Re: Where can you get these?

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:23:01 +1200, Twibil <nowayjose6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 18, 2:50 pm, "Greg.Procter" <proc...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Twibil first refered to "it", that being the subject she was responding  
>> to,
>>   and then added a new subject at the end of her sentence.

> BU-AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!  And *he* claims to be the one who understands
> everything!

> Classic "whoosh".

I do not claim to understand "everything". I certainly wouldn't claim
to understand incomprehensible people such as you.
Your claim is your very own "whoosh".

No, Poopsie, the "whoosh" is that you not only fail to understand what
others have said, but that you also completely fail to comprehend what
you've said about yourself. But follow the bouncing ball, and I shall
demonstrate:

(A) You don't like me, but you lacked anything cogent to say and so
resorted to the good old Ad Hominem insult by repeatedly calling me
"she" and "her".

Actually, it was you who responded to my comment in regards to Ray with a put-down.
"Twibil" sounds to me like a feminine name.


(B) This is about what we've come to expect of you, and using ad
hominem arguments generally only makes the guy who uses them look bad,
but even that pales next to the suicidal path you chose to take:
implying that I'm a "she".

Did you fail to notice that I used "he or she" numerous times?
Yes, you would fail to notice that.



(C) Ya see, you would't have said that unless you thought it was an
insult, and *that* tells us exactly how you think about women: as
inferiors that any man should be ashamed to be associated with. If you
*didn't* think of them that way it wouldn't have been an effective
insult, and that was quite obviously what you intended. It's the
sexual equivalent of calling someone a "***".

I assumed "Twibil" to be a name for a female, hust as I would "Sue" or "Marion".
There was _no_ insult intended or implied. Obviously, as you've taken _three_
points (A, B and C) you consider being judged a female to be inferior and an
equivalent to being called a "***". So you're both a sexist and a racist.
Hmmm.


(D) The word we're looking for here is "misogynist" ["a misanthrope
who dislikes women in particular"], and it is *not* a complimentary
term, any more than are "racist" or "bigot".

Four points!


(E) It's 2009, and most of the non-muslim world has long accepted that
women are not our inferiors, and are indeed frequently fun to be
around for reasons other than rough sex or being fed non-frozen and
non-canned food on a regular basis. (I'm told that some guys have even
grown to *like* them!)

Hmm, now you're a religeous bigot as well!
For your information, the Koran specifically states that men and women are equals,
while the Bible demands that they are not equals.
<sigh>


(Aside) I was once engaged to a lovely young New Zealand girl, and
before taking me home to meet her parents she cautioned me to "Set
your watch back 30 years when we get off of the plane". Turned out
she was right.

That would put you yanks back talking about niggers and women staying
barefoot in the kitchen while pregnant.
Here in New Zealand women gained the vote and equality in (from memory) 1892.
Our "niggers" gained equality in 1840.
Obviously you still haven't spotted her sarcasim.


But in your personal case, I suspect that you're going to need a
really healthy time-machine to shoot you back to that place much-
beloved of insecure males: the place where "men were men", females
were considered inherently inferior, and guys like you were run-of-the-
mill citizens instead of being considered pathetic losers, as you are
today.


So, have you decided yet which gender you are?


Regards,
Greg.P.
.

Loading