From: rajain@sml12.ecs.umass.edu (Rajat Jain)
Subject: Re: Continuing respect for female readers 
Organization: Project Pilgrim, Umass
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:11:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.052550.24602@news2.cis.umn.edu>, crick@tsp.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD)) writes:
|> In article <19025.2b03ce20@ecs.umass.edu> rajain@ecs.umass.edu writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >> changed the title of this string from that insensitive, abusive header.
|> >> Those boys who contributed to it by their obsession with anatomy, I believe,
|> >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >
|> >	What are you trying to say? Are you implying that you do not
|> >	belong to the Set of all guys, or are you saying that you belong
|> >	to the set of all (impotent) guys not obsessed w/ anatomy (of
|> >	opposite sex) ??? Please clarify.
|> >
|> If you had not been such an obnoxious, ill-mannered, brat, perhaps your
|> parents would not have abandoned you to be raised by the whores and street-
|> vermin who became your surrogate parents (or perhaps they were pedophiles
|> who used you for their filthy satisfactions, and you enjoyed it).  Anyway

      Oh my! touchy ! touchy! But thank you for all the information!!! 
      (gawd! now maybe I can figure out that damn "surrogate" family tree).

	BTW, eD cRiCk, are you currently taking a course in Integer Programming ?
	Just checking, cuz you seem to have understood the concept of "Surrogate
	Constraints" well beyond your ability :-)


|> if you were raised by decent people (which you were not), you would know that
|> this open forum is not for the discussion of such locker-room topics, which

	The whole point is......I was only followingup to *your* posting :-)
	[hope you get the meaning ;-) ]

|> make women uneasy.  Perhaps not ever having interacted with a woman before
|> (it doesn't count to dress up your diseased dog and then "get some") you
|> would not know what is proper to say in conversation with them.

	Maybe I can get some pointers from a veteran like yourself !!
	[like dOkI says : I am serious!!]

|> 
|> >> have done so out of their inability and insecurity to treat women as equals.
|> >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >
|> >	Hey dude, *you* are the one treating them as unequal !!! By saying 
|> >	that a discussion of a fine part of a female anatomy is an insult
|> >	to women, all you are saying is not to treat the women as equals !!!
|> >
|> >  rAjAt.
|> 
|> If you want equality, then perhaps you should talk about Indian dicks, as
|> you most certainly are one, even though I doubt you have one.

	hmmmmm! hey eD the above two lines prove [according to your own 
	philosophy on (in)decent parents] what kind of family *you* come
	from, unless.........you consider that dick-discussion is not
	one of those typical "locker-room topics"  which *does* belong to
	a public forum :) 

								Q.E.D
							
	As far as clearing your doubt goes....no need to clear it up !!!
	ever heard the quote : "Everyone believes what he wants to, not
	what he is told to" ? Well, this applies here too. You are welcome
	to forming your own opinions :)

|>
|> Ed

	nice knowing you, though :)

	tAkE cArE,

	rAjAt.

PS: You know what ? For a minute I thought you were talking about Indian "chicks"
    instead of "dicks" !!! Hmmmpppfffhh! hee! hee! "dick", "chick"...hell, they
    *do* rhyme :)