On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 19:15:00 -0800 (PST), Marcus Aurelius
wrote:

I agree with those that say that Limbaugh's personal attack on the
woman was rude and inappropriate.
You should always behave in a courteous and civil manner to those with
whom you
politically disagree, even if you disagree with them vehemently.
Why? Because by doing the same, it is much more likely that you will
promulgate justice and equity.
However, the disproportionate response to these inappropriate and rude
remarks by Limbaugh are demonstrative
of the sociopathic nature of the feminist and female culture in the
U.S.A..

plonk Jackass. You're the one who sounds like a sociopath.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 4, 10:47*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 19:15:00 -0800 (PST), Marcus Aurelius

wrote:
I agree with those that say that Limbaugh's personal attack on the
woman was rude and inappropriate.
You should always behave in a courteous and civil manner to those with
whom you
politically disagree, even if you disagree with them vehemently.
Why? Because by doing the same, it is much more likely that you will
promulgate justice and equity.
However, the disproportionate response to these inappropriate and rude
remarks by Limbaugh are demonstrative
of the sociopathic nature of the feminist and female culture in the
U.S.A..

plonk Jackass. You're the one who sounds like a sociopath.

--
Ed Huntress

Another fine argument honed with logic by Eddyi.

Dan

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 05:18:46 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Mar 4, 10:47*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 19:15:00 -0800 (PST), Marcus Aurelius

wrote:
I agree with those that say that Limbaugh's personal attack on the
woman was rude and inappropriate.
You should always behave in a courteous and civil manner to those with
whom you
politically disagree, even if you disagree with them vehemently.
Why? Because by doing the same, it is much more likely that you will
promulgate justice and equity.
However, the disproportionate response to these inappropriate and rude
remarks by Limbaugh are demonstrative
of the sociopathic nature of the feminist and female culture in the
U.S.A..

plonk Jackass. You're the one who sounds like a sociopath.

--
Ed Huntress

Another fine argument honed with logic by Eddyi.

Dan

Dear Little Dannyi:

Only a psychopathic jackass would defend a misogynist dirtbag who
denigrates all American women by saying they display "pathological
egocentrism", a "sense of entitlement", that they're "predatory",
"manipulative", have a "lack of remorse or shame", that they're
"exploitative", and "deceitful," and that it's an "inherent
part of... "the female culture in the U.S.A."

You have really slipped your leash.

As for Marcus, it sounds like he either had a weekend pass from the
asylum, or he's just lost a big divorce settlement.

Don't lay your pathological crap on me, Dan. You have a serious
problem yourself.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 05:18:46 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


You have really slipped your leash.

As for Marcus, it sounds like he either had a weekend pass from the
asylum, or he's just lost a big divorce settlement.

Don't lay your pathological crap on me, Dan. You have a serious
problem yourself.


I just tend to remember that Limbo, is a drug addict, perhaps a
"recovering"one, but still an addict. What little I heard from him,
he seemed to quit carping on drugs after he was Outed on that.
Recalling that, I just tend to ignore him. I wish others would.

[And perhaps he will change his tune on women's issues, after he gets
a sex change operation. Until then he really has no basis]

jk

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:33:21 -0800, jk wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 05:18:46 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


You have really slipped your leash.

As for Marcus, it sounds like he either had a weekend pass from the
asylum, or he's just lost a big divorce settlement.

Don't lay your pathological crap on me, Dan. You have a serious
problem yourself.


I just tend to remember that Limbo, is a drug addict, perhaps a
"recovering"one, but still an addict. What little I heard from him,
he seemed to quit carping on drugs after he was Outed on that.
Recalling that, I just tend to ignore him. I wish others would.

[And perhaps he will change his tune on women's issues, after he gets
a sex change operation. Until then he really has no basis]

It's hard to tell what's going to happen with him, but he just gave
the Democrats enough material to send Republicans into a fit. His own
poll just dropped 35 points with women, but who know how that will
translate politically.

--
Ed Huntress

jk

On Mar 5, 6:15*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 05:18:46 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:47*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 19:15:00 -0800 (PST), Marcus Aurelius

wrote:
I agree with those that say that Limbaugh's personal attack on the
woman was rude and inappropriate.
You should always behave in a courteous and civil manner to those with
whom you
politically disagree, even if you disagree with them vehemently.
Why? Because by doing the same, it is much more likely that you will
promulgate justice and equity.
However, the disproportionate response to these inappropriate and rude
remarks by Limbaugh are demonstrative
of the sociopathic nature of the feminist and female culture in the
U.S.A..

plonk Jackass. You're the one who sounds like a sociopath.

--
Ed Huntress

Another fine argument honed with logic by Eddyi.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Dear Little Dannyi:

Only a psychopathic jackass would defend a misogynist dirtbag who
denigrates all American women by saying they display "pathological
egocentrism", a "sense of entitlement", that they're "predatory",
"manipulative", have a "lack of remorse or shame", that they're
"exploitative", and "deceitful," and that it's an "inherent
part of... "the female culture in the U.S.A."

You have really slipped your leash.

As for Marcus, it sounds like he either had a weekend pass from the
asylum, or he's just lost a big divorce settlement.

Don't lay your pathological crap on me, Dan. You have a serious
problem yourself.

--
Ed Huntress


Oh little Eddy. I was not defending anyone. Only commenting on your
post that contained no logic, but was the sort of post I associate
with 13 year old boys.

And while you may think I am pathological , you are the one that has
to make insulting remarks. That is calling people " Jackass ". And
trying to say that I have a problem, when it is you that usually can
post logical replies, except when you can not.

Dan

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 20:09:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:15*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 05:18:46 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:47*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 19:15:00 -0800 (PST), Marcus Aurelius

wrote:
I agree with those that say that Limbaugh's personal attack on the
woman was rude and inappropriate.
You should always behave in a courteous and civil manner to those with
whom you
politically disagree, even if you disagree with them vehemently.
Why? Because by doing the same, it is much more likely that you will
promulgate justice and equity.
However, the disproportionate response to these inappropriate and rude
remarks by Limbaugh are demonstrative
of the sociopathic nature of the feminist and female culture in the
U.S.A..

plonk Jackass. You're the one who sounds like a sociopath.

--
Ed Huntress

Another fine argument honed with logic by Eddyi.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Dear Little Dannyi:

Only a psychopathic jackass would defend a misogynist dirtbag who
denigrates all American women by saying they display "pathological
egocentrism", a "sense of entitlement", that they're "predatory",
"manipulative", have a "lack of remorse or shame", that they're
"exploitative", and "deceitful," and that it's an "inherent
part of... "the female culture in the U.S.A."

You have really slipped your leash.

As for Marcus, it sounds like he either had a weekend pass from the
asylum, or he's just lost a big divorce settlement.

Don't lay your pathological crap on me, Dan. You have a serious
problem yourself.

--
Ed Huntress


Oh little Eddy. I was not defending anyone.

The hell you're not.

Only commenting on your
post that contained no logic, but was the sort of post I associate
with 13 year old boys.

So, you want a "logical" post telling a misogynist to stuff it? How
about a rapist? Do you require "logical" posts reacting to child
molesters, too? Just what logic would you use?


And while you may think I am pathological , you are the one that has
to make insulting remarks. That is calling people " Jackass ". And
trying to say that I have a problem, when it is you that usually can
post logical replies, except when you can not.

I don't use "logic" on people so detached from reality that they
defend misogynist jackasses who call all American women "sociopaths."
He's a sociopath himself, by definition. And you've defended him.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 5, 11:32*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


Another fine argument honed with logic by Eddyi.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Oh *little Eddy. *I was not defending anyone.

The hell you're not.


I don't use "logic" on people so detached from reality that they
defend misogynist jackasses who call all American women "sociopaths."
He's a sociopath himself, by definition. And you've defended him.

--
Ed Huntress

That is really funny. Saying I am defending someone. And when I
correct you , saying it again as if that makes it so.

Yes I have noticed that you do not always use logic. If you did you
would realize that it is pointless to attack anyone detached from
reality, They are not going to change, and name calling will not
help. But you seem compelled to call people names anyway.

Now if you can explain how I defended anyone. Exactly what did I say
that was a defense?

Dan

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 04:35:03 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Mar 5, 11:32*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


Another fine argument honed with logic by Eddyi.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Oh *little Eddy. *I was not defending anyone.

The hell you're not.


I don't use "logic" on people so detached from reality that they
defend misogynist jackasses who call all American women "sociopaths."
He's a sociopath himself, by definition. And you've defended him.

--
Ed Huntress

That is really funny. Saying I am defending someone. And when I
correct you , saying it again as if that makes it so.

Ok, Dan, I'm going to try to keep this short. Yes, by claiming that
this misogynistic twit deserves a "logical response," you're giving
him legitimacy he doesn't deserve -- cover for an atrocious collection
of insults against all women. Or maybe it's just American women that
he hates. Whatever. What he deserves is a kick in the pants, not a
"logical" response that treats him like a normal person.

You've snipped out his list of insults, probably because you think
they aren't relevant. More cover.

I still haven't seen a response from you about what kind of logical
argument you would prefer. Something like, "Oh, no, Marcus, not all
American women are deceitful, exploitative, remorseless and
pathologically egocentric predators. In fact, I personally know
several who are not all of those things."

Do you like that better?


Yes I have noticed that you do not always use logic. If you did you
would realize that it is pointless to attack anyone detached from
reality,

Sometimes is just relieves stress. d8-)

They are not going to change, and name calling will not
help. But you seem compelled to call people names anyway.

Only if they deserve it. If they use it on me, I'll throw it right
back. I didn't used to do that, but I learned that, in this place,
they'll just take it as license to keep it up.

In other cases, it depends on how I perceive the evil. And this one is
evil. This kind of outrageous woman-hating is pretty novel, too. It's
not something that you want to let fester. Off with its head.


Now if you can explain how I defended anyone. Exactly what did I say
that was a defense?

See above.

Now, as for you: How vile does a post have to be before you'll slam
it? Like the man said, all it takes for evil to prevail is...and you
know the rest.

In another mood, I might have just used sarcasm. Like, "Hey, Marcus,
it sounds like you aren't getting any. Why don't you go hook up with a
prostitute and work out some of your emotional problems?"

But there's too much of a misogynistic mood in this NG already. I'd
had enough. Besides, maybe he's a slasher, and I wouldn't want to feel
responsible for another body washing up on Long Island.

I'd really like to know what kind of "logical" response you'd give to
Marcus the Misogynist. And while you're at it, as a pre-emptive strike
against illogic, maybe you'll tell us what logic you'd use on a
man/boy sex advocate, an anti-Asian bigot, and someone who makes fun
of Downs Syndrome sufferers.

Bigotry against blacks is already taken. It's getting boring at this
point.

--
Ed Huntress


Dan

On Mar 6, 5:44*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 04:35:03 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:32*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

Another fine argument honed with logic by Eddyi.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Oh *little Eddy. *I was not defending anyone.

The hell you're not.

I don't use "logic" on people so detached from reality that they
defend misogynist jackasses who call all American women "sociopaths."
He's a sociopath himself, by definition. And you've defended him.

--
Ed Huntress

That is really funny. *Saying I am defending someone. *And when I
correct you , saying it again as if that makes it so.

Ok, Dan, I'm going to try to keep this short. Yes, by claiming that
this misogynistic twit deserves a "logical response," you're giving
him legitimacy he doesn't deserve -- cover for an atrocious collection
of insults against all women. Or maybe it's just American women that
he hates. Whatever. What he deserves is a kick in the pants, not a
"logical" response that treats him like a normal person.

You've snipped out his list of insults, probably because you think
they aren't relevant. More cover.

I still haven't seen a response from you about what kind of logical
argument you would prefer. Something like, "Oh, no, Marcus, not all
American women are deceitful, exploitative, remorseless and
pathologically egocentric predators. In fact, I personally know
several who are not all of those things."

Do you like that better?



Yes I have noticed that you do not always use logic. *If you did you
would realize that it is pointless to attack anyone detached from
reality,

Sometimes is just relieves stress. d8-)

They are not going to change, and name calling will not
help. *But you seem compelled to call people names anyway.

Only if they deserve it. If they use it on me, I'll throw it right
back. I didn't used to do that, but I learned that, in this place,
they'll just take it as license to keep it up.

In other cases, it depends on how I perceive the evil. And this one is
evil. This kind of outrageous woman-hating is pretty novel, too. It's
not something that you want to let fester. Off with its head.



Now if you can explain how I defended anyone. *Exactly what did I say
that was a defense?

See above.

Now, as for you: How vile does a post have to be before you'll slam
it? Like the man said, all it takes for evil to prevail is...and you
know the rest.

In another mood, I might have just used sarcasm. Like, "Hey, Marcus,
it sounds like you aren't getting any. Why don't you go hook up with a
prostitute and work out some of your emotional problems?"

But there's too much of a misogynistic mood in this NG already. I'd
had enough. Besides, maybe he's a slasher, and I wouldn't want to feel
responsible for another body washing up on Long Island.

I'd really like to know what kind of "logical" response you'd give to
Marcus the Misogynist. And while you're at it, as a pre-emptive strike
against illogic, maybe you'll tell us what logic you'd use on a
man/boy sex advocate, an anti-Asian bigot, and someone who makes fun
of Downs Syndrome sufferers.

Bigotry against blacks is already taken. It's getting boring at this
point.

--
Ed Huntress



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Keep claiming that I was defending Marcus. Someone might believe
you. And I did not say that he deserved a logical response. What I
said was you were acting like a 13 year old in calling names whereas
you usually use facts and logic. I was only responding to your
post, so
I cut out everything else so you would understand that I was
responding to what you said. Obviously that was wasted effort.

The only thing from Marcus that I have read in what was quoted in your
post. Life is too short to read every thing posted in RCM. I use
Google to read RCM and use the topic list display. So I just see
the topic and the name of the last person that posted in that topic.
Usually I would not read any of the posts in a topic " Rush Limbaugh
the slut ", but you were the last person that had posted. So I
thought ..........Hmmm Ed is responding to this topic, might be worth
reading. But obviously in this case , it was not worth reading.

Dan