"Doug Anderson"  wrote in message
news:ypzmxc1tzd.fsf{at}ethel.the.log...
> _TR_  writes:
>
>> Doug Anderson wrote:
>> > _TR_  writes:
>> >
>> > (snip non-responsive personal attacks)
>> [restore specific questions to which this feminist excuse for an
>> intellect
>> fails to respond]
>> ---------------------------------
>> Doug A wrote:
>> > > You will find plenty of company there to
>> > > help you rage against the evil women who are oppressing all you
>> > > innocent boys and men.
>> >
>> TR wrote:
>> > And specifically who would those be, both the fellow
"ragers" and the
>> > "evil
>> > women who are oppressing all the innocent boys and men"?  Can you
>> > answer
>> > that, or are you simply hoisting up another strawman, as is your
>> > custom?
>>
>> [What?  No response?  The question hurt your little feminist feelings,
>> again?]
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> >> Strawman.  YOU are the fool who asks over and over the
loaded question
>> >> about "why do you think women are superiour to
men".  Neither Mr.
>> >> Royer,
>> >> myself or any other thinking person made such suggestsion.  That is
>> >> merely
>> >> your feeble attempt at diversion, and you got caught with it.
>> >
>> > Wrong.  Mr Royer writes:
>> >
>> >>Let me be clear with a rhetorical question, I have a grandson, he is
>> >>five,
>> >>at what point and age does he become a murderer or a
violent offender,
>> >>or a
>> >>rapist?
>> >
>> > He raised this question.
>>
>> And somehow you wrung "women are superiour to men" out of that?
>
> John seems compelled to argue the point that his grandson is not a
> violent criminal.  Why?  I can't really say, but since he is arguing
> that point with himself and not me,  I also don't feel compelled to
> answer.



aww Jeeesus Doug, you're hilarious
Reading this is like watching one of those idiot daytime shows, maury or Dr
Phil. I tried watching one once. It made as much sense as you do.

>> > Who he is arguing with here (besides himself) I don't know.
>>
>> You don't know the meaning of the term "rhetorical
question", do you?
>> That
>> would be yet another of your shortcomings.
>
> But why is he asking this rhetorical question?  For reasons internal
> to his thought process.
>
>> You conveniently (and with typical feminist deceitfullness) omitted the
>> context of the *rhetorical* question.
>> You suggested that *men* (not women)
>> were responsible for violent deaths by invading other countries.
>
> Hmm.  Do you disagree?  Aren't men responsible for most violent
> deaths?
>
> (snip personal attacks)




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/9/05 8:08:55 PM ---