male_view@australia.edu wrote: On May 15, 5:59 am, "R. Steve Walz" <rste...@armory.com> mistakenly wrote: Oh, is THAT all you want from me??: I don't see either early sex or pregnancy as abuse in EITHER case. Once again, in typical feminist styly, you avoid the question and substitute one more favorable to your view. ------------------------------ No, you deliberately

On May 15, 5:59 am, "R. Steve Walz" <rste...@armory.com> mistakenly wrote: Oh, is THAT all you want from me??: I don't see either early sex or pregnancy as abuse in EITHER case. Once again, in typical feminist styly, you avoid the question and substitute one more favorable to your view. I did not ask what *YOU* think....I have pointed out the hypocrisy of our present feminist demonstrated

On May 15, 5:59 am, "R. Steve Walz" <rste...@armory.com> mistakenly wrote: Oh, is THAT all you want from me??: I don't see either early sex or pregnancy as abuse in EITHER case. Once again, in typical feminist styly, you avoid the question and substitute one more favorable to your view. I did not ask what *YOU* think....I have pointed out the hypocrisy of our present feminist demonstrated

gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote: All you have to do is: 1. Count the number of Grand Slam titles a player wins - at the moment this only requires being able to count up to 14 2. Apply a simple formula - 7543 - to give a points score at the slams (in case method 1. does not give a clear result). Currently you need to be able to determine the sum of 4 products (more difficult, but

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:45:46 -0800, Bink B <dungwad@disney.com> wrote: gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote: All you have to do is: 1. Count the number of Grand Slam titles a player wins - at the moment this only requires being able to count up to 14 2. Apply a simple formula - 7543 - to give a points score at the slams (in case method 1. does not give a clear result). Currently