"Angilion" <angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d307e64.3196909 at news.freeserve.net...
> [,alt.religion,alt.education,alt.feminism.individualism
> cut to avoid spam. Crossposting to 7 unrelated groups is very
> rude. 4 is too many, but it's relevant to 3 of them and I think
> the 4th is where Shadow Dancer "lives"]
>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:08:17 -0500, "Shadow Dancer"
> <insomniac at winterslight.org> wrote:
>> [concerning men]
>> >It doesn't make them smarter and their corpus collosums are still screwed
> >up.
> >
> >I guess you missed the statistics that:
> >
> >(1) A woman's pain threshhold is far higher, due to the ability to bear
> >children; roughly 5 minutes of labor pain would literally kill a man.
>> If it wasn't so sad, it would be amusing to see these two extreme
> sexists babbling crap to "prove" their sexism is reasonable.
>> I know for a fact that you cannot provide any evidence to support
> your statement, above, or any part of it. You are just burbling
> the prevailing sexism.
>> If anyone wishes to look for themselves, just do a search
> for "pain threshold +men +women" at, for example, www.google.com
>> You will find numerous studies, some of which conclude that
> women have a higher pain threshold than men and some of
> which conclude the reverse. None of them come anywhere
> near supporting the ridiculous statement made by Shadow Dancer.
>> >(2) A woman's organs are larger, because they bear children.
>> On average, they are smaller because women are, on average, smaller.
>> Do you believe the rubbish you write, or are you just cunning
> enough to realise that a lie is effective propaganda to promote
> prejudice?
>> You don't even understand the difference between a trend and
> an absolute, do you?
>> >(3) A woman's endurance is greater because she is the child-bearer.
>> I know for a fact that you cannot provide any evidence to support
> your statement, above.
>> All you are doing is making circular arguments from child-bearing.
> That's it. You have no evidence to support your sexist spew.
> John Knight is just as sexist as you, but he has evidence behind
> him. Carefully selected evidence strongly spun, but some evidence
> none the less. You are just babbling female supremacist propaganda.
>> >You can begin by tossing out ALL those sports statistics above. The
reason
> >women are not in those stats is because *they are in stats for WOMEN'S
> >SPORTS*. Misogynists like you shut them out of the male-dominated
sports.
>> Don't be silly. Women have their own protected sporting events because
> they aren't good enough to compete with the best men in any sport
> requiring athleticism. Women get as much fame and money for doing less
> work at a much lower level of ability and sexist hypocrites like you still
> complain that women are being discriminated against.
>> I would very much like all sex-specific sporting events to be scrapped
> and replaced with the same events, but based solely on sporting
> performance. Just for a short while, to make it abundantly clear
> that sexist whiners like you are talking silly rubbish. After a couple
> of years without a single famous female athlete and with famous
> sportswomen only in sports like darts, it should be clear even to
> the sheeple who go along with the normal belief that men are
> oppressive scumbags forcing women down that women cannot
> compete with men on an equal footing in almost any sport at the
> highest levels. You wouldn't get a woman in the top 100 in the
> vast majority of sports.
>> Here's where you mention the famous Billie Jean King vs. Bobbie Riggs
> tennis match....which proved that the best female tennis player in
> the world at the height of her abilities could beat a 56 year old man
> who hadn't been good enough to play competetively for well over
> a decade, if not two.
>> There have been other tennis matches between men and women,
> including another one with Bobbie Riggs against the best female
> player, which he won in straight sets (at the age of 56). There was
> also one in which the man had a much large court area to defend
> and still won in straight sets. None of those matches got any
> publicity of course, as they didn't help to promote antimale sexism.
>> >I guess you forgot that people like Marie Curie are solely responsible
for
> >the use of X-rays and similar systems.
>> Not only is that a lie, it is a silly lie. Are you incapable of thought?
> People as sexist as yourself usually are. There are thousands of
> people who are responsible for the use of X-rays and similar systems.
> Marie Curie did some of the most important work in the early days
> of the investigation of radioactivity and is rightly regarded as a
> brilliant scientist, but she was not solely responsible for the use of
> such a large field and didn't do that much work in the field of X-rays
> (she was investigating a different form of radiation). I am not surpised
> to see you ignoring the work of Pierre Curie, who won a Nobel prize for
> his work in the same field. After all, he was a man, so you think of him
> as grossly inferior. What about Henri Becquerel, who made the discovery
> that inspired Marie Curie's work, or all the other men in the field?
>> In fact, the use of X-rays was invented by Wilhelm Conrad
> Röntgen on November 8th, 1895. A week later, he took
> the first x-ray of a person's bone structure, one of the most
> important uses of X-rays. You can see the photo here:
>>http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blxray.htm>> None of this information is hard to find. Bigots like you rely
> on people not checking the lies you make. Since you
> have the prevailing sexism behind you, you are correct
> in thinking that can say anything you like (as long as
> it glorifies women, denigrates men, or both) and few people
> will even take a couple of minutes to check whether you
> are lying, as you will be.
>> For a more complete guide to the people involved in the
> discovery of the use of X-rays, click on the "Discovery of
> the X-ray" link. That shows that the development of understanding
> in a scientific field is not the sole responsibility of anyone. They
> all build on the work of earlier scientists.
>> [more sexist crap and chest-beating from Shadow Dancer]
>
The truly amazing thing about feminazis is that they just don't *care* that
they always LIE, and they just don't care that they always get caught LYING.
This was also, of course, a classic demonstration of the female intellect,
or lack thereof, at work.
btw, Marie Curie wasn't even on the list when Pierre Curie and Henri
Becquerel' were awarded the Nobel Prize these feminazis claim Marie won:
"In 1903 Marie and Pierre Curie were awarded half the Nobel Prize in
Physics. The citation was, 'in recognition of the extraordinary services
they have rendered by their joint researches on the radiation phenomena
discovered by Professor Henri Becquerel'. Henri Becquerel was awarded the
other half for his discovery of spontaneous radioactivity. In a letter to
the Swedish Academy of Sciences, Pierre explains that neither of them is
able to come to Stockholm to receive the prize. They could not get away
because of their teaching obligations. He adds, 'Mme Curie has been ill this
summer and is not yet completely recovered'. That was certaintly true but
his own health was no better. Not until June 1905 did they go to Stockholm
where Pierre gave a Nobel lecture."
http://christianparty.net/curie.htm
The simple fact that they have to go back a century and dredge up a woman
who got a Nobel Prize BECAUSE her husband requested she be added to the list
is proof enough of the lack of women Nobel Prize winners, eh?
John Knight
