|
|
|
Is there anyone at all in soc.men who is troubled by Bob's
repeated assertions that the bodies of posters with whom he
disgrees belong "in the swamp?"
Is there anything at all he could say that would evoke a
stronger response from you paragons of justice and virtue
than yet another equivocation regarding the poison he spews?
The fact that you all tolerate him in silence speaks volumes
about your collective mental health. (The again, Michael
Snyder's idea of foreplay seems to be to block the door and put
his hands around his alleged girlfriend's throat, so why should
anyone be surprised?)
|
| |
| |
Is there anyone at all in soc.men who is troubled by Bob's
repeated assertions that the bodies of posters with whom he
disgrees belong "in the swamp?"
Is there anything at all he could say that would evoke a
stronger response from you paragons of justice and virtue
than yet another equivocation regarding the poison he spews?
The fact that you all tolerate him in silence speaks volumes
about your collective mental health. (The again, Michael
Snyder's idea of foreplay seems to be to block the door and put
his hands around his alleged girlfriend's throat, so why should
anyone be surprised?)
That's not fair and you know it. Just because you disagree with what most of
what Bob says, doesn't mean you cannot subscribe to soc.men, or even agree
with some of what Bob says. Take me for instance....I disagree with Bob on
most things, and have debated the issues with him....and sometimes they have
become heated. But even still, I also admire the way he is consistent with
*what* he believes, even though I think 95 percent of the time he's wrong. I
also think that is what happens when you take a position, and stick to its
philosophy no matter what. Often times you wind up looking like a fool,
because sometimes the position you feel you must take is simply idiotic.IMO
Bob is for men's rights...and that, in and of itself, is not a *bad* thing.
But sometimes IMO he takes it too far arguing with people that support the
feminist's movement. One thing will lead to another and you wind up with him
making assertions that seem crazy. But I don't think anyone *really* thinks
that he wants bodies of posters to be in a swamp....c'mon, be real.
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
Is there anyone at all in soc.men who is troubled by Bob's
repeated assertions that the bodies of posters with whom he
disgrees belong "in the swamp?"
Is there anything at all he could say that would evoke a
stronger response from you paragons of justice and virtue
than yet another equivocation regarding the poison he spews?
The fact that you all tolerate him in silence speaks volumes
about your collective mental health. (The again, Michael
Snyder's idea of foreplay seems to be to block the door and put
his hands around his alleged girlfriend's throat, so why should
anyone be surprised?)
LOL. We pissed off the lying misandrist #@&@
. Way to go.
;-)
Bob
|
| |
| |
On 25 Jan 2004 15:06:31 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
Is there anyone at all in soc.men who is troubled by Bob's
repeated assertions that the bodies of posters with whom he
disgrees belong "in the swamp?"
Is there anything at all he could say that would evoke a
stronger response from you paragons of justice and virtue
than yet another equivocation regarding the poison he spews?
The fact that you all tolerate him in silence speaks volumes
about your collective mental health. (The again, Michael
Snyder's idea of foreplay seems to be to block the door and put
his hands around his alleged girlfriend's throat, so why should
anyone be surprised?)
That's a bit unfair. We get trolls in t.r too who we get so used to
we just ignore. It may well be the same for them.
Ann
|
| |
| |
In article <REVQb.11601$bg1.10052@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:
That's not fair and you know it. Just because you disagree with what most of
what Bob says, doesn't mean you cannot subscribe to soc.men, or even agree
with some of what Bob says. Take me for instance....I disagree with Bob on
most things, and have debated the issues with him....and sometimes they have
become heated. But even still, I also admire the way he is consistent with
*what* he believes, even though I think 95 percent of the time he's wrong. I
also think that is what happens when you take a position, and stick to its
philosophy no matter what. Often times you wind up looking like a fool,
because sometimes the position you feel you must take is simply idiotic.IMO
Bob is for men's rights...and that, in and of itself, is not a *bad* thing.
But sometimes IMO he takes it too far arguing with people that support the
feminist's movement. One thing will lead to another and you wind up with him
making assertions that seem crazy. But I don't think anyone *really* thinks
that he wants bodies of posters to be in a swamp....c'mon, be real.
Excuse me, but this is the guy who gave an "award" to the psychopath who
walked into a college classroom in Canada and murdered 14 women. Face the
facts, Raqui. The guy is mentally ill.
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <REVQb.11601$bg1.10052@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:
Excuse me, but this is the guy who gave an "award" to the psychopath who
walked into a college classroom in Canada and murdered 14 women. Face the
facts, Raqui. The guy is mentally ill.
No poor babe. Marc Lepine did not "murder 14 women." He fought a
battle and killed 14 **feminists.** Twisting history into your
psychopathic hate only shows your own true colors. The first few
battles may be over, but the war that feminism started is far from done.
{hoists glass} Here is a toast to Mark Lepine, may his memory and
sacrifice as a martyr for the war against hate be long remembered.
Bob
|
| |
| |
In article <4014408B.5030507@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
tjab wrote:
No poor babe. Marc Lepine did not "murder 14 women." He fought a
battle and killed 14 **feminists.** Twisting history into your
psychopathic hate only shows your own true colors. The first few
battles may be over, but the war that feminism started is far from done.
{hoists glass} Here is a toast to Mark Lepine, may his memory and
sacrifice as a martyr for the war against hate be long remembered.
Bob
You were saying, Raqui?
|
| |
| |
In article <4014408B.5030507@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
tjab wrote:
In article <REVQb.11601$bg1.10052@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:
Is there anyone at all in soc.men who is troubled by Bob's
repeated assertions that the bodies of posters with whom he
disgrees belong "in the swamp?"
Is there anything at all he could say that would evoke a
stronger response from you paragons of justice and virtue
than yet another equivocation regarding the poison he spews?
The fact that you all tolerate him in silence speaks volumes
about your collective mental health. (The again, Michael
Snyder's idea of foreplay seems to be to block the door and put
his hands around his alleged girlfriend's throat, so why should
anyone be surprised?)
That's not fair and you know it. Just because you disagree with what
most of
what Bob says, doesn't mean you cannot subscribe to soc.men, or even
agree
with some of what Bob says. Take me for instance....I disagree with Bob
on
most things, and have debated the issues with him....and sometimes they
have
become heated. But even still, I also admire the way he is consistent
with
*what* he believes, even though I think 95 percent of the time he's
wrong. I
also think that is what happens when you take a position, and stick to
its
philosophy no matter what. Often times you wind up looking like a fool,
because sometimes the position you feel you must take is simply
idiotic.IMO
Bob is for men's rights...and that, in and of itself, is not a *bad*
thing.
But sometimes IMO he takes it too far arguing with people that support
the
feminist's movement. One thing will lead to another and you wind up
with him
making assertions that seem crazy. But I don't think anyone *really*
thinks
that he wants bodies of posters to be in a swamp....c'mon, be real.
Excuse me, but this is the guy who gave an "award" to the psychopath
who
walked into a college classroom in Canada and murdered 14 women. Face
the
facts, Raqui. The guy is mentally ill.
No poor babe. Marc Lepine did not "murder 14 women." He fought a
battle and killed 14 **feminists.** Twisting history into your
psychopathic hate only shows your own true colors. The first few
battles may be over, but the war that feminism started is far from done.
{hoists glass} Here is a toast to Mark Lepine, may his memory and
sacrifice as a martyr for the war against hate be long remembered.
Bob
You were saying, Raqui?
Ok...that was over the top. I'll stay out of it.
|
| |
| |
Is there anyone at all in soc.men who is troubled by Bob's
repeated assertions that the bodies of posters with whom he
disgrees belong "in the swamp?"
Is there anything at all he could say that would evoke a
stronger response from you paragons of justice and virtue
than yet another equivocation regarding the poison he spews?
The fact that you all tolerate him in silence speaks volumes
about your collective mental health. (The again, Michael
Snyder's idea of foreplay seems to be to block the door and put
his hands around his alleged girlfriend's throat, so why should
anyone be surprised?)
You'll never get that - the sockmen are all a complete and utter waste of
space. It doesn't matter *what* filth Blob comes out with, they'll all still
tacitly support it, as they have done for years. That's why their opinions
have no credibility whatsover outside the group.
Mikey's strongest response to Blob for example is to tell him he's not
'helping'. Ooh, tough words, eh?
John James (JJ)
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:17:47 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
tjab wrote:
No poor babe. Marc Lepine did not "murder 14 women." He fought a
battle and killed 14 **feminists.**
Who were all women.
What makes them feminists? That they were engineering students? What a
strange assumption.
Twisting history into your
psychopathic hate
Er, it's psychopathic hate to say that someone walked into a classroom
and murdered 14 women? That's what *happened*.
only shows your own true colors. The first few
battles may be over, but the war that feminism started is far from done.
{hoists glass} Here is a toast to Mark Lepine, may his memory and
sacrifice as a martyr for the war against hate be long remembered.
If you really believe this, then you're of negative value to the
world, Bob -- yes, even to antifeminism. Who would take seriously
anyone who would praise someone for murdering people?
Laurie
|
| |
| |
That's not fair and you know it. Just because you disagree with what most
of
what Bob says, doesn't mean you cannot subscribe to soc.men, or even agree
with some of what Bob says. Take me for instance....I disagree with Bob on
most things, and have debated the issues with him....and sometimes they
have
become heated. But even still, I also admire the way he is consistent with
*what* he believes, even though I think 95 percent of the time he's wrong.
I
also think that is what happens when you take a position, and stick to its
philosophy no matter what. Often times you wind up looking like a fool,
because sometimes the position you feel you must take is simply
idiotic.IMO
Bob is for men's rights...and that, in and of itself, is not a *bad*
thing.
But sometimes IMO he takes it too far arguing with people that support the
feminist's movement. One thing will lead to another and you wind up with
him
making assertions that seem crazy. But I don't think anyone *really*
thinks
that he wants bodies of posters to be in a swamp....c'mon, be real.
Yes he does. He says such filth over and over again - has done for years. He
believes rape is no big deal, he believes men who shoot feminists should get
medals, he believes there are squads of people out to cart men off to
'Auchwitz', he believes child rape is acceptable, he believes all manner of
disgusting nonsense. He's a foul scumbag - and I've said myself before that
those on sockmen who tacitly support his spewings because they make no
comment on them deserve all the contempt and condemnation they receive.
John James (JJ)
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:12:49 GMT, Laurie S. <lauriellen@hotmail.com>
wrote:
If you really believe this, then you're of negative value to the
world, Bob --
You catch on late....
Ann
|
| |
| |
Laurie S. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:17:47 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Excuse me, but this is the guy who gave an "award" to the psychopath who
walked into a college classroom in Canada and murdered 14 women. Face the
facts, Raqui. The guy is mentally ill.
Who were all women.
What makes them feminists? That they were engineering students? What a
strange assumption.
Er, it's psychopathic hate to say that someone walked into a classroom
and murdered 14 women? That's what *happened*.
If you really believe this, then you're of negative value to the
world, Bob -- yes, even to antifeminism. Who would take seriously
anyone who would praise someone for murdering people?
Laurie
The feminist war on men kills thousands of men every year. Many
thousand are tormented to death by emotional assault and destruction of
their families. Many thousands more are outright killed. A few
feminists dying in a small counter attack is a very small start. It
hardly equaled the number of men being destroyed even during the few
minutes of the Mr. Lepine's attack on feminists.
Meanwhile your phony allusion to "murdering people" is a double lie.
1) Every human culture has distinguished between killing in a war and
"murder."
2) It's a misrepresentation to call feminazi sows, "people."
December 6 is now being celebrated from Canada to Australia as "Mark
Lepine Day. A day of remembrance for a martyr in the feminist war on men.
The days when feminazis can hate, attack, and destroy men are coming to
an end. The end may be bloody. If you don't want that end, go plead
with the feminists to end the war.
Bob
|
| |
| |
Bob wrote:
Laurie S. wrote:
|
| |
| |
of
have
I
idiotic.IMO
thing.
him
thinks
Yes he does. He says such filth over and over again - has done for years.
He
believes rape is no big deal, he believes men who shoot feminists should
get
medals, he believes there are squads of people out to cart men off to
'Auchwitz', he believes child rape is acceptable, he believes all manner
of
disgusting nonsense. He's a foul scumbag - and I've said myself before
that
those on sockmen who tacitly support his spewings because they make no
comment on them deserve all the contempt and condemnation they receive.
Everyone has a *right* to his or her opinion... Bob is no different and
neither are you, you just gave one. I argue with Bob when I disagree with
him on something, but that does not mean I have to go out of my way to make
a comment negating his. Perhaps you do think everyone in soc.men agrees with
Bob's philosophy...well I don't. I have read posters who have indicated
otherwise, so I think you can subscribe to soc.men, and still not agree with
Bob. It seems to me many subscribers to soc.men just simply ignores him. He
appears to argue with people that he considers feminists...or will just
voice his opinion in someone else's debate.
John James (JJ)
|
| |
| |
John James squeals:
You'll never get that - the sockmen are all a complete and utter waste
of space. It doesn't matter *what* filth Blob comes out with, they'll
all still tacitly support it, as they have done for years. That's why
their opinions have no credibility whatsover outside the group.
Mikey's strongest response to Blob for example is to tell him he's not
'helping'. Ooh, tough words, eh?
Even after reading the sickest trash on soc.men for months, it still amazes
me how depraved they are. I'm relatively fringe in my personal beliefs in
some respects, but I never had a clue that people in a collective could
actually think the way they do.
--
Robert Buchanan
http://home.ripway.com/2004-1/55797/
"The night before the [1965 Chopin] competition I said to myself, 'Well,
now, Martha, it is over for you. You have been a pianist but now you are
not. You cannot play, so what kind of a pianist are you? You know some
languages; you must start to earn your livelihood as a secretary.'"
-Martha Argerich
Michael Snyder proves with unquestionable evidence that I don't exist:
"To anyone who doesn't believe in encouraging trolls, I've discovered that
"Robert Buchanan" is a fake identity created only 3 weeks ago, and used
primarily for cross-post trolling between various newsgroups and the troll-
group alt.usenet.kooks. Easily verified by anyone who cares to."
<yXbQb.10331$XF6.210060@typhoon.sonic.net>
|
| |
| |
In article <koZQb.11643$bg1.2945@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:
He
get
of
that
Everyone has a *right* to his or her opinion...
John James never said Bob didn't have a right to his opinion.
He just said Bob was a foul scumbag. If you disagree, just say
so, and save the First Amendment talk for Norman "Bob" Bates, who
has repeatedly asserted that people who express certain opinions
here belong in the swamp.
|
| |
| |
In article <koZQb.11643$bg1.2945@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:
Yes he does. He says such filth over and over again - has done for
years.
He
believes rape is no big deal, he believes men who shoot feminists
should
get
medals, he believes there are squads of people out to cart men off to
'Auchwitz', he believes child rape is acceptable, he believes all
manner
of
disgusting nonsense. He's a foul scumbag - and I've said myself before
that
those on sockmen who tacitly support his spewings because they make no
comment on them deserve all the contempt and condemnation they receive.
Everyone has a *right* to his or her opinion...
John James never said Bob didn't have a right to his opinion.
No, he's just knocking everyone else who doesn't knock Bob, and I was giving
*my* opinion about it. Because someone makes no comment they *deserve*
contempt and comdemnation? I disagree with that.
He just said Bob was a foul scumbag.
And many would agree.
If you disagree, just say
so, and save the First Amendment talk for Norman "Bob" Bates, who
has repeatedly asserted that people who express certain opinions
here belong in the swamp.
As far as Bob is concerned, I've posted enough times for YOU to get an idea
of how I feel.
|
| |
| |
In article <P4_Qb.11658$bg1.730@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:
wrote:
"John James" <not@all.co.uk> wrote in message
Everyone has a *right* to his or her opinion...
No, he's just knocking everyone else who doesn't knock Bob, and I was giving
*my* opinion about it. Because someone makes no comment they *deserve*
contempt and comdemnation?
Depends on the context. For example, if I'm at a social gathering
and someone starts talking about "n****rs," yes, I personally feel
contempt for anyone who lets that go by without comment. And when
Bob starts channeling Norman Bates and no one speaks up, I personally
find that comparable.
|
| |
| |
In article <P4_Qb.11658$bg1.730@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:
In article <koZQb.11643$bg1.2945@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:
"John James" <not@all.co.uk> wrote in message
Everyone has a *right* to his or her opinion...
John James never said Bob didn't have a right to his opinion.
No, he's just knocking everyone else who doesn't knock Bob, and I was
giving
*my* opinion about it. Because someone makes no comment they *deserve*
contempt and comdemnation?
Depends on the context. For example, if I'm at a social gathering
and someone starts talking about "n****rs," yes, I personally feel
contempt for anyone who lets that go by without comment. And when
Bob starts channeling Norman Bates and no one speaks up, I personally
find that comparable.
Ok...see I don't. I'm Black, and when someone uses the *N* word for any
reason I get offended, and I "remember" who said it. John James used that
word trying to define the origins of it...I was offended, and we ended up
with a long thread of name calling. Many people stayed out of it, and I
think I know why. Others felt the need to get in the thread....use the word,
wonder why I was offended...and I have no respect for them to this day. That
word is an offensive description of a people. Bob talking his usual stuff is
not...it is a reflection of him...and him only. You and Michael Snyder have
been debating for a while. Do you think he thinks like Bob? A better
question...do you think I think like Bob? My guess would be no. Like I
said...most people simply ignore Bob. Much of what he says is way out there.
I was trying to defend his "right to say it" earlier....remember? And no
sooner than I made my little speech, he applauded murder, and I had to hear
you say..."and you were saying Raqui". So I still say those people that
ignore his statements, but make no comments don't deserve contempt and
condemnation...but that's just my opinion, and it could be wrong.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 at 20:55 GMT, Ann wrote in alt.usenet.kooks:
On 25 Jan 2004 15:06:31 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
That's a bit unfair. We get trolls in t.r too who we get so used to
we just ignore. It may well be the same for them.
But they don't ignore him. They reply to his posts in order to express
their agreement, or they reply to the posts attacking him in order to
attack the attackers. Snyder and Society have been busy sticking up
for Blob during the past couple of weeks, and I can think of only two
socmen who have ever expressed substantial disagreement with his
opinions. To teh socmen, Blob isn't a troll or a lunatic: he's a
respected leader of their kooky little "men's movement".
--
PJR :-)
mhm #34x8 Smeeter #30 WSD #42
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
news:alt.usenet.kooks - Hook, Line and Sinker, Dec 2003
news:alt.hackers.malicious - Wittiest Troll, 2003
news:alt.flame: Most Boring Writer, 2003
news:alt.fan.pjr - Usenet like Mother used to make
The official soc.men FAQ:
http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/faq.html
(Remove NOSPAM to reply)
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <koZQb.11643$bg1.2945@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:
John James never said tjab didn't have a right to his opinion.
He just said tjab was a foul scumbag. If you disagree, just say
so, and save the First Amendment talk for Noman "tjab" Bates, who
has repeatedly asserted that people who express certain opinions
here belong in the swamp.
Actually no, but a lying femroid scumbag like tjab is too stupid and too
full of hate to tell the difference.
Only those femroid kooks like tjab, JJ, and nomind, who only spew hate,
and never enter into a meaningful conversation belong in the swamp. The
world would be a nicer place.
Adios Toots.
The best way to treat a femroid is to lance it and let the puss drain out.
Bob
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
Depends on the context. For example, if I'm at a social gathering
and someone starts talking about "n****rs," yes, I personally feel
contempt for anyone who lets that go by without comment. And when
tjab starts channeling Noman and no one speaks up, I personally
find that comparable.
The best way to treat a femroid is to lance it and let the puss drain out.
|
| |
| |
Peter J Ross wrote:
But they don't ignore him. They reply to his posts in order to express
their agreement, or they reply to the posts attacking him in order to
attack the attackers. Snyder and Society have been busy sticking up
for PJR during the past couple of weeks, and I can think of only two
socmen who have ever expressed substantial disagreement with his
opinions. To teh socmen, PJR isn't a troll or a lunatic: he's a
respected leader of their kooky little "men's movement".
"I'm the lowliest of all newbie trolls," Peter J. Ross
Nobody describes your pathetic insulting nonsense better than you do.
|
| |
| |
Is there anyone at all in soc.men who is troubled by Bob's
repeated assertions that the bodies of posters with whom he
disgrees belong "in the swamp?"
Go home, Tjab. Plenty of people in soc.men have expressed
disapproval for bob at some time or other. Come back when
you've expressed disapproval for CANOW's "Family Court
Report 2002".
|
| |
| |
In article <P4_Qb.11658$bg1.730@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:
No, he's just knocking everyone else who doesn't knock Bob, and I was
giving
*my* opinion about it. Because someone makes no comment they *deserve*
contempt and comdemnation?
Depends on the context. For example, if I'm at a social gathering
and someone starts talking about "n****rs," yes, I personally feel
contempt for anyone who lets that go by without comment.
What about if someone were to say "most men are pigs"?
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:28:31 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:13:15 -0800, "Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:
wrote:
In article <koZQb.11643$bg1.2945@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:
"John James" <not@all.co.uk> wrote in message
Everyone has a *right* to his or her opinion...
John James never said Bob didn't have a right to his opinion.
No, he's just knocking everyone else who doesn't knock Bob, and I was
giving
*my* opinion about it. Because someone makes no comment they *deserve*
contempt and comdemnation?
Ok...see I don't. I'm Black, and when someone uses the *N* word for any
reason I get offended, and I "remember" who said it. John James used that
word trying to define the origins of it...I was offended, and we ended up
with a long thread of name calling. Many people stayed out of it, and I
think I know why. Others felt the need to get in the thread....use the word,
wonder why I was offended...and I have no respect for them to this day.
Oh, chill out. No one "wondered" why you were offended; we just found
it ridiculous. It's *stupid* to be offended by discussion of an
offensive word. How do you think people *learn* that the word "nigger"
is offensive? By *discussing* it! Not just hearing "that's offensive,
and don't ask me why."
That
word is an offensive description of a people.
When used that way, yes. Discussing the word is not making an
offensive description of a people. It may well be done in the context
of speaking out against racism. How on earth can you address offensive
things if you can't even speak their name?
Bob talking his usual stuff is
not...it is a reflection of him...and him only.
It's certainly offensive toward those he's talking about (or to).
[...]
Laurie
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:03:35 GMT, "Michael Snyder"
<msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Go home, Tjab. Plenty of people in soc.men have expressed
disapproval for bob at some time or other. Come back when
you've expressed disapproval for CANOW's "Family Court
Report 2002".
Bob is rarely challenged by soc.men posters in the threads that show
up here. Most of the soc.men posters appear to ignore him in those
threads, but there's an occasional nod in his direction, and few of
those nods are negative. Those that are seem to just a little chiding,
as if he means well, but he's going a bit overboard.
We let people know that our trolls aren't representative of our views,
but our trolls are usually *opposite* of our views. Bob's focus is
similar to that of other antifeminists, but he's through-the-roof
extremist and offensive, so I can see that it might be a little
awkward to criticize his posts even though the other posters might not
like the way he expresses himself.
(Still, I can't help but wonder if some antifeminists go along with
him to a point, and figure that they're not going to go that far, but
don't mind if he does. I've seen feminist-minded trolls get soundly
boxed about the ears there.)
If we had such a troll in talk.rape, someone who was concerned about
rape but was a man-hating #@&@
, I could see that it might be a little
less offensive to us than Bob is to us, because the man-hating #@&@
would be addressing the same issues we are. But I don't envision us
just ignoring her posts and letting the offensive stuff go
unchallenged, which is what *we* see from you guys wrt Bob. It's very
rare to see even his most horrible utterances challenged.
Maybe it's just that we're not on a "side" here and are as offended by
anti-male sexism as we are by anti-female sexism (and *aren't* as
offended by either as feminists and antifeminists are), so it would be
addressed no matter which "side" it came from.
Well, anyway, this is the view at 1 a.m. from the top of my head. I
should get to bed -- my car is covered with snow and I have to return
my granddaughter to her mother before work in the morning because I
couldn't see to drive her home today. Gotta love living in Minnesota.
Well, in May through October anyway...
Laurie
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:16:31 -0000, "John James" <not@all.co.uk>
wrote:
of
have
Iidiotic.IMO
thing.
him
thinks
Yes he does. He says such filth over and over again - has done for years. He
believes rape is no big deal, he believes men who shoot feminists should get
medals, he believes there are squads of people out to cart men off to
'Auchwitz', he believes child rape is acceptable, he believes all manner of
disgusting nonsense. He's a foul scumbag - and I've said myself before that
those on sockmen who tacitly support his spewings because they make no
comment on them deserve all the contempt and condemnation they receive.
John James (JJ)
Same goes for t.r regulars that stay out of discussions when a t.r
regular makes outrageous comments.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:03:35 GMT, "Michael Snyder"
<msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Bob is rarely challenged by soc.men posters in the threads that show
up here.
Think about it, Laurie. Bob posts 100's of times a day. He's
beein doing it for years. If we spent all our time reading and
countering Bob's posts, we wouldn't have any left for fighting feminists.
Do you spend all your time replying to BroJack? No. Mostly
you ignore him, as we ignore Bob.
There are 100's of times more feminists out there than there are
men's defenders, Laurie. We don't have to worry about Bob
going un-challenged. In fact, an enormous amount of bandwidth
is already used up by people challenging Bob. Our contribution
is not needed. And we have things to say that NO ONE ELSE
IS SAYING. The priority is clear.
|
| |
| |
Laurie S. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:28:31 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
You seemed to be saying they were feminists, not women. They were
women. I have no idea whether they were feminists or not -- do you?
Feminists are mostly women, but that is as irrelevant as the sex of the
soldiers who die in any war. If you don't want feminists to die in the
war that THEY started and have been waging agaisnt men go cry on their
lesbian shoulder.
Killing in a war is not "murder" under the moral or political laws of
any significant religion or culture.
Nuts with guns are not people fighting in a war. We don't get to
wander about declaring wars. That's a pretty good thing, IMO.
Laurie
It would be a good thing if the feminists hadn't declared war on men and
our families already. Millions of men have suffered and died and many
more millions of children suffer.
Cry us a river.
Bob
|
| |
| |
| | |
