suckmysav wrote:
> "bluesmama"  wrote in message
> news:1108509813.845794.121520{at}z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > suckmysav wrote:
> > > "geopelia"  wrote in message
> > > news:DikQd.1608$1S4.165138{at}news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > >
> > > > "suckmysav"  wrote in message
> > > > news:pan.2005.02.15.08.36.27.608938{at}home.net...
> > > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:03:34 +1300, geopelia wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "suckmysav" 
wrote in message
> > > > > > news:42102ade_1{at}news.iprimus.com.au...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "geopelia"
 wrote in message
> > > > > >> news:DhUPd.1280$1S4.120144{at}news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > "S.Taylor"
 wrote in message
> > > > > >> >
news:vljv011p0i6tu9oeg6qm7o4cdqg33va1d5{at}4ax.com...
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > What is the purpose of woman?
> > > > > >> > > > A life-support unit for a cunt.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > The reason women hate this
joke, is that it is true.
They
> > know it,
> > > > but
> > > > > >> > cannot admit it.
> > > > > >> > > If it wasn't true, women have anger.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > How about a life-support unit for a
reproductive system
and
> > resulting
> > > > > >> > offspring, to pass genes on down the
generations?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Isn't that what he said? Or is your point
that he missed
the
> > "boobs"
> > > > part?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He also missed the womb and ovaries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fair enough then. So, according to you a woman
> > > > > is nothing more than a life support system for
> > > > > a reproductive system?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sure glad men have many and varied other
> > > > > uses. After all we can build bridges by day
> > > > > and sire children by night. It sure must suck
> > > > > to be a one dimensional as women apparently are.
> > > >
> > > > Women too can do many other things, but where nature is
concerned
> > > > reproduction is the most important function of any creature,
male
> > or female.
> > >
> > > Yes, some of them can cook and clean. I don't see them doing much
in
> > > the way of great works though.
> >
> >
> > That all depends on who gets to set the criteria of what
constitutes a
> > "great work".
>
> Well I suppose it does. This of course allows women to
> define "a great work"  as being "birthing a baby" (which
> is no doubt the hidden message in your post) even though
> they are doing nothing at all other than responding to
> biological urges and "hoping and praying".

This, of course, would allow some men to consider the invention of
nuclear weapons - or "nucular", for those Presidents reading - a
"great
work".

Birthing a baby is nothing more than responding to biological urges and
hoping and praying? Interesting theory.

> Intelligent people of course won't buy such claptrap, and
> would recognise great works as being things that make a
> lasting difference to the world, whether that be the art of
> Michelangelo, the cure for cancer, or a bridge crossing a
> natural obstacle, thereby allowing travel and trade for
> hundreds, thousands or even  millions of people where
> before it was impractical.

Intelligent people being _not_ the women mentioned in your first
paragraph - men perhaps? A bridge a great work? Considering the age of
the Earth, the fact that the lifespan of a person is a blink of an eye
to the vastness of the Universe....what's a bridge, again?



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/20/05 5:25:12 PM ---