From: dallagata@udphvx.cineca.it
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: re: Fuck the women-macho flame, I am tired of that.
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:06:16 +0000
Organization: None
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <1993Jan20.211538.2128@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, Mark B. writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.130619.1@udphvx.cineca.it> dallagata@udphvx.cineca.it writes:
>>
>>No white flags, moron. The women took it too much seriously, they 
>>flame, they lame, they piss off people, but if somebody start 
>>the women vs. macho flame.....
>>
>>Ahhhh, the *Hell*. They don't play anymore, they become 
>>*serious*. Look at the Moaning post and you'll see that. 
> 
> Are you playing here, Michele? Or are you serious?
> 
I am fucking serious, unfortunately. Moana did not want to 
deal with the fire, she was *really* angry, I am sure about 
that, I read it on her posts. 

>>And since I don't like to fight for a topic that I do not 
>>belive, I don't. 
> 
> What topic? What are you talking about?

I mean, what I wrote was just bullshit (the women don't have 
to work, we have to stop them and something like that).
It was just a flame. It works, but many girl are not able to 
deal with this joke, They become angry. And I don't like to 
fight with angry people just because I wrote a drivel. It is 
not fun.
> 
>>Maybe I am macho (probably...), but I like 
>>and I respect women, more then everybody can think...
> 
> Your previous posts suggest that this is not true.

I am in alt.flame, the purpose is to flame. When I speak 
*seriously* with women I have a different behaviour.
> 
> So let me get this straight. When *you* slag women you are 
> just kidding but when they flame you back they're being 
> too "serious"?

I thought about that. No, my point is that the macho flame 
is terrible, you start kidding and always it ends that the 
people hate each other. And I don't like to see a woman 
angry with me only because I said bullshit. 

It is like the Wop-flame. I could cry or I could show that I 
did not give a fuck about what they said, because I know 
that I can answer with many points. That's what I did. 
> 
>>They just became offensive, *without a clue*, and worse, they 
>>did not understand that it was a joke.
> 
> Like Dice Clay is a joke?

Dice Clay? The boxer? Ah, ok, now I remember. No, the "rape-
flame" was half a joke, I mean, it was a flame, a big 
one (a flame is not necessarily a joke). Yes, maybe you are 
right. Maybe the problem is that I did put too much wood on the 
fire, without to care. You know, I could write also 
something like that:

"I don't belive that there is any rape on this world. It is 
just you, women, that are made to be fucked by us, it is the 
only job that you can do. All of you are whores".

You know? I seem angry here. I belive that nobody says 
anything like that seriously, nobody belive that (but the 
mads).

Tell this seriously to a woman, and you die, post this in 
alt.flame and you see the Hell.
> 
>>I was just having fun of them.
> 
> You sound serious about this. 

I am serious. I don't belive that there is any educated guy 
on this world that is very macho. So it was abvious that I 
was not saying what I think about women. Many people (guys) 
did not like the women answer. Many people complained about 
the fact the women did not want to flame about themself. 

> Maybe you should have a special 
> symbol placed in front of your jokes so we can tell the 
> difference. 

Many people understood the difference, I do not need a 
symbol.

> Perhaps a little Michele clown face or a smiley 
> Fermlab logo so we know when you are just "having fun of them".

Not in alt.flame. I do my game, I do not accept suggestions 
or advices, only flames.
> 
> Mark B. (seriously) :)

	Michele