Family Forum / Marriage / Divorce / February 2006

Yes, "dirty bits", as a right wing concerned christian of the Promise
Keeper movement, what do you want me to say... "hey kids, come checkout
your moms c.nt, a.s hole and cock suckin' lips?..."

Shame on you.

I always thought the "dirty bit" was the indicator that a memory page
was changed and if the job is swapped out of the computer, that page
needs to be saved (as opposed to a code page that you can simply reload
from the application binary.)

Since when has "being honest with anybody about anything" been a
cardinal virtue of sociopathic, bipolar newsloons?

Hole in one.

-- Steve
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
gunhed57@NRsmykicktoy.pacbell.net
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address

"it must shock you that i respect jackie." - John Seiler

See the soc.singles HALL OF STUPID: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid

"Too late he understood that when you mate with a black
widow spider, you're on the menu tonight."
- Crash Street Kidd, re: Jackie, Message-ID: <bjr8fp0591@drn.newsguy.com>

By forging me NR admits he is my puppet

"Your personal information will continue to be propagated
until someone puts an end to your miserable life.
The worst is yet to come.  Trust me." - Mike Cranston,
Message-ID: <7JWLHIE338220.5539699074@anonymous.poster>

ATTENTION, Tammy Chaney! The man who posted your home
address and phone number online is known as Michael J
Cranston. He has admitted to encouraging people to call
and harass you in this post: <m3qkh0to8e86jvhb7dn2j0ui9ds86a7mdv@4ax.com>

He can be reached at
Mike Cranston
6529 21st Avenue NW
Seattle WA 98117
(206) 783-5965

He has a Washington State Bar ID: 16122
You can look him up online at: http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=760292

Mike Cranston is guilty of at least three federal offenses so
far, and should immediately be reported to the FBI for interstate
phone harassment, death threats, and encouraging people to harass
you and/or your family.

Here's how to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies
to seek justice:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
http://www.sacpd.org/susp_rpt.html

"scruby" <bryan@wasdrunk.com> wrote in news:1139920719.383868.161560
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Since dismissed baybee developed the agenda that the ONLY way a man can
get laid is to lie to women.
Then, of course, he developed the agenda that all women can tell when a
man is lying so if a  man lies to a woman he CAN'T lay her.
Then he started getting confused as to what exactly his agenda really is
and started throwing out both ideas indiscriminately.

Now? Who the f.ck knows. He certainly doesn't.

What it boils down to is ray's need for failure rationalization, as always.

He tries to float the premise that women are screwing their bosses... so he
can then postulate that the reason women do not want sex with him, is that
he is unable to offer them and career advancement.

If he can label all women or most women as gold diggers, then he can in turn
blame his failures with women on his lack of gold, rather than admit his
failures are due to the fact he has a personality that is roughly as
appealing as the bottom of a port-o-potty that's been sitting in the sun for
a week.

As a side note it makes ray feel better about his inability to get and keep
a job if he blames it on some evil woman who used her sex appeal to steal a
job from gordo.  See that's his rationalization for his failure in the job
market... it isn't his anti-social behavior, lack of skill, nor his
delusional persecution complex or mood swings that keep him from being hired
in an office environment, but that the bosses only hire women that they
think will f.ck them.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:58:33 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<f.ck-you.ya.c.nt@kiss-my-big-black-a.s.com> got double secret
probation because:

I asked for one, he ran away.

You didn't do too well in logic... I can see.  There is no evidence

that the total is 83%.   It is more logical to assume the total is 50%.

And that leaves a bit more then 17% being "less attractive" and/or

opportunistic.  Actually neither of those descriptors need apply ...

if you checked the statistics you would learn the general average of

those who date other employees is equal between male and female ...

oh ... gees ... you could have figured that out just by thinking a

little less heavily on you feet.

What? You want a basic logic lesson?

A universal affirmative proposition would be (1) "All S is P"; a simple
conversion of that proposition would be (2) "All P is S". Inferring (2)
from (1) would be one example of a non sequitur.

A conditional proposition would be (1) "If A, then B"; a transposition
of that proposition would be (2) "If B, then A". Inferring (2) from (1)
would be another example of a non sequitur.

Those ar feminist numbers. You know, more than 10.

[snip]

So, if A is a tool of B, and C is a tool of A, does that mean that C is
a tool of B? I'm asking. You seem to be *implying* that, but not saying
so explicitly.

Whoops-a-daisy! I think you just slipped in "feminist leaders" in place
of "women". Hmm, do you think that there may be something fishy about
equating "women" with "feminist leaders"? You're kinda new to this
"logical inference stuff", aren't you?

       Well well, Mr. Quintal ...

       I notice you have a way of linking two grossly dissimilar
       and mutually alien ideologies by saying that _one is the
       same as the other_!! ...

       whereas anyone can see that the only thing they possibly
       have in common is the negative connotations they both
       simultaneously evoke in your head.

       I wonder if you're from that same clique whose leader once
       blathered about an _axis of evil_. In a similar way, he'd
       linked-up three of four totally dissimilar countries
       (Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Cuba) on the fatuous basis
       that they MUST be in league because they had similar views
       regarding the U.S.A.

       I digress.

       Mr Quintal, if your mind is that firmly set on the notion
       Feminism=Communism=Feminism then let me introduce you to
       the Whiners' Club of America:

        -------------- Press Release --------------------------

        The Whiners' Club of America (WCA) announces that it
        will offer the following free memberships:

        ------------
        Basic Level:
        ------------

        Qualification:

        -- One reference to "jerks get sex, nice guys don't".
 
        Any general explanation for this phenomena accepted.

        This level of membership will entitle you to lifetime
        membership into the Whiners' Lounge, or until you lose
        your virginity ... whichever comes first.

        --------------------
        Silver Club Members:
        --------------------

        To get this level you need:

        -- The creation of a general theory of women's behaviour
           or attitude. This theory can be based on either imagined
           or actual experiences.

        No verification of this theory is required.

        The rewards of this level is lifetime membership in the WCA,  
        that does not expire at the loss of virginity.  

        However, if feelings of bitterness subside, or the theory
        has not been actively discussed in a 3-year period, the silver
        club membership will be revoked.

        ------------------
        Gold Club Members:
        ------------------

        To get this level you need:

        -- A fully developed general theory of women's behaviour and
           attitudes with rationalisations and justifications;

        -- No date in the preceding 1 year;

        -- You have not approached any women for dates or conversations
           in 3 months;

        As a reward you receive membership to the Whiners' Lounge.

        However, the WCA cannot guarantee against ridicule, disdain,  
        disbelief, disrespect, contempt or any other emotion that
        may be expressed in the member's direction.

        Finally we have the:

        ***********************
        Platinum Level Members:
        ***********************

        To get this level you need:

        -- A fully developed general theory of women's behaviour and
           an attempt to fit _any_ situation into the theory regardless
           of the evidence.

        Sexual History or sexual attempts are irrelevant.

        Revocation is at the discretion of the member.

       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        The WCA was set up to provide a warm comfortable meeting place
        for men to relax and exchange ideas. The WCA is proud of its
        distinguished role in society. We are located all over the
        country.

        Look in the yellow pages for a club near you.

        Signed the President ...

       ======== end of press release ==============================

 

               'A weak man had rather be thought to know
                than not to know, and that maketh him so
                impatient to be told of a mistake.'

               -- Marquess of Halifax
                  'Miscellaneous thoughts and reflections'

Pete Turk   <Pete@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA President and Moonshadow
--
May your doorstep ever be dirty.
-- Romany blessing

I suppose there may be a place for you somewhere in the universe.
I wish you luck in finding it.

[snip]

If you're bipolar? You betcha.

Good luck with that.

Some of us have been waiting for YEARS for Gordon to document evidence for
any of his assertions, including a Federal Judge or three.

Gordon posted it.
Don't take it seriously.
Don't take anything that he posts seriously.
Well, not unless he also posts verifiable evidence of his claiims.
Which he never does so...
...don't take anything he posts seriously.

Who cares whether or not you take them to lunch.

And the moon is made of cheese.

Hey! You're right!: just saying things _does_ make them true.

Sophistry.

Looks and intellectual aptitude are related, generaly.

Do you swallow on the first date.

Most of the stats would involve retaliation cases, and the EEOC tracks that.

The most telling evidence is when someone goes down for misconduct (civil or
criminal), it inevitably comes out that some whistleblower was fired, or
that half the company knew and said nothing.

It's not exactly a secret that a snitch can expect to be fired, so if the
company is corrupt, you can be pretty sure the underlings know what is going
on and also know that they aren't allowed to speak up.

I prefer women who are removed from the corporate corruption and who earn
their livings independently inasmuch as they aren't vulnerable to that type
of situation.  Lots of guys have wives and girlfriends who go to work in
places where sexual misconduct later comes out, and this is not a good thing
for that type of relationship.

"Whore" is a word typically used to describe somebody who f.cks more
than
one person without a suitable time space in between. It carries the
same
meaning as slag, slapper, trollop, and the usual.

"Someone"? Or specifically a woman?
What is a "suitable time space" between sexual partners? Is there an
objective criteria that applies equally for both men and women or is
this merely an arbitrary individual opinion?

*/*

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/Careers/02/15/cb.flirt.at.work/index.html

Of the 1,121 men who responded, 92 percent of male managers admitted
they've been attracted to female co-workers, and 52 percent of the
1,451 women polled said the same about male co-workers.

82 percent of the female poll respondents also reported feeling
"creeped out" by an older male colleague's attempts at flirting.

Sean_MacCloud <sean_macloud@[you-is-smart]yahoo.com> wrote in message
<a%KIf.421$2m3.130@fe10.lga>...  

Sean_MacCloud <sean_macloud@[you-is-smart]yahoo.com> wrote in message
<f21Jf.5$ds2.3@fe10.lga>...  

Nooo.  They are guilty because of Adam's original lie.

I am sorry but there are men who use sex to get ahead in the business
world too. Perhaps not to the same extent, but it does happen.
And since we are speaking anecdotally, I was sexually harrassed so
badly in one job that I was compelled to resign. And it wasn't a minor
set of incidents of an ambiguous nature either.

In order to fight it I would have had to hire a lawyer and take the
employer to court.
I negotiated a sterling recommendation from them and just left.
I do not doubt that there are women who use sex to get ahead. But to
impune the majority of employed women as guilty of sexual manipulation
is just wrong.
And I know for a fact that there are men who will feel sexually
"manipulated" if you so much as deign to have a casual conversation
with them.

It seems to me that some men just need to take ownership of their own
lust and get over it!
Have you any idea how humiliating it is to have people believe that you
were hired because of your looks? Even when you know in your heart it
isn't true, you are still stigmatized.

*/*

But, if men always made sure to play fair then they would not give
these pretty women the advantage.  Women are "given" these advantages
by men, right?
Sure, there are women out there who don't think there is anything wrong
with using their  sexuality to gain advangates.  But, those men who
"give" them the advantages obviously don't see anything wrong with it
either.
Men's "rules of engagement dictate" that you play fair?  Then why do
men let women get away with all of this?  It's a double standard.  Men
expect men to play fair but men don't expect women to.  That's part of
the problem.

In my 16 years of work experience I've worked for both men and women.
I'm working for a woman now, and like her a lot.  Either man or women
there have been some I liked and some I didn't like working for.  It
didn't have anything to do with their sex.

<Cross-Posting snipped>

   You obviously have no clue of the sexual nature of men and women. We are
just flip-sides of the same coin, and our sexuality is pretty much the same
for both sexes.
   You only perceive what you believe to be the truth, and you are sadly
missing a really cool side of the human condition.