter fan
they are not gonna kno that, cos all that they see is some bolshey
looking woman turn round and attack some young bloke for no reason.
> > if it had been the other way round, you wouldent of said the same
> > thing as wot youve said in her favour.
>
> I admit, I'd be startled if a male character hit a female one,
Why?
> and I've
> already said that violence is never the answer to anything, but it'd
be
> every bit as understandable. *You're* the one who's keen to see men
and
> women as vastly different.
No im not, i hate boreing sexsual stereotypes, wot im atalking about
here is doubel standards, ppl who see violence towards men from women
as being somhow acseptabal or a bit of a laugh but violence towards
women from men, even if its in self deffence, as proof of some sort of
evil.
> > I dont kno about it and i dont want to, and there is probaly loads
of
> > ppl who dont kno nothing about Harry Potteer, [and why should
they]!
>
> Regardless of what you do or don't know, would you be as offended if
a
> male character hit a male character? Would that be 'glorrifying'
> violent men?
I think that violence is probaly glorriffied in the fact that its
always being shown, and im only going by the bits of tele that i see at
other ppls places, im sure that if i had one of my own and watcehd it
quite a lot, id see a lot more violence. I dont think that violence
should be shown anyway, not just for the sake of it, and deffinitley
not in a kids programme where the person shown being violent is shown
as being some sort of hero, like wot that woman obviuoulsy is ment to
be.
> > Dyou think that men who hav been living w violent women or
> > sombody who had to grow up with a violent mother is going to think
> > that its comickal or to jsut think nothjing of it like its jsut a
> joke
> > or somthing.
>
> This is two children fighting, not an adult fighting a child.
theyr not children , not the ppl in that advert, and why should it be
alrite to show kids programmes of otehr kids punching other kids in the
face if theyve been upset by somthing? Its just showing them that its
alrite to be violent.
> Varizo,
> until you understand the world is not all like your mother, and that
> most women are not like your mother.
But i kno that already! I wouldent of had the same girlfreind for 2 yrs
if she was anything like my mother, in fact i dont think that i kno
anybody else whos anything like my mother at all, and i don t want to
either!
V.
te-...@email.com
Joe McC wrote:
> "Varizo..." <var...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
> news:eb259c18.04120...@posting.google.com...
> > Heres some of wot it said in that infomation that sombody else
posted
> > a link to, its about time that ppl saw some of the truth , none of
> > this realy surprises me at all, ive always known that sociaty is
> > biassed towards women about this sort of thing, and makes exscuses
> > for anything violent that they do, and in that Harry potter advert
> > that violent woman is shown like somthing to be admired. It wasent
> > even in self defence, and ive seen in Hollyoaks too, girls are
shown
> > punching some bloke in the face for nothing, usualy cos he said one
> > little thing that she dident liek, so he *asked for it*, can you
see
> > it being acsepted without question if it was shown the other way
> > round, suposing some bloke just punched a woman in the face just
cos
> > she said somthing that he dident like, and it was shown in the
> > contexst of a storyline, almost like it was a bit of a joke, the
> > femminists wouldent be laughing an thats a sure thing.
> > Anyway, ive copied some of the more relevent bits here=======
> >
> > Violence against children by women is another issue where the
public
> > attitude is very different than the facts revealed by formal
studies.
> > * Women commit most child abuse in intact biological families. When
> > the man is removed from the family the children are at greater
> > risk.
> > * Mother-only households are more dangerous to children than
father-
> > only households.
> > * Children are 3 times more likely to be fatally abused in
> > Mother-only Households than in Father-only Households, and many
times
> > more
> > likely in households where the mother cohabits with a man other
> > than the biological father.
> > * Children raised in Single-mother Households are 8 times more
likely
> > to become killers than children raised with their biological
> > father.
> > Other studies reveal more about female violence against children:
> > * Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely
> > than they hit their female children.
> > * Women commit 55% of child murders and 64% of their victims are
male
> > children.
> > * Eighty two percent of the general population had their first
> > experience of violence at the hands of women, usually their
mother.
> >
> > Our culture learns to be violent from our mothers, not our fathers.
> > Yet, 3.1 million reports of child abuse are filed against men each
> > year, most of which are false accusations used as leverage in a
> > divorce or custody case.
> >
> > Why We Don't Know the Truth
> > How could we all be so mistaken about family violence? Have we
been
> > conned? Have we been taken in by one of the slickest "stings" ever
> > executed? Here is how the truth has been hidden.
> > Use of misleading statistics for political and financial gain:
> > * Men do not usually report their violent wives to police.
> > * Children do not usually report their violent mothers to the
police.
> > * Women are far more likely to report violent men to the police.
> >
> > * Women are encouraged to report spousal violence by countless
> > media reminders. Propaganda always includes the female victim and
> > the male perpetrator. Men are discouraged from claiming to be
> > victims of violent women.
> > * Some women call police because they are frightened by a minor
> > incident. Perhaps she thought calling the police was a "trump
card"
> > in an argument. These women do not realize that with one phone call
> > they have invited the government and gender politics into their
homes.
> > * Some women make false reports because there are legal, financial,
> > and child custody rewards for making a false report. Some divorce
> > attorneys and gender activists specialize in encouraging false
> > accusations, and actively coaching women how to falsely accuse.
> > Several researchers have documented that one of the common adaptive
> > tools of human females, used to compensate for smaller size and
social
> > power, is to mimic victim behavior, including false accusations
> > against a power figure (boss, parent, counselor, teacher, husband,
> > lover, police, etc.). Adolescent girls are the demographic group
most
> > prone to this adaptive tool.
> > These factors, and others, distort police statistics beyond
usefulness
> > to anyone who is sincerely looking for the truth about family
> > violence.
> >
> > However, misleading statistics are a deliberate fund raising tactic
> > for women's shelters. The shelter movement almost never mentions
> > scientific studies. This misuse of distorted police statistics to
> > push a "female victims" agenda is widespread and very misleading.
> >
> > A falsely framed issue skews understanding and jeopardizes justice.
> > For example, former Massachusetts Bar Association President Elaine
> > Epstein stated, "It has become essentially impossible to
effectively
> > represent a man against whom any allegation of domestic violence
has
> > been made."
> >
> > Many local women's shelters emphasize female victims reported to
the
> > police, and ignore much larger numbers of women, children, and men
who
> > are also victims of family violence. We quote from a brochure from
a
> > battered women's shelter: "What Is Domestic Violence? Domestic
> > violence is an increasingly visible social and legal problem
wherein
> > women are abused by their partners." Notice that it doesn't say
that
> > this is one aspect of domestic violence, or that this is the aspect
> > that they deal with, but rather that this is domestic violence.
> > Surely domestic violence is violence which takes place at home, the
> > word 'domestic' referring to the definition "of or relating to the
> > household or the family. Female violence against children is
another
> > taboo topic among gender activists.
> >
> > Most leaders in the women's shelter movement are fully aware of the
> > broader scope of family violence but hold fast to the
villain/victim
> > dogma. The directors of women's shelters almost always know that
they
> > are deliberately misleading the public. Why? They must maintain
their
> > power and fund raising base. If they lose their special "victim
> > status" they will rapidly go out of business. They do not want to
be
> > replaced with a gender neutral, family friendly, community service
> > agency that implements policy on the basis of scientific studies
> > rather than gender propaganda.
> >
> > As a member of an advisory committee for the local shelter I was
> > shocked at the attitudes of the ladies who ran the center: The
ONLY
> > solution championed by the shelter was to get free from that big
> > bad male. The committee expressed concern about the underlying
> > anti-male bias which even showed up in the name of the shelter
and
> > recommended that the name be changed to The Center for Victims of
> > Abuse - rather than Women's Strength.
> >
> > The typical response of the abuse shelter workers upon first
hearing
> > the results of the scientific studies is to "shoot the messenger".
You
> > can almost hear their minds snap closed. There is an almost cult
like
> > "party line" among victim advocates. Much of the belief system of
> > their "cult" has no more scientific or rational basis than that of
> > fanatical religious cults.
> >
> > Acknowledging That Women Are Abusers Leads To Better Solutions
> >
> > Women usually initiate spousal violence episodes (they hit first),
and
> > women hit more frequently, as well as using weapons three times
more
> > often then men. This combination of violent acts means that efforts
to
> > find solutions to the family violence problem need to include
> > appropriate focus on female perpetrators. We need to recognize that
> > women are violent, and we need nationwide educational programs that
> > portray women as perpetrators. Other studies show that men are
> > becoming less violent at the same time that women are becoming more
> > violent. Educating men seems to be working. Educating women to be
less
> > violent should now be the main thrust of public education programs.
> >
> > The key issue, though, is who initiates this cycle of violence.
> > Steinmetz, Strauss and Gelles found to their initial surprise that
> > women are more likely to be the first initiators. Why? In part, the
> > belief that men can take it - - they can therefore be a punching
bag
> > and not be expected to hit back.
> >
> > Why do we vigorously denounce domestic violence against women and
not
> > even know about domestic violence against men?
> >
> > Women Abuse Men: It's More Widespread Than People Think
> > By Armin A. Brott. M.D.
> > From Special supplement to The Washington Post, 12/28/93 Despite
all
> > the evidence about female-on-male violence, many groups actively
try
> > to suppress coverage of the issue. Suzanne Steinmetz received
verbal
> > threats and anonymous phone calls from radical women's groups
> > threatening to harm her children after she published "The Battered
> > Husband Syndrome" in 1978. She says she finds it ironic that the
same
> > people who claim that women-initiated violence is purely self
defense
> > are so quick to threaten violence against people who do nothing
more
> > than publish a scientific study.
> >
> > Steinmetz's story is not unique. Ten years after that study, R.L.
> > McNeely, a professor at the School of Social Welfare at the
University
> > of Wisconsin, and Gloria Robinson-Simpson published "The Truth
About
> > Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue." The article examined
> > various studies on domestic violence and concluded that society
must
> > recognize that men are victims "or we will be addressing only part
of
> > the phenomenon." Shortly thereafter, McNeely received letters from
a
> > Pennsylvania women's organization threatening to use its influence
in
> > Washington to pull his research funding. Robinson-Simpson, who
> > uncovered some of the most important data, largely was left alone.
> > According to McNeely, "she, a young assistant professor, was
assumed
> > to have been "duped" by the senior male professor."
> >
> > But once again, the radical feminist agenda of "man bad woman good"
> > has permeated the culture on an a fundamentally important issue,
and
> > once again it has done a terrible disservice to the constituency
> > feminists are supposed to help-women.
> > ===================
> > It just about says it all realy. It deffinitley explains about the
> > hypocrasey. Ive often wonderd why these ppl who worship women no
> > matter wot, will never giv an answer to the facts about violent
women,
> > and in things like that Harry potter thing, [written by a woman] it
> > looks like violent women are admired and thought of as heroes, i
think
> > that it suits them to hush it all up, cos they *want* women to be
> > violent, but they want them to be violent knowing that they will be
> > safe from ever being hit back, so women can be as violent as they
> > like, as long as its only towards males, but males musent ever hit
> > them back, cos the woman worshippers want to kno that the violent
> > women will be safe from violence themselves!
>
> Bloody hell Varizo, you had me agreeing with you right up to the end,
until
> you declared it's all a big conspiracy to encourage women to become
more
> violent.
>
Mmm, that was, of course, V's own POV creeping in there, but I must
say, the rest of the article was very thought provoking indeed, and
made a great deal of sense.
Also, IMO, V makes a fair number of extremely valid observations on
life and it's shortcomings, etc., but it's how he words his posts that
prevents him from being taken as seriously as some of the issues he
raises ought to be.
> Almost a goal there, laddie.......
ReVulse
> Mmm, that was, of course, V's own POV creeping in there, but I must
> say, the rest of the article was very thought provoking indeed, and
> made a great deal of sense.
I think the explanation is pretty simple - the rest of the article was
merely quoted by V from another source
> Also, IMO, V makes a fair number of extremely valid observations on
> life and it's shortcomings, etc.
No he doesn't. You appear to be confusing his quoting of "extremely
valid observations" with actually making them himself.
He can barely string a word together let alone a sentence.
#Andy#
mim...@go.com
Varizo! wrote:
> Are you saying that she was right to punch him in the face?
In this case, given that people would have *died* if she'd let him get
in their way, yes she was. Normally in the books she's not remotely
like that - it's the one time she's hit a male character, and only the
second time I can remember that she hit anyone (she got in a fight with
another girl in one of the books).
> if she had been saying all
> that stuff to him for ages, just liek wot you say hed been saying to
> her, and then he decided that hed ahd enough of it and so he turns
> round and punches her in the face, would you say that why shouuld he
be
> critisised for it cos she had been asking for it???? That is the
point.
Only if the alternative to punching him in the face is someone dying.
> > I admit, I'd be startled if a male character hit a female one,
>
> Why?
Because it is something that's conditioned into us: that violence
shouldn't be used against women. Partly because men are often
physically much stronger than women - they're generally bigger,
stronger and able to do more damage. If a woman decided to hit me, I'd
be on fairly equal terms. If a man decided to hit me, I'd probably not
be able to fight him off. In a way, I suppose society's evolved that
notion to protect (generally) weaker people from (generally) stronger
ones.
That's probably also why many men who are victims of domestic abuse
don't like to talk about it - because women, generally, are physically
weaker and so the men feel that somehow they themselves let it happen,
or that people will laugh at them if they talk about it. Personally, I
think domestic abuse is domestic abuse, and *anyone* who goes through
it is able to get out and get help.
> No im not, i hate boreing sexsual stereotypes, wot im atalking about
> here is doubel standards, ppl who see violence towards men from women
> as being somhow acseptabal or a bit of a laugh but violence towards
> women from men, even if its in self deffence, as proof of some sort
of
> evil.
I don't know anyone who sees it as acceptable or laughable - I can
think of only one case in my direct experience, and I'm not going to go
into the chap's personal life here, but everyone's general reaction was
"get the hell out of there!"
> i dont think that i kno
> anybody else whos anything like my mother at all, and i don t want to
> either!
Good! That's one piece of good news :)
te-...@email.com
alt.gothic OG wrote:
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message
news:<8901e207.04113...@posting.google.com>...
> >
context,
> > is a figure of how men with an ax to grind against women will reach
> > for anything, regardless of how ridiculously silly it might be, to
try
> > to score a point in the on-line gender war. A war they are
generally
> > fighting in their own minds.
>
> against men in a media catered to children as a social norm?
>
> advocating violence against women, she is merely defending equal
> rights. However, when a man makes the same comments, he is seen as
> either being whiney/weak or a misogynist.
Good point. Unfortunately, there is much that needs to be put right in
all aspects of human civilisation, the gender issue is just one aspect.
Varizo
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:29:59 -0800, Varizo. wrote:
>
> > Your the one whos too thick to realise that its a bit bloody stupid for
> > sombody to post somthign spesificaly to NGs that they dont even go to,
> > so that they dont get to see any of the replys, which is exactly why i
> > put alt horror back for one of them. Retard!
>
> following you to different NGs ? FUCKWIT.
I said that he was trolling by leaving crap in NGs that he dont even go to, i
never said that he *followed* me. I wasent getting him mixsed up with
*you*!!!!
> > It realy realy gets to you dosent it, that ive got a warm and loving
> > relationship with my Dad
>
> Oh yes, we've heard all about it - it's a completely healthy
> Father/Son relationship
Yes it is. Somthing that you wouldent ever of known about in your life.
> and isn't at all twisted. I'm sure there will be
> many more "warm and loving" moments between you.
Stop trying to twist things into somthing that only exsists in your own sick
twisdted mind you pervert!!!!1 It proves how sick in the head you are that you
can make pathetick inplickations about somthigniincoent in the 1st place! You
fucking weirdo.
> > PS I heard on the radio today that kids whos fathers take a activ
> > involvment in there upbringing and are intaressted in them and love them
> > , well those kids are far less likely to grow up to be mentally ill than
> > the kids who dident hav a father or one who cared about them, so that
> > explains about lot about ppl like you, and a lot of the other nasty ppl
> > on the internett, they are trying to get back at the world cos there dad
> > dident love them or they dident hav one around.
>
> HAHAHAHAHA! - talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
>
> Your Dad walked out on you and your Mum and so he had very little to do
> with your upbringing. Now re-read what you've said about the radio
> programmes conclusion and apply it to your situation. And don't try
> claiming that even though you Dad wasn't around he still cared about you
> because you had no idea how he felt about you when he wasn't there.
He was there for all of the early yrs which is wot is most inportant, and he
use to take me evrywhere with him, that is the sort of thing that they were
talking about on the radio as being inportant. And after he left, and he only
left cos of her, he tried loads of times to contact me but she stopped it, and
she kept evrything that he sent to me so that i never saw none of it, and she
told me a load of fucking lies about him and told him lies about me, she told
me that he dident want nothing to do wiht me,and she told him that i dident
want nothing to do with him cos i hated him for leaving, none of which was
true, she was a evil manipulativ cow.
> > Well you cant go on
> > blaming ppl who did hav there Dad for the fact that you probaly dident
> > hav one
>
> Sorry to disappoint you but my Dad was part of my life for 35 years.
Im not dissapointed, i just think that if youd realy ever known wot it is to
hav a warm and loving relationship wiht a father who realy cared about you
then you wouldent be so miserabal and aggressiv now, [and you wouldent be
makeing sick jokes about sombody who *has* got a good relationhsip with there
Dad like the sort of shite yoiuve been coming out with about me and my Dad}
your either just saying that you had a father around or if he was then you
probaly wernt that close.
V.
Varizo
> > > I admit, I'd be startled if a male character hit a female one,
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because it is something that's conditioned into us: that violence
> shouldn't be used against women. Partly because men are often
> physically much stronger than women - they're generally bigger,
> stronger and able to do more damage.
Well my GF is stronger physicaly than wot i am, i hav to ask her to do
certain things that i struggle with, likegetting the tops off of some jars
for exsampel and stuff like that.
> If a woman decided to hit me, I'd
> be on fairly equal terms. If a man decided to hit me, I'd probably not
> be able to fight him off.
It said in that report that to make up for it if they are not as pyhsiclay
strong, they will use weapons insted, like knives or hot fat or somthing
else that can probaly do more damage than from just punching sombody.
> In a way, I suppose society's evolved that
> notion to protect (generally) weaker people from (generally) stronger
> ones.
I dont kno about that, ive read stuff on alt romance from ppl who hav said
that these stupid sorts of women who might purposley look for some awful
looking great mussley bloke cos in there thick stupid minds they think that
it means they will be *proteckted* thru being w sombody like that, it often
gets turned against them cos blokes like that are often violent and will
just use it against them anyway, but those sort of women are so into
stereotypes thaat they think that a bloke like that will *worship* them
because they are women, and if they dident hav those stupid ideas in the
1st place then they wouldent be looking for blokes like that and ending up
with one who has got more strength to do harm if he hits them. Its been
said that in that respect they bring it on themselves by there own stupid
atittudes in wot they want in the 1st place, in other words down thru the
ages, loads of women *choose* those sort of blokes and then dont like it
when those sort of blokes are the main sort who are likely to be violent.
> That's probably also why many men who are victims of domestic abuse
> don't like to talk about it - because women, generally, are physically
> weaker and so the men feel that somehow they themselves let it happen,
> or that people will laugh at them if they talk about it.
But they are less to blame than the women who go out of there way to choose
blokes who are nothing more than musselbound morons, men dont usualy go
around looking for great hulking musselbound women cos they think that they
will be *safe* with one of them, [safe from wot anyway? those sort of women
who think like that are just parranoid], but anyway, blokes arnt usualy
looking for women for wot physciakl strength they might hav, [tho it comes
in handy that my GF is strong, even tho she dont look like it
particualaly], blokes arnt looking for that spesificaly so they are even
less to blame when a woman is violent agaisnt them, if you look at it in
that way.
V.
Shiflet
"Varizo" <var...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:41BA4DFC...@netscape.net...
> You fucking weirdo.
Coming from the GUY that pretended to be his DAD'S GIRLfriend. Fucking
rioutous.
> He was there for all of the early yrs which is wot is most inportant, and
he
> use to take me evrywhere with him, that is the sort of thing that they
were
> talking about on the radio as being inportant. And after he left, and he
only
> left cos of her, he tried loads of times to contact me but she stopped it,
and
> she kept evrything that he sent to me so that i never saw none of it, and
she
> told me a load of fucking lies about him and told him lies about me, she
told
> me that he dident want nothing to do wiht me,and she told him that i
dident
> want nothing to do with him cos i hated him for leaving, none of which was
> true, she was a evil manipulativ cow.
Maybe she was afraid of the sexual issues.
> Im not dissapointed, i just think that if youd realy ever known wot it is
to
> hav a warm and loving relationship wiht a father who realy cared about you
> then you wouldent be so miserabal and aggressiv now, [and you wouldent be
> makeing sick jokes about sombody who *has* got a good relationhsip with
there
> Dad like the sort of shite yoiuve been coming out with about me and my
Dad}
I have a good relationship with my dad. He's not only my dad, he's one of my
best friends. But neither one of us is so FUCKED UP that they want the other
to pretend to be in a relationship with them.
> V.
Mim
> mim...@go.com says
> Well my GF is stronger physicaly than wot i am, i hav to ask her to
do
> certain things that i struggle with, likegetting the tops off of some
jars
> for exsampel and stuff like that.
Yeah, but that's exceptionsl. In *most* cases, the man is the stronger,
physically.
> I dont kno about that, ive read stuff on alt romance from ppl who hav
said
> that these stupid sorts of women who might purposley look for some
awful
> looking great mussley bloke cos in there thick stupid minds they
think that
> it means they will be *proteckted* thru being w sombody like that
Whether they're attracted to a physical type is one thing, but I doubt
anyone's ever gone out looking for love with the idea that what they
really need is a few broken bones and the total destruction of their
self esteem, that they'd like to live every day in fear.
> Its been
> said that in that respect they bring it on themselves by there own
stupid
> atittudes in wot they want in the 1st place,
So your dad brought it on himself by picking the wrong sort of woman
too?
Nobody *asks* for domestic violence. Nobody brings it on themselves.
> But they are less to blame than the women who go out of there way to
choose
> blokes who are nothing more than musselbound morons,
As your parents' history shows, a partner doesn't have to be
musclebound to be abusive. A man isn't going to be violent just because
he's muscular. And a man who's developed his physique isn't neccesarily
a moron either.
No-one asks for that sort of treatment, and it's pretty offensive of
you to say that women deserve it.
T.Bone
Varizo wrote:
> ReVulse says
> > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:29:59 -0800, Varizo. wrote:
> > > It realy realy gets to you dosent it, that ive got a warm and
loving
> > > relationship with my Dad
> >
> > Oh yes, we've heard all about it - it's a completely healthy
> > Father/Son relationship
>
> Yes it is. Somthing that you wouldent ever of known about in your
life.
>
> > and isn't at all twisted. I'm sure there will be
> > many more "warm and loving" moments between you.
Uncalled for.
You appear to be implying that there's something intrinsically amusing,
or 'wrong', about a boy being close to his father.
In V's case, I think it's good that he's reunited with his dad,
especially after what he suffered at the hands of his horrednous
mother. I really don't understand your need to throw spurious innuendo
at him about it.
>
> Stop trying to twist things into somthing that only exsists in your
own sick
> twisdted mind you pervert!!!!1 It proves how sick in the head you are
that you
> can make pathetick inplickations about somthigniincoent in the 1st
place! You
> fucking weirdo.
Try not to rise to it. You'll encounter all kinds of unpleasantness
from folk on Usenet. It's really best ignored, unless you can respond
to it reasonably.
A situation which you have fortunately escaped from. Leave it where it
belongs; in the past.
>
> > > Well you cant go on
> > > blaming ppl who did hav there Dad for the fact that you probaly
dident
> > > hav one
> >
> > Sorry to disappoint you but my Dad was part of my life for 35
years.
>
> Im not dissapointed, i just think that if youd realy ever known wot
it is to
> hav a warm and loving relationship wiht a father who realy cared
about you
> then you wouldent be so miserabal and aggressiv now, [and you
wouldent be
> makeing sick jokes about sombody who *has* got a good relationhsip
with there
> Dad like the sort of shite yoiuve been coming out with about me and
my Dad}
> your either just saying that you had a father around or if he was
then you
> probaly wernt that close.
Maybe true, maybe not, but rising to taunts of this nature is not doing
yourself any favours. I know it's sometimes hard to ignore nonsense,
but you are giving them what they want by responding as you do.
T.Bone
ReVulse wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 09:44:13 -0800, te-bone wrote:
>
> > Mmm, that was, of course, V's own POV creeping in there, but I must
> > say, the rest of the article was very thought provoking indeed, and
> > made a great deal of sense.
>
> I think the explanation is pretty simple - the rest of the article
was
> merely quoted by V from another source
I realise that.
He made it pretty clear he was quoting another source.
>
> > Also, IMO, V makes a fair number of extremely valid observations on
> > life and it's shortcomings, etc.
>
> No he doesn't. You appear to be confusing his quoting of "extremely
> valid observations" with actually making them himself.
Actually you know, I wasn't.
Spelling aside, he does make some often rather pertinent observations.
The fact he seems to upset a few people in the process seems to prove
that. ;-)
>
> He can barely string a word together let alone a sentence.
True maybe, but it doesn't alter the fact that much of what he writes
about, the _ideas_ behind it, are valid.
T.Bone
She was indeed! I can vouch for that, in responses to my good self
Hester was cross-posting with abandon! LOL. I only realised when
someone else pointed it out as I assumed that nothing of mine that was
posted in response to one of Hester's posts could possibly be
cross-posted. Imagine my surprise to find they all were! ;-)
ReVulse
>
> Varizo wrote:
>> ReVulse says
>> > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:29:59 -0800, Varizo. wrote:
> SNIP
>
>> > > It realy realy gets to you dosent it, that ive got a warm and
> loving
>> > > relationship with my Dad
>> >
>> > Oh yes, we've heard all about it - it's a completely healthy
>> > Father/Son relationship
>>
>> Yes it is. Somthing that you wouldent ever of known about in your
> life.
>>
>> > and isn't at all twisted. I'm sure there will be
>> > many more "warm and loving" moments between you.
>
> Uncalled for.
> You appear to be implying that there's something intrinsically amusing,
> or 'wrong', about a boy being close to his father.
There's close and there's close.
Do you honestly not see anything remotely odd about a son pretending to
be his own Father's girlfriend ?.
As Shiflet (amongst others) said - coming up with the idea in the
first place is odd, making the suggestion is even more odd, his father
going along with the suggestion is just wrong and then playing the part by
putting his arm around him and nuzzling his hair is just way out twisted.
And according to Varizo this is the sign of a "warm and loving" Father/Son
relationship.
> In V's case, I think it's good that he's reunited with his dad,
> especially after what he suffered at the hands of his horrednous
> mother. I really don't understand your need to throw spurious innuendo
> at him about it.
There's no innuendo required.
#Andy#
Varizo
> Why don't you tell us all why exactly you're claiming benefit ?
Its none of your fucking business!! Your so obsessed with trying to find things out about me arnt you! You
still wanna fuck me, i kno, ive had all this sort of thing befor from blokes who get obsessed and its cos
they got a thing about me cos for some reason i realy get to them and they hav sadisstick sexsual fantaseys
about me.
And for your infomation, i already told ppl about why i get bennifit when there were better ppl like Coyote
still here, and seeing as your so obsessed with looking at all my old posts, im sure that you must of
already seen it anyway, im not anserwing your stupid questions, ive been told that its best not to answer
questions in a serious way when they are from trolls, which is wot you are, so sod off and get obsessed with
sombody else. [If you *can*]!
V.
Varizo
>On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:21:04 -0500, "MMET572" <MME...@rogers.com>
>wrote in <9s-dnTZsh8k...@rogers.com>:
>>"ReVulse" <ReV...@psychaoticREMOVE.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2004.12.11....@psychaoticREMOVE.fsnet.co.uk...
>>> Why don't you tell us all why exactly you're claiming benefit ?
>>>
>>
>>Contagious Tertiary Auto-Dyslexia no doubt.
>
>from the New Unabridged Usenet Dictionary:
>
>Troll: Poster who says something unflattering about Varizo.
Funny how *so many ppl* call you one then isent it?!!!!
Wheres your *support*, splodge wasent it, i dont see him rushing in for you to hide your fat blobby self behind
after you thought that he would when you went and Xposted somthing that i said into soc men the last time. You
pathetick whingeing old slag.
>Stalker: Someone who makes a reply to Varizo.
>
>Ashurbanipal: all stalkers and trolls, they're just his sockpuppets
>
>Veronica: all stalkers and trolls including Ashurbanipal
Yeh, dick biter [you], losers, obsessiv weirdoes and trolls unite! And i bet that your on the internett night
after night after night! Just like all the rest of the losers who hav got *no life wotsoever* away from the
internett!
V.
Varizo
>Sharon B wrote:
>
>>from the New Unabridged Usenet Dictionary:
>
>>Troll: Poster who says something unflattering about Varizo.
>
>
Exactly! Evrytime that some other weirdo says somthing hateful about me,
shes in there, full of desperation, hoping that shes gonna get some
backup from them. Pathetick and very very predicktabal.
V.
Varizo
>Maybe she was afraid of the sexual issues.
I was just a little kid then! Your sick in the head!!! Its not even funny.
>I have a good relationship with my dad. He's not only my dad, he's one of my
>best friends. But neither one of us is so FUCKED UP that they want the other
>to pretend to be in a relationship with them.
Well first off, i dont supose that you ever get misstaken for a girl like wot i
do anyway! So you wouldent be abel to pretend to be *your* Dads GF!! Youd hav
to pretend to be his gay lover insted if you were helping him to disscourage
sombody who was trying to get off wiht him and wouldent take the hint that he
wasent intaressted in her"!!
And like i said, pretending is pretending, i dont see why thats such a problem
for idiots to cope with. He was getting pessterd by some girl makeing a right
emabarrassing twat of herself trying to get off with him, he was getting right
pissed off with it, and i saw a way to help him get rid of her, so i got hold of
his arm and whisperd to him to just pretend that i was his Gf so that the stupid
bitch that was pessterign him would jsut assume that i was a girl, which she
did, and there was nothing at all wrong with wot we did, it was nothign sexsual
at all like wot you and the other moron is tying to make out it was, i leaned my
head on his shoulder and he put his arms around me and put his face in my hair,
and cos ive got v long hair he just had to play with it a bit to make it look
like i was realy his GF, but that was all that we did, there was *nothing else*
to it! And if i dident hav such a good relaxsed and easygoing relationship with
my Dad then we wouldent of been abel to do that, and thats somthing that ppl
like you cant understand, but that is cos of problems and hangups that are in
you. Pretending to be his GF was just a easy solution to get rid of a stupid
annoying bitch who couldent take a hint and piss off but she did when she
thought that he had a girfreind. It was hilarious to us, and we had a realy good
laugh about it after she,d gone.
Theres ppl on the internett who seem to take some sort of weird pleasure in
twisting somthing innocent into somthing vile, cos its all in there own minds.
Fucking hell! Get a life why dont you!
V.
Varizo
>Varizo wrote:
>> I dont kno about that, ive read stuff on alt romance from ppl who hav
>said
>> that these stupid sorts of women who might purposley look for some
>awful
>> looking great mussley bloke cos in there thick stupid minds they
>think that
>> it means they will be *proteckted* thru being w sombody like that
>
>Whether they're attracted to a physical type is one thing, but I doubt
>anyone's ever gone out looking for love with the idea that what they
>really need is a few broken bones and the total destruction of their
>self esteem, that they'd like to live every day in fear.
Well nonbody was saying that. They were saying that if some women are so
stupid that they think that they need *protecting* and look for sombody for
that reason, and so they look for some great hulking monstrossitty cos they
think that will be *protection* for *them*, then that is a stupid reason to
look for sombody anyway, and if one of thosse great hulking monstossittys
decided to turn violent theyd be more liekly to do harm than anybody else
who was violent.
>> Its been
>> said that in that respect they bring it on themselves by there own
>stupid
>> atittudes in wot they want in the 1st place,
>
>So your dad brought it on himself by picking the wrong sort of woman
>too?
No, cos he wouldent of been looking for sombody to *protect* him in the 1st
place. Your missing the point.
>Nobody *asks* for domestic violence. Nobody brings it on themselves.
>
>> But they are less to blame than the women who go out of there way to
>choose
>> blokes who are nothing more than musselbound morons,
>
>As your parents' history shows, a partner doesn't have to be
>musclebound to be abusive. A man isn't going to be violent just because
>he's muscular. And a man who's developed his physique isn't neccesarily
>a moron either.
>
>No-one asks for that sort of treatment, and it's pretty offensive of
>you to say that women deserve it.
Typickal twisting of wot sombody actualy did say to make it mean somthign
completeley diffrent! Nowhere did i say that. Wot i said was that its a
bit bloody stupid for *some* ppl, and it dont matter if its women or
blokes, to think that they got to find sombody who will *protect* them cos
that is a stupid reason to exspect to hav sombody for, and then to
purposeley look for sombody who looks butch and realy *strong* cos in there
stupid little minds they think that that means sombody who will *protect*
them, and why the fuck do they think that they got to hav sombody for that
reason anyway??? If they want sombody cos they feel that they need
*protecting* then let them go and hire a fucking *bodygaurd*!!!! Cos if
thats wot they are looking for, protection, then they need a bodygaurd not
a boyfreind. That is the point!
V.
Varizo
>as I assumed that nothing of mine that was
>posted in response to one of Hester's posts could possibly be
>cross-posted. Imagine my surprise to find they all were! ;-)
Why were you suprised? Dont you think that its just typickal of the levil
of hypocrasey from ppl like her??!!! I see that sort of hypocrasey all the
time from retards like her. They make one law fro tehmselves and exspect
evrybody else to follow a diffrent one.
V.
MMET572
Sharon, I think you made Varizo cry.
DFooK
Varizo
>ReVulse wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 09:44:13 -0800, te-bone wrote:
>>
>> > Mmm, that was, of course, V's own POV creeping in there, but I must
>> > say, the rest of the article was very thought provoking indeed, and
>> > made a great deal of sense.
>>
>> I think the explanation is pretty simple - the rest of the article
>was
>> merely quoted by V from another source
>
>He made it pretty clear he was quoting another source.
Yes i did. But morons like him try to twist the truth into somthing
disstorted to suit there own personal agennda, and in his case its his
weird obsession with me!
>> > Also, IMO, V makes a fair number of extremely valid observations on
>> > life and it's shortcomings, etc.
>>
>> No he doesn't. You appear to be confusing his quoting of "extremely
>> valid observations" with actually making them himself.
>
>Actually you know, I wasn't.
>Spelling aside, he does make some often rather pertinent observations.
>The fact he seems to upset a few people in the process seems to prove
>that. ;-)
Thats it exactly. That is exactly why some of the scumbags get so rattled,
cos ive said somthing that so much applys to them and they can reconise
themselves in it and dont like it and so thats why they go on about me the
way that tehy do.
>> He can barely string a word together let alone a sentence.
>
>True maybe, but it doesn't alter the fact that much of what he writes
>about, the _ideas_ behind it, are valid.
Inteligence has got nothing to do with spelling evry singel word right
anyway. And *realy* inteligent ppl kno that!
V.
Shiflet
> Well first off, i dont supose that you ever get misstaken for a girl like
wot i
> do anyway!
You're right, I don't look like a female. And if I did, I'd change my
hairstyle and not dress like a fag.
> And like i said, pretending is pretending, i dont see why thats such a
problem
> for idiots to cope with. He was getting pessterd by some girl makeing a
right
> emabarrassing twat of herself trying to get off with him, he was getting
right
> pissed off with it, and i saw a way to help him get rid of her,
Any fucking NORMAL person would have told her they weren't interested, NOT
had their son pretend to be their LOVER.
<> so i got hold of
> his arm and whisperd to him to just pretend that i was his Gf so that the
stupid
> bitch that was pessterign him would jsut assume that i was a girl, which
she
> did, and there was nothing at all wrong with wot we did, it was nothign
sexsual
> at all like wot you and the other moron is tying to make out it was, i
leaned my
> head on his shoulder and he put his arms around me and put his face in my
hair,
> and cos ive got v long hair he just had to play with it a bit to make it
look
> like i was realy his GF,
And that is FUCKED UP. Normal parents DO NOT PLAY WITH THEIR SON'S HAIR
WHILE PRETENDING THAT SON IS THEIR LOVER.
> V.
Varizo
>Varizo wrote:
>> ReVulse says
>> > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:29:59 -0800, Varizo. wrote:
>
>> > > It realy realy gets to you dosent it, that ive got a warm and
>loving
>> > > relationship with my Dad
>> >
>> > Oh yes, we've heard all about it - it's a completely healthy
>> > Father/Son relationship
>>
>> Yes it is. Somthing that you wouldent ever of known about in your
>life.
>>
>> > and isn't at all twisted. I'm sure there will be
>> > many more "warm and loving" moments between you.
>
>You appear to be implying that there's something intrinsically amusing,
>or 'wrong', about a boy being close to his father.
>especially after what he suffered at the hands of his horrednous
>mother. I really don't understand your need to throw spurious innuendo
>at him about it.
Its cos hes got no idea of wot its like to hav a close and easygoing and relaxsed
and loving reltionship between sombody and there Dad, where there is complete
trust and where they both get on realy realy well like soulmates or somthing.
>> Stop trying to twist things into somthing that only exsists in your
>own sick
>> twisdted mind you pervert!!!!1 It proves how sick in the head you are
>that you
>> can make pathetick inplickations about somthigniincoent in the 1st
>place! You
>> fucking weirdo.
>
>Try not to rise to it. You'll encounter all kinds of unpleasantness
>from folk on Usenet. It's really best ignored, unless you can respond
>to it reasonably.
I think that i do repspond to it quite reasonabal when you consider wot is actualy
beign said!! The fucking vile slander and evrything.
>A situation which you have fortunately escaped from. Leave it where it
>belongs; in the past.
But i hav, i just hav to keep talking about it here cos ppl keep saying things
that arnt true, and why should i just ignroe things that are a load of mallisious
lies? Why???
>> > > Well you cant go on
>> > > blaming ppl who did hav there Dad for the fact that you probaly
>dident
>> > > hav one
>> >
>> > Sorry to disappoint you but my Dad was part of my life for 35
>years.
>>
>> Im not dissapointed, i just think that if youd realy ever known wot
>it is to
>> hav a warm and loving relationship wiht a father who realy cared
>about you
>> then you wouldent be so miserabal and aggressiv now, [and you
>wouldent be
>> makeing sick jokes about sombody who *has* got a good relationhsip
>with there
>> Dad like the sort of shite yoiuve been coming out with about me and
>my Dad}
>> your either just saying that you had a father around or if he was
>then you
>> probaly wernt that close.
>
>Maybe true, maybe not, but rising to taunts of this nature is not doing
>yourself any favours. I know it's sometimes hard to ignore nonsense,
>but you are giving them what they want by responding as you do.
R u saying that i should just let ppl tell lies about me and spread mallissious
rumours about me and my Dad and i shouldent say nothign to put it right, if i
ignore it it just makes it look like its true. revullsiv is just a twisted
cunt. Or he wouldent be saying the things that he says. he trys to turn somthing
thats completley innocent into somthing sordid and vile, he twists somthing good
and harmless into somthing thats weird and perverted, cos its in him. Dyou
think that theres somthing wrong with sombody having a warm and loving
relatainship with there Dad? revullsiv seems to think that its not natural to be
close to your Dad, but it *is* natural, and it jsut proves that hes not, to think
that theres somthing wrong with it.
V.
Shiflet
> relatainship with there Dad? revullsiv seems to think that its not natural
to be
> close to your Dad, but it *is* natural, and it jsut proves that hes not,
to think
> that theres somthing wrong with it.
No, it IS natural to be close to your dad. I am close to my dad, we talk all
the time, we read the same books, watch the asme movies, like the same video
game, we have lots in common. That is natural. What ISN'T natural is to
pretend to be your dad's girlfriend while he cuddles you and fondles your
hair.
> V.
whisky-dave
> "Mim" mim...@go.com says
>>
>>Whether they're attracted to a physical type is one thing, but I doubt
>>anyone's ever gone out looking for love with the idea that what they
>>really need is a few broken bones and the total destruction of their
>>self esteem, that they'd like to live every day in fear.
>
> Well nonbody was saying that. They were saying that if some women are so
> stupid that they think that they need *protecting* and look for sombody
> for
> that reason, and so they look for some great hulking monstrossitty
Maybe they are 'turned on' by such people as men can be 'turned on'
by long legs or big tits. Some people go for dangerous sports too....
> Wot i said was that its a
> bit bloody stupid for *some* ppl, and it dont matter if its women or
> blokes, to think that they got to find sombody who will *protect* them
I can't see that as the conscious reason for going with someone, although
there could be some un-conscious DNA related thing that says a women
should choose a strong partner to father her child so he can physically
protect them from others both human and animal preditors.
I'm not sure how you could prove the reason why a person is attracted
to someone stronger than themselves or why they should be attracted
to someone weaker, maybe someone else can explain this form of attraction.
whisky-dave
> "T.Bone" te-...@email.com says
>>as I assumed that nothing of mine that was
>>posted in response to one of Hester's posts could possibly be
>>cross-posted. Imagine my surprise to find they all were! ;-)
>
> Why were you suprised?
You would think that those that speak out loudest against Xposting wouldn't
xpost themselves. But then again even the most perfect amongst us can make
the occasional mistake, even I've made one or two xposts without realising.
I've visited alt.femminism and I've decided there's little point in
communicating
with the vast majority on that group[1], so I've also decided not to reply
to posts
that have been xposted to UPG & alt.femminism, I may reply to them
separately though..
[1] I don't think the majority of posts on there come from or are written
by femminists, most appear to be trolls with nothing better to do than
troll.
The White Lady
Sharon B
wrote in <G6-dnQjSQP6...@rogers.com>:
It's cuz the guy who "fancies" him, that he allows to fondle his arse
in exchange for 'net access, normally only wants to fondle him on
Fridays so Varizo has all week to stew over what people say.
....and because I have a knack for making grown men cry....
<and sometimes scream>
ReVulse
> I must say V, for one so apparently disdainful and dismissive of women
> as you sometimes appear to be, you certainly seem to have more than
> your fair share of bitches who follow you around Usenet! LOL.
Hey brainiac, if he cross-posts to particular groups and then gets
responses from people on those groups, then they're hardly "following him
around usenet".
If he didn't post to alt.horror, then no-one from there would respond to
him. The same applies to uk.people.gothic etc etc.
I presume you have continued to fail to notice that whenever he refers to
a woman (with the exception of his "GF"), words such as "bitch" and "slag"
are never far away. Just look at the way he describes the woman in
the recent events whose only crime was finding his Dad attractive enough
to try and chat-up.
#Andy#
The White Lady
word that 'varizo' types?
Dr Walpurgis
>>I presume you have continued to fail to notice that whenever he
>>refers to a woman (with the exception of his "GF"), words such as
>>"bitch" and "slag" are never far away.
>
> Well, now, isn't that the kind of words that are used to describe women
> over in the alt. horror newsgroup? I seem to recall from my rare
> excursions, those kind of words being considered run-of-the-mill in
> that particular newsgroup!
> In fact, I seem to recall far worse insults being used to describe
> women there, and words such as the above derogatory terms, are, in
> fact, rather mild in comparison to some I've seen used to describe
> women in alt. horror.
Mainly by the women themselves, it has to be said.
--
"Another clever one Dr Walpurgis. Again you have proven that you bring
nothing to the table. I'm guessing you make a living in Academia,
destroying the minds of youth." - Jizzy, alt.horror, 18/05/04
Now playing: http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/drwalpurgis/
FrMerrin
<drwal...@blueyonder.nul> wrote:
>T.Bone wrote:
>
>>>I presume you have continued to fail to notice that whenever he
>>>refers to a woman (with the exception of his "GF"), words such as
>>>"bitch" and "slag" are never far away.
>>
>> Well, now, isn't that the kind of words that are used to describe women
>> over in the alt. horror newsgroup? I seem to recall from my rare
>> excursions, those kind of words being considered run-of-the-mill in
>> that particular newsgroup!
>> In fact, I seem to recall far worse insults being used to describe
>> women there, and words such as the above derogatory terms, are, in
>> fact, rather mild in comparison to some I've seen used to describe
>> women in alt. horror.
>
>Mainly by the women themselves, it has to be said.
Yeah. Stupid cunts.
--
FrMerrin
Do, please, read http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk
and http://www.screenonline.org.
I need the money.
ReVulse
> Haven't you goths got better things to do than analyse every retarded
> word that 'varizo' types?
The main offenders for reading Varizo's posts are myself and
T.Bone. I just about fit into the goth category but T.Bone most
certainly does not (IMHO).
So in answer to your question, yes the goths do have better things to do,
which is why not many of them participate in this thread.
#Andy#
ReVulse
>
> ReVulse wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:07:41 -0800, T.Bone wrote:
>>
>> > I must say V, for one so apparently disdainful and dismissive of
> women
>> > as you sometimes appear to be, you certainly seem to have more than
>> > your fair share of bitches who follow you around Usenet! LOL.
>>
>> Hey brainiac, if he cross-posts to particular groups and then gets
>> responses from people on those groups, then they're hardly "following
> him
>> around usenet".
>
> A mere touch of humour, my good chap. A mere touch of humour! ;-)
>
>>
>> If he didn't post to alt.horror, then no-one from there would respond
> to
>> him. The same applies to uk.people.gothic etc etc.
>>
>> I presume you have continued to fail to notice that whenever he
> refers to
>> a woman (with the exception of his "GF"), words such as "bitch" and
> "slag"
>> are never far away.
>
> Well, now, isn't that the kind of words that are used to describe women
> over in the alt. horror newsgroup? I seem to recall from my rare
> excursions, those kind of words being considered run-of-the-mill in
> that particular newsgroup!
> In fact, I seem to recall far worse insults being used to describe
> women there, and words such as the above derogatory terms, are, in
> fact, rather mild in comparison to some I've seen used to describe
> women in alt. horror.
> Now, you, as a regular patron of alt. horror yourself, should already
> know that. - I guess you must have missed them. ;-)
I hope this is another attempt at humour, I'd hate to think you really
were this stupid.
#Andy#
T.Bone
Varizo wrote:
> "T.Bone" says
SNIP
> >Try not to rise to it. You'll encounter all kinds of unpleasantness
> >from folk on Usenet. It's really best ignored, unless you can
respond
> >to it reasonably.
>
> I think that i do repspond to it quite reasonabal when you consider
wot is actualy
> beign said!! The fucking vile slander and evrything.
Yes, but they are doing it purposely hoping to derive some form of
amusement from your responses. Why give them the satisfaction?
>
SNIP
>
> R u saying that i should just let ppl tell lies about me and spread
mallissious
> rumours about me and my Dad and i shouldent say nothign to put it
right, if i
> ignore it it just makes it look like its true. revullsiv is just a
twisted
> cunt. Or he wouldent be saying the things that he says. he trys to
turn somthing
> thats completley innocent into somthing sordid and vile, he twists
somthing good
> and harmless into somthing thats weird and perverted, cos its in him.
Dyou
> think that theres somthing wrong with sombody having a warm and
loving
> relatainship with there Dad? revullsiv seems to think that its not
natural to be
> close to your Dad, but it *is* natural, and it jsut proves that hes
not, to think
> that theres somthing wrong with it.
Well, I was never close to mine, we never got on and never understood
one another at all. (My mother wasn't a lot better in some respects
either.)
Of course there's nothing wrong with being close to your dad, it's nice
that you get on. Boys often need their fathers and it sounds as though
you and your dad have a 'best mates' kind of relationship. Try to
ignore all the silliness from folk online. At the end of the day, none
of their 'opinions' matter one jot. It's your life, and your happiness,
and it sounds as though you're happy about being reunited with your
dad. Focus on that, forget any negativity from people, and with a bit
of luck, your girlfriend may just come round in time when she realises
how important your father is to you.
If she faces the possibility of losing you because of her possessive
attitude towards you, it may make her see sense and be more amenable
towards your need to spend time alone with your dad.