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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:00:15 GMT

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:T9ydnXUtuYdewGfcRVn-hA@rcn.net...
> In article <x%sKd.32729$EG1.31518@attbi_s53>,
> "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>
>><jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:-cKdndBK-MRN0mfcRVn-gg@rcn.net...
>>> In article <FKrKd.33517$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.
>
> Of course you haven't officially changed anything. But you
> have changed the context of the subject.
>
>> .. I see no evidence that
>>you currently work. Neither do I see any evidence that you are an adult.
>
> I have always been talking about kids working _when they
> were kids_. You have changed the context to adults working.
>

So you are saying that kids should work while adults shouldn't? Well, that must
be a new neocom platform, probably borrowed from a sweatshop owner in
Bangladesh.

Quantcast