Re: Feminists "love" men. Sort of...

In article <slrnfjutl2.ipl.pjr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Peter J Ross <pjr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In soc.men on Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:11:20 -0500, PolishKnight
> <marek1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> > In article <slrnfjmv24.kpv.pjr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >  Peter J Ross <pjr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> In soc.men on Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:12:23 -0500, PolishKnight
> >> <marek1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <slrnfjka7u.kpv.pjr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >> >  Peter J Ross <pjr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:50:19 -0500,
PolishKnight
> >> >> <marek1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <slrnfjd1mv.prv.pjr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >> >> >  Peter J Ross <pjr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In soc.men on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:30:21 -0500, PolishKnight
> >> >> >> <marek1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > In article <slrnfiv5h0.kip.pjr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >> >> >> >  Peter J Ross <pjr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> In soc.men on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:10:58 -0800, Andre Lieven
> >> >> >> >> <andrelieven@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 5, 2:12 pm, Jill <perspicaci...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Apparently it is out of print LOL.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Well, thats a good thing.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> Will you be buying up second-hand copies to burn, Andrea?
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> Why are you scared of books whose contents you disagree
with?
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> <many paragraphs of misogynist drool cleaned up>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What
> >> >> >> <SNIP!>
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> When I want your opinion I'll ask for it, Mr Net.Legend.
> >> >> >> -- 
> >> >> >> PJR :-)
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Official soc.men FAQ:
> >> >> >> <http://www.alcatroll.com/soc.men/faq.html>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's apparent from all the energy you put into do***enting every
word 
> >> >> > we 
> >> >> > write (and what others claim we wrote) that you'll gobble up
every 
> >> >> > opinion we have.
> >> >> 
> >> >> How much energy do you imagine it takes to make half a dozen posts
> >> >> making fun of a few kooks now and then, Soboloonski?
> >> >
> >> > I don't build elaborate fan web pages imagining such things.
> >> 
> >> Neither do I. At last you and I have something in common!
> >
> > I disagree!  You built a reasonably elaborate website
> 
> You think ordinary XHTML + CSS is elaborate? I'd hate to imagine how
> much time you imagine I've spent on my PHP pages.

Yet... you clearly crave attention and continually imagine that people 
are thinking about you.  Peter, I don't give you much second thought.  I 
hate to break that to you, but it's there.  Maybe you ought to think 
about growing up.

> > albeit using 
> > graphics and techniques from the early 90's
> 
> You think standards-compliant sites are out of date, Slobbo?

I was just suggesting that someone whose proud to be over 40 could do 
better, that's all. 

> What a
> fine HTML critic you are! Maybe you should post to alt.html.critique.
> You'd be a real asset there!

By your request...

> > (the text is a bit out of 
> > date too.)
> 
> If you want to name some of your fellow rape-advocates for inclusion,
> feel free.

I don't advocate rape.  Could you please show where I have stated that I 
advocate rape?  

> > I thought it was cute how you made local do***ent links as 
> > if it's smart to click on them rather than scroll down half a page.
> 
> The great thing about those links is that they allow me to cut through
> irrelevant text and post this:
> 
> <http://www.alcatroll.com/soc.men/faq.html#q18d>

Peter, as a troll you're all about posting irrelevent drivel to waste 
people's time.  It's possibly cute when a teenager does it but pathetic 
for a 40 year old.  

> >> > I suppose 
> >> > Brittany Spears has fans who obsess about her.  We have you. :-)
> >> 
> >> Who is "Brittany Spears", illiterate kook?
> >
> > How quaint!  You're writing a question to me which you then claim I 
> > can't read (that's what illiterate means.)
> 
> Yup. You can't read. Over and over again you fail to understand what
> you read.
> 
> But perhaps you're not illiterate, but merely a liar?

I'm curious. What am I lying about? 

> > It's like yelling at someone 
> > while calling them deaf.
> 
> It's like towering over you while calling you short.

Such behavior appears boorish rather than towering.  I'm clearly not 
intimidated by it since I have long stated all my shortcomings 
(literally) to show that I'm willing to overcome them.

> Have you threatened to throw any tall, strong women out of boats
recently?

I never threatned to throw any tall, strong women out of boats.  Strong 
women don't cry so easily.  

> Probably not, Sharon taught you your lesson, Mister Death-Threatener.

Hahahaha!  So now you're running under her skirt.  So much for 
"towering" over me.  :-)

YOU brought her up, I didn't.  If she wants to whine about being 
"threatened" by me tossing her out of a lifeboat, she can go ahead.  Yap 
yap!

> > So-called kooks are far more tolerant and rational than you try 
> > desperately hard to appear.
> 
> Tee-hee. Have you met bDan Kettler, Peat Stapleton or chuckles lysaght?

Nope.  They probably could write a more stylish web site though.

> > You claim to have the capacity to make a 
> > rational, coherent argument.  It's rather hard to make fun of kooks
when 
> > you act at such a level below them.
> 
> I'm so very, very sad that you don't admire me, Mr Soboloonski. Rilly!

I never said I did.  But you mistake negative attention for admiration 
because you don't think you can aspire for any better.  I'd rather be 
short in physical stature than that.

regards,
PolishKnight