http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-11-atl-shooting_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

1. Men want sex. Men get sex. Men have a physiological need for it.
Harriet Harmanhater doesn't understand this. She doesn't realise what
happens when you make it illegal for men to get it. What happens to
their minds when women are given legal licence to tease to extreme, but
protection from any kind of response.

2. Make it illegal, and remove any chance they have of getting it.
Harriet Harmanhater doesn't understand this either.

3. Give a man no reason to behave. Take away everything he has. Make
life on the outside as bad for him in the nick. Harriet Harmanhater
doesn't understand that a man works to compete with other men, so women
will fuck him. When he has everything taken away he earns anyway, by a
judge at the whim of the opinion of a woman, based on a law which
accepts her feelings as evidence, rather than actions, this causes
problems. Harriet Harmanhater I'm sure knows this, but just doesn't
give a fuck about men.

So what happens?

Are we learning Harriet Harmanhater? Are we a philosopher of nature, or
just a stupid bint? Time to rethink our policy of making men who seek
out sex into criminals?

No. That's right. They're only going to shoot a few judges and rape a
few women aren't they? Not enough to vote you out.

-------------------------------------------------------

"Bailey said Nichols made him and other jurors nervous. "Every time he
looked up, he was staring at you," Bailey said. "

Ah yes. The calm before the storm. You can always spot when a man is
assessing his chances. They were lucky he waited.

The silence of a man so outraged at his treatment that he'd just had
enough. What does a state have to do to a man, and how much does it
have to destroy his dreams to leave him as evil as this?



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/11/05 12:42:09 PM ---