"Philip Lewis"  wrote in message
news:39qf8nF6283qqU1{at}individual.net...
>
> "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.
Now, now dear. It's not for you to explain my own statements to me. I
understand them better than you do.
>It
> was you that made the totally illogical leap that feminist resistance was
> the affair of 'male only armies'.
No I didn't, dear!
>
> >> 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
Of course you did, dear.
>- I was prodding you to see if
> there was anything substantive behind that asinine 'wit' of yours.
Of course you were, dear.
> So far you have disapointed me sad to say.
I'm quite intrigued you thought I was here for your entertainment, dear.
Yes, dear they should definitely piece a smiley for sarcasm.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>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?"
Pay attention dear. Note the question mark. If you fail to understand the
sentence then that's your own affair, dear and as I said
No such attempt was made, dear.
>
>
>
>  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 -
No, dear. Therefore I made no accusation at all.
>
> *chuckle*
*Giggle*

Aggy




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/16/05 8:57:25 AM ---