THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Nordicvs
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Post by Nordicvs »

(Esoterix, have too much to reply to, but why not find the link up top that says "David Quinn's site;" that seems to be where some extract this "QRS" acronym regarding "Woman." The piece he wrote is called "Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind" on his site.)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I've heard of male firefighters refusing to back up female firefighters, putting the females lives at more risk than the males. Are you saying that the reason male firefighters are abandoning female team members during a fire is because they have to wear boxer shorts at the fire station?
I hear all sorts of things, too; I don't tend to accept them until I have evidence...
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:To me, "hot air" meant meaningless words. I accept Dan's definition of hot air for his comment, as he is the one that was expressing something with that term. Whatever "hot air" means though, I also have met quite a few of both genders.
Well, like you mentioned before, definitions really matter around here---"hot air" to me means "steam." Under which I'd include nagging, nitpicking, complaining and such. I suppose meaningless or excessive words work also.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: In that 5th post, I was making rebuttal for the whole QRS "woman" definitions. I believe that the way they have described women as nitwits and men as the only possible vessel for enlightenment is really twisting the hell out of the truth, and I just don’t sit still for that. Yes, the stereotypes of what they present women as is effective at shaming people out of those bad behaviors, but if they are going to use stereotypes, they need to equally present the stereotypical male and shame people out of those bad behaviors as well. If they pointed out base behaviors from both genders, it would be effective shame tactics.
Shame means intent to "make feel bad" essentially; intent is everything. I didn't get the implication of shame when I read David Quinn's 'Exposition on Woman.' It was crystal clear to what he was referring. (Once more: a puny ego will shrug this off easily, intent or no.) Here's an example:

"Women have vaginas."

As far as I know, that is a fact. Who would I be trying to shame if I were to say this? Better: why? Or:

"Women play with their vaginas."

Here it's trickier because it's not proven; it might be true, but who knows for sure? Not even half of the women of one country would know what the other half was doing. (We could endlessly dissect this---what's 'play' mean?---women who are capable, not handicapped?---does cleaning count as playing?---does it imply masturbation?) Perhaps the confusion is caught up in perception of intent. Like if a buddy asked me: "Hey, do you think women masturbate?" and I answered, "Of course they do, if they're not having sex," which would make sense for either gender (biological drives and all) and a female nearby heard me and started ranting in my face about it...well, who's trying to shame whom here? I certainly didn't have that intent. David's opener says right there what his intent was---you must think he's lying...?

I certainly don't agree that all women are twits---I've seen much evidence to the contrary---but Woman? As in "way feminine?" As in "girlish," including gay males, wearing make-up, giggling over boybands and shopping for shoes and going to so-n-so's party and gossiping for hours on the phone? Sorry, this is a bimbo, intellectually. Why? You know why---because she doesn't think. She's shallow, petty, ego-consumed, fun-obsessed, ditzy, flighty, and most likely spoiled rotten. She goes with the first thought that pops up mysteriously in her head. She's still 8 years old. "Twit" m ight be called harsh perhaps, but fairly accurate I'd say. I'd use it to describe not necessarily "them" but their behaviour, character, personality. For brevity's sake, as well, I won't explain all that with the term. (If anyone can throw whatever word at me they want, and I recognize that it's up to me to be offended or not, then others should be fully capable of taking responsibility for thier feelings, emotions, or ego as well.)

If you're not like this, you shouldn't feel offended; if you're not "defending your gender," when it's not "gender" at all, or defending someone you know who is like this, you wouldn't even comment on it. Or you simply see no distinction between female and Woman; or insist on taking it personally, or just like a good scrap over some things. I have no idea... Which? Who or what exactly are you standing up for?

(Have you ever read Esther Vilar's The Manipulated Man? If not, why not? If so, what's your opinion---is she shaming, blaming, being misogynist? Or truthful? And why do you suppose females like her, and Erin Pizzey, et cetera, still receive death threats from other women and feminists because both have attempted to "unmask Woman?")
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: As it is where they just shame women and praise men, it is lopsided and therefore misogynistic.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Oh settle down. It’s the lopsidedness that denotes misogyny, not the truth of the matter.
"misogyny"

---"hatred of women." — ORIGIN from Greek misos ‘hatred’ + gune ‘woman’.

I don't see this gross hatred you see. It's not misogyny---perhaps we can find an accurate term...?

If anything, they denounce "the feminine," and rightly seek to warn other men---as David writes, those few who are open-minded and serious enough to deal with it and---to avoid Woman in order to be free of her and seek a more philosophical approach to life, develop themselves and seek wisdom instead.

Anti-feminine *might* be a better term, at first glance, but how accurate is that, still? If they were, everything they would say would would negative towards---like walking "feminine critics," like most pheminists (who aren't interested in "female rights" as much as power, funding amounts, attacking men/males, and seeing men suffer and die). I don't see that either---they are posing a positive, they are "for" something---I don't fully agree with their definition of it, but I think it's on the right track and this can properly be called either "masculist" or "pro-masculine," in their conception. What do you think?
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: For the record, I do recognize various things that are unfair for the males, and I do recognize that white males are the only non-protected species under the law – and I do stand up for guys when they are being treated unfairly. You just don’t see that because in this forum, all the put-downs are against women, and the males are highly praised. I’m just not the type to add to the chorus of “you’re so wonderful” whoever the “you” is. My objective is Truth. This lopsidedness just does not ring true, so I try to even it out to show the whole truth.
Okay, that clarifies some things.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I strongly disapprove of the terminology they chose when they redefined “woman” and I have become very cautious with my use of the term. I was cautious anyway, as I was raised to consider “woman” an insult word (my mother considered herself a girl rather than a woman her whole life). I understand their intent, but the word itself is too easily transmuted into the biological female – and Dan has used “woman” to mean biological female sometimes and “woman” to mean the funky QRS definition (one time recently he used both meanings, one time meaning one woman and another time meaning the other – all in the same post – of course I asked him to clarify). Kevin ended up creating the term “flowie” to try to address the intention more completely, but it isn’t as clear. I’ll use “girly” if it is like a little girl or a teenage girl, but for that which is stereotypical adult female bad behavior, I’d rather see “the feminine” or “effeminate women” to isolate the behavior rather than the biological gender.
("Woman" and "Man" are not new definitions. Quite the contrary. They've long been around to describe either gender as a whole, as in "Woman usually has long hair," or "Man wore a dress for thousands of years." I believe these were later renamed in monotheistic rewritings of and additions to older dogma---as "Adam" and "Eve." There's all sorts, typically in creation stories.)

Are you trying to get others to adapt to you, or are you trying to adapt to others? (I know I adapt to terms here just for ease in communication---I have my own phrases and definitions, but I won't tell others to adapt, or insist they do unless it's of a scientific nature, factual, such as someone calling "development," for example, "evolution." Original meaning-term-definition of facts. This is not metaphysics, though. Can't have an intelligent conversation about evolution if one believes a potato pealer can evolve into a frying pan...)

Are you uncomfortable with the term and instead of working on that or leaving it be, you seek to have others use words that are easier for you to digest, that "cause" you the least discomfort possible? If so, nothing is "causing" you to feel or respond but you; you're in control of yourself here. (Personal responsibility. Surely you must see this...you're not a mindless creature at the whim of everyone around you, like a person without skin; your feelings and emotions are your business.)

That's another form of political correctness---I'll spit a lugie with my last gasp of breath into the face of PC and fight it as I would any oppressing system trying to control my behaviour and trample my rights. (I have a right to say what I want, and so do they, and so do you; letters arranged into words have power to injure only as much as the listener wants injury and let's words control him-her. It's also called Freedom of Speech.)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Why are you not about to explain yourself?
Because I owe no one any explanations for what I do.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Are you afraid to expose your own psychology even though you are not posting under an easily identifiable name – unless your given name actually is Nordicvs, which would be unusual enough to trace.
Not sure what that has to do with my real name---but if you must know, I'm strongly opposed to fame, and would very much prefer to remain anonymous, unknown; everything I've done online over the last six years has been under Nord and that's the way it's staying. Even those I consider friends online only know my first name. This is partly for ego reasons, as well, and a few other less significant ones. (If you prefer, you can call me by my first name, 'Thomas.' Or 'Tom.' Or just 'Nord.' Or 'Nordi.' Or even 'Jackass' if you like. Whichever, go wild.)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: See? That’s the thing with promoting stereotypes rather than promoting looking at the individual. If people look at each person as a person, no one has to carry the “bad rep” earned by another person. We each get our own reputation which we earn ourselves.
Psychology-psychiatry does not share your opinion; it uses sweeping generalizations frequently, and as a result, stupid misdiagnoses are made with people all the time. Certainly you know what I'm talking about---if a doctor called you "bipolar," I doubt you'd have a problem with "being stereotyped" after going through a hypomanic episode...

You respect the authority of psychology, because you've been trained to do so---philosophy doesn't (yet?) house the "credentials" for you, does it? Is it sort of a "queen" as psychology would be more a "goddess" to you? Or does it not even reach that high in your authority heirarchy? Maybe "princess?" I dunno, I might be way off base here.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I did not know that. I was only aware of “protections” like the rule of thumb, where a man was not supposed to beat his wife with a stick any thicker around than his thumb (okay, that shouldn’t break any bones, but especially a greenstick could provide one painful whipping).
There's plenty of shit out there---I think I showed you the Abuse Bowl one already---and, sorry to say, the "rule of thumb" is another bit of propaganda. Myth.

Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism, debunked this a while ago. (As did others, but because a female did it, in 1994, it's finally accepted as total crap now. Not that I'm complaining precisely---bless her for seeking the truth as well. Here's the power of bullshit...even after it's proven false, doesn't matter---like the "one in four women get raped" tripe in the 1970s. Hung around for decades before, again, Sommers, stuck a pin and proved it completely false. Lies are at times more influential then Truth; the Nazis understood this pretty well. So did priests and priestesses. People love to believe what fits into their preconceptions.) Check it out.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: “The feminine” is a different story. Now that we’re clear about exactly who you meant, it looks better.
Okay.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Over time, giving people learn that if they just give, others will just take and start to expect to always be given to – then one day when the giver has nothing left to give, the takers become abusive to the one who has given so much for so long.
That's true. Not sure "abuse" is always the case, if I take it to mean physical violence, but there's more than one kind of abuse, as you know and as we've discussed before. Does happen, though. Yet certainly the takers keeps taking, and it becomes a habit; when the giver stops giving, it's strange to the taker because the arrangement was going well and everything seemed fine---sometimes, though rarely, the taker can start giving, for a while (depends how long the other was a doormatt, how engrained this co-dependency becomes). Or else the taker employs various methods---shame's common---to 'get' again. Both genders do both of these in my experience. The giver usually withdraws after a while, and the taker gives up and also withdraws, then the relationship is hovering over the toilet very shortly.

However, the giver always gets---to be needed, for one thing. Purpose. It controls how much the taker gets, when and where and how, additionally---so, it's far from powerless. It has more control actually because it can stop giving at any time.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: And guys usually have a lot of strings attached to what they do, too. He may pay for dinner or the movie, but he’s going to want something after. One guy who I turned down for sex actually responded with “but I bought you dinner!” Knowing that the rule is that if they guy is paying, females can’t order the most expensive thing on the menu or they are obligated to sex, so I’ve always ordered the least expensive thing that looked good or just had whatever the guy was having. I’ve also noted that guys feel emasculated if I offer to pay my own way – but by letting him pay, it sets up some level of feelings of obligation.
Yes, many guys do that as well. With the "stuff for sex" example there, though...hmm. I see no other way the male can go about it, if that's how it's set up by the female---a bachelor lives simply and wears the same clothes for days if he doesn't have to look fancy for work, and he works at whatever job, usually one he likes, enough for his basic crap, food, beer money, whatever. Only after he finds a girlfriend does he suddenly start spending, needing a "better" job---that pays more yet he likes less---to afford a "nest," for one thing, and starts fixing everything up---because women want that, and we (guys) know this. Diamond rings cost money. Mortgages take a while to pay off. Women love both of those. Gifts, flowers, drinks, jewelry, expensive dinners, trips, et cetera---these are the mainly unconscious currency the genders exchange: stuff for sex. Since when is sex free with women?

Every girlfriend I've ever had engaged in this type of "sexual commerce"---or else I'd get bribed: do some chores for a blowjob. I've had over twenty-five girlfriends, and there was never an exception to this trade system.

So, obviously, when he's spent 200 dollars for an evening, gets a kiss only, he's going to expect more next time---and he'll spend more to get it. (Personally, I don't see the point: a crack ho is at most ten bucks up here. Even real hookers are under 100.) And women might ditch the guy, but they'll keep the stuff and won't change their behaviour. Why should they? It works; they profit. Men know it, and women know it---they're taught and encouraged to keep at it.

This thing takes two. It's a system.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: A lot of stuff guys do that you mentioned (like walking a female to her car as her “free bodyguard”) the string is just that they feel more masculine. Guys will often insist, some will state the tie between manhood and walking a female to her car. One guy was really insulted when, after he insisted he would walk me to my car because it was not a safe area, I asked him who would walk him back to the building. Also, sometimes it’s actually safer to not have a bodyguard.
Aye. Or be your own bodyguard.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: The QRS masculine is, but what is commonly considered masculinity is full of false bravado, fish stories, fake-outs, and con games.
True. That's what I deem "macho." It's a 'man' doing an inexperienced impersonation of a masculine man. Puff out the chest, unbutton the first few ones to reveal chest hair, burly manner, sloppy smiles and suggestive winks at "the ladies." Rubbish largely lost in the 1970s. A sheep in wolf's clothing. Under all that, he's just a frightened, insecure little guy not knowing how else to be. Kinda sad, really.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: To me, “feminine” means soft, pretty, nice – whereas the nasty, conniving, manipulative aspects only fall under the category of “bitchy” and are defiantly not “feminine” – although I have, on this site only, used “feminine” to mean “bitchy” – but I don’t think anyone mainstream would automatically make that connection. “Masculine” basically means either being tough or pretending to be tough. Other qualities that the QRS have assigned to masculinity actually seem more like maturity to me – and maturity can be achieved by either gender (although remarkably few actually do behave like mature adults most of the time).
Everyone gets bitchy, I'd say, even Jesus or Ghandi or Mother Teresa. I don't care how enlightened someone is, we all have bad days, can't sleep for some reason, get testy for kinds of reasons. So, what's key is (a) how often, (b) how long it lasts, (c) what degree, (d) how acceptable that behaviour is in a given society, and (e) what other possible reasons (PMS, other hormones, brain chemistry---imbalance, as in; sexual frustration, too much caffeine or other stimulants, nicotine withdrawl, et cetera, whatever).

I'm completely convinced that we cannot view the masculine in any context without a broad comparison---in particular, going way, way back when "men were men" and really, deeply, getting into various ancient cultures, what they valued, how they lived, what their roles were, and what each gender's "culture" was. I'm not going to get into all the hunting stuff and domestication, but I firmly believe all the answers lay in the past.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I already read it before this was posted. I’ll respond over there since you asked, but it will take awhile. Your posts are long, so they take longer to respond to.
Sure. I'm in no rush. Might have been better of me to stuff a thread of its own, though
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: She is intelligent and doesn’t have a blind loyalty to her gender, but she does have a blind loyalty to David Quinn. I see her actually trying to form herself in his image. When I spouted off disgust with females, it was because I was young enough that my brain hadn’t finished developing yet, inexperienced enough that I hadn’t had enough life experience to see the bigger picture, and hadn’t really asked myself if that was the whole truth or if it was just part of the truth. When Sue types, I see David’s words, but I don’t really see a full comprehension of his meaning behind those words. I even see her changing in more subtle ways to only reflect that which she thinks David would approve of ( for example, on her profile under “interests” she used to list swimming, tennis, and a variety of other physical activities. She since changed that to simply read “philosophy” – yet after she changed her listed interests, she actually started posting here less). She is intelligent, but she is using her intelligence to be pleasing to David. I believe that I am living more truthfully than Sue is because no matter how much I like or respect a person, I’m still going to think things through on my own and voice my disagreements and further suggestions.
---"but she does have a blind loyalty to David Quinn"---is this fact, opinion, belief, observation or generalization?

She seems to think on her feet pretty well---I've posed questions to her and she didn't sound like David Quinn in response, didn't seem to have pre-packaged answers sitting around or stored away in her mind. However: 1. I haven't been here that long. 2. David sounds a lot like other philosophers and sages of old; which is because, I think, he's following a "school" of philosophy or a few of them in his quest for truth. There's a few who sound similar because of this, I think, as well. And that's understandable.

If she's doing the same, why single her out? If she is following a similar philosophy or philosophies, wouldn't some things, maybe many things, be on track with his line of thought, or others here? That's not parroting; it's agreeing. If I say 2+2=4, and then you say 2+2=4...did you just parrot me or agree with that conclusion?

I sense that you misperceive her (and other females here), due to your own personal experiences---hear me out here: I'm not attacking you or anything, just a feeling I get---because I've seen my sister do the same. (Behaviour she identifies in her roommate---some of which she herself still has or might value still on some level but won't admit----she resents and so subconsciously or semi-consciously gets hostile with her roommie...my sister would hardly be aware until after, if ever, then she may calm down and apologize---and then she does it the next day = lack of consciousness/awareness. Or else she knows it all and just doesn't give a shit.

She gets screeching mad when I have pointed this out to her---I did twice, as politely as possible, and the last time she turned it all around and somehow, blamed me for it---shaming me for placing a mirror in front of her face. Utter defenseness = something's to it. My sister is scornful of girlishness, of any female behaviour that manipulates a man into doing things for her, like her roommate does and has even done with me, playing the "oh, teehee, I'm just a girl; I can't do this---can you, big strong manly man, help wittle sweet wubbable me?" type of stuff, with the fluttering lashes over the wide eyes and sly smile and the whole deal. My sister hates this with real passion---why? Because she used to be like that and it reminds her of herself (more our mother, I suspect---has great fear of being like her yet her ignorance and denial makes her more and more like her with each passing year), even some things she still has inside her. She struggles with independence---but she gets her way with men through other ways, just not the old fashioned girly ways; she prefers verbal onslaught, shame, blame, loud aggression, acting like she figures 'men' act.

And she's got "daddy's girl syndrome," always trying to please him and gain approval, on which she eventually gave up and transferred to every man, including me, she's ever known, because she's so bitter and jaded over a decade-and-a-half of blind faith to feminist dogma and mindless misandry, all spewed venomously over one bad relationship, and the alienation it's created in her. She runs in circles; she can't fix this because she won't identify the "problem"---what she loves seeing in others but never in---herself and thus cannot hope to ever solve it. Ego-trap? Not sure, but it is a trap alright. One I mention why?

Because when I look at what you wrote above (in a right-brained way) I don't see you talking about Sue at all; nearly every "she" I see up there is really "I" or "me" you're really talking about---a former version of yourself you can't stand? Or not so former? Remind you of someone else?---hence misperception. Quick example:

"She is intelligent, but she is using her intelligence to be pleasing to David."

"I am intelligent, but I am/was using my intelligence to be pleasing to_______." (Insert male figure here: father, ex-husband, someone else.)

Hey, just a hunch---correct me if I'm wrong, naturally. You could be right---I don't know Sue. Give it a think anyway; might be something worthy of introspection.

I'll finish the other half later.
User avatar
Nordicvs
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Post by Nordicvs »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Okay, show me the proof - anything below draft-age. I will grant you that there are familial differences as some families actually do value their daughters – but just in general.
Sure. My top five, in no real order. Evidence of male worthlessness/disposability, or of supreme female value/feminine-worship, how ever one tends to view it...

1. Circumcision. [This began as male-sex-organ-sacrifice in and around Mesopotamia for fertilty cults, certain goddesses worshipped; the Semitic peoples were one of the first exposed to this and it spread along with farming culture's expansion from 7000 BC to the Roman era---some form of it even reached as far as northern Australia, where it remained as or changed into circumcision. Things change and get weird, weird when humans sit still as a people; Astarte-Ishtar-Inanna was one goddess thirsty for severed male sex organs---and today it means fuzzy bunnies and chocolate (Astarte = Easter) and pseudo-bris.

When paganism and monotheism replaced the older religions, castration was around for a long time already and so developed into merely a tradition of circumcision. The rationalization later was "health reasons," but any sane doctor can tell you that exactly the same argument could be made for slicing off the clitoral hood of female genitalia, which---almost exclusively in Africa---accounts for a fraction of all human circumcisions today. It remained important to religions and such in the Persian empire and Ottoman empire (as well as in China, for different reasons—no sexual desire).

Each civilized culture adapted it---and then Christians went further, keeping up the actual castration practice; through the Middle Ages, boys were castrated by the Church—why? The Catholic boys' choir—castriati was a twisted variation of the goddess tradition in which boys with the best "high" voices were castrated (before puberty) to preserve those voices for the rest of their lives. Did women and mothers stand up and protest? No, they sat and enjoyed the music along with everyone else.

Physicians, closely monitoring circumcised babies (undergoing non-essential surgery without their consent; ethically unsound), are finding that there is extreme stress, dangerously high pulses and rapid breathing, and other things. And now, finally, some are doing psychological studies on boys having undergone the procedure compared to boys who haven't. Don't have the link handy, but a few quick searches should verify all of this if you don't trust me.]

Point: The overwhelming majority of these are done to boys today in the most helpless, defenseless state a male can be in and obviously without his consent. If we removed dogs' tails not for fashion but for religious reasons, it would be exactly the same thing---I consider both unethical and abusive, and some evidence of the very long tradition of male disposability. If the clitoral hood is every bit as "unclean" as the foreskin, why is it left alone and the male infants must endure needless mutilation of their very symbol of maleness, despite the risks and clear stress this causes a baby, not to mention quite probable psychological factors extending well past boyhood? Why doesn't anyone care?

2. Suicide. The suicide rate for boys in America, for example, has risen 3 times as quickly as for girls. (All of the following is from sources from 1991---I've seen the latest stuff and it's far worse today---these stats are easy to track down on your US government sites, but the ones I'm using are more than sufficient for my point.)

[Around twenty years back, the suicide rates were 'only' twice as high for men as for women---men's increased 26 percent and women's decreased 33 percent, as life expectancy went from one year's difference in 1920 to nearly 8 years' difference today---I know that's adults, but it's measured from birth, so I'll briefly mention it. Anyway, as "sex roles become apparent," boys' suicide rates climb 25,000 percent. (Nope, no typo: that's twenty-five thousand percent.)

Where's this figure come from? The USDH&HS/NCHS chart, Center for Disease Control, Statistical Resources, Vital Statistics of the United States (Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1991), vol. 2, part A, Mortality, p. 51, tables 1-9, "Death Rates for 72 Selected Causes by 5-Year Age Groups, Race, and Sex;" U.S., 1988:

Age.........Male......Female

5-9............0.1........0.0
10-14........2.1........0.8
15-19........18.0.......4.4
20-24........25.8.......4.1

(The male 0.1 to 25.8 equals that number above. More recent info from the NCIPC.There's other sources, too.]

Point: What's the reason for the staggering increase? Where's the pressure coming from? Why are they not wanting to become "men?" Why on Earth would so many pre-teen boys blow their brains out? Can you picture a ten-year-old-boy hanging from his neck of his own doing? And why doesn't anyone care? A lack of compassion, perhaps? Combined with ignorance?

Or is "Woman/Girl" simply more important? More valuable?----Would there be just vacant stares if girls were killing themselves off at three-four-five times the rate of boys...or would a multitude of feminist, female-firster, and women's rights advocacy groups---not to mention men---scream bloody murder and, for one thing, aside from political protests and marches and such, have the feminist-supportive New York Times do a front page story, criticizing this sickening, tear-jerking outrage of human misery, pain, powerlessness, and loss of American children?

(Yunno, like they do when they work hard to skew facts that suggest a man earns such-n-such more pennies an hour per similar position as women, not taking into consideration seniority and female quotas that get them promoted more quickly, for one thing, obscuring figures as "evidence" of discrimination, as well as the overtime and extra work men are willing to do but women aren't, opting for more flexible working hours. Or like when future-prez Hillary Clinton gave speechesin Central America about how women have "always been the primary victims of war" and states domestic violence claims only female victims.)

[One professional opinion, from ten or so years back:
"By addicting boys to girls' bodies than vice versa, we make boys feel less equal to girls. This reinforces boys performing for girls, pursuing girls, and paying for girls to compensate for their inequality. When they perform or pursue inadequately---or feel they will never be able to earn enough to afford what they are addicted to---this creates anxiety which, in its extreme form, leads to suicide. Performing, pursuing, and paying---the "Three Ps"---are so anxiety provoking because the boy senses these are metaphors for adult versions of performing, pursuing, and paying. So if he can't hack as a kid.... The adolescent boy notices that the boys who get the "love" of the genetic celebrity"--- [feminine women] ---"are best able to:

---Perform. Become a leader (jock, student-body president), have "potential," or have a car.
---Pursue. She has the option of the purse, but he has the expectation. He is supposed to understand female cues when he doesn't even understand himself. To the degree the girl doesn't understand herself, his fear of misreading what can't be read becomes overwhelming. His hormones prepare him to reach out for sex but not for rejection. He is supposed to initiate sex perfectly before he knows what sex is. He knows he wants to be sexual with girls; he's not sure if they want to be sexual with him (and the girls he's interested in reject him the most). And nowadays if he misinterprets a cue, he could be in jail. Not true for her. This creates some anxiety.
---Pay. The greater her beauty, the more he will pay---and therefore earn." ---Dr. W. Farrell, PhD.]

3. Drugs, alcohol, homelessness, crime---these are all intensely "male-dominated" fields and some "equality" is needed here---boys vastly out-number girls in all of these, yet feminists do not mention these things when they speak of equality---why not?

I have a lot of stuff on this, but even the average person who doesn't keep up with year-by-year statistics hears shit about these (the first two are the typical "gateway" drugs, initially pain-killers (pain from what?), to suicide and are also common roads taken to avoid growing up into the 'men' they see around them). If you want a link or two or three, let me know, or do a couple searches if it interests you. None of this is hard to find when you're looking for it. Depression and mental illness are also most prevalent among boys when compared to girls (who report it more but don't suffer to the degree boys do---for the same reasons suicide rates are higher---this is all interconnected; as with suicides, girls attempt far more, but boys go through with it in alarming numbers, as seen above).

4. Education. [Aside from over 30,000 Women's Studies courses (where hoaxes and propaganda, such as above, are planted in young female minds) and hundreds of "speech codes" in American universities, sowing tomorrow's seeds of political correctness, forcing males to talk pretty, all rooted in Marxist feminism (anything resembling men's studies---not 'feminist men's studies'----made up less than 3% of all courses in the 1990s---over 700 majors and minors for Women's Studies and 1 minor in men's studies), we have such figures as...

In 1980 seminaries were 20% female; by the mid-’90s they were 70% female (Richard Driscoll, PhD, The Stronger Sex, (Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1998), p. 283; figures for Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Unitarian seminaries).

In a Modern Language Association (MLA) poll of English professors on 350 campuses, 61% said they now approached literature from a feminist perspective (Adam Bromberg, "Data In: Multiculturalism Gaining Ground," Campus, Spring, 1992, p.9).

In school, boys are more likely to (1a) have lower grades, be worse in (1b) reading, (1c) writing, (1d) social studies, (1e) spelling, (1f) biology, (1g) art, (1h) visual arts, (1i) music, (1j) theater, (1k) languages, (1l) and the rest aside from math and science; they: (2) receive fewer honours; (3) have lower class ranks; they're more likely to: (4) repeat a grade; (5) be put in special education; (6) be diagnosed with learning disablities like dyslexia; (7) commit suicide (covered already); (8) drop out sooner; (9) have attention defecit disorders and AD hyperactivity disorders; (10) have discipline problems. Boys later are less likely to (a) graduate from college; (b) attend college (despite there being more college-age boys in America); (c) and take SATs.

("Why isn't something being done?!?!" Because funded groups like the AAUW are addressing only girl "problems," and gathering stats only on girls or all-girl schools, and publishing these---by far more often covered in the media. Hence: "How Schools Shortchange Girls: A Study of Major Findings on Girls and Education," Washington, D.C.: AAUW Educational Foundation, The Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, 1992; updated as the American Association of University Women, Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children (Washington, D.C.: AAUW Educational Foundation, the WCCRW, 1998.)

Studies from the U.S. Department of Education over the last 20 years in arts found that "girls outperformed boys in all the arts (music, visual arts, theater), and in all the modalities of execution---from creating and performing to interpreting. In music performance, girls had an average score of 40 percent; boys, 27 percent." (November 10th, 1998; Linda Perlstein, "Kids Draw Blank on Art Test," Washington Post, November 11, 1998, p. D1.)

Another Harvard study found that boys, from the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are doing worse than girls and admitted that boys are now disadvantaged educationally, and yet in spite of this teachers began taking "gender equity" courses that have become "especially vigilant, even obsessive, about making sure that the voices of girls are being heard, even if boys are cast as villans."

Yet another Harvard (Medical School) study, while the AAUW perpetuated "low self-esteem" as a girl-only issue (Girl Power programs), was done---no one really saw---asking teenage boys to "write a story based on a drawing of an adult man in a shirt and tie sitting at a desk while looking with a neutral expression at a photo of a woman and children." Just 15% of these boys envisioned a contented family man. Rather, "the overwhelming majority constructed narratives about lonely husbands working overtime to support their families, divorced men missing their loved ones, and grief-stricken widowers." (By William Pollock, Harvard Medical School psychologist, with 150 teenage boys; Donna Laframboise, "Why Boys Are in Trouble," National Post, Canada, Jan., 5, 1999.) What a clear peek into what boys think of men generally, not just fathers---might this be why death seems better than life as a "man?"

Point: Boys are really struggling not just in society, with each other, with themselves, with the opposite gender, but severely in school. Someseem to be finally "getting it," but the public-at-large in these countries don't really know and-or care.)

5. Fatherlessness (I say: Fatherlessness-as-abuse---or at very least: social neglect). Half of all North American boys are growing up without dads and its rate is increasing as divorce rates soar. Unbiased stats on what precise extent things like violence, aggressive behaviour, drug-addiction, crime---as well with fatherless girls---and so on, are harder to come by here.

Because it's basically "mother" stats---done exclusively by feminists---and "father" stats---done largely by father's rights groups. Glenn Sacks gets into it herehow faulty some of these stats are. Considering how feminists have been caught and debunked time and time again (mostly by other women, like Sommers, the Independent-Individualist-Equity feminists, not part of the main three rotting branches---PC-victim-gender feminism, radical feminism, and Marxist feminism---all three of which are simply pheminism), I will not trust their claims. Ever. Simple logic tells me that a female knows nothing about what it is or it means---did, can, could mean---to be a male or especially a man. No blame---how could she know? She's never been a boy and isn't male!

I mean, come on, talk about a no-brainer---male initiation thousands of years pried boys away from their mothers, as soon as puberty winked (even these stinking savages were wise enough to realize what a disaster of a male results from having him clinging to mommy for too long; and the women were willing participants in this---they were wise too; after a certain age, she does him more harm than good because he becomes effeminate and doesn't grow, expand, into manhood), produced the healthy, normal, strong, well-balanced males that ranged Eurasia as well as North America---before colonization---and elsewhere, and was replaced inevitably with booze, drugs, gang rituals, military assimilation, sports, and overall mindless recklessness.

If feminists claim boys "do wonderfully" without fathers, why the soaring suicide rates and drug-alcohol abuse? It wasn't like that 50 years back when most boys were raised by both parents; it still wasn't great, with boys in the Soviet Union, for example, proudly joing military service to become a number---one of the 65 million young and old Russian men killed during the two Worlds Wars---and today who barely live past 67 years (slightly higher than black men in America). The real downward spiral in Western societies has happened over the last three decades.

Anyway, "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men," also by Christina Hoff Sommers, is all about this subject (and misandry). It would be an unbiased source, so that would be something worth checking out, or perhaps search for excerpts online---there's a few floating around, but I can't seem to find the folder with the proper link I'd had for it.

Point: I'll have to leave this point unfinished and unsourced. I have no kids, as I've said, and so my only agenda here is the deep care and concern I've long had for children. I really could write a book on how crucial it was for me to have my father as sole parent (my mother was bonkers, abusive---schizophrenic, even in terms of masculine-feminine; she was very much like most depictions of the feminine around here, incapable of sharing without something in trade, was/is admittedly greedy and quite selfish, yet was "conservative"---for example, not only with breast milk but bottle and later regular milk; my sister ended up stunted). And even though he was a bastard, I can't imagine how either of us would have turned out had my sister and I not been given the right to choose which parent we wanted to live with during the divorce. At times it was just his presence that mattered, all the unknown intangible biological stuff we're only beginning to understand, nothing he did or didn't do. Anywhat...enough of all this.

About the segment on duty and your father (snipped for length), it's good to see that you recognize some positive outcomes for yourself there---and that it was your choice. Seems like you have some fond memories of him, too, which is never a bad thing. And yeah, wow, your mom sounds quite like mine, actually.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Okay, your turn. How did you end up giving up all hope for kids? Usually guys have the capacity to reproduce their entire lives.
There's no possible way (unless I had piles and piles of money and lots of contacts and an utterly spotless record, et cetera) for a single man to "get" a child; I can't adopt (men cannot enter teaching professions right now without being under intense scrutiny and massive psychological evaluations, even though female teachers are every bit as likely to abuse trust with their students); unless I were gay, properly employed, of course, and married.

Plus, I doubt putting "coastal mountain drifter" or "vagabond fisherman-hunter" as my occupation would get me very far anyway, since that's what I have planned for myself now, once more. I lack the biological equipment to do it myself, of course---I couldn't even walk into a bar and spread my legs like a female could, if she so desired, just to be impregnated and have a kid alone. Finally, there are no "egg banks" I could go to and purchase one of these "Do-It Yourself Home Baby Kits" as women can; male genetic material is cheap like borsch; female's---rare and expensive. Thus a female is required for that---and this alone is a big reason why I'd given up on kids. My "role" would lead ultimately into "wallethood," not fatherhood. No biggie, I'm getting too old now anyway.

Later.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Post by Shahrazad »

Esoterix,

You have been replying to a lot of posters, and may have forgotten to reply to me. In case that is so, I will recap our exchange:
Shah: Come on, feed me some more of how great the average male is. Maybe then I can talk myself into going back to dating.

Esoterix: Given the kind of malleable men that seem to interest you, perchance a boob job?

Shah: Tell me more about these malleable men I seem to be interested in.
I want to know why you think I like malleable men, and in what sense are they malleable? Do you mean men that I can dominate?
.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

What I'm defending is accuracy in communicating the truth.
Nordicvs wrote:Shame means intent to "make feel bad" essentially; intent is everything. I didn't get the implication of shame when I read David Quinn's 'Exposition on Woman.'
One can recognize shaming even if one does not personally feel that it applies to them. Shaming is a communication, much like insulting. If someone were to say to someone else "Fuck off you dippy cunt!" a third party observer of either gender would recognize that was an insult - even if the person being yelled at was someone they highly respected - or if the person themselves did not consider themselves to be a "dippy cunt" if the person has any perception at all, that person would recognize that it was an insult. David's shaming is different from that, but I felt I had to give you an extreme example so you could understand the point about communication.
In 'Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind' David Quinn wrote:I put it to you that everything a woman does obstructs the growth of wisdom.
Sounds like general shaming to me.
In 'Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind' David Quinn wrote:By all accounts, women are destined to remain the happy, charming, mindless creatures they are.
A sugar-coated put-down, shaming people capable of thought for not thinking sufficiently. Condescending, really.
In 'Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind' David Quinn wrote:our evolution as a species has demanded that woman play a far different and lesser role than man. At the same time, her role was just as vital to our species' survival.
"Lesser role" is again a subtle put-down, subtle because he added that it was just as vital. Equally vital yet lesser is a contradiction. Worse, in context he seems to be interchanging biological woman with psychological woman - so the "lesser role" put-down goes to both psychological women and biological females.

I'm not going to go through the whole thing - but I will clarify that I did see that David defined that he was talking about masculine and feminine mindedness, and that there were rare exceptions when biological women could be what he deemed masculine minded. David's "Woman" essay is the clearest of the writings on what they are trying to say.

I still see it as an incomplete presentation of truth, though.

There are a number of other writings though that give a different perspective if one has not read the "Woman" essay first. Go to David's website and look at "Cow Te Ching" and "The Book of Wife" - then check out Kevin's Woman/Man Here is an exerpt:
Schopenhauer, in his renowned essay "On Woman" states that women . . . "are their whole life - grown-up children . . . She is an intellectual myope whose intuitive understanding sees distinctly what is near, but has a narrow range of vision, which does not embrace the distant." Schopenhauer finds that her basic tools of trade are a subconscious and automatic tendency towards "cunning and deception," and that the woman's basic failing lies in her injustice. Others agree on this point. Freud says that "the poor sense of justice in women is connected to the preponderance of envy in their mental life." And Plato makes his view clearly known when he says that "Woman's nature is inferior to that of men in capacity for virtue."

Women are singled out for special attention in the philosophic religions. In Hinduism, women are known as the embodiment of maya (illusion), and avidya (the power of delusion). Buddhism regards women to be so far away from the requirements for spirituality that the task is especially difficult for them. One famous Buddhist leader, Nichiren, said that "women can no more attain Buddhahood than can a dried-up seed sprout."
As to intent, Kevin was quite clear about that in the same writing:
I am not in favour of the lesser role that Nature (and man) has inflicted upon women throughout the evolution of our species. I'm all for equality . . . that is, I'm all for changing the way women are brought up in our society. I'm all for making women more equal to men.
Obviously, the intent was to help correct the behavior. Nothing wrong with that. The philosophy is just incomplete and mal-assigns all non-lofty behaviors to females and all loftiness to males.

As for the "R" portion of the QRS philosophy, you have to fish through writings to the old Genius newsletter and Dan's posts here and on various other sites where Dan has posted. Don't misunderstand what I wrote to Dan earlier in this thread. He needed a wake-up call to see how his words were coming across, and as a reminder that what he says, especially about the Woman philosophy, reflects on David and Kevin. Yes, I've been burned pretty badly (probably only more often by males because I have had more interactions with more males), and as a result I can get rather suspicious of what someone is really up to - but David and Dan really do seem to be a couple of the most trustworthy guys in the world. Dan just gets grouchy when he hasn't been drunk for awhile.

As for Sue, your sister, and me - don't project your sister onto me. I gave you the most obvious example when I mentioned Sue's change of listed interests - but there were a few other things that came up in our various bloody spats.

More on all of this later. It seems like most of what I've been doing lately is responding to your posts, and there are some other things that need my attention.
.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Leyla wrote:
I am a woman, and if my own mind is anything to go by insofar as all women may be concerned, women come to dread empty spaces. So, they fill them with all kinds of bric-a-brac--at first, they fill the empty spaces of others, and then they spend their life filling their own with others; nurture-- “love.”
With your words “women come to dread empty spaces” you have encapsulated the feminine character.

As you describe, women’s sole activity in life is to “fill” every space. This is a clear reflection of the empty, open ended space she has instead of a mind, which must constantly have an endless supply of ‘stuff’ - people, fashion, money, education, career, talking, entertainment, décor - passing through it. She never experiences any satisfaction, or climax, because without her possessing a mind, there can never be any end point.

To anyone with a mind, the above state looks horrifying. The desire to lend a helping hand to assist those untethered ones is strongly felt. But, because they do not possess a mind to connect with, help is impossible. One has to console oneself with the knowledge that they feel no real pain, fear, or doubt - and that they know nothing of their fate.

-
Sue

P.S. Even though the above sounds spine-chillingly horrid, what astounds me is the amount of people who possess an ounce or two of mind, but throw it away in order to flounce around in a mindless twirl. These people are plainly mean-spirited, for they have in their possession the keys to true freedom, a freedom that the empty-headed lost souls above will never get a chance to experience, yet they discard this potential as if it were garbage. These people are the true fools.
User avatar
Esoterix
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Post by Esoterix »

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Post by Esoterix »

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Esoterix wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:...the QRS "woman" philosophy.
Does that exist as a document hereabouts?
More or less. Try these sources:

WOMAN - An Exposition for the Advanced Mind

Irony, thy name is Misogyny
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:As for the "R" portion of the QRS philosophy, you have to fish through writings to the old Genius newsletter and Dan's posts here and on various other sites where Dan has posted. Don't misunderstand what I wrote to Dan earlier in this thread. He needed a wake-up call to see how his words were coming across, and as a reminder that what he says, especially about the Woman philosophy, reflects on David and Kevin.
Excuse my candour, but this is ridiculous. It is a statement that panders to the banal and the mentally deficient. My views are my own. They don't reflect on anyone but me. Honestly, I am beginning to believe that no woman knows what individuality is.
Yes, I've been burned pretty badly (probably only more often by males because I have had more interactions with more males), and as a result I can get rather suspicious of what someone is really up to - but David and Dan really do seem to be a couple of the most trustworthy guys in the world. Dan just gets grouchy when he hasn't been drunk for awhile.
That's the most gratuitous and insulting thing that has ever been said about me by anyone, ever. Just in case you needed to know. What a sloppy and pathetic ad hominem.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Dan Rowden wrote: My views are my own. They don't reflect on anyone but me. Honestly, I am beginning to believe that no woman knows what individuality is.
I can't find the thread now, but I recall you saying on another board that one of the reasons you were defending the truth as related to something David said was because the QSR grouping made misunderstandings reflect badly on you. That can't be unidirectional.
Dan Rowden wrote:That's the most gratuitous and insulting thing that has ever been said about me by anyone, ever. Just in case you needed to know. What a sloppy and pathetic ad hominem.
Ad hominem means unrelated to the argument. Sometimes you get really short tempered, and I believed I saw a correlation. If there honestly is no correlation, then I apologize - but please take a moment (after you calm down) to really consider if there is a correlation between your temper and your intake of beer. Your posts on this thread seemed to come from bitterness and lack the patience of someone who is at least hearing the opposing side, even if he disagrees. This thread has not been your best work Dan. If I came up with the wrong reason why, I apologize - but I stated this as my perception of the truth, and I don't apologize for that.
.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote: My views are my own. They don't reflect on anyone but me. Honestly, I am beginning to believe that no woman knows what individuality is.
I can't find the thread now, but I recall you saying on another board that one of the reasons you were defending the truth as related to something David said was because the QSR grouping made misunderstandings reflect badly on you. That can't be unidirectional.
Yes, I have objected in the past to nonsense accusations leveled at David on the grounds that they also reflect on me, but that has always been in the context of the idea that we are joined at the hip. In other words, such accusations always carried a guilt by association agenda. I've been battling that agenda, mostly to no avail, for longer than I care to remember.
Dan Rowden wrote:
That's the most gratuitous and insulting thing that has ever been said about me by anyone, ever. Just in case you needed to know. What a sloppy and pathetic ad hominem.
Ad hominem means unrelated to the argument.
That isn't strictly what ad hominem means. That's closer to the definition of a non sequiter.
Sometimes you get really short tempered, and I believed I saw a correlation. If there honestly is no correlation, then I apologize - but please take a moment (after you calm down)
Excuse me, don't tell me to calm down after you just gratutiously insulted me. What a gall!! I'm almost impressed.
to really consider if there is a correlation between your temper and your intake of beer.
I don't have a temper. I have an impatience for twaddle.
Your posts on this thread seemed to come from bitterness and lack the patience of someone who is at least hearing the opposing side, even if he disagrees. This thread has not been your best work Dan. If I came up with the wrong reason why, I apologize - but I stated this as my perception of the truth, and I don't apologize for that.
You're rationalising. Your statement was a pure ad hominem, not even couched in the language of anything but a sling.

The discussion in this thread, thus far, has not even really gotten down to philosophical nitty grittiness and depth. Your judgements about its quality are entirely premature. Give it time to mature - like a good home brew.......XXXX, naturally.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Dan Rowden wrote:Excuse me, don't tell me to calm down after you just gratutiously insulted me. What a gall!! I'm almost impressed.
Well, there's the Dan I know. :) Sorry about the ad hominem.
.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

It's fine. It's all good robust stuff. Just don't mention my receding hair line. That will get you in more trouble than David Hicks...
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

I notice the favourite blatantly pointless topic about female/male definitions has yet again reached page 5.

For fucks sake, when are people going to realise the fallabilities of definitions. Christ it is no wonder people turn to non-duality.
User avatar
Esoterix
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Post by Esoterix »

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Post by Shardrol »

Jamesh wrote:For fucks sake, when are people going to realise the fallabilities of definitions. Christ it is no wonder people turn to non-duality.
Thank you for the best laugh of the week.

Bring on some more of those fallible definitions! I want to be blown into the comforting arms of non-duality. Tonight.
.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Dan Rowden wrote:
My views are my own. They don't reflect on anyone but me.
And on the rendering of Truth.
Honestly, I am beginning to believe that no woman knows what individuality is.
Doesn't one cancel out the other.
Elizabeth: I can't find the thread now, but I recall you saying on another board that one of the reasons you were defending the truth as related to something David said was because the QSR grouping made misunderstandings reflect badly on you. That can't be unidirectional.
Yes, I have objected in the past to nonsense accusations leveled at David on the grounds that they also reflect on me, but that has always been in the context of the idea that we are joined at the hip. In other words, such accusations always carried a guilt by association agenda. I've been battling that agenda, mostly to no avail, for longer than I care to remember.
What does it matter to you that others think you're some sort of clone, or follower? I cannot see why these people who think in such a way are of any consequence to you, or to the survival of Wisdom. So why "battle" them?


One's writing, and the ideas expressed within it, show clearly enough what one values.

.
User avatar
Esoterix
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Post by Esoterix »

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Post by Esoterix »

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Faust »

Okay i've been looking for those pics again, where the hell are they???
User avatar
Nordicvs
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Post by Nordicvs »

Esoterix, some great (and at times amusing) points there; I'm not replying point by point because I don't disagree with you.

Except to say that it sounds like your dad was a clever fellow---with some of that good ol wisdom that modern man has given up on in favour of skin cream, double lattes, and the Simpsons.

Cheers.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Sue wrote:
P.S. Even though the above sounds spine-chillingly horrid, what astounds me is the amount of people who possess an ounce or two of mind, but throw it away in order to flounce around in a mindless twirl. These people are plainly mean-spirited, for they have in their possession the keys to true freedom, a freedom that the empty-headed lost souls above will never get a chance to experience, yet they discard this potential as if it were garbage. These people are the true fools.
Yeah, well--not sure how to comment on that, really. Except to share one of those twilight zone moments you sometimes get walking among the living dead. On my way to Flinders Street station down Queens Road in Melbourne one day, I noticed a policeman guarding a rubbish bin bellowing toxic smoke from its stinky bowels. Someone had tossed a burning cigarette in it, which had set the plastic and paper inside smouldering. Now, this is peak hour traffic. Cars banked up on Flinders Street both ways, and I thought to myself, "Why is a policeman guarding this bin instead of getting a bucket of water from one of the many surrounding buildings and/or cafes to put it out?" Next thing I know, I hear the sirens of a fire engine. As I came closer the Flinders Street intersection, I heard another fire engine and, when I finally got to the corner, saw that one fire engine was coming from one end and another the other. They were about a block away each--both stuck in traffic.
Between Suicides
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Faust13 wrote:Okay i've been looking for those pics again, where the hell are they???
Under the board rules this is supposed to be a text-only board (but I guess they can't disable the picture feature) - so they ask that if there are images to just leave a link to the image off-site. One of the moderators might have been doing a clean-up.
.
User avatar
Esoterix
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Post by Esoterix »

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Post by Esoterix »

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Locked