_TR_ wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Carol Ann Worstall Hemingway (Hyerdahl) wrote:
> >> Ben wrote:
> >>> Carol Ann Worstall Hemingway (Hyerdahl) wrote:
> >>> > Ben wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > And yet we continue to see children from a
particular set of
> >>> > > circumstances, i.e., homes without fathers,
over-represented
in
> >>> > > categories that indicate they're not doing well.
> >>> >
> >>> > Well, in the past few days we saw  religious fundies from two
> >>> > parent homes kill their church congregations and serial kill.
> >>> >
> >>> > Hmmmm  I don't know that your stats will hold up at
all once we
eliminate
> >>> > the poverty issue.
> >>>
> >>> I think they hold up just fine.  They've already been controlled
> >>> for income.
> >>
> >> No, in fact, they have not.
> >
> > You must be reading the NOW study, then.  The ones I read were
> > controlled for poverty.
> >>
> >>  But I'd certainly agree that poverty exacerbates the problems.
> >>
> >> INdeed.  Jodie Foster's kids have few problems and no father.
> >
> > Neither you nor I knows what goes on in the Foster household, and
it's
> > an old, old Hollywood ploy to try and never present anything but a
> > smiling face to the public.
> >
> >>
> >>>> > >
> >>> > > > but I don't have the NEED to blame only
one social group.
> >>> > > > You do.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > You have a NEED to try and swing *any*
responsibility away
from
> >>> > > women or feminism at all, in this or any other area.
> >>> > >
> >>> > Feminism is only the idea that women should have equal rights,
> >>> > equal treatment and equal opportunity;  the only
"evil"
inherent
> >>> > is that is evil to bitter boys.
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately, your version of feminism goes a little further
than
> >>> "equal rights".  You've long been a proponent
for preferential
> >>> treatment for women.
> >>>
> >> Howso?  Inclusion based on diversity is not preferential, but
rather
> >> includes everyone who has not been included, eh?
> >
> > When you advocate that laws be enforced preferentially in favor of
> > women, that amounts to preferential treatment.  I know you're smart
> > enough to see that.
>
> Don't bet on it.  Even if she is intelligent, she can't use it.
Regardless
> of how much basic intelligence COULD have been a part of her mental
makeup,
> she is compelled by feminism to keep it hidden while she remains a
member
> of that cult.

My general disagreements with her philosophy aside, I *do* think she's
intelligent.  I don't think she's had the wide variety of experiences
she claims (though I could be wrong), and I think much of what she
presents as knowledge in the legal field--especially criminal
law--comes from books rather than firsthand exposure.  It shows in her
inability to grasp what I tell her with regards to establishing
probable cause for some criminal offenses.

>
>
> >>> No?  You appear to spend an awful lot of time here (using
different
> >>> names, for what reason I don't know) for the sole purpose of
> >>> instigating trouble.
> >>
> >> I use the name Hyerdahl for reasons of my own.  It does not change
> >> the content of my argument, nor does it cause trouble.
>
> This is incorrect.  She admitted to being married and bitterly
divorced
> when she posted as Carol Ann Hemingway.  She wanted to argue that she
was
> too smart for marriage without making herself look like a fool and a
> hypocrite (which turned out to be an impossible task), so she
switched to
> "Parg" and claimed that shehad two kids with her "life
partner with
whom
> [she] was never married".   That effort got thoroughly trashed, so
now she
> reckon's that marriage is just fine (as long as the hubby is a
feminist
> lapdog), and she doesn't mention the "life partner" and two kids
anymore.
> Instead she uses her sister's family composition to pretend she's in
a
> diffrent situation.

No, she's mentioned a life partner and kids under the Hyderdahl name.
She just refuses to admit she's female.

>
> In fact, her argument AND its content change notably from one alias
to the
> other, but with the same tortured mind still issuing the same old
feminist
> cliches and worn-out taunts.

She *does* have a writing style that easily identifies her.   :)

>
> >>  But you're welcome to your own delusion.
> >
> > lol  My "delusion"?  It's a matter of record that you've used
several
> > different names over the years.  Personally, I don't care--you've
asked
> > me to call you Hy, so I do.  And read the sentence a bit more
closely;
> > I didn't say your use of different names caused trouble (though it
> > does, apparently, cause some flurries), but that you yourself seem
to
> > revel in negative attention.
>
> Not quite, Ben.  It's not exactly negative attention that attracts
her;
> it's "valiant notoriety" she craves.  She fancies herself a Jedi
Knight of
> feminist propagandists.

Yep, this is more accurate.

  You can see this demonstrated whenever a
> feminist-friendly newcomer arrives.  Carol Ann will actively court
the
> newcomer, until the newcomer contradicts one of her cliches and
> proclaimations.  Then the newcomer becomes a "bitter boy", even if
Carol
> Ann acknowedged "it" as a "she" just a post or two
before.  Say
something
> nice about Carol Ann and be VERY careful not to hurt her feelings by
> contradicting her propaganda, and you'll be her dearest mate.  Do
otherwise
> and you're a "bitter boy", in her tortured mind.
>
> She can't even produce her favourite taunts from her own imagination,
such
> that it is.  Even her "bitter boy" was lifted from a feeble little
creature
> who called herself "jet" Lewinski, or something like that.  Jet
picked up
> the silly alliteration from a singles newsgroup. (We tarred and
feathered
> jet and ran her out of Usenet on a virtual rail almost three years
ago.)

Was Jet the black woman with whom Mark fought?

>
> Carol Ann simply craves attention, but not necessarily negative
attention.
> It's just that the latter is much easier to get for someone as bitter
and
> jealous as she is.  Regularly she swills the nectar of notoriety, but
some
> of us manage to piss in her punchbowl from time to time. ;)

lol

>
>
> >>>  You consistently magnify issues concerning women while
trivializing
> >>> those of men.
> >>
> >> I answer debate points, point by point, as I am doing here, and
you,
> >> apparently, don't like the results.
> >
> > I remember one occasion when you and I were discussing children
being
> > abducted.  You compared the problem of girls being abducted to the
> > Chicago fire while the problem of boys being abducted was a minor
> > campfire blaze (I forget the exact words you used).  I pointed out
that
> > the rates were roughly equal, and you vanished.
> >
> > Someone truly answering debates point by point would have
acknowledged
> > they were mistaken.
>
> This should give you some insight into her personality and her
motivations.
> Carol Ann CANNOT acknowledge a mistake in her reasoning.

As I've told her.

>  She will
> inevitably either blame it on someone or something else, or she will
> pretend it never happened.

With me, she generally snips sections and then pretends they never
existed.  Or leaves the debate altogether.

>  This is the behaviour of a particularly
> insecure person.
>
> >
> >>   Women in the west have equal
> >> rights by law, and I prefer to discuss rights.  So what's your
beef?
> >
> > I prefer to discuss equality of enforcement of rights.  With
regards to
> > men and women having equal rights, I have no beef at all.  In fact,
I
> > challenged you recently to prove I thought otherwise.  You vanished
> > again.  :)
>
> See what I mean?

:)

>
> >
> >>
> >> It's clear you believe women to be superior to men (the racist
part
> > is
> >> because that then means you believe white women to be superior to
men
> >> of color).
> >>
> >> I have already made clear statements about no sex or race being
> >> superior;
> >
> > When your statements tend to conflict with what you advocate for
> > policies and practices, guess which one should get more weight.
> >
> >> it is bitter boys who post here who claim superiority, and
> >> not me, on behalf of women.
> >
> > You're absolutely right, some do.
> >
> >>
> >>  And, I should have added> elitist to that list, because you've
> >> regularly denigrated anyone who doesn't have a college diploma.
> >>>
> >> I have also made clear statements that there's nothing at all
wrong
> >> with working in a factory, and that I, myself, did so to get thru
> >> school.  So all you're doing is farting downwind of yourself.
> >
> > Not really.  When we've talked about university indoctrination,
you've
> > consistently maintained that people with an EDUCATION (emphasis
yours)
> > swung to the left.  You also once connected a lack of a college
degree
> > to people in red states.
> >
> >>
> >>> I don't know how you can have the outside life you claim to have
> >>> when you spend so much time either here or trolling the net
looking
> >>> for things to post here--unless, of course, you're lying about
that
> >>> outside life.
> >>
> >> There's so very much you don't know.
> >
> > True enough.  There are also things I'm conflicted about.
>
> And don't forget that Carol Ann's own reserve of knowledge and
experience
> is so vast that it could fill ... thimbles.  Well, almost.

Well, considering she's probably got about 20 years on me, I'm willing
to acknowledge she has more life experience.  Or maybe she's just lived
one year 20 more times than me.    :)

>
> >
> >>  Why should personal info about my life be any different?
> >
> > Your personal life falls into the category of things I don't worry
> > about wanting to know.  :)
>
> Her personal life is a topic for ridicule ONLY because she drags it
(or
> what she wishes it would be) into her arguments to compensate for the
> fruits of reason that she lacks.

I generally don't bother about her personal life, nor do I worry about
how she presents it.  For purposes of discussion, I don't think it
matters.

I will give her credit for expressing concern for my son's well-being
in the military.  I thought that was a decent thing to do.  I'll also
give her credit for at least keeping her deragotory comments to me
*about* me--to the best of my recollection, she's never dragged members
of my family into it  (she's speculated about my wife's independence,
but usually in the context of accusing me of oppressing her  lol).



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/15/05 8:57:20 PM ---