Avenger wrote:
> "Hyerdahl3"  wrote in message
> news:20050203192247.04448.00000351{at}mb-m12.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: Men no longer necessary...
> > >From: greg1199{at}yahoo.com
> > >Date: 1/11/2005 11:27 AM Pacific Standard Time
> > >Message-id:

> > >
> > >Ian wrote:
> > >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3643847.stm
> > >>
> > >> Well, no longer necessary as as the ingredients.
> > >[...]
> > >
> > The buzzcuts who call us unecessary would cry bloody murder if
westopped
> paying
> > taxes to support their pet programs.  Perhaps they think>our money
will
> > continue appearing if we go away.
> >
> > Well, we all knew this day would come, but in America both women
and men
> pay
> > taxes,
>
> Men 90%
>
> Females 10%

> > so bitter twitters twaddle and twist on their third legs.  In the
> > meantime, men are necessary to THEMSELVES and to the women who love
them.

Really!  Well, if women are self-sufficient, and men are only necessary
to themselves, it follows that women are sustaining themselves on 10%
of taxes paid.  Since it is only necessary that we men should be
self-sufficient, we should be able to reduce the amount we pay to 10
percent of the (former) tax take and not adversely affect women.
Effectively, this would reduce taxes by about 80 percent, but since
women are so self-sufficient, and doing all we do, and gestating, they
shouldn't notice.

I guess you Hydradoll wouldn't mind at all if that happened.  



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/4/05 2:21:38 PM ---