From: dallagata@udphvx.cineca.it
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Intellectuals & women
Date: 21 Jan 93 02:05:28 +0000
Organization: None
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

Ok, SHIT, now I have to be *really* serious.

In article <1993Jan21.015008.963@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, jbl3g@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Jason Basinger Linkins) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.161528.1@udphvx.cineca.it> dallagata@udphvx.cineca.it writes:

>>How can you speak for me, Moron? What the fuck do you know 
>>about me? What the fucking shit are you saying, now? 
> 
> I am not speaking for you, asshole.  You do just fine speaking for yourself.
> I am merely pointing out for those who desire a translation of your primitive
> diatribe what it is that you are saying, and extrapolating from your missives
> the logic which you represent.

Bullshit.
> 
>>I said that women are *wonderful*, you will *never* hear me 
>>saying the same thing about men. Isn't it enough?!? 
> 
> Your definition though, of a "wonderful" woman, however, is one that falls
> exclusively into your backward, throwback scheme.  

Everybody has a scheme.

>That is: a woman for you is
> one who cooks for you, cleans for you, fucks you and does not have any
> aspirations of doing anything more than having babies.  You wrongly believe
> that the purpose of women is to reproduce.

That's a point moron. I don't belive that the *ONLY* purpose 
of women is to reproduce, but I *do* belive that one of the 
*first* purpose of women is to reproduce. That's the *only* 
difference between men and women. Or you don't want to agree 
with that?!?

>>If the creation of a new life is *not* a wonderful thing for 
>>you, neither your death will be a sad thing for us.
> 
> Your death, likewise, will go unnoticed and unlamented.

So, do you want to be real or you want to flame? Answer to 
what I wrote, if you are deep enough to understand it. 
>>
>>Anyway, what's wonderful for *you*?
> 
> That's irrelevant.

Another fucking lame, eh? Be real, idiot.

>>I speak with people, instead to read your fucking books, idiotic 
>>intellectual moron. And the women told me that. If you don't 
>>agree, it is *your* problem.

> I see.  You truly are illiterate.  

Maybe. It does not mean to be stupid or cold as you are.

> Well, I have to say that reading a book
> now and then can be quite rewarding.  I suggest you learn to read, and start
> with some "Dick and Jane".  Once you grasp that, you can work your way up to
> Mother Goose.

I suggest to you to live on real world, with real *people*. 
The books are as false as alt.flame.
> 
> In the meantime...are you one of those people who believes everything you 
> hear?  

I wasn't hearing, moron, I was *listening* at them! And there is a *big* 
difference, false intellectual boy.

> Yes, women will tell you that they would like to have children.  That's
> fine.  

Yes, that's what *they* told me.

> But there is much more to a woman's life than having children.  

Nope, that's what *you* say, and you are not a woman.

> They
> should be allowed to find for themselves wht fulfills them.  Many women are 
> fulfilled in their careers, or creatively, etc. and if they put reproduction 
> on hold for these things, how is it wrong?  

Ok, that's the macho point. I like women for what they are. 
And, as I said, the *first* difference between men and women 
is that they can reproduce (as you say. I instead prefer to say 
"create new lifes"). If they don't give a fuck about that, I don't 
give a fuck about them. That's it. And, SINCE WOMEN ARE NOT 
AS THOUGH AS MEN ARE (I am not saying "good" now, notice it), 
they will loose. Because we are a lot stronger than them. 
You know it, that's why you are fighting against me.

>You do not have the right to dictate what is or isn't "the most wonderful 
>experience in life."  You haven't a clue.

I don't dictate anything. You can be half right on this point. 
But, I *do* belive, that to create a new life can be 
something *wonderful*, probably the *most* wonderful thing 
on the universe. For sure better than make *big money*...

>>I don't hate women, idiot. Nobody here really hate the women.
> 
> And yet you would define their role in existence.  You would force them to live
> up to your expectation,

*MY* expectation?!? HEY! THAT'S BULLSHIT! My bet is that you 
*never* spoke about children with women. That's it.
Or, worse, you DID NOT HAVE A MOTHER THAT LOVED YOU.

> and you would have no tolerance for a woman not doing
> what you feel they should be doing.  

I have tolerance for such a women. But I do not have respect 
for a woman that do not *want* to have children. For sure. 
She is not a woman. She is a stupid *thing*, I can fuck her 
only for her body.

>If that isn't hatred, then it sure isn't any kind of good feeling.

I am a human being. I have good feelings and bad feelings.
But I don't have bad feeling against women, generally 
speaking. If a woman is for *me an asshole, she is for me an 
asshole. That's it. 
>>
>>And neither I am jealous of them. There are advantages and 
>>disadvantages to be a man, as to be a woman. I am a man, and I
>>am happy to be that, just because I am a man. If I was a 
>>woman, for sure I WANTED TO BE HAPPY TO BE A WOMAN. Ok?
> 
> Then shut the fuck up if you are not jealous!!  If you weren't jealous, you
> wouldn't be so angry.

Who is *angry*, moron?!? *YOU* are angry. I was just playing 
a game. I have my feelings about women, as you do, as they do 
have them about men. But I was not angry. I like women, a 
lot. THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT KIND OF WOMEN IN THE WORLD! I 
CAN NOT GENERALIZE. And so I do not hate them. For sure I 
hate the feminist that hate the men. That's another point. 

>>Without to moan about as bad men are...
> Well, men can be bad.  Live with it.

I do. I do not have problem about them. It seems to me that 
you have such a problem...
> 
>>That's another point, "smart" boy. If for you to make a baby 
>>means to be subjugated, you have serious problems. Sorry, I 
>>don't like you, when I speak with you, you sound to me a 
>>little confused about life. 
> 
> Hate to say it, but it is you who are confused about life.  I never said
> making a baby was intrinsically subjugating.  

I hate to say it, but that's what you said and what you are 
saying.

> It is not.  The subjugation
> occurs when man like you say, "The purpose of a woman is to have children
> and there is nothing more important than that."  You are forcing a woman
> into a mold.  You are enslaving them.  That is subjugation.

Look. I am enslaving them, just because I give value to the 
*only* difference that there is between men and women. 

I am not saying that the *only* purpose of a woman is to 
have children, I was speaking about differences. And women 
are the only one that can make children, and for me it is 
wonderful, that's it.

You are sick, I am sorry. 
>>
>>Anyway, which living? Because if you didn't understand it, 
>>this is the deep point. The american style living? Where the 
>>50% of people divorce? Why do they marry, for what? 
> 
> Maybe the wife gets pissed off when she discovers she has married a chauvinist
> pig like yourself.  

For your information, I do not want to marry any woman 
before to be sure about what I am doing. The marriage is 
something important for me, it is not a game like in USA.

>In that case, divorce 'em!  The state of marriage in
> America is a shame, but it is more or less irrelevant in this discussion.

I can agree. I've just blowed up.
>>
> Well good for Italy!  Face it.  Life can be depressing and repetitive.  It
> is not what I want, but it is out there.  As for routine, I find your view
> of women a reproducers to be depressing and routine.  

YOU ARE OUT OF MIND. OK, lets' stop the routine. Starting 
from tomorrow, no women have to make children anymore. Just 
do it. For you it is not natural, it is *routine*. Puah, I 
thought you had a mind, but now...

> Why not a little variety?  Not all women have to marry. 

I agree. 

> Not all have to have children.

That's your point. If *I* was a woman, I wanted to have 
children (you now, like your mother did). But I can't speak 
for women. For sure I am not looking for marring a woman 
that do not want to have children. 
 
> Also, where do women who *can't* have children fit in to your system?  Do 
> you want to shoot them?

NO! That's bullshit. They are human beings like me and you 
and the other women. For their career they are lucky (you 
know, they do not have to care anyomore about children) but 
for their private life they are unlucky (just think about 
that, moron). That's it.
>>
>>Anyway, if I was a woman I would prefer to be a baby making 
>>machine (howthefuckyoucallit) than a *number* inside a 
>>corporation. Think about that, and  only then answer.
> 
> Then get a transsex operation, and shut the fuck up.  What you would rather
> do is irrelevant!  It is what the woman wants that counts.

F-U-C-K  Y-O-U. You are speaking for women. Many of them 
think like me, many others think in a different way. But I 
still have the right to *think*, poor mindless boy.
>>
>>> .... and the world will keep on spinning.
>>> 
>>Very romantic, very pathetic, very stupid. One day the world 
>>will stop to spin, remember it...
> 
> Well, now you are the one getting cold and depressing.  You are quite a 
> pessimist.

Pessimist?!? No, just a scientist. This wprld will stop its 
sinning one day. That's reality, poor boy. That you belive 
it or not.
>>> 
>>> Jason, Pres. _The Collective_
>>> 
>>There is something wrong with you, Jason. You are too much 
>>cold.  

> You have no idea what I am like.  I am far from cold.  I do my best to be a
> good friend and a caring person.  

What do you care about? Career? Is it the way to care about 
people?!?

> But when someone is as wrong as you, then 
> I will get nasty.  You are the cold one.  

Who, *moi*? No way. I know it. I can be averything but *cold*.

>You would dictate what everyone's life should be like. 

I do not dictate anything. I just say what I think. You know 
latin, right? So you know it:

COGITO, ERGO SUM.

> You are the one that is filled with hate, jealousy and
> distrust.  You are the would-be slavemaster.
> 
Bullshit. You seems to hate women that have children. I DO 
NOT UNDERSTAND WHY. Maybe you lost a girlfriend because she 
had a child with somebody else. I am serious. There is 
something wrong with you.
> 
>> Yes, the women have to have the right to work (and I 
>>agree, moron, don't worry), 

> Yes, and maybe, just maybe, the woman finds her work so fulfilling tahat she
> would rather continue working than have children.  This is not wrong.

Is it right? Is it natural? Ok, get such a woman, but don't 
ask me to do the same. 
> 
> but when you said that for a 
>>woman to have a child is not a wonderful experience,
> 
> I NEVER said this.  Never.  No.  You are wrong, wrong, WRONG! 

You did. In a different way.

> I have no idea what is a wonderful experience for anyone but me.  

That's *your* problem.

> I was merely making
> a hypothetical suggestion:  perhaps other people do not agree with you.

Could be. I do not care.

> Perhaps some women do not find childbirth to be the most wonderful experience
> in life.  

So they are as wrong as the real machos.

>You Can't say that they all do, and you will find many who will disagree.

There are many truth on this world. I have my truth. I do 
not want to convince them, it is not worth it. They can 
disagree with me, but *remember*, it is a two way road, I 
can disagree with them too.

>>I am not a woman, I can't really know that, but I have a romantic 
>>vision of life, and to have a child is something *romantic*. 
> 
> Interesting.  You just likened romanticism to stupidity.  Why do you continue
> to contradict yourself?

What? You mean that to have a child is *stupid* ?!?!?
> 
>  If 
>>you don't trust me, ask that to your intelligent women of 
>>Charlottesville.
>>
>>You will be surprised. 
> 
> Actually, many of my female friends think that you are an idiotic, sexist 
> boor with a primitive viewpoint on life.

So I think that they are just rural girls. My friend was 
right.

> Jason 

	Michele
Xref: sparky alt.flame:19207 rec.humor:38784 misc.test:15779 alt.test:19192 soc.culture.indian:45288