NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/flame/19349

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 3.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!katherim
From: [e-mail] (Katherine Merle Mason)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Girls & alt.flame
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:31:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 68

[e-mail] (Mr J S Graley) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Katherine Merle Mason) writes:
>|[e-mail] (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>|
>|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Katherine Merle Mason) writes:
>|>|I (THE GREAT NAME) write:
>|>|>However, feminists like you offer bad value for money. You demand too much and
>|>|>you offer too little. Thus you grow up alone.
>|>|
>|>|Your psychological analysis of my childhood is too profound.  Perhaps you
>|>|would like to tell me that I hate my mother or that I secretly lust after
>|>|my father?
>|
>|>No, you hate your father and you secretly lust after your mother.
>|
>|Tsk, tsk, tsk.  Freudian lesson #1:  one sees in others what one
>|hides in oneself.
>|
>|>Freud would turn in his grave if he read your crap.
>|
>|If I could make Freud turn in his grave I would be very pleased.  I've never
>|heard of anyone so unscientific and idiotic do so much damage to so many
>|people.  He doesn't deserve to rest in peace.
>|
>See how she twists and turns... Anyone would think this was the typical
>argumentative pattern of a _woman_...

>Kathy, you mentioned a typical freudian conclusion (hating mother, lusting
>after father). Thus _you_ started that sub-thread. I expect you to deal with
>it, not to winge 'oh I think he's unscientific'. In truth, he is unscientific.
>Thus you are wrong about the validity of his so-called 'lesson #1'.

>If you use simple logic, you will realise that if one sees in others what one
A
>hides in oneself, then one can never make observations about other people, and
>the entirity of psychology would be null. But I guess you didn't, did you?

>But as your posting shows, women have no sense of logic.

Me, no logic.  That's funny Graley (one of your rare moments).  Here, I
will demonstrate my logic in proving to you that you do not know that
there is a physical world:

PREMIS #1:  You cannot know anything if there is a reasonable doubt
            that you are incorrect.
PREMIS #2:  You think you exist because of the information you gather
            from your five (arguably six, the sixth being the sense
            of the passage of time) senses.
PREMIS #3:  You have no proof that the information from your senses is
            actually from the outside.  You could be merely a brain
            in a vat in a psych lab being prodded to produce sensation.
CONCLUSION: You cannot know whether or not there is a physical world

CONCLUSION 2 (PAY ATTENTION HERE, GRISLEY):  Don't tell someone who has
             taken philosophy that they are not logical.

Perhaps you would like me to prove to you that you have no free will.
I can do that too.  Or that you cannot move.  It all can be logically
proven.

>~THE GREAT NAME


>--
>    Don't worry,
>     Its like in the comic books...
>      ITS NOT REAL!