> On Sep 12, 7:13 pm, nfm gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On Sep 12, 2:21 am, Vance gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> [hardcore pre-teen sarcasm standup comedy routine snipped along with genitals]

>

>> sit, bitch!

>

>> stay, bitch!

>

>> good, bitch! :) lol

>

>> you're too fucking stupid to even begin to compete with me.. when you
>> learn some respect, little girl, you can try again..

>

>> until then, take your little incoherent bitch ass back to the curb
>> where you belong.

>

>> upside your head,

>

>> NFM
>> manhood101.com

>
> You go on and on about how stupid people are and respect.  Well, as
> far people being stupid goes, which is, of course in comparison to
> you, it would be reasonable to expect to see some demonstration of
> your intelligence.  Where better to look than your pride and joy,
> manood101 and the material there.  It's your best thinking, isn't it?
> In another post I dealt with some of the problems you have in
> thinking:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.seduction.fast/msg/2be70aa62dcd11f...
>
> The best I can figure is that your background is lower middle class
> and you at least got a contemporary High School education and may have
> attended a second rate community college where you were a third rate
> student.  I could be wrong, but there isn't any solid evidence for
> anything else in your drivel.
>
> As far as respect goes, Mr. Manly Man, it is common to give a certain
> base level of respect, just above disrespect, it's more neutral than
> anything else, but there is a small courtesy positive regard you get
> automatically and then you have to earn any level of respect over an
> above that.  I'm pretty sure that you will find that you're running in
> the red as far as respect goes and I don't see you recovering from the
> deficit.
>
> Your take on female sexuality is laughably wrong and has been wrong
> for at least something like at least 2,600 years.  I can come up with
> the author and the date for you, but in an old Hebrew text there was
> quite an explanation about the dangers of uncircumcised men because
> they were able to meet the notoriously high sexual appetites of women
> better since they didn't come as fast as circumscribed Jews, which
> meant that they gave more pleasure and women really, really liked
> that.  One can go as far back as the Epic of Gilgamesh, circa 2500 BCE
> if memory serves, where a woman's sexual appetite played a key role
> several times over.  A big mistake he made was turning down Istar's
> offer to have sex and he wasn't the first mortal to get the offer,
> just the first to say no and, well you know what they say about a
> Goddess scorned.  In fact, you can pretty much go as far back in
> history as you want, to whatever culture you want, and you will find
> that women have quite healthy libidos.  Men, real men since they would
> have to be because feminism wasn't around yet (your position being
> that feminism has created the problems of manhood), have always known
> this.  Since then, science has pretty much established the truth of
> 'Famberg's Law' which is 'They are just as horny as you are.'  Lee
> Famberg  wasn't a scientist, just someone I went to High School with.
> We both shared the same knowledge, but he codified it.  I thought you
> would appreciate that, being all into codifying and such.
>
> So, it would seem that your notions of female sexuality are way off,
> which anyone here could have told you based on their personal
> empirical research.  Then more drivel about libido and the male sex
> drive being far greater where you equate promiscuity to a love of sex,
> which is simply a wrong and unsupportable inference.  Actually,
> promiscuity comes from our being primates and falling into the
> catagory of animals that do what is called Tournament Mating.  I'll
> leave that here for now, but if you want to be educated, I'll be happy
> to tutor you, if you ask nicely.  It's time to move on another example
> of pulling an idea out of your ass.  According to you, the
> overwhelming male libido is responsible for men molesting little boys
> when they can't get any kind of fuck from any kind of female.  It
> should be sufficient simply to ask you for some hard evidence that
> this is true where there isn't a pathological or aberrant sexuality
> involved.  Your reasoning, your thoughts, what seems obvious to you,
> what you heard, that you think there was a newspaper article you know
> about that says, or anything where the information isn't readily
> checkable from at least one independent and credible source won't do.
> Your material is suspect, besides being incoherent.
>
> Anyway, that's enough for this coffee break and don't feel bad about
> anything I have said.  You are relaxing and go well with coffee, which
> I truly appreciate.
>
> When you come back with your predictable response, could you dress it
> up a little.  I would like to think we are building a relationship and
> maybe I deserve a little special treatment, you know?  After all, I
> paid you a compliment and told you how cute you are when you're mad.
>
> Vance