BLASPHEMY: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

wd server57.5 at
Mon Dec 2 16:32:53 EST 2002

"John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote in message
news:wNPG9.56249$kz4.2752985 at
> "wd" <server57.5 at> wrote in message
> news:uun6r4brlgtha4 at
> >
> > "Cary Kittrell" <cary at> wrote in message
> > news:asg41v$2bj$1 at
> > > In article <OheF9.16124$kz4.771543 at> "John Knight"
> > <jwknight at> writes:
> > > <
> > > <"Jd" <JDay123 at> wrote in message
> > > <Did anybody say she was the ONLY one to write GARBAGE like that?
> No--but
> > by
> > > <writing this, she did a million more damage to this Christian nation
> > the
> > > <pen than every Muslim in the world has EVER done, by any and every
> means,
> > > <didn't she?
> > > <
> > >
> > > Inconveniently for you, she wasn't even on the Court when Roe v Wade
> > > was decided, was she?  But nine males were, and seven of them
> > > concurred in that decision.
> > >
> >
> > And intrestingly enough is the fact that a man was told he must face
> > castration
> > if he has more children by a vote of 4 to 3. (4 men judges voted ~for~
> > the 3 women judges voted ~nay~)
> > The women SCJ saw this as a violation of human rights as well as a
> violation
> > of constitutional rights.
> > The men saw it as a soulution.(pathetic)
> >
> > oh and BTW, why must you say " nine MALES were" ?
> > Those are men you discuss --- not male dogs.
> >
> >
> >
> > ~wd  --the keeper of the light
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Let's put this in perspective.
> Do you know what percentage of the men who were convicted and imprisoned
> a crime they didn't commit, but were later proven to be innocent in spite
> their trial and conviction, thanks exclusively to DNA evidence, and no
> thanks whatsoever to these "justices" of the law?
> "More than half"!
> Do you know what these "justices" of the law have engaged in ever since
> then?  Destruction of the DNA evidence which would prove what fools they
> are.
> But back to the point.  If we had a legal system people could trust, as we
> once did, before women were judges and lawyers and on juries, then
> castration of legitimate chronic rapists may be a viable option, according
> to their very own testimony.  This phony "compassion" from women
> of the law has no place in this putatively just society.
> But--compared to 42 million dead babies who were murdered in the eyes of
> of Americans, saving a very few guilty men from castration pales by
> comparison.  It's like comparing 48 million dead Christians in WWII to the
> Diary of Ann Frank.
> Agreed about the use of the term "male".  It gives us a clear view into
> little respect "liberals" have for their fellow "man".
> John Knight

John, you did not address anything that was in my reply with the exception
of Male vs Men.
You touched on or eluded to the abortion issue, legal system , jews,
everything but my topic.

So i will be even more specifc then before.

Please explane to me, why you feel men have been the keepers of justice
alone? It was the Men SCJ's that voted Yes to have a man castrated as a
control method.  Dont you see how sick that is? Why dont we just build
ourselves a tower of london also and start torturing people too.

Only the women SCJ's felt this was a gross violation of civil human rights
and basic constitutional rights.And it is. And if this would have recieved
the media attention it deserved, i am sure most american people would be

Why is that the women clearly saw this as wrong, yet the men did not?
Especially since you claim only men can dish out proper justice.

~wd  --the one who keeps tabs on these things


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list