Does anyone else think that James and HRS share a suspiciously similar syntax? C'mon guys, related?

botheration: "Does anyone else think that James and HRS share a suspiciously similar syntax?"

Nah. Timkins isn't bright enough to operate two sock puppets simultaneously :)

However, for identical syntax to HRS's interminable misogynist bleating, have a look here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6333

It's a troll, folks. Like somebody said above, these guys use forums like these to feel better about their clearly inadequate selves, rather than getting the help they clearly need. Feeding them only ultimately extends their suffering, poor things.

Audrey
Parts of what you have written in your article could not be fully quoted or repeated in the comments section of OLO, because a software checking system would not allow the words to be posted, because of profanity restrictions.

There is far to much trash in the mainstream media and on the internet, and I accept those profanity restrictions.

A simple test can be applied to any feminist literature.

Take out the word “men”, and insert the word “blacks” or “jews”. If it seems discriminatory, then it is also discriminatory with the word “men”, or “boys”

Very few pieces of literature written by any feminist anywhere in the world have ever passed that test, and your literature doesn’t pass that test either.

Your are 26, single, semi-employable, a feminist, a male discriminator, and a person who writes profanity in a blog site. Maybe you should take stock.

If you were a young male, then most likely another male would have told you to get your act together a long time ago.

Hey, CJ (Btw, Love your work),

I dunno. I actually did skim down some of those listed intros of Timkins and I have my doubts. The Timkins character used words like puerile, disingenuous, spurious etc. Also claimed knowledge of Voltaire, referred to certain scholarly associations and papers, was au fait with current social mores and, most strangely, seemed to be familiar with the Encyclopedia Brit. Nary a reference to that bastion of OLO scholarship, Wikipedia. Unless he is being very disingenuous indeed this doesn't sound like anyone currently propping up the bar on this thread.

The fact that no rebuttal has appeared I took at first as the old "silence gives assent" trope, but now I have remembered that none of the bar-proppers ever read more than the first few lines of any post. A reprehensible habit because they seem to assume we all do the same and that we never realise that the vast majority of what they say is merely a repetition of what they have said - at interminable length, over and over and over....( I have never seen a woman with a black eye...As Patai says...black eye..Patai says...black....yawn)

"Very few pieces of literature written by any feminist anywhere in the world have ever passed that test, and your literature doesn’t pass that test either."

Anywhere in the WHOLE WORLD hey? Good grief, you have been a busy little beaver. HRS, how fortunate for you that you have seemingly had the time to read all the literature produced by ALL the feminists in ALL the world (let alone the pages and pages of posts on my blog) so that you may construct such an opinion. I only wish I had similar vast empty spaces of time to fill that I may enjoy such diversity of thought and words.

Secretly though, I suspect your consumption of feminist literature is conveniently limited to snippets out of radical feminists texts from the seventies. It's probably because your general understanding of modern feminist thought seems to be so...well...absent.

BTW, I bet I can exactly guess how you'd react if I wrote a sentence like "very few pieces of literature written by men anywhere in the world have contained any depth of insight or indeed understanding of women." The difference between us is that I haven't and wouldn't write such a thing.

You have tried (very unsuccessfully) to paint me as being a hardline, one eyed manhater when in fact it is YOU who is hellbent on willfully stereotyping any woman determined enough to express an idea that differs from your world view.

"Your [sic] are 26, single, semi-employable, a feminist, a male discriminator, and a person who writes profanity in a blog site. Maybe you should take stock."

Yeah...or going by your evaluation of my life, kill myself I guess.

*cries over the waste of time that her life is according to HRS*

Does anyone else think that James and HRS share a suspiciously similar syntax? C'mon guys, related?
Posted by botheration

Sorry to dissappoint but I wouldn't know HRS if I fell over him/her.

"Secretly though, I suspect your consumption of feminist literature is conveniently limited to snippets out of radical feminists texts from the seventies."
audrey apple

I find it interesting that feminists will use the past to make their point, such as for example women have always been oppressed. Yet will criticize the use of rad 70's feminists. However Hoff Summers, Patai (Yawn), Stobla, Phillips, Young, McElroy all write more recent articles.

I hypothesise that perhaps the majority of the current gender studies lecturers were heavily influenced by the rad feminists and that much of that thinking still influences us today. For example Greer is still lecturing and putting her foot in her mouth, which is a shame that it doesn't stay in her mouth all the time.

Audrey Apple defends her blog as a way of exploring different things that interest her and her readers.

Now there is nothing wrong with exploring different ideas and concepts, although sometimes nobody to is prepared to play the devils advocate.

There was quite a noise made over "The Secret" which basically said that if you think negatively then that is the way you will veiw the world and your experiences.

I like the work of Psychologist Toby Green and she wrote that some people take the view that if someone doesn't agree with their opinion, that that person does not respect them. So they take it personally.

I think HRS that your debating technique has improved and Audrey is trying to use emotional hooks to prove herself right.