Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences

From: George (george_at_wtfiswrongwithyou.com)
Date: 01/28/05 

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:38:05 GMT

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:-cKdndBK-MRN0mfcRVn-gg@rcn.net...
> In article <FKrKd.33517$eT5.4058@attbi_s51>,
> "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>
>><jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:WaudnfuGYdF8qGfcRVn-rQ@rcn.net...
>>> In article <0vbKd.31554$IV5.28661@attbi_s54>,
>>> "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>><jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:U5-dnYTLsJMGTWXcRVn-iQ@rcn.net...
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Nope. You didn't have to work. Mr. Bob did.
>>>>
>>>>What the *** are you babbling about?
>>>
>>> The fact that you did not have to work in order to eat.
>>
>>Really? Do you think the food on my table gets there by magic?
>>
>>>> .. Face it. Your bull*** comment was
>>>>proven wrong, so get over it.
>>>
>>> No, it wasn't proven wrong. The statement was true for everyone
>>> I evalated back then.
>>
>>NOT!
>>
>>>>You will also
>>>>> note that he relied on a lawyer while young. I didn't say it
>>>>> was a good test. I did say, or tried to say, that it was a
>>>>> general rule. My point was that people who didn't learn
>>>>> how to work didn't learn how things got made or processed.
>>>>
>>>>No, you said "I used to be able to tell if a person was a Democrat by
>>> learning
>>>>if they ever had to work as kid :-). I found no exceptions back then;
> they
>>> never
>>>>had to work."
>>>>
>>>>We've proven that statement to be obvious bull***.
>>>
>>> No, you haven't. I never met the Mr. Bob poster. Even if
>>> I had met you, my statement would still have been true.
>>
>>You're statement is nothing by neocom tripe.
>>
>>> I should probably specify that this test is no longer good
>>> because we now have two generations that have a general
>>> lack of knowledge about work and how things get done.
>>>
>>
>>The only one I see here not working is you. So perhaps you should apply
> your
>>stupid argument to yourself and leave everyone else out of it.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> They'ld never set foot in a factory nor worked a farm. They
>>>>> didn't learn about mechanical advantages. They never _had_
>>>>> to solve a problem, a real problem, of survival for themselves.
>>>>> They were taken care of and assumed that somebody would always
>>>>> be around to take care of them. Hence, when there wasn't
>>>>> or there wasn't a perceived somebody, they created government
>>>>> departments to fulfill the function. There exist very few
>>>>> Democrats who are fiscally conservative; I think there are
>>>>> fewer who actually know about how things get done.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And now you are her making more bull*** statements. But that's just
> fine
>>> with
>>>>me. If you want to make yourself look like the dumbass you obviously
> are,
>>> go
>>>>for it, dude.
>>>
>>> People have called me worse. Someday, you may mature enough to
>>> learn that name-calling, when losing an argument, is a child's
>>> ploy.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>>Keep it up, and I'm sure we'll all call you much worse.
>
> Only you will, as you keep digging that hole you're in.
> I have noted that you're now changing my statement subtly
> from kids that had to work to adults that work now.
>
> Your little change the implication tricks may work with other
> people but it won't with me. This is what I meant when I
> said that your style of arguing was sneaky.
>

WTF are you babbling about now? I've changed nothing. I see no evidence that
you currently work. Neither do I see any evidence that you are an adult.

Quantcast