Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
>
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Deborah Terreson wrote:
> > > > In article

> ,
> > > > "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >The point of the scissors was to cut off rapist'd dongs.  The
> > > > >only way that could be stretched to "all
men" is either if
that
> > > group> said > it did or if you are interpreting that
way, meaning
> that
> > YOU> think > > all> men> are rapists.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> The U.N.H Campus Lesbians do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Prove it, "Deb".
> > > >
> > > > Ooop. Here comes the quotation marks around my name again...
> > >
> > > That's right;  I'd need proof of your sex/gender as well, if you
> want
> > > those marks off, dear.

You should probably be reminded that being a man isn't a mark against
someone.


> > >
> > > > Are you going to start to call me a man?
> > >
> > > You know I think you are a man.
> >
> > Just out of curiousity, why is it that the only women you accuse of
> > being men here are the ones the disagree with you?
>
> No.  I don't agree with any woman who posts here 100%.  There's a
woman
> named bluesmama and I agree with her most of the time, but not all of
> the time.  And there have been others, at least posting as women, who
I
> believe to be women, i.e. godessbaby and others.

Ah, I see...there's a percentage involved, i.e., you have to disagree
with them more than, say, 80% of the time for them to be men.   ;)

>  The criteria I use to
> identify the female cockpuppets of Dave Sim are based on his style of
> attack.

Given the little bit I've seen of Dave Sim, what in the world makes you
think he feels he has to hide his name?  He seems to have no problem
airing his views using his name.

>
>  Are you so> convinced that women as a group are so monolithic in
> thought that you> can't conceive of one being opposed to your
> positions?
>
> Not at all.  Dr. Laura is a woman.  I disagree with her all the time.
> Laura Bush is a woman with whom I could most likely disagree.  :-)

Except I've seen you imply that they're traitors.


> >
> > >  If you can't prove it, might as well
> > > get off the subject, just like the subject of this post,eh?
Looks
> > like > you girl pretenders can't prove anything, right?
> > > > >
> > Nice try Parg, in trying to wiggle out
> > of> turning the ideology they have on it's head and making it
> > what the>> > men in>> this NG think.
> > > > >> >
> > > > > Unless they have PROOF that this was the intention of the
> group,
> > by something the group has said, it is all about the bitter boys
> > here and> their interpretation.
> > > > >
> > > > And if in this case, the general drift of the men out here
might
> be
> > > correct about this? What then?
> > >
> > > So now you've gone from saying that you KNOW what the group
> intended
> > to > scouting out the "general drift" of what the
men here think,
we
> KNOW> you've lost the debate dear.  No proof is still no proof
whether
> it's> about your sex/gender or about your point.  You have none.
> >
> > I'm passing familiar with Deb's area, and I can attest to her
overall
> > accuracy regarding the climate there.
> >
> > You mean two bitter boy opinions equals one standard of proof?  I
> don't think you can save 'Deb' here.  ;-)

Deb appears to be able to handle you quite easily, so she doesn't
require rescuing from me.  And what in the world makes you think either
of us is required to prove anything at all to you?  Talk about hubris.
lol

>  I'd still need proof and
> neither you nor she have offered anything but opinion.  I'm sure glad
> our courts demand proof rather than opinion.

We know that's wrong, at least as far as feminist legal whining goes.

>
>
> (edit)
> > >
> > > There were OTHER MEN there, idiot.  The one man they asked to
leave
> > was> > a reporter on a right wing rag.
> >
> > Because they were afraid of what?  A challenge to their ideology?
> That
> > someone would not whole-heartedly approve of their nonsense?  If
> > they're so unsure of their actions that they're only comfortable
> > preaching to the choir, it might be time for them to assess their
> > legitimacy.
>
> The meeting was meant to give women an opportunity to vent against
> rape; it wasn't newsworty, and having a reporter there would have
> defeated the very purpose of the meeting.

If it wasn't newsworthy and reporters weren't meant to be there, how
did it get in the papers?

>  If reporters want a
> newsworthy event based on that kind of personal exploitation, they
> should stay by Terri Shivo's grave.

Because, you know, feminists have never exploited a personal tragedy
(*cough*Roe v. Wade*cough*) for political gains, or made
misrepresentations or exaggerations (*cough*Estrich;Hopkins*cough*) to
sway public opinion.

Besides, didn't Shiavo get cremated?



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/4/05 5:01:07 PM ---