SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (1553)3/6/2002 5:26:00 PM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 21057
 
As X has told us she is brilliant and gifted and hence it would be hard to believe she could have made such an elementary error....

JLA



To: E who wrote (1553)3/6/2002 7:35:59 PM
From: jcky  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
Hi E,

I'm really glad you were able to clarify that point. And this coming from a woman's perspective holds some weight on this thread.

It would have been an awkward situation if the men (myself included) on this thread had attempted to rebuttal her statement. The last thing this thread needs is a battle of the sexes. :^)



To: E who wrote (1553)3/6/2002 8:03:26 PM
From: epicure  Respond to of 21057
 
I can't say I care very much



To: E who wrote (1553)3/7/2002 7:07:59 AM
From: thames_sider  Respond to of 21057
 
And any non-criminal, decent man who reads your provocatively worded post to mean Number One (no men are safe,) has a right to feel you've used the gender-equivalent of 'nigger' to him. Because he is safe, but you've written, provocatively, "no men are safe."

I assumed it was sexist hyperbole, from a wild generalisation, designed to annoy.
Typical woman...

hehhehheh.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News