"Jd" <JDay123 at BellSouth.com> wrote in message
news:3d419aba.1339725 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> 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
Bible verses do not mean squat when one is talking about a secular
organization; namely, the United States. Remember the separation of Church
and State? Do you even know the meaning of it? Better learn fast if you
hope to live in this country successfully.
Knight can only quote statistics he plagiarized out-of-context. The *only*
thing he quoted that wasn't on his own site came from another site which is
just as full of baloney as he is. We are still waiting for the other
evidence he has yet to provide that didn't originate on christianparty.net.
Neither of you have responded at all to the valid information many of the
rest of us have put here to refute you - including those quotes from the
Founding Fathers who meant this country to be a true MELTING-POT - not
"Xtian". Neither of you have yet proven that you can solve those TIMSS
physics questions.
Now, when you're willing to stop hiding behind your book and start
discussing things independant of any one religion, then we'll talk. Until
then, keep fooling yourself.
The Shadow Dancer
