They’re 18 for Gods sake

And hawkeye, too, of course.

I haven't wasted too much of my time with most of them at all.

But every now & then, I do. No apologies.

Generally because the subject under discussion matters to me.

Well, you're not going to teach any of those old dogs new tricks. They fear the independence and intelligence of women, and so they hate them. It's really rather pathetic. Years and years of their drivel suggests to me that you're wasting your time with them.

Oh I know that I'm not going to teach those old dogs new tricks, for the reasons you've mentioned.

But I am "wasting my time" in the very same way that you have yourself, so many times before, Setanta.

Something to do with a registering an alternative perspective, a stated objection, to their objectionable perspectives.

Well, the difference between you and i in this matter is that i no longer waste any time on them. I don't read or respond to posts by Spurious, and haven't for years. I've stopped reading and responding to Bill. As far as Whackeye is concerned, i enjoy ridiculing his illogical rants, but even that sort of entertainment palls.

Not me. I think it is a travesty of natural justice delivered by a kangaroo court containing female members for a combination of reasons I have given. Brittni has been the subject of a witchhunt in the traditional style, of wrongful arrest and unlawful imprisonment.



I don't know. I can't understand why women have failed to defend Brittni and why some of them seem to approve of her arrest and conviction. Or why I have had to try to fight her corner and been accused by women of being uninteresting and pissed. Neither of which assertions offer any argument against the posts I've written and are nothing but cowardly evasions which rely for any influence they have on some A2Kers being mentally retarded.

What is the reason why she can't have four adult athletes for a romp when she has been left by her husband to twiddle her thumbs on her own after he has provided her with antecedent positive reinforcements involving orgies.

Any deterrent effect the ridiculous, nay evil, prosecution and sentence are supposed to have implies that the bullying draconian treatment is intended to deter other women which, in turn, implies that women are tempted to indulge in such activities and are being frightened into being good little girls. Anybody who knows anything at all about freedom is aware that being coerced into being a good little girl by fearsome penalties is not being good at all. The court is therefore admitting that women would like to have four adult athletes and are to be scared off. Those who haven't got Brittni's nerve to take pro-choice at face value, or the personal qualities she exhibits, are hiding behind the court to cover up their sour grapes and envy.



Why not name the men you have in mind Olga? Have you not even the nerve for that.

Those in favour of Brittni's persecution, whatever the sentence, are the women haters and I needn't name them because they have named their silly, buttoned up, caged, neurotic selves. They are the sapped co-conspirators of male chauvinists wallowing in misogyny and thinking that calling others misogynists gets them off that hook. It doesn't. Push has come to shove in this case and they were found wanting in their rush to deny female rights and sexuality and act the docile domestic paragon of virtue frustrated all to ****. And they put their name on it.

Any bloke who doesn't know how easy such types are to seduce must never have tried it. Three cheers for monogamy eh girls? Whoring with one client for life some intellectuals call it.

The Land of the Free!!!

In this particular case, on this particular issue, the impact on schools matters a great deal to me.

It annoys me a lot, when the issue is reduced to such simplistic nonsense by some men here who have absolutely no knowledge,nor any concern at all, for how cases like this actually impact on schools.
They are blinkered, interested in their own narrow agendas & nothing else at all.

I'm not even certain they have agendas. Spurious certainly has none, he's just a nasty old drunk. Bill seems to wander around in some bizzare fantasy world. Whackeye acts as though he has an agenda, but i'm not buying it. He's just a hateful sour puss who's constantly looking for the newest alleged outrage he can rant about.

So what i'm saying is, they don't care about schools, teachers or students, and don't really have a clue about them. They just flock in to rant whenever sex rears its head.

Wrong. They are not forced. From the age of 11 I never saw a woman teacher. Co-education was chosen so that taxpayers could have their "born bankrupt" offspring minded while both parents went to work to get one up on their neighbours. Cheapskate child minding to keep consumer growth on a never ending upswing.

My criticism of Brittni is for going to work at all while she has three young children.

When "good, respectable" behaviour is part of a person's freedom and dignity it needs to have been freely chosen for it to be admired. When highly visible punitive sanctions are controlling the behaviour there is no credit to the person as the sanctions can claim it all. The respectability of all the other female teachers who do not romp with their adult students during the leisure time is thus called into question by this court. The five years demonstrate how visible and punitive the sanctions the authorities think they need to be applying in order to control the urge in other female teachers. And in all the women on the trickle down effect. There is no credit for "good, respectable" behaviour when anything else has been scared out. The court must think that women are a bunch of orgiasts and libertines to have gone to such lengths to frighten the little dears.

It's flat out witch burning in the modern world with a jail instead of a stake.

Feminists!!! Pro-choice!!! You're kidding yourselves. Evolutionists!!!!!!!! My God--what a ******* delusion.

Brittni was designed by two forces: evolution and socialisation. And the Texas authorities are responsible for the latter.

I repeat, dummkopf: most posters here, of both sexes have expressed concerns about the severity of her sentence.
Got that?
Why should anyone defend a person's actions simply because they are of the same gender?
Do you automatically defend men, no matter what, simply because they're of the same gender as you?
Well I don't automatically defend women simply because they're women, OK?


Anyone who has closely followed the comments on this thread would have no problem with that, spendius.

OK then. You were the poster who gloated about having had sex with women teachers. What a hero!
Personally, I think you were telling porkies, to impress the boys.

But what the hell do these supposed conquests of yours have to do with the subject of this thread? ... that's the question.

I have to agree that these duys don't really have a clue about the topic under discussion. They just want to take over and destroy threads that don't accept their self centered views.

Would you be so kind, spendius, without Bob Dylan lyrics, etc, etc .... just plain language, please ...
Would you explain: how exactly so-called "feminists" are deluding themselves, in relation to the particular case we're discussing here?
What exactly are they deluding themselves about?

And what exactly does your notion of "pro choice" & evolution theory have to do with this female teacher having group sex with four of her students?

You see. There you go. Setanta thinks that asserting others are misogynists automatically absolves him of being one himself.

Anybody who falls for that sneaky little infantile trick should get some adult education classes. It is not only how Setanta seeks to control your minds but how he controls his own.

I gave the devious dodge a name on the evolution threads. The RIC. (reverse invidious comparison). Assert somebody is superstitious, stupid, unscientific, misogynistic or pissed and the asserter magically becomes cleansed of any suspicion of being any of them himself or herself. Quick, cheap and easy. No proof required. Just a few blurts.

Of course the more the deceptive bluff is deployed, and it is used a lot, the more the suspicion arises that the denial involved is felt to be urgently needed. For it to be effective and justified a completely stupid audience has necessarily to be assumed by the asserter.

And you have all been informed by this great genius that you have been wasting your time for 15 pages.

That's a bit rich considering I have been defending Brittni's independence and intelligence against a raft of double-dyed misogynists and Christian persecutors.

Yes, indeed.
But who has a clue of what their real concerns actually are in this case?
Clearly there is no real concern at all about what impact the behaviour they are defending has on schools.
Irrelevant to them, it appears.

What you are doing teaching Olga when you can't even read is not my problem.

You quote me saying--



Where does that say anything about the sentence? The sentence is irrelevant. You support her arrest and trial and conviction you misogynistic little twerp in the nice safe company of a bunch of other misogynistic twerps who also approve. And you grant yourselves absolution by the simple devious bluff of false assertions.

Anyway--you're on friendly terms with Setanta it seems. Good luck with that. If he said anything complimentary about me I would get down to the doctor's pronto.

As far as I can see schools are fucked. 18 year old footballers don't go to schools. Some go to Afghanistan to risk being killed, maimed or psychologically scarred. Schools are for kids.

I wouldn't be defending the free expression of female sexuality if the males in the case were kids. You're playing word games Olga. Really sneaky ****. I gave up teaching when I discovered that it was a safe form of racketeering.

Is there really no chance Olga of persuading you, and others here, to knock off using assertions and smears as arguments?

There is no captive audience of kids on A2K which you self-evidently think there is.

Where have I actually commented on her trial & conviction, spendius?
I challenge you to produce evidence of such comments & post them here.

All I've said is that I don't think she should be teaching.
And you know something else?
I am posting my own opinions here. Which have absolutely nothing to do with anything anyone else posts, OK?

To me, it is very interesting that you are so passionately supporting this young woman. This is very unusual, given your usual attitudes toward the "ladies" you comment about. Which, to put it politely, is usually not exactly respectful, compassionate or kind in any way.

I'm starting to wonder if you're all there, spendius.

Now you think you're being picked on?

Please reread this entire thread & see what you have actually posted here & what others, of differing views, have posted back.

And now you are accusing others of "smears" as arguments"?
That's pretty rich, considering what you've posted here..
As for "assertions" ... - again - go back & read what you've actually posted here.