brain sizes: Einstein's & women's

John Knight jwknight at
Tue Sep 10 12:28:30 EST 2002

"The 9th Witch" <Thec at> wrote in message
news:3d7d6843.9418292 at
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 02:09:35 GMT, "John Knight" <jwknight at>
> yelled from the fourth floor ward window, and subsequently was
> sedated:
> *>
> *>"Lance O. Lake" <hammer at> wrote in message
> *>news:0001HW.B9A00C1D0017BB99157C75A0 at
> *>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 14:24:47 -0500, John SlaveThing Knight wrote
> *>> (in message <3ose9.60196$Ic7.4523434 at>):
> *>>
> *>> > So tell us, "Lance O. Lake", are you a "liberal" like lojbab, or
> do you
> *>> > agree with the majority of Americans on any of the following
> issues?
> *>>
> *>> I don't answer surveys put out by subservient freaks of middle
> eastern
> *>> mystical religions.
> *>>
> *>> Bow down and worship and continue your death throes or grow up and
> be a
> *>live
> *>> man.
> *>>
> *>> Your choice, freak.
> *>>
> *>> Lance
> *>>
> *>>
> *>
> *>Can you read?
> *>
> *>Where was it written that you were requested to complete a survey?
> *>
> *>It's a simple "yes" or "no" question:  "do you agree with the
> majority of
> *>Americans on any of the following issues?"
> *>
> *>If you've got enough time to live in this Christian nation and take
> *>advantage of its protection of free speech, then you've got enough
> time to
> *>say: Yes, or no?
> And the right to abstain from doing so.

Does this need to be written to be understood?

Could it really be that you don't think that it's already understood by
graduates of the world's worst "public schools" that someone isn't required
to post on the internet?

The only point was that Lance took more time to think up slurs than it would
have taken to explain what his specific objection was.

When asked if he objected to the notion that most Americans support "Making
public school facilities available after school hours for use by student
religious groups", he caved in.  He couldn't even answer that simple yes or
no question, then lojbab comes along and proves that she doesn't even know
what the word "religious" means.

These are very serious shortcomings.  It's ok to disagree with simple
dictionary definitions, but it's NOT ok that our schools may be teaching
that dictionary definitions are irrelevant.  Or, worse, that what they
"feel" the word means is more accurate than what the dictionary says.  Or,
worse, they don't even KNOW what the dictionary definiton is.

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list