"Aggy"  wrote in message
news:3iVZd.71$667.52{at}newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> "Philip Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:39qf8nF6283qqU1{at}individual.net...
>>
>> "Aggy"  wrote in message
>> news:IcKZd.1516$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.

I'm not at all impressed with the evidence so far of your alleged
'understanding' and once more I am making explicit that this is a public
forum and not a say a private debate by e-mail.



>>It
>> was you that made the totally illogical leap that feminist resistance was
>> the affair of 'male only armies'.
> No I didn't, dear!

Yes you did.


>>
>> >> 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.

It wouldn't help a jot to elevate your asinine observation to anything above
the utterance of a complete ignoramus.

>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>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.

Since you have admitted that you were being sarcastic - the question mark is
irrelevant since you weren't sincerely asking a question!
Gotcha!

Phil



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} 3/18/05 4:59:38 PM ---