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

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Tue Sep 3 13:58:03 EST 2002


kp, it's generally a waste of time to respond to people who don't have
enough respect for their own thoughts that they don't even check their
spelling and grammar before they post to a public forum.

If you want people to read your posts, at least get the spelling correct.

The problem is that what you write isn't credible when you haven't at least
taken the care to review what you wrote before you posted it.

Nobody knows what you mean by hyphenating words where they shouldn't be
hyphenated and capitalizing them where they shouldn't be capitalized.

What do you mean by capitalizing "Truth"?  What's your point?  How can
anyone respond to your point if you don't make it clear?

Why did you write hilarious as 'hilarious'?  This conforms to nobody's
grammar.

It seems that your only contribution to this discussion is going to be to
continue to discount valid facts which have been presented and complain that
nobody understands you.  Do you understand the valid points which Mr. August
presented?  If so, why don't you respond directly to those points, rather
than insulting him?

You claim that women have made a valuable contribution to the American work
force, and both Mr. August and I have presented some facts which tend to
dispute that claim.  Where's your rebuttal?  Instead, you act as if though
we're interested in hiring you as a psychiatrist.  We aren't.

John Knight


"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iwUc9.7638$jG2.559138 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Mr. Knight, I stand on what I posted.
>
> It's 'hilarious'. You 'repeat' stuff, and 'think', through shear
> 'force' of such 'repetition', the 'random' ideas you espouse, are
> somehow,  transformed into Truth?
>
> I'm waiting for you, Mr. Knight, to respond to the stuff I've shared
> with you, not as some 'trap', but simply because what you're doing
> needlessly divides folks, rather than bringing folks together.
>
> In other words, you're precipitating the worsening of everything you
> 'complain' about.
>
> Makes about as much sense as an Infantryman's refusing to fight
> in-unison with his platoon.
>
> K. P. Collins
>
> John Knight wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >Well said, Mr. August,
> >
> >There are several different ways to approach the "contribution"
> people like
> >Rosie the Riveter made to our economic productivity, with the most
> >conservative approach showing that it takes 8 productive men workers
> to make
> >up for the negative productivity of one woman worker, and the most
> accurate
> >estimate showing that it takes 16.
> >
> >So the negative contribution of each additional woman worker in the
> American
> >labor force is equivalent to the positive contribution of 8 to 16
> men
> >workers, which is why the mostly one-working-parent families of 1973
> had
> >three times the purchasing power of the mostly two-working-parent
> families
> >of today, and why the Japanese, with almost exclusively
> one-working-parent
> >families, now have incomes two to three times higher than ours.
> >
> >What  k. p. collins writes is a lot of feminazi hot air without a
> shred of
> >statistical evidence to back it up, and reams of statistical
> evidence that
> >she's dead wrong and the Holy Bible is just as honest and accurate
> and
> >correct as it's ever been.
> >http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >
> >John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ><raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
> >news:Z5Ic9.1096$Lo4.245884 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> >> Dear Mr. Collins,
> >>
> >> However heroic "Rosie the Riveter" may have been, 5 of her were
> still
> >> required to perform what 2 or 3 men would have done, simply
> because of
> >upper
> >> body strength.  This is not to mention the untold cost to
> consumers which
> >> women cause due to maternity, female problems, and general sick
> leave.
> >Now
> >> 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 a
> >> blouse a woman worker wears, or about her dress or shoes, and
> instantly,
> >the
> >> man is at best called on the carpet and sent to counseling, and at
> worst
> >> fired.
> >>
> >> The NEGATIVE productivity, the REDUCTION in productivity, the
> lies, the
> >> deceit, the philandering, and the misappropriation of funds which
> women in
> >> the American workforce have caused, is INCALCULABLE.  As Mr.
> Knight and
> >the
> >> US Department of Labor have proven and continually prove annually,
> it
> >takes
> >> 14 men to compensate for the lack of productivity of 1 (read:
> single
> >person)
> >> working woman.  These are 15 paychecks wasted for the lack of work
> of one
> >> single human being who ought to be home raising the kids.  Add
> health,
> >> medical, dental, and insurance benefits to that, as well as 401
> (k)
> >programs
> >> and other retirement benefits, and you see the cost is staggering.
> >>
> >> Simply put, 40 years ago, women comprised less than 10% of the US
> >Workforce.
> >> The Dollar was worth 4 times what it is worth today.  Men died
> leaving
> >their
> >> widows with 4-5 times more buying power than their counterparts
> today,
> >whose
> >> widows' benefits and Social Security checks can't feed a canary.
> Men and
> >> Women lived out their retirement years in relative comfort,
> knowing their
> >> incomes were at least at parity with expenses because they were
> able to
> >save
> >> money under disciplined investing in bank savings accounts which
> yielded
> >6%
> >> or better.  Their counterparts today don't dare invest in passbook
> >savings,
> >> which only yield 2% interest.  Mutual Funds and 401(k) plans yield
> a
> >little
> >> better.  And who has the $1,000 minimum to invest in a CD, except
> for the
> >> wealthiest of people?
> >>
> >> Let's see how to solve this.  Hmmmm... put the father back as the
> head of
> >> the household, employ more men and less women, ditch affirmative
> action
> >and
> >> hire each employee on proven merit (Men over women first), destroy
> the
> >> Welfare system, and disallow Congress to raid the Social Security
> Fund for
> >> any reason.  Repeal all forms of VAWA.  Then, Repeal the 19th
> Amendment.
> >> That's just for starters.  But Hell will celebrate Christmas
> first.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >>
> >> Richard C. August
> >>
> >> "Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:mHCc9.6244$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
> Israelites
> >> > who
> >> > >don't want to have anything to do with you?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Mr. Knoght, it's 'hilarious' that you 'think' that you could
> get-on
> >> > 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
> exchange
> >> > ideas.
> >> >
> >> > Without all of what you term 'muddy' blood shed, including the
> work
> >> > of women who 'fought' the wars in its factories, America
> wouldn't've
> >> > made it through all the wars it's had to fight [and those it
> didn't
> >> > 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
> opportunity
> >> > to Live.
> >> >
> >> > Your 'blindness' to such is illogical, no?
> >> >
> >> > Yup.
> >> >
> >> > k. p. collins
> >> >
> >> > >[...]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list