THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES

Post questions or suggestions here.

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:56 am

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:01 am

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:41 am

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:33 am

Nordicvs wrote: It was your 5th post (page one) that lead me into this thread, had nothing to do with "hot air," even though I agree with his comment; in my expereince, it's true; though I've met some males who are full of hot air, too.


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.

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. As it is where they just shame women and praise men, it is lopsided and therefore misogynistic.

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.

Nordicvs wrote: 3. "Woman" has nothing to do with biological gender. (For the record) I despise the feminine in males far more than I despise it in females.

(4. Whenever I say "females," I mean "biological females"---humans born with cunts. When I say "males," I mean "biological males"---humans born with cocks. "Masculine-Feminine" has very little, as far as I'm concerned, to do with physical or biological gender. Hence this is not some 'gender issue.' When I'm talking about overwhelmingly female behaviour, I'll rarely state or even allude to "all woman absolutely everywhere." I'll usually say "most women" or just "those women I've known." I do strive to be as fair, accurate, and non-biased as I can be. (Just for future consideration.))


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.

Nordicvs wrote: Political Correctness puts up a lace curtain regarding gender, however, so it's discouraged to talk about differences between genders---or mass female tendencies (but not mass male tendencies), evidenced even here ("OMG misogynist! burn him! burn him!" attitudes, typically way off base, a shame/silencing tactic, or it's taken out of context).


Oh settle down. It’s the lopsidedness that denotes misogyny, not the truth of the matter.

Nordicvs wrote: But, as I already admitted, though, when it's some fucking bullshit that I've heard a million times and have grown so bloody weary of seeing people mindlessly parrot, I sometimes push my own buttons and take the gloves off (and sometimes for reasons that have nothing to do with the obvious). I'm not about to explain why I do everything I do, but keep in mind that not everything is at it seems.


Why are you not about to explain yourself? 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.

Nordicvs wrote: Forgive me for being blunt, but I think you despise people (not necessarily "biological females") like her, or, more accurately, her character, how she behaves, et cetera, for the same reasons I do, and like others with any sense whatsoever do; also, I think you resent her---for getting so much attention, being indulged and coddled, and for being rewarded for this absurd behaviour---because I sense that you want to be acknowledged for your personal intelligence (as a "biological female") and people like her make it more difficult for people like you (those who are trying to be more than vile, appearance-oriented, superficial; inane and ridiculous---tit-sticks) to be taken seriously, and-or detracts from the attention you yourself seek...here is where I see many women flop back on their asses regarding their egos, and tend to get very bitter and defensive. (This ego is so bloody tricky this way...)


No, I don’t despise Pamela Anderson. She’s living her life the best she knows how to live it. Same as anyone else.

Nordicvs wrote: It's all understandable, too, so don't take this the wrong way. The bimbos give women as a gender a "bad rep" and always have


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.


Nordicvs wrote: remember, that "women-as-property" had more rights than the men who "owned" that property; land and women were both protected feverishly, in essence, and were by default respected in ways that men never were, not even in ancient Greece; remember also that any crimes committed by women, men had to answer for.


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).


Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:So you think that no mother has a sense of responsibility or sacrifices any of herself for her family?


Nordicvs wrote: Nope; the feminine does what it does, always, for other reasons---deceptions are so much the rule that I don't even think feminine women know when they're lying or telling the truth anymore. I never take a word as the truth from them---my experiences are so vast and deep that this has become a new instinct.

1. I've never encountered a feminine person who accepted responsibility for her actions. Ever. (A few instances, I have seen responsibility employed by women, but even these are exceptions. I'm not talking about fucking something up and saying "I'm sorry;" I'm talking about not saying that and simply admitting the fuck-up and refraining from doing it again.)

2. I have never seen a feminine (adult) person "go without" or sacrifice or give anything without expecting a reward later. Not once.


“The feminine” is a different story. Now that we’re clear about exactly who you meant, it looks better.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:No wife sacrifices her career because her husband needed to move for his? And usually, when either her parents or her husband's parents need elder-care, it is the female that takes the brunt of responsibility for that as well.


Nordicvs wrote: I've seen plenty of women do things that certainly appeared altruistic and kind and caring---but, always, it was either conditional or expectant of either rewards or praise (like Christians "giving" to charity; they're not giving---they're investing in an eternal reward, making a deposit in their "heaven bank"---it's selfish, ultimately, and ugly.) Or for some other reason. Determining feminine motives has been a long interest of mine, and at times a fulltime job.


A marriage requires maintenance from both sides. Ideally though, both get more out of it than they put into it.

Nordicvs wrote: I was once given a flower, completely out of the blue, from a five-year-old girl... But she wasn't a woman, feminine or otherwise; maybe female altruism does exist, but that's my only experience with it---without strings attached


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.

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.

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.

Nordicvs wrote: The masculine is a beacon of truth---there is no guile or pretense.


The QRS masculine is, but what is commonly considered masculinity is full of false bravado, fish stories, fake-outs, and con games.

Nordicvs wrote: it seems here again you are confusing physical "female" with "femininity"---why is that? I don't get that. Can you describe what "feminine" and "masculine" mean to you?


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).

Nordicvs wrote: (If you have some extra, extra time---it's admittedly quite long and too wordy---check out that "nudes" threadand my last post, where I get into my conception of both and see what you think. I'd like your opinion on that.) I'd think we'd be on the same page here more often if we both knew exactly where one another was coming from regarding these concepts...


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.

Nordicvs wrote: As to what you just wrote, I don't see Sue as you do---from what I've seen, she seems to have an open mind, intelligence, isn't shy about speaking out (has balls), and generally has a good deal of potential in my humble estimation (for one thing, she has no blind loyalty to "her gender" but instead to a higher purpose---I see nothing wrong with that).


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.

Nordicvs wrote: I can assure you (and prove) boys/males are not treated better than girls


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.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I gave up my 20's to take care of my father, despite how abusive he had been to me.


Nordicvs wrote: Why duty?


I don’t know how much was a biological based sense of duty to a parent and how much was instilled in me as I was growing up. The beginning though was circumstance. I had been taking care of both of my parents, but my mother was so abusive to me that from the time I was 18, I couldn’t live there very long. And I did feel that I owed something to my father for one thing. In my young to mid teens when my mother would go off on both of us so bad that my father couldn’t take it anymore, we would go out to his boat and he would drink beer while I read books. It was one of those times that I told him that if he would do one thing for me, I’d never ask anything else from him again. I told him to outlive Mom. Yes, Dad was physically abusive, authoritarian, and harsh, but as long as I was able to abide by his whole list of (sometimes conflicting and sometimes physically impossible) rules (that he sometimes changed and I would only find out about the change when getting punished for following the old rule) – and abide by all these rules perfectly, I could usually stay out of trouble. Besides that, if he was getting too unreasonable, all I had to do was get him a beer and within 5 minutes he would be in a good mood. My mother on the other hand was totally insane and there was no escaping her. I even heard her screaming at one of my bosses on the telephone while I was at work, insisting that the only job I could possibly have was as a prostitute and demanding that my boss tell her what corner she had me pimped out on. At least my father kept her occupied some of the time – I couldn’t have handled it if I had become her sole focus in life.

Beyond that, I moved back in with him by default. My boyfriend had died in a car accident, and my roommates insisted it was suicide and that I had driven him to it, so they threw me out. I had another place to go, but they took all my stuff and threw it on my father’s lawn at like 11:00 at night. I was really upset about Jon, and my roommates had made it worse… but then after I got all my stuff inside, my father informed me that my 16 year old niece had just committed suicide. That took the last bit of energy out of me, and at that moment Dad explained that he couldn’t cook for himself and he was tired of eating out – I had been going to his house twice a week to clean and pre-make some sandwiches (put in the freezer for him to throw in the microwave), and asked me to stay with him. I agreed and cancelled the other living arrangements I’d made.

Nordicvs wrote: And keep in mind that you decided to do that---"give up" your 20s. I pretty much did the same thing---as well as all hope for kids, which I really wanted for a long time. I did it---no one held a gun to my head. My choices. I'm responsible for getting into every stupid situation. But now I'm okay with it, no regrets. I know how much I've gained through loss, giving things away or up.


Okay, your turn. How did you end up giving up all hope for kids? Usually guys have the capacity to reproduce their entire lives.
.
edit to fix code on quotes.
Last edited by Elizabeth Isabelle on Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:59 am

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:21 am

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:36 am

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:36 am

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:03 am

Dan Rowden wrote:What we're talking about here is aptitudes and natural psychological tendencies - and more specifically, those that are conducive to philosophical thinking and the pursuit of wisdom. (...) If someone can show me how the Gilmore Girls and soapies and so forth indicate a mental tendency that is of similar value or character [to watching sports], I'm all ears.


My mother once tried to get me into watching soaps, so maybe I can draw something from that. As I said, I don't know anything about Gilmore Girls, but Katy already took a stab at answering that:

Katy wrote:
Dan wrote:the content of sport is indicative of a mind capable of structured and systematic thought, the other just emotion and relationships.


On the other hand The Gilmore Girls etc show an ability to keep track of a plot and many of its finer details for weeks, or even years at a time. Admittedly, what you're keeping track of in this case isn't lofty in anyway, but it's certainly better than the 2 hours then it's over aside from "won" or "lost" that men use for sports.

And please explain to me how video games are in any way indicative of a mind capable of thought?


Dan Rowden wrote:Your average player of sport, like your mother of 3, is following routines, systems laid down for them by circumstance. This obviously involves intelligence and the ability to adapt within the routines and circumstance - i.e. some measure of ability to adopt strategies. However, it's kind of ironic that an armchair quarterback will likely engage the sport more intelligently than the real one.


Well, the average watcher of soap operas knows better than to do the kind of nonsense those story lines are about, yet IRL those things happen (in order for me to understand any of what was going on, my mother had to give a lot of explanation about various things that people had done, covered up, lied about, etc. - usually having to do with romantic involvements). Pro sports players both watch the game and play it to improve their overall game. I'm just guessing here, but maybe the average watcher of soap operas does less of the nonsense they see on the soaps than they would if they did not watch them - yet they still make errors just like pro sports players still make errors during the game.

Dan Rowden wrote:Most sports are highly complex systems and contain up to hundreds of rules. When men are not being merely boof-headed about sport they argue over the finer points of some strategy or rule, or umpire's decision. This requires real spatial reasoning and objectivity, a logical and systematic mind. This form of thinking is a requisite for philosophical thought.


The social world, particularly that of romantic involvement, is also a highly complex system. What's more, at least soap operas have some connection to psychology, but sports (especially the armchair variety) is primarily about arbitrary rules. Granted that to an extent, we are forced to live life but not forced to play sports (past school-age anyway). But those who show an interest in soap operas show more of an interest in romance, but those who show an interest in watching sports don't necessarily show an interest in playing sports. If anything, football fans in America might toss a ball around with their kid, but otherwise just show their interest by wearing the colors of their favorite team (some at the games even paint their faces the colors of their team). Neither group actually tends to transfer the skills they show in watching sports or the soaps into an appreciation of philosophy.

Dan Rowden wrote:Just about everyone has to follow daily routines to live. "Sport" is not merely a routine. It is a creative and complex mental enterprise (except for ice hockey, which is just a bar room brawl on ice).


Romantic involvement is not merely a routine. It is a creative and complex mental enterprise. Or at least for it to work is - otherwise it's just a bar room brawl in the living room.

Dan Rowden wrote:there's the 3 dimentional, spatial reasoning, objective, creative, problem solving, logical realm of the average man's mind that he slips into on a more regular basis than you might think. In fact, men often retreat to that place to find refuge from the world (and sometimes to construct justifications for their folly).


Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Although I agree that the specific characteristics you mentioned are genderless, I would say that females also have similar states about as often (although generally more concrete than abstract). I would just say that the focus of those states is generally on a different topic than what men's minds are on when in those states.


Dan Rowden wrote:Ok, so what topics would the average female's mind be on in such a state and what's the difference between concrete and abstract?


She might be problem solving about situations with her children, or a friend's problems, whereas his might be on the lawn, or going fishing with his buddies - and either gender may be thinking about work.

Abstract is more like a general idea - kind of like what Weininger called henids, but concrete is more specific with details on exactly how a problem will be solved. This accounts for the difference when a male and a female go through something and the male thinks it went exactly according to plan (because he only had a general idea of the plan to begin with) but a female will think it did not go according to plan - and the male reminds her that it all worked out and doesn't understand what didn't go according to plan. She had a more detailed plan than he did, so there were more components that could have gone amiss.

How this translates to philosophy is that the female is already used to thinking in details, but the male has to get used to carrying a thought out to its fullest implication. Perhaps that is why more males are drawn to philosophy than females. It seems that a number of people go through a philosophic phase and then move on. For males, there is more of a mental challenge to it, so it remains an interest longer.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby plotinus » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:25 am

I can't believe that so many intellligent people don't know what the difference is between males and females! The correct answer is so simple and basic! Are you gong to feel silly when I tell you the answer!

塞 翁 失 馬
Frontier geezer loses a horse
User avatar
plotinus
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:30 am

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:47 am

plotinus wrote:I can't believe that so many intellligent people don't know what the difference is between males and females! The correct answer is so simple and basic! Are you gong to feel silly when I tell you the answer!


I think you've already gotten all the guesses you are going to get, and we've pretty much changed the topic by now. There are many differences from xx vs xy chromosomes (at least in humans - there is one kind of fish that actually changes gender depending on social positioning, and others that change gender either from male to female or female to male depending on age or weight, and some species that are hermaphrodites and fertilize their own eggs), through differences of sexual organs (eggs vs sperm), to differences that people are still sorting out if nature or nurture make the genders behave differently. You might as well tell us what you were getting at.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Carl G » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:57 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:you've already gotten all the guesses you are going to get, and we've pretty much changed the topic by now.

Yep, we've moved on to rural witticism, and gender observations from behind the plow.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby Shahrazad » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:17 am

Shah: And all those men who think with their dicks 90% of the time, well, they're not dumb or emotional, because at least they stop to reflect on this behavior once a year or so. Yeah, right.

Esoterix: All those men afflicted in their dicks are because of all those confusing vibes coming from all those women who play the sex game to-who-laid-the-hilt.

So men's high libidos are women's fault? If only we dressed a certain way, and acted non-sexual, etc., men's sex drive wouldn't be a problem at all.

Sorry, but hiding the diamonds just doesn't work.

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?

Tell me more about these malleable men I seem to be interested in.

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

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:45 pm

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Katy » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:07 pm

Not to mention that XX vx XY is far from universal.
There's also ZZ where ZZ is male and ZY is female.
Several non-genetic things (like crocodiles sex is determined by temperature in the egg, not genetics at all)
Most plants us a different form of genetics.
Bees, also have something quite unique and unrelated to XX XY at all...


You want a universal that simply doesn't exist.... and you look a bit like a two year old child running around going
"GUESS WHAT I HAVE BEHIND MY BACK!?" and finding the adults continuing their conversations running back in occasionally going "GUESS! GUESS!" but you're uninterested in actually having a conversation aside from "GUESS! GUESS!" which is pretty much worthless.... I mean even my nephew can be eventually convinced to give the answer... eventually. :)
-Katy
User avatar
Katy
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:26 pm

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:38 pm

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:56 pm

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:06 pm

Katy wrote:you look a bit like a two year old child running around going "GUESS WHAT I HAVE BEHIND MY BACK!?" and finding the adults continuing their conversations running back in occasionally going "GUESS! GUESS!"


Agreed.

Esoterix wrote:Do you reckon women would have a clue why sergeant Kilgore is grinning like a dog eating cockleburrs?


Time to ask what you mean by "women." And just in case you mean females, I'd say that is neither a particularly efficient stance or grip, and I'm not so sure that one would want the latrine trench right at the corner of the tent. The structure would be sturdier if the trench was at least a foot in from the corner. The military has a specific procedure for everything, so if that was not where the trench was supposed to go, he's probably grinning like that because she is going to have to fill that one in and dig another one (moving the tent instead would probably be highly unacceptable to the CO).

Esoterix wrote:Which of the three is a gurl?


Can't see the face on the one to the left - can't say for sure any of them are.

Nordicvs wrote:(For example, in Vancouver, male firefighters now have to wear boxers becauser a female complained---"sexual harrassment"---about men walking around in their gonch.) Disrespect is assured here, as is resentment and bitterness over "special treatment," of these primma donnas, and teamwork suffers, and people end up dying.


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?
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:08 pm

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:18 pm

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:39 pm

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:46 pm

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:56 pm

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:23 pm

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

PreviousNext

Return to Help Desk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests