_TR_ wrote:
> bluesmama wrote:
> > _TR_ wrote:
> >> bluesmama wrote:
> >>> _TR_ wrote:
> >>>> bluesmama wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It took all the wiles of the Evil One to tempt
Eve to take a
> >>>>> bite, but all she had to do to get Adam to dig in was hold
> >>>>> out the fruit and smile.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, this is your example of how trustworthy women are.  You
> >>>> feminist piece of shit.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It's a statement, posted to spark discussion.
> >>
> >> So you got "discussion".  That you don't like the style of
response
> >> would be your own problem.  Perhaps you can find a man to blame it
on?
> >
> > Who said I didn't like it?
>
> I did.  You really can't pay attention, can you?

Not when you're telling me what I think, no. Try a less independent
woman for that.

> > I just thought it was typical, that's all.
>
> Typical feminist propaganda, is all.
>
> >
> >> The passage is a fable, a biblical metaphor for the creation of
> >> humanity. You didn't merely paraphrase the fable, you tried to
> >> distort and repackage it as some kind of women-vs.-man feminist
> >> propaganda.   Poor effort.
> >>
> >>> You see in it what you want to see in it, which - not
surprisingly
> >>> for you - is some ranting about the untrustworthiness of women.
> >>
> >> Which is exactly how you presented it, however unwittingly.
> >
> > Could be about the gullibility of men.
>
> Indeed.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have chosen it.
>
> > Could be about the intellectual curiosity of women.
>
> Uh huh.  As long as it's a man-vs-women issue, with the woman out
ahead.
> That's what feminism is all about.  You know that.
>
> > Could be about the way a strong man can take
> > direction from a woman on occasion.
>
> Strong men give *and* take on more occasions than you're capable of
> realising, but they have no motivation to take the only thing that
sexist
> fools like feminists are capable of giving:  cowshit.
>
> > Could be about many things, but
> > like I said, you see what you want to see.
>
> I didn't see what you wanted me to see.
> >
> >> I don't just believe, I *KNOW* that women, in general, are as
> >> trustworty (or not) as men, in general.  Hence, your little
"statement"
> >> doesn't have the intimidating effect you hoped for.
> >
> > You inferred a desire for intimidation.
>
> I observed a feminist on the prowl.
>
> > Your confusion, not my concern.
>
> My observation.  Your cover blown.
>
> >> You wanted it to become a metaphor for "the power"
of women and
the
> >> gullibility of men ... both of which fail to lend a positive spin
to
> >> the trustworthiness of women in your cute little scenario.  Your
> >> effort blew up in your face.
> >
> > You have no idea what I wanted, or what anyone (besides yourself)
> > wants.
>
> Sure I do.  You're a feminist.  You want it all, except
responsibility or
> accountability.
>
> > All you know is what you believe to be true.
>
> I know what my experience teaches me.  You have provided NO lessons
to the
> contrary.
>
> > And how much of that comes from reason and how much comes from
passion is
> > anyone's guess.
>
> Meaningless drivel.
>
> >> You'd better take some tutoring from some of the elders in your
herd.
> >>  Your feminist propaganda skills aren't yet fully developed.
> >>
> >> TR II
> >
> > Maybe TR I would have been able to formulate a more interesting
reply.
>
> TR I was promoted, having hurt the requisite number of widdle
feminist
> feewings.  TR III is about to emerge.
>
> > Look to your own elders before you worry about mine.
>
> I don't worry about yours.  You'll try not to notice, of course, but
I
> merely ridicule them.
>
> TR II

And I'm sure they're just as crushed by your disregard as I am.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/9/05 12:08:40 PM ---