brain sizes: Einstein's and women's and miscegenation
k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Sep 2 20:38:30 EST 2002
Although you've clearly missed the gist of it, I stand on what I
I do not argue 'upper-body strength'.
I'm saying that Ignorance is Ignorance, and that Ignorance is as
likely to 'move away from' Truth as to 'move toward' Truth.
In other words, you're looking at the fruits of Ignorance, and
'longingly' attributing stuff that derives in your own familiar
experience, to the fruits of Ignorance.
I'm sharing understanding with respect to how nervous systems process
information with you, and others.
No amount of 'blaming' Victims will accomplish the work that needs to
Ignorance is Ignorance.
The thing to do with it is replace it with understanding.
The only 'difficulty' is that nervous systems 'blindly' and
automatically tend to 'cling' to that which, through experience, has
become merely relatively-familiar.
So, rather than 'moving toward' that which needs to be done, folks
tend to 'wallow' in old, long-familiar 'notions' of 'the way things
are supposed to be'.
Such is a sure 'prescription' for lack-of-progress.
It's clear that you don't understand the stuff I'm sharing with you,
but you can understand it, if you want to understand it.
K. P. Collins
raugust at ptd.net wrote in message ...
>Dear Mr. Collins,
>However heroic "Rosie the Riveter" may have been, 5 of her were
>required to perform what 2 or 3 men would have done, simply because
>body strength. This is not to mention the untold cost to consumers
>women cause due to maternity, female problems, and general sick
>that men have been back in the workforce for over 50 years, sexual
>harrassment is also an issue. Let a man make a casual comment about
>blouse a woman worker wears, or about her dress or shoes, and
>man is at best called on the carpet and sent to counseling, and at
>The NEGATIVE productivity, the REDUCTION in productivity, the lies,
>deceit, the philandering, and the misappropriation of funds which
>the American workforce have caused, is INCALCULABLE. As Mr. Knight
>US Department of Labor have proven and continually prove annually,
>14 men to compensate for the lack of productivity of 1 (read: single
>working woman. These are 15 paychecks wasted for the lack of work
>single human being who ought to be home raising the kids. Add
>medical, dental, and insurance benefits to that, as well as 401 (k)
>and other retirement benefits, and you see the cost is staggering.
>Simply put, 40 years ago, women comprised less than 10% of the US
>The Dollar was worth 4 times what it is worth today. Men died
>widows with 4-5 times more buying power than their counterparts
>widows' benefits and Social Security checks can't feed a canary.
>Women lived out their retirement years in relative comfort, knowing
>incomes were at least at parity with expenses because they were able
>money under disciplined investing in bank savings accounts which
>or better. Their counterparts today don't dare invest in passbook
>which only yield 2% interest. Mutual Funds and 401(k) plans yield a
>better. And who has the $1,000 minimum to invest in a CD, except
>wealthiest of people?
>Let's see how to solve this. Hmmmm... put the father back as the
>the household, employ more men and less women, ditch affirmative
>hire each employee on proven merit (Men over women first), destroy
>Welfare system, and disallow Congress to raid the Social Security
>any reason. Repeal all forms of VAWA. Then, Repeal the 19th
>That's just for starters. But Hell will celebrate Christmas first.
>Richard C. August
>"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:mHCc9.6244$jG2.446940 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> John Knight wrote in message
>> <73tc9.38347$Ic7.2598180 at news2.west.cox.net>...
>> >Why should you want to force yourself on White Christian
>> >don't want to have anything to do with you?
>> Mr. Knoght, it's 'hilarious' that you 'think' that you could
>> without all the work done by the folks whom you disparage.
>> Without all of us, working together, any of us would be left
>> struggling not to starve to death.
>> There'd be no 'technology', so we couldn't 'meet' online to
>> Without all of what you term 'muddy' blood shed, including the
>> of women who 'fought' the wars in its factories, America
>> made it through all the wars it's had to fight [and those it
>> have to fight, but fought anyway].
>> So, you're sittin' there, typing out your anti-this and anti-that
>> ideas, supported, even as you sit there, by the sole virtue of all
>> that 'muddy' stuff that gave-all that you might have the
>> to Live.
>> Your 'blindness' to such is illogical, no?
>> k. p. collins
More information about the Neur-sci