On Aug 5, 7:51*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
Well... it was more than hinted at, it was fairly explicit. You used
the analogy of the coal miner and the seamstress. Bill Clinton and the
Koreans being the the coal miners and Hillary the seamstress. What
difference is there other than Bill is a man and Hillary a woman? So
your analogy says don't send a woman to do a man's job. So no,
admittediy not every woman is a seamstress and you didn't say so but
you clearly indicate there are jobs suited to a woman and jobs suited
to a man. Pretty clear. Pretty sexist.

Man, you got some serious issues.
I pointed out via analogy that when the party at the other side of the
negotiating table is hostile to women, don't send one if you want to
make any headway. No parallels between Bill and Coal miners, NO
parallels between seamstresses and Hillary... where on earth do you
dream up **** like that?

Now, just for ****s and giggles, are you suggesting that all jobs that
men can do can be done by women and visa versa?
I would concede on 99% of them, but..... I don't think I could pass as
a surrogate mother.... nor do I think that there are a lot of women
who could carry me down a fireman's ladder.... in fact few men
could....

But you're not really THAT stupid are you?

If the logic of my
interpretation is flawed, in your opinion, then please explain.

**** on that.

Just did.