"Aggy"  wrote in message
news:IcKZd.1516$V12.969{at}newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> "Philip Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:39p7q2F62ojujU1{at}individual.net...
>>
>> "Aggy"  wrote in message
>> news:wXDZd.178$%F3.82{at}newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > "Philip Lewis"  wrote
in message
>> > news:39o2ogF5tu720U1{at}individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Aggy"  wrote in message
>> >> news:AlqZd.22549$3A6.22428{at}newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>> >> > Philip Lewis wrote:
>> >> >> "Aggy" 
wrote in message
>> >> >> news:Gd4Zd.916$5M4.95{at}newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>> >> >>> "Philip Lewis"
 wrote in message
>> >> >>> news:39jvusF5v5rvaU1{at}individual.net...
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> "Aggy"
 wrote in message
>> >> >>>> news:Br3Zd.797$qf7.293{at}newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> >> >>>>> Philip Lewis wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> Yes and it is thanks to the
international nature of this group
>> >> >>>>>> that I quickly learned that the
UK shared a similiar plight to
> the
>> >> >>>>>> US,Canada,Australia and New
Zealand to mention but a few. It
> also
>> >> >>>>>> became quickly apparent that
feminism IS an international SCAM
> and
>> >> >>>>>> it's networking capabilities
were well demonstrated with the
> 1995
>> >> >>>>>> Beijing Conference for Wimmin.
No coincidence then that time
> after
>> >> >>>>>> time we see the SAME feminist
policies in ONE western nation
> being
>> >> >>>>>> quicky 'exported' to the rest
with the same LIES or
> misinformation
>> >> >>>>>> and propaganda being used as
'justification'.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Phil
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> LOL. does this mean all the wars
over the world will end as
>> >> >>>>> these
>> >> >>>>> so called
>> >> >>>>> "male only" armies will
reunite in their hatred of feminism?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> You are forgetting one very important
thing here i.e. feminism 
>> >> >>>> women. No I'm not, dear.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes you are
>> >> > No I'm not, dear! There are feminist men two and
women who aren't
>> >> > feminist!
>> >>
>> >> Well done - by your own admission you have just conceded my point!
>> >>
>> > I never contradicted that particular point, dear.
>>
>> Sorry - I was under the mistaken impression that you were attempting a
>> logical argument.
> explain what it is about, "I never contradicted that particular point,
> dear." that you can't follow; dear.

On the contrary - it is YOU that failed to grasp your own contradiction. It
was you that made the totally illogical leap that feminist resistance was
the affair of 'male only armies'.

>> Instead it seems that you are given to raising strawmen (i.e. 'male only
>> armies' etc) and not bothering to address the actual issue at all.
> Maybe you  should learn tell sarcasm. Sadly there is no smiley for it.

I knew all along you were being sarcastic - I was prodding you to see if
there was anything substantive behind that asinine 'wit' of yours.
So far you have disapointed me sad to say.

>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>because you are clearly trying to represent the
>> >> >> resistance to pernicious feminism as 'male only' thing.
>> >> > No I'm not, dear!
>> >>
>> >> I did not circumscribe this discussion to 'male only armies' that
>> >> 'will
>> >> reunite in their hatred of feminism' - in fact I did not
mention ANY
> form
>> > of
>> >> army of whatever sex.
>> > I never said you did, dear
>> >> YOU did that and are now trying to relinquish
responsibility for your
> own
>> >> words!
>> > No I'm not, dear. I am aware what I said but how you interpret it is
> down
>> > to
>> > you!
>>
>> Unfortunately for you this is a public forum - and your pathetic attempt
> to
>> imply resistance to pernicious feminism is restricted to 'male only
> armies'
>> is there for all to see!
>>
> No such attempt was made, dear,

Your own words follow:-
"does this mean all the wars over the world will end as these
so called "male only" armies will reunite in their hatred of
feminism?"



 As I said, I am aware what I said but how
> you interpret it is down to you!
>>
>> >Are you planning on turning this into a "who said what to who"
>> > discussion, dear?
>>
>> You can only HOPE 'dear' - your words are already there for all to see.
> In other words, "yes".
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>In fact
>> >> >> nothing could be further from the truth!
>> >> > I agree, dear
>> >> >> Many women have already woken up to the fact
that for example their
>> >> >> chances and opportunities in the workplace are
being seriously
>> >> >> undermined by victimist 'poor me' mainstream
feminism whose
> activists
>> >> >> have laden so many legislative, fiscal and other
red tape factors
>> >> >> onto business that instead of reducing so called
'discrimination'
>> >> >> against women they are only succeeding in making bosses
>> >> >> increasingly
>> >> >> averse to employing any women of child bearing age.
>> >> > True, dear. People of both sexes sometimes make
excessive fuss or
> fuss
>> >> > about
>> >> > discrimination that isn't there and I'm not just talking about
> sexism,
>> >> > dear.
>> >>
>> >> The woman boss that wrote the article I reffered to below
was not at
> all
>> >> concerned about people of both sexes just 'bellyaching'
about this or
>> > that.
>> >> She was concerned about enforcable obligations that the hiring of
>> >> women
>> >> would bring upon her business.
>> > I never said she was, dear.
>>
>> I never said you never said she was, 'dear'.
> I never said you said I  said she was, dear.

Therefore you made a false accusation against me - well done you ARE a
feminist after all!

*chuckle*

Phil



>
>>
>> >
>> >>Do try to understand CONTEXT 'dear'.
>> >
>> > You first, dear.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >>In fact a WOMAN
>> >> >> boss wrote an article in the Daily Mail a few
weeks where she
>> >> >> openly
>> >> >> admitted that she was now loath to employ women
because she
> perceived
>> >> >> the actual costs to her business was simply too high.
>> >> > That's up to her, dear.
>> >> >> Time to wake up and smell the coffee Aggy - the
free lunch is over!
>> >> > I don't drink coffee and I haven't had a free lunch
so how can it be
>> > over,
>> >> > dear?
>> >>
>> >> Vanity has prevented you once more from getting the
point. (cue that
>> >> Carly
>> >> Simon song...)
>> >
>> > Wrong again, dear. If you fail to understand my response to your point
> as
>> > it
>> > appears on several points of this post then that is your own affair,
> dear.
>>
>> What vanity indeed! *lol*
>
> If you fail to understand my response to your point as  it appears on
> several points of this post then that is your own affair, dear.
>
> Aggy
>
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/16/05 8:57:24 AM ---