In alt.education Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's,
Shadow Dancer wrote...
>"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
>news:mKX%8.20444$Fq6.2428419 at news2.west.cox.net...>>>> "Jd" <JDay123 at BellSouth.com> wrote in message
>> news:3d3d8c00.3047896 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net...>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>>> Exactly, Jd.
>>>> The problem is that when these feminazi winners of the
>> Janet-Reno-lookalike-contest use such foul language, it could actually
>make
>> you barf. Can you even imagine such a scene?
>>>> Have you ever noticed that the vast array of "debate" tools these
>feminazis
>> have includes everything but the FACTS?
>>>> While the teacher was discussing mass and gravity, and while some of the
>> boys were listening and paying attention, all of these morons had visions
>of
>> lopped off penises dancing through their empty noggins.
>>>> Why else?
>>>> John Knight
>>We can't help it that:
>>(1) You spend too much time in sexual fantasies to learn anything, and
>(2) Your reading comprehension scores are SO low that you did not understand
>any of the credible evidence we presented to refute you, and
>(3) You cannot answer the same questions you claim girls scored lower on.
>>Same goes for you, Jd.
Not true. You created the above from thin air and have nothing to
back it up. It's not even really worth a reply except to say that
John and I usually back up what we say with evidence. John has
zillions of statistics and I have plenty of bible verses.
Jd
