In alt.education Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's,
Cary Kittrell wrote...
>In article "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> writes:
><
><"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
><news:ah4v1b$88b$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...><> In article "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> writes:
><> <
><> <
><> <"Jet" <thatjetnospam at yahoo.com> wrote in message
><news:3D35DA2F.274A4507 at yahoo.com...><> <>
><> <>
> {...}
><> <
><> < You claim "sexual equality" and then make STUPID remarks like that which
><> < no man would dare utter?
><>
><> Eh? "All she needs is a good fuc." is a line uttered not infrequently
><> by men.
><>
><>
><> < There is absolutely no "equality" here. It's
><> < precisely the opposite, because your fixation with sex demonstrates the
><> < limit of your intellectual prowess.
><>
><> Oh, I dunno. Sir Bertrand was one of the brightest intellects of this...
><> oops, last century, and he was notoriously and cheerfully voracious
><> about sex.
><>
><> < The mere mention of sex in this context
><> < is a putrid, perverted thought, but since you couldn't refute the POINT,
><> < what else should we expect from a brain missing 3 1/2 billion brain
><> <cells?
><> <
><>
><> A "putrid, perverted thought"? Goodness, John. And here I thought *I*
><> was raised too Southern Baptist.
><>
><> Fortunately, I got over it.
><>
><> -- cary
><>
><
><Think "Janet Reno" or "Patricia Ireland", and it's even worse than putrid,
><don't you think? Man-hating feminazi sluts and whores are even uglier and
><more amoral than them.
><
>Mmmm...Gloria Steinem. She was a real hottie. Still is, for that matter.
>John, you simply must start hanging out with a better class of feminazis.
>Every one of my female friends, I think, would describe themselves as
>feminists, and every one of them loves men. Rathera lot, in some cases.
>>Must just be you, eh?
>>>By the way, John, was it you who truncanted the word "fuck" in my:
>> Eh? "All she needs is a good fuck." is a line uttered not
> infrequently by men.
>>Just as you couldn't bring yourself to use the word "pussy" when
>Jen did? Are you truly that prissy? That could explain a lot, you
>know.
>>Or perhaps your provider has Had Words with you?
It only means that since the women here are frustrated over the fact
that they can't quote any stats or do any other thing to out debate
Mr. Knight, they must do as women always do when they want to
accomplish something bad enough... they begin manipulating using
sexual imagery.
Jd
