Ben wrote:

> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Deborah Terreson wrote:
> > > In article

,
> > > "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >The point of the scissors was to cut off rapist'd dongs.  The
> > > >only way that could be stretched to "all men"
is either if that
> > group> said > it did or if you are interpreting that way, meaning
that
> YOU> think > > all> men> are rapists.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> The U.N.H Campus Lesbians do.
> > > >
> > > > Prove it, "Deb".
> > >
> > > Ooop. Here comes the quotation marks around my name again...
> >
> > That's right;  I'd need proof of your sex/gender as well, if you
want
> > those marks off, dear.
> >
> > > Are you going to start to call me a man?
> >
> > You know I think you are a man.
>
> Just out of curiousity, why is it that the only women you accuse of
> being men here are the ones the disagree with you?

No.  I don't agree with any woman who posts here 100%.  There's a woman
named bluesmama and I agree with her most of the time, but not all of
the time.  And there have been others, at least posting as women, who I
believe to be women, i.e. godessbaby and others.  The criteria I use to
identify the female cockpuppets of Dave Sim are based on his style of
attack.

 Are you so> convinced that women as a group are so monolithic in
thought that you> can't conceive of one being opposed to your
positions?

Not at all.  Dr. Laura is a woman.  I disagree with her all the time.
Laura Bush is a woman with whom I could most likely disagree.  :-)
>
> >  If you can't prove it, might as well
> > get off the subject, just like the subject of this post,eh?  Looks
> like > you girl pretenders can't prove anything, right?
> > > >
> Nice try Parg, in trying to wiggle out
> of> turning the ideology they have on it's head and making it
> what the>> > men in>> this NG think.
> > > >> >
> > > > Unless they have PROOF that this was the intention of the
group,
> by something the group has said, it is all about the bitter boys
> here and> their interpretation.
> > > >
> > > And if in this case, the general drift of the men out here might
be
> > correct about this? What then?
> >
> > So now you've gone from saying that you KNOW what the group
intended
> to > scouting out the "general drift" of what the men
here think, we
KNOW> you've lost the debate dear.  No proof is still no proof whether
it's> about your sex/gender or about your point.  You have none.
>
> I'm passing familiar with Deb's area, and I can attest to her overall
> accuracy regarding the climate there.
>
> You mean two bitter boy opinions equals one standard of proof?  I
don't think you can save 'Deb' here.  ;-)  I'd still need proof and
neither you nor she have offered anything but opinion.  I'm sure glad
our courts demand proof rather than opinion.


(edit)
> >
> > There were OTHER MEN there, idiot.  The one man they asked to leave
> was> > a reporter on a right wing rag.
>
> Because they were afraid of what?  A challenge to their ideology?
That
> someone would not whole-heartedly approve of their nonsense?  If
> they're so unsure of their actions that they're only comfortable
> preaching to the choir, it might be time for them to assess their
> legitimacy.

The meeting was meant to give women an opportunity to vent against
rape; it wasn't newsworty, and having a reporter there would have
defeated the very purpose of the meeting.  If reporters want a
newsworthy event based on that kind of personal exploitation, they
should stay by Terri Shivo's grave.
>
>
> > > >>



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/4/05 1:01:03 PM ---