In article <6ugufa$d19 at panix2.panix.com>, gcf at panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>amiga at primenet.com says...
> | > I suggest you do some reading on the subject, and alter your bigoted
sexist views.
>>larryc at teleport.com (Larry Caldwell):
> | His view may be sexist, but it is also accurate. Maybe by the end of the
> | next millennium, women will have made a more profound contribution to
> | human culture.
>> I don't see any reason to identify fame with culture. The
> average mother has probably contributed more constructively
> to human culture than all the great generals, politicians,
> and other puff adders of this millennium or any other put
> together. The leading characters of history -- "the sorry
> register of man's crimes and follies" -- are by and large
> its leading psychopaths and blowhards.
Don't tell me, let me guess, you're a believer in social promotion, right?
Exactly why should I be impressed with the average mother?
Should I be impressed with the average tree for growing high, or the
average salt crystal for replicating its structure?
Spare me this pious Barney the dinosaur crap.
Maynard
--
My opinion only