brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at usa.com
Wed Jul 24 13:54:04 EST 2002


Well said, Mr. August!

> US Men and Women are now medicated with Lithium, Respiridol, and Ritalin,
> and Valium/Valerian Root at a much higher rate than before.  Ostensibly
this
> is to calm violence and mood swings.  Actually, this causes more health
and
> mental problems than it solves, including coordination, athletic,
> concentration, and creativity challenges.

Also, we need to remember that the high level of estrogen in our water
supply comes from birth control pills taken by women, which failed
completely to reduce "unwanted pregnancies", which are manufactured in Japan
(who didn't even legalize their use until very recently, after safer pills
were developed). This may be why so many American men are so pathetically
feminized.

And the steroids in the beef, which is why no nation wants to sign GATT,
because it would require them to buy our articically inflated beef.  Since
humans are the end of the food chain, this could very well be the sole
source of this obesity problem you refer to.

NONE of this would have, or COULD have, happened, had it not been for the
abject inability of the majority of American voters to even comprehend one
word of these posts, Mr. August.  In order for every law like this to be
passed, it was first necessary to *really* dumb down American students with
affirmative action, and then to force government and industroy to emply the
utterest morons (again through aa).

John Knight


"Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
news:Liw%8.426$Fl.40827 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> Dear ShadowDancer,
>
> Here's why I don't NEED to spend wasted hours and wasted money before a
> psychotherapist concerning my feelings, and the fact that I no longer want
a
> relationship with a woman.
>
> http://www.4woman.gov/faq/violence.pdf contains a summary of all the
Federal
> laws, regulations, and directives concerning what the US Federal
Government
> considers and teaches is violence against women.  Basically, it says that
if
> I say or do something to a woman, and it makes her feel insecure,
violated,
> or frightened, she has the right to sue me or have me imprisoned.
>
> If I say something to a woman, and she feels violated, I'm at fault
whether
> I meant it in love or not.
> If I say NOTHING to a woman, and she feels violated, I'm at fault no
matter
> what I meant by that.
> If I do something to a woman, and she is frightened, I'm at fault no
matter
> how I meant to do that act.
> If I do NOTHING to a woman, and she is frightened, I'm at fault no matter
> how I meant to do NOTHING to her.
> If I tell a woman I love her, and she feels insecure about that, she can
sue
> me for sexual threats or harrassment, no matter how I meant to tell her I
> love her.
> If I don't tell a woman I love her, and she feels as if I don't love her
at
> all, she can still sue me for abuse because I gave no expression of love.
> If I date a woman, according to feminist tripe, I am exercising license to
> rape her.
> If I don't date a woman, women think I hate them.
> Never mind that the individual woman by her looks, actions, and words,
might
> have driven her friend or partner to commit "violence" against her to
> protect her from herself or outside forces.  She is "never" the cause of
the
> violence, according to the cited .pdf file.  Never mind that she could
have
> STARTED a vase-throwing fisticuff knock down drag out fight.  She is
"never"
> the cause of the domestic violence or partner abuse.  She is "always" the
> victim.  Here it is, Federally defined.  Read it and weep.
>
> Does it take 3.5 million more or less brain cells per individual to
> determine that with all of these anti-violence laws enforced, men end up
> being ambivalent toward women and women end up dateless?
>
> Does it take 3.5 million more or less brain cells to figure out that
because
> of all these violence against women laws, that men are so confused and
upset
> about what defines violence that they don't want to be bothered dating
> women?
>
> Does it take 3.5 million more or less brain cells to really figure that
real
> men don't want to abuse women but nurture and care for them instead, but
are
> confused about how to do it because very often the nurturing and caring
for
> them constitutes ABUSE as defined in Federal law?
>
> Does it take 3.5 million more or less brain cells to get a clue that
> American heterosexual men are tired of listening to feminist rants and
raves
> and whines?
>
> Let's see what "100 years of progress between genders" has done:
>
> 96% of American prison population is male.  US prisons account for 2/3 of
> the total world's incarcerated population, with US courts having the most
> attorneys in physical number and per capita percentage worldwide.
>
> US Women were the heiresses of 70% of the world's total wealth in the
1960s
> when most families were male headed and the man was the sole breadwinner.
> Now, US Women are among the poorest in developed nations, with a net debt
of
> $40,000 per person.  That's -$40,000 to those who don't know what debt is.
>
> Although violent acts against  women overall decreased from 1993-1998, the
> rate of domestic partnership with women involved also decreased at least
> fivefold.  The rate of divorces increased slightly, and the rate of
multiple
> marriages and divorces also increased.  The crime rate for daylight crimes
> between both genders INCREASED, while nighttime crimes between domestic
> partners leveled off or increased only negligibly.  Women lost their
> protection when they lost their partners.  Big Brother Government stepped
> in, and committed a worse act of violence by stripping women from their
> FAMILIES.
>
> Punishment also doesn't fit the crime committed.  For every crime
committed,
> when the crime was exactly the same in type and nature, men received at
> least double the sentence than women, with at least three times the
> incarceration rate, time, and duration.  Karla Faye Tucker was only a
token
> death sentence by then Texas Governor Dubya, for many women can claim
"self
> defence" when they murder someone, and thus get away with it.
>
> US Men and Women are now subjected to an educational system with bloated
> budgets, inflationary tactics, and run down schools.  What used to be the
> envy of the world now only produces bimbos who can't score above the rest
of
> the world in TIMSS, ACT, or SAT scores.  US Women are at the BOTTOM of
that
> list and would have scored better had they just "guessed" at the answers.
>
> US Women are no longer prized for their intellect and beauty.  US Women
are
> considered trash by the rest of the world, and rightly so.
>
> US Men and Women are now eating 150 lbs of sugar per year per person, and
> are growing more obese and diabetic with less nutrition and more disease,
as
> opposed to 100 years ago, when only 5 lbs of sugar per person per year was
> consumed.
>
> US Men and Women are now medicated with Lithium, Respiridol, and Ritalin,
> and Valium/Valerian Root at a much higher rate than before.  Ostensibly
this
> is to calm violence and mood swings.  Actually, this causes more health
and
> mental problems than it solves, including coordination, athletic,
> concentration, and creativity challenges.
>
> Does it take 3.5 million more brain cells to figure why men like me don't
> want to date or have a non-mandatory relationship with a woman any more?
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Richard C. August
>
> "Shadow Dancer" <insomniac at winterslight.org> wrote in message
> news:ahle5u$tapi4$1 at ID-150265.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
> > news:p2b%8.95$Fl.17779 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> > > Dear Parse Tree,
> > >
> > > US GDP has absolutely NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZERO to do with the FACT
that
> we
> > > have 400 times as many lawyers as the Japanese.  In the trade wars vs.
t
> he
> > > Japanese, guess who's winning and has been winning since the late
1970s?
> > > Let me give you a CLUE -- lawsuit happy people feed lawyers HUGE sums
of
> > > money for PETTY little trivialities like being burned by a hot cup of
> > coffee
> > > coming out of a Mickey D's, and winning $8,000,000 as a result.  Does
> THAT
> > > happen in Japan??   No.........
> > >
> > > I also am not under the delusion that I have a right to a relationship
> > with
> > > a woman.  The only relationship to a woman that I have a right to have
> is
> > > the OBLIGATORY relationship I have to my MOTHER.  Otherwise, I DO NOT
> WANT
> > A
> > > RELATIONSHIP WITH A WOMAN.  I don't want one!  I don't care whether I
> have
> > > that right or not!  I DO NOT WANT A GIRLFRIEND OR A WIFE OR A PARAMOUR
> > > BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT A WOMAN!!!  I don't care to even have a right to
a
> > > relationship with a woman because I don't want a relationship with a
> woman
> > > in the first place.
> > >
> > > Here's why I don't want a relationship with a woman.  VAWA 1 declares
> that
> > > if she and I have a dispute, and I turn around and walk away and say
> > nothing
> > > to her at all, and I don't even touch her at all, because I have said
> > > nothing to her at all, I have given her the "silent treatment" and
> > therefore
> > > committed an act of violence against her.  I didn't hit her or touch
> her.
> > I
> > > didn't even call her a name.  I said nothing to her, and still, that's
> an
> > > act of violence.  I would still commit an act of violence against her
if
> I
> > > DID touch her, but she felt the touch was inappropriate.  I may have
> > > caressed her head lovingly.  I may have stroked her cheek.  I may have
> > > hugged her.  If she doesn't like it, it's SEXUAL HARRASSMENT, an act
of
> > > violence against her.  For a hug, or for saying nothing to her and
doing
> > > nothing to her at all, I go to jail either way.
> > >
> > > If a woman I might love is misusing money, and I assist her with a
> budget
> > > plan to help her save money or a savings account to help her keep more
> of
> > > the money she earns, and she doesn't like the way I do it despite good
> > > results, that's controlling her finances, and that's also an ACT OF
> > VIOLENCE
> > > against her.
> > >
> > > And for every woman I meet, whether I like her or not, she is still in
> > some
> > > kind of a committed relationship with another man.  Given these social
> and
> > > legal conditions, is she worth fighting over with another man?  Let
him
> > keep
> > > her.  I'll take the Monastery, thank you.  My relationship with God in
> > Jesus
> > > Christ is VASTLY more important to me than a sexual relationship with
> some
> > > woman.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, I pray that what happened to me by my ex-wife during my
> former
> > > marriage would happen to you so you would learn well the lesson John
> > Knight
> > > and I have gently tried to teach you.  Because of Battered Women's
> > Shelters
> > > and VAWA, growing numbers of heterosexual men now want NOTHING more to
> do
> > > with women at all.  They'd rather vomit than make love.  I guess
> celibacy
> > > isn't such a bad thing after all, is it?  It keeps me and thousands of
> > other
> > > sadder but wiser men out of jail for merely making love.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Richard C. August
> > > Free, MALE, Celibate and loving it!!
> >
> > Wahh wahh wahh wahh....you don't see me complaining about the bad
> > experiences I've had with certain men.
> >
> > Why don't you do us all a favor and spend some time and money on
> > psychotherapy to resolve your obvious problems?
> >
> > This has nothing whatsoever to do with the original subject.  If you
> insist
> > on whining about your problems, try some of the self-help psychology
> groups.
> >
> > The Shadow Dancer
> >
> >
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list