_TR_ wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > _TR_ wrote:
> >> Ben wrote:
> >>> _TR_ wrote:
> >>>> Ben wrote:
> >>>>> Carol Ann Worstall Hemingway (Hyerdahl) wrote:
> >>>>>> Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>> Carol Ann Worstall Hemingway (Hyerdahl) wrote:
>
> >>> My general disagreements with her philosophy aside, I *do* think
> >>> she's intelligent.
> >>
> >> You apply more liberal boundaries on the concept of intelligence
than
> >> I do.
> >
> > I'm a liberal kind of guy, when I'm not being conservative.   :)
>
> Ah.  An honest man.
>
> You do realise that this is the very trait that will disqualify you
from
> joining your local feminist herd's group wallow in victimism and
eternal
> oppression, don't you?

Yep.  It's better than an inoculation.

>
> >>> I don't think she's had the wide variety of experiences
> >>> she claims (though I could be wrong),
> >>
> >> You aren't.
> >>
> >>> and I think much of what she presents as knowledge in the legal
> >>> field--especially criminal law--comes from books rather than
> >>> firsthand exposure.
> >>
> >> Novels, in particular.  She gets most of her legal
"knowledge"
from
> >> re-runs of LA Law.
> >>
> >>> It shows in her inability to grasp what I tell her with regards
to
> >>> establishing probable cause for some criminal offenses.
> >>
> >> Which fits my definition of intelligence much better.  She cannot
> >> grasp abstract ideas that you go to great effort to simplify for
her,
> >> because she has not the intelligence to think beyond her limitted
> >> experiences and expectations.  She cannot "think beyond her
comfort
> >> zone", to borrow a cliche.
> >
> > I think she puts more effort into finding ways to not agree with
me,
> > regardless of how I've spelled it out  lol.
>
> I agree with that.
>
>
> >>>>>>> No?  You appear to spend an awful lot of
time here (using
> >>>>>>> different names, for what reason I don't
know) for the sole
> >>>>>>> purpose of instigating trouble.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I use the name Hyerdahl for reasons of my
own.  It does not
> >>>>>> change the content of my argument, nor does
it cause trouble.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is incorrect.  She admitted to being married and bitterly
> >>>> divorced when she posted as Carol Ann Hemingway.  She wanted to
> >>>> argue that she was too smart for marriage without
making herself
> >>>> look like a fool and a hypocrite (which turned out to be an
> >>>> impossible task), so she switched to "Parg"
and claimed that she
> >>>> had two kids with her "life partner with whom
[she] was never
married".
> >>>> That effort got thoroughly trashed, so now she reckon's that
> >>>> marriage is just fine (as long as the hubby is a feminist
lapdog),
> >>>> and she doesn't mention the "life partner"
and two kids anymore.

> >>>> Instead she uses her sister's family composition to pretend
she's
> >>>> in a diffrent situation.
> >>>
> >>> No, she's mentioned a life partner and kids under the Hyderdahl
> >>> name.
> >>
> >> She mentioned two sons.  Carol Ann had only one.  Her sister has
more
> >> kids, so now Carol Ann is adopting her sister's family
configuration to
> >> obscure the screw-ups she made by dragging her own family along
with
> >> her on her way to the 9th circle of hell.
> >>
> >>> She just refuses to admit she's female.
> >>
> >> As if that's a secret.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In fact, her argument AND its content change notably from one
> >>>> alias to the other, but with the same tortured mind still
issuing
> >>>> the same old feminist cliches and worn-out taunts.
> >>>
> >>> She *does* have a writing style that easily identifies her.   :)
> >>
> >> Indeed.  This includes exactly the same taunts, feminist
sound-bytes
> >> and worn-out epithets that she borrowed at the time she posted as
Carol
> >> Ann Hemingway.
> >>>
> >>>>
> [snip]
> >>>> She can't even produce her favourite taunts from her own
> >>>> imagination, such that it is.  Even her "bitter
boy" was
> >>>> lifted from a feeble little creature who called herself
> >>>> "jet" Lewinski, or something like that.
> >>>> Jet picked up the silly alliteration from a singles newsgroup.
(We
> >>>> tarred and feathered jet and ran her out of Usenet on a virtual
rail
> >>>> almost three years ago.)
> >>>
> >>> Was Jet the black woman with whom Mark fought?
> >>
> >> That's the one. Jet was a racist little twit who couldn't avoid
> >> showing it.
> >> Mainly because Mark out-argued her at every turn, she began
berating
> >> Polish people to the point where she had an insincere apology
forced
> >> out of her.  She even considered the term "crack ho" to be
specific
> >> to black women.  One of feminism's finest, the little princess
was.
> >
> > I think it was during one of their battles that I even became aware
of
> > soc.men--they got cross-posted to some other group I was reading,
maybe
> > talk.politics.guns.
>
> I remember you and I (and Laura H.) having a discussion on firearms
> regulation about that time.  Not sure why one of the Jet-spankings by
Mark
> Sobolewski would end up on a gun forum.  I don't remember either of
them
> offering an opinion on guns, but then ...

I see you've already corrected yourself on this, which reminds me:
What happened to John C?

I also remember the other person who caught my attention in one of the
crossposts was a gal named Louise, from Canada, I believe.  She made
the supremely stupid mistake of putting her address out there and
daring people to come after her.  I think she believed, correctly, that
no one who posted regularly would do that, but she has no idea of who
lurks here.  I think she also got her daughter involved somehow, but I
don't recall the specifics.

>
> > There was a Meri before that, but I learned of her
> > through alt.feminism.
>
> Yep.  Meri1977.  She was a Stacy Alexander clone. Spacey Stacy was
another
> source of Carol Ann's cliches.  As I mentioned earlier, Carol Ann is
NOT
> recognisable for her originality.

I remember Meri once driving a thread to over 700 posts--something
about pornography.  I figured you had to be mildly obsessed to go that
far.

>
> >>>> Carol Ann simply craves attention, but not necessarily negative
> >>>> attention. It's just that the latter is much easier to get for
> >>>> someone as bitter and jealous as she is.  Regularly she swills
> >>>> the nectar of notoriety, but some of us manage to piss in her
> >>>> punchbowl from time to time. ;)
> >>>
> >>> lol
>
> >>>>>>  Why should personal info about my life be
any different?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your personal life falls into the category of
things I don't
> >>>>> worry about wanting to know.  :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Her personal life is a topic for ridicule ONLY because she
> >>>> drags it (or what she wishes it would be) into her arguments
> >>>> to compensate for the fruits of reason that she lacks.
> >>>
> >>> I generally don't bother about her personal life,
> >>
> >> She has none.  Hence, her obsession with repeating herself
endlessly.
> >>
> >>> nor do I worry about how she presents it.  For purposes of
> >>> discussion, I don't think it matters.
> >>
> >> Discussion?  That's another liberal interpretation (hey, didn't we
> >> discuss that very word once before? ;).  Carol Ann doesn't
discuss.
> >> She propagandises.  Doing so frees her from the restraints YOU
would bear
> >> as a natural element of discussion.
> >
> > Well, I certainly acknowledge rising to the bait on more than one
> > occasion,
>
> But not as a matter of course.
>
> > but then, I like to argue for argument's sake.   :)
> >
> >>
> >> She drags her own family into the fray, and ONLY because she needs
a
> >> diversion from whatever point she is losing at the time.
> >>
> >> As with ANYONE who posts here, claims about one's feats in general
> >> and one's family in particular are unverifiable.  Some posters may
be
> >> honest with their homestead anecdotes.  Carol Ann is not, and she
> >> never will be.  THIS is relevent to discussion, for it highlights
her
> >> desperation, her dishonesty and her weak grasp of the concepts at
hand.
> >> It is an intercept for her latest propaganda launch.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I will give her credit for expressing concern for my son's
> >>> well-being in the military.  I thought that was a decent thing to
do.
> >>
> >> Of course it is, but you show your generosity.  Do you really
believe
> >> she is being sincere or just shoplifting a bit of indulgence for
herself?
> >
> > I guess you'd have to look at the context in which the remark was
made
> > to judge that.
>
> Probably.
>
> > She was furious with me for something I said about war,
>
> What a surprise.
>
> > mistaking an observation for a judgement.
>
> Again, what a surprise.

I *was* a bit surprised--I'd thought I was pretty clear, but this IS
the 'net, so who knows.

>
> > It was within a post or two after that, while she was still irate
with me,
> > that she expressed her wishes that my son not be harmed.
>
> ... which would lead me immediately to question her sincerity.  Can
you
> understand why?

Yep.

>
> >
> >>
> >>> I'll also
> >>> give her credit for at least keeping her deragotory comments to
me
> >>> *about* me--to the best of my recollection, she's never dragged
> >>> members of my family into it  (she's speculated about my wife's
> >>> independence, but usually in the context of accusing me of
oppressing
> >>> her  lol).
> >>
> >> But wouldn't that assume that your wife is foolish enough to BE
> >> oppressed?  Not what I'd call a compliment.
> >
> > I did tell her that if she ever met my wife, "oppressed" would be
the
> > last word she'd think would apply to her.
> >
> And should she be feminist enough to state this frankly, I suspect it
would
> be the last thought going through Carol Ann's mind right before she
got her
> face introduced to the deck.
>
> [I'll show ye some "oppression", ye ditzy sow!   THUMP.]

lol  Once in a while, when I'm in the middle of replying to a post (you
can hear me typing two rooms away--I use only my forefingers and bang
away at the keyboard), she'll ask me why I'm bothering.  She's read
some of Hy's stuff and it makes her irate, especially the dismissal of
the problems of boys.  But then, she's the mother of a boy and she has
her eyes wide open, so she fears for him in some areas.

>
> > Italian and Irish,
>
> Good combo.  Positive reinforcing ... enthusiasm.
>
> > and I don't stand a fucking prayer.
>
> No worries.  She'll take care of that for you. ;)

Of that I can be sure.  :)

>
> >    lol
> >
> >>
> >> This is a sample of the foul tint that feminist apply to women in
> >> general. Eternally oppressed.  Most of us know that women aren't
that stupid.
> >
> > Most Western women aren't.
>
> Until they become afflicted with feminism.

True enough.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/20/05 12:59:00 AM ---