Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Anniee36

1
Main / This Link is Amazing
Oct 22, 2003, 05:30 PM
http://www.starterupsteve.com/swf/subliminal.html  

Make sure you have your speakers turned up because the last one is a little hard to hear (it's a music thing.)   I am impressed.
2
Main / What is the Deal with Activations?
Oct 21, 2003, 12:08 PM
I just got an email from someone I don't know - "Brandyfinegirl_1", and she says she registered to this board (as Brandy Finegrrl) and has not yet been activated.   Also that she is not the only one this has happened to.

Ok so if people give a valid email (and this one works, so obviously it is a valid email) then what's the deal with not letting them in?   Clearly a number of puppets and aherm...people...aherm have been approved in very short order, even after she registered.   She sent me a copy of an email she sent off to Dr. Evil that she says has never been replied to.   She claims the same happened to the other person as well.

I replied that IMO it wasn't a great idea to start posting here anyway and that she should just count herself lucky.   However, I'm curious - do you have to be a known clone now to get approved or what?
3
Built for bullshit :D

I just found out that people can go on marathon bike trips from Vienna to Prague, and still register on a message board, post regularly, register on another message board (but not post until someone specific takes a hiatus many months later) and construct an entire persona over the course of a year.   A dumb one perhaps, but a persona.   What's funny is how someone has time to do this marathon bike trip thousands of miles from home yet post daily on a message board and register for others.   WHY would anyone do this?   I couldn't tell you.
4
Main / Teddy
Oct 17, 2003, 08:02 AM
Please check your PM.  That is all.
5
Main / People Are TOO Touchy...
Oct 15, 2003, 10:09 AM
"Whats so immoral about a 22 year old woman kissing a 16 year old boy? Your response to this scenario is absurdly irrational and hysterical and so is your monstrous legal system. Jailing or prosecuting people for innocent experimentation is tyranny at its worst. Men and women in their 30's are being fined and jailed for even kissing or fooling around with so-called minors. That is such %$#@&*$ BULLSHIT!!"

They're in trouble JUST for that huh?   JUST for being in their 30s and preying on kids of 15 or 16.   Boy, that's amazing.    What's "fooling around"?   It had a specific meaning when I was growing up.    I'll have to ask the kids what it means now.

So odd...I'm in my thirties and my kids are teenagers...yet how very strange that I have no desire to fuck my kids' peers and friends.   I don't give them lap dances.   I don't give them booze.   I don't strip for them.   I don't make out with them.   I don't grab their dicks.    I don't offer them my tits.   I don't slip 'em the tongue.    I don't show them dirty movies.   Boy I'm a real puritanical bitch, eh?   Because I treat them as what they are...adolescents.    Yes, people go to jail for doing these things with kids.   Fancy that.
6
Main / Voting Nonsense
Oct 10, 2003, 09:08 AM
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031010044609990001

Apparently the press has learned exactly shit when it comes to what a vote IS and what it is NOT.  

The headline says 380,000 missing votes.

"SAN FRANCISCO (Oct. 10) - More than 380,000 ballots cast in the recall election did not have a valid vote on whether to recall Gov. Gray Davis, and most of them were made on punch card systems, according to two independent studies."

I saw pictures of signs all over the place telling voters to be sure their holes were punched out properly.   If they can not follow instructions that isn't the problem of the counters.

"It's a good thing the margins weren't close," one observer said.

No, it is irrelevant that the margins weren't close.    
 
"Even if the 4.6 percent of Californians whose ballots did not answer the recall question had voted against it, Davis would have lost. The recall passed by a margin of 10.8 percent, and Republican actor Arnold Schwarzenegger enjoyed a comfortable victory.

But California's anomalies could resonate nationwide, as counties scramble to modernize election equipment to qualify for federal funding in the 2002 Help America Vote Act.

In Los Angeles County, nearly 9 percent of people who cast ballots on punch card voting machines - more than 175,000 ballots - did not register a vote on whether to recall Davis, researchers said.

Voters either abstained from the recall question or disqualified their selection by voting both ''yes'' and ''no.''

Both of which do not count as a vote.   That is just the way it is; you are supposed to ask for another ballot if you punch out both holes.   If not, your vote is not a vote, but merely a ballot without a vote.  

''It's inconceivable that one in 11 people in Los Angeles went to the polls and did not cast a vote on the recall,'' said Henry E. Brady, professor of political science and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, who conducted one study."

Well, that depends on how many were both yes and no, and how many were abstains.   They lumped them together for the purposes of this article.

The fact remains, yes AND no is not a vote.   No vote is no vote.   You are responsible for your ballot.   If you punch both out, you get another one.   If you abstain, you didn't vote.   If you forgot to vote on that issue, oh well.    

I don't know if this number is within the normal margin of error or not.  The point is, this is just the initial round.   They are going to be doing everything in their power to nullify this election and all that it means.   First is the attempt to nullify the vote altogether, but the margins aren't close enough to bring up this bogus issue.   Then will come an attempt at a re-recall.    Then (I know there is one more in here, but I forget what it was.)   Finally, it will be to stonewall and block and stop anything from being done.   Which is normally the best thing any government can do - nothing.   You may see California bounce back if the governor's hands are tied for long enough and the legislature can't work any more harm either.    The only thing is it would be best if he had a chance to repeal some of the more bogus bullshit that got them into this mess in the first place...
7
Main / Open Letter to Lynne-bob
Oct 10, 2003, 08:50 AM
Open letter to Lynnebob.

I see you can not stop talking about me.   This is not new, and neither are your phony accusations, but once in a while I may answer.   This is that while.    

I won't go into NOW too much.   I didn't destroy the NOW boards, I'm not that powerful.   You and dozens of your friends destroyed them on purpose, "scuttling the ship" as you called it.  That and your illegal harrassment; you know, the harrassment that put NOW in a very tenuous legal position that wasn't worth the hassle.    Those factors combined to cause that fiasco.   But that isn't the point.

You use that false allegation to prop up another and much more eggregious lie, and that is the one I am countering.    You use the NOW collapse to proclaim that MS has been a "gleam in my eye"; as in, I want somehow, for some reason to destroy the MS boards.    That is patently absurd, as well as libellous.

You see, when I was at NOW, I found it interesting and engaging, if upsetting at times.   I would look at the MS boards on occasion, but at that time they seemed about the most boring place in the world.   I used to get through maybe a page before saying "Forget this" and closing it.   If that.    So at first they just seemed boring to me.    Later, at shethinks, when NOW was gone, and we were continually being invaded by former NOW (meaning current MS) posters, I started to look a bit more of course; as is only natural to keep up on the people who one has had so many rows with and who are now trolling one's favorite board.   At that point it became mostly just making fun of MS; and that's pretty much where it stayed.    The only time I had POSTED to MS was as a joke for one morning, after NOW closed.     When shethinks also closed and it became clear that people were going to CONTINUE to evoke my name and blame me for MS trolls, even ones that were completely different from me, I decided to forget making fun, to take a big chance, and if I were allowed, to find SOME common ground with some of the people.  You see in the course of making fun, I many times saw things that I admired, or read things from people who grew on me.    If they were willing, I was willing to give it a chance, though I didn't intend to make a permanent thing out of it.   I decided to try and connect despite political differences.

And you know what?   It turns out that women CAN and DO have something to talk about, that they can indeed connect on the basis of being women, despite political differences or past problems.   How about that?   It wasn't something one learned at NOW obviously.   Not with you/Nikki/elaine bullying everybody about.   Anniee learned something, eh?   Fancy that.   This is something you have never had and will never know.    You yourself know you can not connect with women whose politics differ from yours entirely, and it stuns me that the reason for that has never come through to you.    It is the same reason your "narrative" doesn't resonate with many real women, they can't relate to any aspect of it really.    Even when you maintained the fiction of being brought up a woman I couldn't relate to you (though sometimes I tried) and I never understood why in the name of loving women you were so willing to abuse them.  If they were DIFFERENT than you in their politic, that is.    Now I understand, but you still don't.   I guess that's self-preservation but you ought to consider sometime what you're preserving <shrug>.    You can't relate to women who are "male-identified" yet real women relate to male or non-male identified on some level, don't they?   I'm not going down a laundry list of who you can't relate to; suffice it to say you've made it very clear you don't, can't, won't - and that is the biggest difference I'm seeing between you and real women yet.   And remember, this IS coming from a non-feminist, who didn't even pretend to be a feminist when I came to visit.

At any rate, I can assure you (and the rest of MS) that there is not now NOR HAS THERE EVER BEEN a gleam in my eye towards destroying your board, even if I had that kind of power.   No interest whatsoever.   In fact I chose to leave rather than allow disruption to occur around the fact of my presence.   I wasn't going to let people who identify with feminism fight with other feminists over me when I'm not even a feminist.  

I would like to thank again the MSers who gave me a chance to at least find some of this out.   Even Allie for allowing me as much time as she did before coming after me.  Likely she just thought I'd do something bad and get banned anyway, but that's fine.    Thank you for taking in one of your political opposites for a moment and getting to understand one another better.    Lynne, if you REALLY want to be a woman and relate to them, I suggest you listen when women say things you DON'T agree with, not just when they do.   I suggest you listen even when they oppose you, on whatever grounds they oppose you.    I suggest you start learning even from women like me - did you notice some said they'd rather work with Ann Coulter than with you?   It isn't just about the politics, no matter how personal you think they are.   I promise you it isn't.   Learn from women like me, women who love men, women who are conservative, women who DON'T SPEAK LIKE YOU THINK WOMEN CAN SPEAK.   Learn from women who YOU INSIST ARE MEN (the way you insisted I was a man) JUST BASED ON THEIR LANGUAGE and MANNER OF SPEECH.   Learn to stop deciding who is a woman and who isn't because you don't even realize how MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF WOMEN THERE ARE and in HOW MANY BASIC WAYS THEY DIFFER; nor have you shown any interest in learning what binds even those disparate women together.   If you can once get ahold of THAT mystery, you may become a real woman after all.
9
Main / A Formal Apology
Aug 19, 2003, 04:02 AM
I would like to apologize formally and herewith to every fucker who infests this board, and who has heretofore left, and is still infesting it.  

I would like to apologize for the MONTHS of ass-kissing I bestowed upon Amber, because she sure as shit didn't deserve it.

I would like to apologize for the MANY months of ass-kissing I bestowed upon JGalt; because he merely turned it into a joke and a scorn.   He merely sucked it up and spit it back as hatred and fire.

I would like to thank, belatedly, deviate, for admitting that I did in fact kiss those asses first and that they indeed stabbed me first and without cause.

I would like to apologize for being stupid enough to think that these masculist fuckers might actually like a mere woman and for being nice to each and every fucker who posted on shethinks.   Except for (so far as I can remember, Fred and UR.)

Thank you for listening.

THERE IS MY APOLOGY.
10
Main / The Crybaby Press...
Aug 15, 2003, 03:50 AM
Won't report this story correctly, BUT the fact is tax cuts have worked as planned.   Pay attention to the link about how the Clinton spinmeister commerce department falsely inflated numbers to make him a success in economics.


"The media's obvious anger over the economy's recovery would be funny if they weren't so harmful to the nation. Consider this from the Associated Press: "America's shoppers threw caution to the wind and splurged in July on cars, appliances and clothes, catapulting sales at the nation's retailers by 1.4%, the biggest increase in four months." Translation: "Damn spenders! They threw caution to the wind, refusing to stay at home under their beds! Don't they know this economy is supposed to continue to lag so that Bush will lose?"



In a properly informed media, the headline would read "President Bush's Tax Cuts Work as Planned." Instead, this story goes on with equal gloom to cite a "sizable gain in retail sales reported by the Commerce Department." Since this isn't the Clinton Commerce Department, which inflated numbers falsely http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/08/12/BA298347.DTL  to create the illusion of a boom during his last year's in office, we know this is true. AP writes that "consumers have been opening their wallets and purses wider since April." Hmm, what was it about April that gave people more money to spend?

AP: "Some economists believe that fatter paychecks and other incentives coming from President Bush's third tax cut left people with extra money to spend and contributed to the rise in retail sales in July." No! Really? Who says this? Oh, "some economists." Well, it figures. From a separate AP story: "President Bush and his advisors say the economy's recovery is gaining strength largely due to their policies of cutting taxes and holding down spending." Holding down spending? When did that happen? Add the third AP story into this Twilight Zone trilogy and something doesn't add up. Quote: "The Washington Post poll on the newspaper's website Tuesday night said 73% think it is a problem and 23% think it is not."

The story is poorly written, so it makes it sound as if this was a website poll, which are notoriously inaccurate. In fact, the poll was conducted Thursday August 7th to Monday August 11. Those of you who follow this closely know, of course, that no pollster on either side of the political aisle polls over the weekends. Weekend polls don't get an accurate sampling because Republicans are underrepresented during those times. The truth is, deficits have never been a front-burner issue - except among media elites and politicians. The economy is coming back. You'll see it impact unemployment numbers soon. That's always a lagging indicator."

Thanks, Bush.  Now fight some more and get us a REAL tax cut, then watch the economy SKYROCKET!
11
Main / Get a Masters...In Nothing
Aug 15, 2003, 03:04 AM
San Francisco is offering degree programs now in ACTIVISM.   Yep.   You too can learn from the massive wisdom of tree-sitter BUTTERFLY HILL (ecofeminist witch) and other experts in the field.  

"As if liberalism hasn&#8217;t infiltrated our institutions of higher learning enough as it is, just wait 'till you get a load of a new curriculum being offered at a college in, where else, San Francisco. Folks, you can now get a masters degree in activism. Yes, protests, rallies, the whole shebang.  



The San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday, &#8220;San Francisco's New College of California is offering something for the socially conscious this fall that they'd never get marching in the streets: a college degree in activism. For $5,500 to $6,000 a semester, the 32-year-old Mission District school is offering bachelor's and master's humanities degrees with a concentration in &#8216;activism and social change.&#8217; While schools from Vermont to Santa Cruz boast versions of do-gooding curricula, degrees in activism are hard to come by.

&#8216;Students can shape their own (activist) program at other schools,&#8217; said Michael Baer, senior vice president at the American Council on Education and former provost at Northeastern University. &#8216;But to have it all together - the theoretical and the practical - under one roof and labeled as such is somewhat rare.&#8217; Almost as rare is New College's eclectic lineup of activist instructors, a progressive all-star team that includes tree-sitting environmentalist Julia &#8216;Butterfly&#8217; Hill, &#8216;ecofeminist witch&#8217; and author Starhawk and San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly.&#8221;

The students will study everything from anarchist theory to the civil rights movement, but apparently the hot topic in the program right now is the course on globalization. So folks, lots of possibilities for your kids here. "

That's Rush's take on it.   Here's the article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/08/12/BA298347.DTL
12
Main / Queer Eye
Aug 14, 2003, 04:57 PM
For those who maybe don't have cable; tonight the Queer Eye guys are going to be on Leno - haven't watched Leno once in my life lol - but I think I will tonight.   Though I'm pissed that I missed them on Howard Stern; that would have been better.   Anyhow they are also showing, on NBC, one of the episodes of the show.   One that, sadly, was actually not typical.   I wouldn't take it as an example of the show in general; the other episodes were much better.

But, check them out; I just love these guys :)
13
Main / Msery Madness - And NOW too
Jun 28, 2003, 12:21 PM
http://www.msmagazine.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=002253

This is just TOO funny.   At least, to anyone who goes all the way back to the NOW days!   Nikkiru, the OTHER tranny who helped Lynne harrass and stalk people, who reigned supreme until she ran like hell for the hills when exposed as a tranny during Lynne's outing, and spent the rest of her days trolling shethinks under dozens of names until it crashed and he crawled home through muck and slime to post at MS hoping no one will notice...

Where was I?  Nikkiru, the other tranny all of the above bitch, is crying about NOW and how the people here are the "same people" that he "debated" at NOW (though I don't see many people here who were at NOW at all...methinks he's confused and is thinking of shethinks where he trolled endlessly until it was shut down) and how SICK he got of "debating" us at NOW and how we had things "proven" to us (by him LMAO) endlessly but to no avail.

Now this really is only hilarious if you happened to have BEEN there and seen the way Nikki played.  

Nikki was a snake.   I mean, you would seriously try to have one discussion with him on one or two points and he would generally not even bother to make an assertion.  

I had one of these so-called "debates" with him because it PROMISED an honest discussion with anyone who could produce a SINGLE statement made by David Byron that was true.   Well I produced a whole page full of statements containing easily verified facts, and proceeded to provide proof; mostly very simple facts.   It was quite easy and probably took ten minutes.   I was sure I'd won the right to finally have Nikki engage in a serious discussion and battle of wits.   But alas it was not to be.   After four pages of slithering around and evading the point (actually he normally would just disappear but they were in the habit of tormenting me a bit longer because I never gave up hope that one day they'd just TALK like human beings) do you know how Nikkiboy finally ended up?   Well I think it came down a one page showdown, I demanded "Look, this thread asked for one DB post that was factual, I've provided a ton - let's talk now."  Nikki said "But you didn't provide a link to those posts, without a link I can not consider them."  (Of course that didn't stop him arguing them.)   I didn't know how to post a hyperlink but I did manage to at least post the URLs.   So I posted the URLs and made my request again.   Once there was nothing left of technical complaints (a page or two of that) Nikkiboy said "But these facts were in the midst of quite startling untruths" whatever the hell that was supposed to mean.    

So I said again that I'd met the requirements and it was time to honor his word made to anyone who could provide what he'd asked for.   Once again, it squirmed for 5 or 6 more posts.   Then, when there was nothing at all left, do you know what it said?   "I was only joking, and now I'm laughing at you."

Never mind that the thread had been active for MONTHS, with him continually demanding that someone provide proof of one true statement and earning the honor of Nikki not being just a whining bitch but actually DISCUSSING something with them.    I mean what does it say when you have to win a contest to get someone to discuss something with you honestly?  Does that make it seem like you are in the HABIT of doing so otherwise?   DUH.

Nikkiru is a complete and utter sham; who never once discussed a matter honestly in his life; he squirms and runs like HELL to hide if he thinks anyone will actually challenge him.   He will hide for a year or more.   He has never debated anyone or discussed anything honestly.   He didn't honor even the few measly promises he'd made to engage in an honest discussion just once.   He didn't honor the rules of his own contest.   The prize wasn't worth winning, but hey - one tried to hope a LITTLE, you know?

For any asshats that think I was some kind of monster troll at NOW, take a peek at http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/63.111.42.148/ubbs/ubbcgi/ultimate.cgi "NOW Home" and say it to my face.

Heh Nikkiboy was also the queen/king of deleted posts...then pretended he never even LOOKED at a thread where he was busy being horribly abusive.   He'd also go back and edit posts from as much as two years previous, then you couldn't use his quotes when he demanded "I didn't ever say that."    Of course he DID, but since your link would only get you to a newly edited post and a search wouldn't turn it up, that was that.   It was busy editing ancient history right up until the last day at NOW LMAO.   What a dumb troll.   Heh
14
Main / Ludicrous, All Right
Jun 17, 2003, 10:11 AM
Cog, you may appreciate Lynne's immediate packpedalling on this one; I sure got a laugh out of it!

First Angelic Voice of Fate (who has been there a long time - years - and made some pretty cool posts from what I can see) comments on Allie's stupid complaint (and boy is it stupid.)  Then they start arguing a bit and Lynne and kaye decide that it's "the terrier" which was the epithet they had chosen for me (you likely remember Lynne, kaye, elaine and BUTTERFLY calling me the terrier about two dozen times a day each, not acknowledging I was human at all - it's how the Mojo board pets - me being the pet - thing came about).

OK so Lynne asks "Is this the terrier" and kaye (ever the fucking moron who has never apologized for the MYRIAD things she was wrong about with me; this is just another one of hundreds) says "yep".

Back comes AVOF to challenge them (and I love this) directly that the moderator should be contacted and if it was found to be me, she would write a full page apology and leave the boards.   But that if it was NOT me, Lynne and kaye would have to do the same.   IOW put your money where your mouth is because AVOF is obviously not me.   (I'd take the credit; I was "bornawoman" - for one day - so they obviously have my IP and can easily see it's not me.)

Anyway, kaye shut RIGHT the fuck up (because she's always talking out of her ass and where it concerned me she was ALWAYS wrong - some of it wasn't proven til much later but she KNOWS it was always proven) but Lynne simply replied "NO DEAL" LMAO.

THEN he says "I don't follow shethinks and you're the content" (he is really incoherent when he's flustered, I don't know if you've noticed?) so which is it?  Does he follow it or not?

Well I've given it most away but it was still hilarious to see the backpedalling and AVOF's answers are priceless, so DO check them out!   I loved the last one - telling him he NEEDS AVOF to be Anniee and was looking forward to watching him squirm but will settle for the cowardice LOL.   Then Allie comes on and says it doesn't matter anyway - of course it doesn't matter when they're wrong in their stupid accusations LMAO

http://www.msmagazine.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=002232;p=1

Enjoy
15
Main / A Bill of (Un)Rights
Jun 13, 2003, 08:07 PM
The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from
GA.

"We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help
everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights."

ARTICLE I:

You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of
wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is
guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on
freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may
leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but
the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be ... and like the
rest of us you need to simply deal with it.

ARTICLE III: (I like this one!)

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a
screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool
manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:

You do not have the right to free food and housing.  Americans are the most
charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we
are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of
professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation
(procreation) of another
generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from
the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health
care.

ARTICLE VI:

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you
kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if
the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII:

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob,
cheat or coerce away the goods or  services of other citizens, don't be
surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where
you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV, pool tables, weight
rooms or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII:

You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job,
and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take
advantage of the opportunities of part time jobs, education and vocational
training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX:

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness -- which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights,"

ARTICLE X:

This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from. We welcome you here. English is our language and like the one you left behind, we also have a culture. Learn it or go back to the country and the living conditions you were fleeing.

************

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and
nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it is about
time common sense is allowed to flourish -- just call it "The Age of
"Reason Revisited."
16
Main / Things We Already Knew...
Jun 12, 2003, 01:58 PM
OK, I knew from post 1 of this thread that it was going to turn into a MANY page (5 but climbing rapidly - should reach 10) ragfest because of what she said in post #1.   It was inevitable.   Read the first post and tell me if you wouldn't know the same:

http://www.msmagazine.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001344;p=1

Easy one, I know.   I could have told you from day one that Radical Angel and Soulhuntre would be utterly hated by the MSeries; and in fact I did, on shethinks.

Give me some where you saw the writing on the wall clear as day.   :)
17
So named after the Valarie Solanas S.C.U.M. Manifesto role for men.   We know many of them don't we?  :)   Anyone who dates back to the NOW days remembers the abuse the poor turd men endured - from Elfeminista to Ed to Hutch.   Though they attacked me ceaselessly, I sort of can't get TOO mad because after all they were constantly abused themselves.   The stress of trying to meet radfem demands and their hormonal fluctuations has to be enormous.

Now we have our very own turd boy come to visit.   A turd boy trolling a male-friendly board is marked by his antagonistic attitude.   He has to run back home to syster/mommie with a tale of what a good little doggie he was.  He wasn't corrupted by those big bad meanies.   He even called them Nazis!   Can he PLEASE get a bone now?   Just a scrap of affection?   The answer is for the most part, "No" but that won't deter him.   If he actually interacts with anyone (beyond "You're all poopieheads, leave the feminists alone!) he will be severely punished (note Radical Angel) but if he's a bastard, he MIGHT escape with a pat on the head before the inevitable kick.

In the spirit of current goings on, I had a proposal.   I think maybe there should be SOMEPLACE on the web available to these veterans that feminists will not be able to constantly read (as they constantly read these boards.)   Just one little space where these misused men can gather and scream at each other, let off all that steam from the abuse they endure, and recharge for the next bout of "Yes ma'am, may I have another?"  

And yes, it's hard to speak with two pounds of ferbert's toe jam in your mouth from licking her feet, I know this tumor-ick.   But you can do it.
18
Main / Canada Blasts "Masculism"
Jun 09, 2003, 01:23 PM
http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/0662882857/200303_0662882857_8_e.html

This seems to be a government sponsored organization writing this bullshit.   I love when feminists bitch that the government is misogynistic when obviously it's the opposite.   LOL

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In less than a decade, unprecedented resistance has sprung up to girls' success at school and to the women's movement. Responding to the fact that more girls than boys do well in school, the movement grew out of an awareness of high-school drop-out rates in the 1990s and the realization that there was a performance gap between boys and girls. It began with a discourse on girls' "triumphant breakthrough" and boys' "malaise," and moved on to point fingers at female elementary teachers, single mothers and feminists before reaching its present position, in which it challenges the school system and co-educational schools. Since the end of the decade, links have been systematically established with such issues as the male suicide rate, boys on Ritalin, fathers gaining custody of their children, the suffering of men, the loss of male identity, false allegations of violence against men, etc. This rhetoric is heard more and more in political environments where the masculinist lobby is active. It is especially evident in education circles in Quebec, where a variety of measures have been introduced for boys, along with major investments of material and financial resources.

Some may be tempted to believe, as implied by this discourse, that giving consideration to the claims about the "victimization" of boys is a fair way to deal with the two sexes. The arguments invoked specifically target women in their quest for equality and justice, holding them responsible, as mothers and teachers, for the problems identified. Many feminists are incredulous to see their own claims used by the proponents of this position. There is even talk about affirmative action for boys, equality, respecting differences, etc.

These arguments are fallacious. First, this discourse disregards the power aspect of relationships between men and women (Foster, 1996) by placing the status and position of men and women at the same level, as though their positions were identical and interchangeable. It then discusses differences where there is a process of differentiation, and tries to make phenomena that are fundamentally social constructs seem natural. Lastly, under the guise of combatting discrimination, this discourse masks a strong resistance to the change demanded by feminists.

It is easy to see that such a discourse raises the question of allocation of resources. Some masculinist sites currently contain a list of all the shelters for abused women, with the amount of subsidies they receive, trying to show that men are not receiving their fair share of public funding. What are the priorities for available funding? Should it be used to encourage girls to consider non-traditional occupations, or to develop programs for boys? To support programs for girls who are having problems in school and teen mothers, or activities for boys that incorporate more sports, extra-curricular activities and computers? Should we turn the clock back, at least to some extent, to a time when boys and girls attended separate schools, given that in identical education programs girls do better than boys and are more persevering? All options for boys are now raised in discussions of gendered school success. Should we go back to the time when programs were based on gender and sexist stereotypes, and reflected an essentialist view of differentiation? These questions have been the subject of rather virulent debate in the media in Quebec and the rest of Canada, Great Britain, Australia, France and the United States.

Over the past decade, there has been a considerable body of research into the performance gap between boys and girls in industrialized countries (Baudelot and Establet, 1992; Bouchard and St-Amant, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000; Duru-Bellat, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995; Epstein, 1998; Felouzis, 1990, 1993; Gagnon, 1999; Gilborn, 1997; Hey et al., 1998; Jackson, 1998; Kimmel, 2000; Lingard and Douglas, 1999; Mac an Ghail, 2000; Martino, 2000; Mosconi, 1998; Murphy and Elwood, 1998; Raphael Reed, 1998; Renold, 2001; Sewell, 1998; Skelton, 2001; Swann, 1998; Teese et al., 1995; Terrail, 1992; Wang, 2000). With the exception of more targeted research around the turn of the millennium, scientists have paid scant attention to examining ideologies and analyzing discourses. By focussing on this aspect, our research reveals the need to link socio-political and feminist analysis to educational theory in order to generate the knowledge needed to formulate, orient or defend public and political policy directed mainly at women. The originality of our research lies in its focus on successive stages in developing a discourse of resistance to change, the structure of that discourse, its social context and purposes. This type of research is all too often conducted "after the fact," after women have experienced major setbacks.

The results of our analysis of the masculinist discourse reveal an ideology that aims to challenge the gains made by women and discredit feminism. It is mainly spread through the print media and Internet sites of men's associations that hope to regain privileges lost over the years. Some statements also incite hatred and violence.

In this context, we have made a number of recommendations regarding monitoring of Internet sites. We also recommend that consideration be given to whether legal action can be taken under section 319 of the Criminal Code. We feel it timely to recommend a strategy for women's groups to develop and disseminate on the Internet positive, egalitarian messages to counter this discourse. It would also be appropriate to form a network of experts in fields on which the masculinists are focussing. In another vein, we suggest that whenever possible, the release of gendered data be accompanied by analyses that provide a context for these data. Similarly, gendered data collection must reflect the social context from which the data are gathered, and must be integrated with other relevant variables, such as level of education, type of work, ethnic origin, etc. Lastly, we recommend further research, especially in the areas of alleged violence by women and child custody, to determine the empirical bases for the arguments, concepts and statistics used by masculinists."
19
Main / Bwaaahahaha
Jun 07, 2003, 06:26 PM
There were plenty of places this could go, but hell let's give it its own thread.    Then we can see how the "disinterested" MSery lurkers hit it like flies on shit.

Doctor Evil, you're on the map!   Or at least your boards are ;)   The psycho map anyway.   Norah (lunaTic) posted a link to radical angel's thread here for the purpose of hassling his ass about it there.   They're too chicken shit to just post it HERE of course, despite the fact that they all read the boards here.  And even more so at shethinks.  Duh.   Norah says it's "flattering".   I have always wondered about idiots who think it's flattering to be gawked at as a train wreck or horribly bloody accident is gawked at.  I mean people look at those pictures of abortions too; it isn't "flattering" to anyone.   That protestation always rings REALLY hollow to me; they know it isn't flattery but mockery.

"I didn't read the entire thread on that other board but I'm nonetheless amazed. How many boards are there now who's sole purpose is to bitch about Ms.? You'd think they'd have more interesting things to talk about.

/Jake"


"flattering? how about creepy.

Who owns those boards and what's their purpose?"

Heheheheheh!!!!   Awesome.  

WE ARE TOTALLY CREEPY DUDE!   Like sharks with frickin laser beams on our foreheads!   Like LIQUID HOT MAGMA!   YEAH BABY!
20
Main / I So Know Who Deb Is - For the MSeries
Jun 01, 2003, 07:32 AM
:D