Did they really need to research this? ;)

[cement]

^^ :appl: :appl: :appl:

 

[rudy]

There are sure a lot more TV shows and movies .... blah... blah.... blah....
blah... blah... blah...

Now, I have witnessed many men, ... blah... blah... blah... I have never met a woman.

Whoa partner ! Thems are fightin' words.

NONE of the other replies have done anything except to personally attack me by telling me that I can't get a woman or that I have issues.

ALL of your posts have done everything to personally attack women and men

 

[DVINNY]

but after watching a quality female EB member (gatormech) never come back after your sexist comments last year,

Obviously, I missed something somewhere. ?

 

[cement]

I remember.

 

[Dark Knight]

I remember.

I don't. But Gatormech never came back. That is weird. I never saw SuperAlpha as a troll or a problem member. All this is a surprise for me since I thought he was just kidding but looks like I was wrong. On the other hand YKW was obliterated for similar reasons.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

gatormech must have left before I got here, but I would almost swear that wasn't the case.

I guess I missed it, too.

 

[Dark Knight]

Well, if the posts are offensive and in detriment of any member here, no matter the ***, then get rid of the posts. It is that simple. I was somehow surprised of reading some of the posts and thought they were totally out of order but, again, thought that was just a joke since always thought SuperA was a quality poster.

 

[SuperAlpha]

Tom Leykis listener???

Yes, although I always had the same philosophy, Tom's show sure reenforces it!

 

[SuperAlpha]

You obviously DO have issues and you can count on continuing to receive such comments or "personal attacks" (as you phrase them) if you continue to spout such inappropriately sexist comments.
I've got a lot of work to do (believe it or not) and can't spam today, but after watching a quality female EB member (gatormech) never come back after your sexist comments last year, I won't miss the opportunity to say so this time. Go see a psychiatrist and deal with your female issues, or at least have the courtesy to not post them here.

DID YOU ACTUALLY READ MY FIRST POST? Why don't you go back and read it again. This time pay attention to what I said.

 

[SuperAlpha]

but after watching a quality female EB member (gatormech) never come back after your sexist comments last year, I won't miss the opportunity to say so this time.

Who? and what comment? and why would a comment on the internet affect someone so much? geez...

 

[SuperAlpha]

Well, if the posts are offensive and in detriment of any member here, no matter the ***, then get rid of the posts. It is that simple. I was somehow surprised of reading some of the posts and thought they were totally out of order but, again, thought that was just a joke since always thought SuperA was a quality poster.

Read my post again with a logical frame of mind instead of an emotional one. You will see:

I made factual statements. Statements of facts are NOT personal attacks against anyone. The statements I made are factual observations of real world examples and situations.

 

[SuperAlpha]

Look, I am sorry that I offended you guys. I should act more professional in this type of forum.

I do not need to justify my ways of thinking. We are all different people with different views on things.

I will not argue this any further.

Again, I am sorry.

 

[Sschell]

I remember gatormech she was cool!

I don't remember the comment/conflict though...

 

[Sschell]

I must say I thought that all the commotion was fun... like DV said on its way to classic...

since I have heard leykis' schpiel (and I have a *****) this ideology does not offend me... my fiance on the otherhand would take a swing at leykis if she had a chance.

This guys name is superalpha for christ sake... what do you expect???

anyways, please don't think I'm defending the guy... obviously he'll speak for himself...

from my experience on this board, the women on this board are VERY intellegent, and probably not the type to hop into bed with a dude because he's got a cool pool... so SA's statements don't really apply to present company.

my $.02

 

[mudpuppy]

I do not need to justify my ways of thinking. We are all different people with different views on things.

Now wait a minute.

Merriam-Webster defines liberal as "broad-minded." Broad-minded is defined as "tolerant of varied views."

After your liberal-bashing you want us to be tolerant of your views; to be liberal? That, by your own argument would make us stupid. Since I'm fairly liberal I've been ignoring your argument for the most part. But now that you're asking me purposely to be stupid, well, let's take a look at your argument on its face.

You claim that most women (and liberals) are stupid because they allow emotion to affect their judgement. You offer no evidence of this other than some circumstantial "observations." We later find out through a third party that your "observations" may be skewed (most of us probably agree that the women you attract with your pool aren't very intelligent). You also ask us to disprove this point that you have offered no verifible evidence on. In effect, you're asking us to disprove a negative, which is impossible. Then later when no one could disprove it, you could claim that it must be true because it was not disproven. However, it is not rational to expect us to do the impossible.

What this argument does is (1) takes a small, skewed sample set and tries to apply it to the majority, and (2) uses an irrational argument to try to prove it's true.

Back to Merriam-Webster, irrational is defined as "not endowed with reason or understanding" and "lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence." Also, intelligence is defined as "the skilled use of reason." Therefore, an irrational argument is not intelligent.

I find it ironic that the argument being used to try to prove someone else is not intelligent, is itself not intelligent.

<this part is tongue-in-cheek>From my own observations the faux logic used in the argument to "prove" an irrational point is a typical tactic of the Conservative. Now given that Conservatives are irrational (dumb) and Liberals are emotional (dumb). Who is left to be intelligent?<end tongue-in-cheek>

The people that don't go around doling out labels like Conservative or Liberal or Dumb Woman.

Dude, just a word of advice: the only thing that going around calling all women dumb accomplishes is making yourself look like a ******* (at least when you're with intelligent company).

Hope I haven't (further) offended anyone. I knew this would be a lively thread when I saw Jen's original post, but I never expected it to take this route. Quite interesting.

 

[SuperAlpha]

You claim that most women (and liberals) are stupid because they allow emotion to affect their judgement.

You misread what I said.

Go read my first post and pay attention to the placement of the word, "appear." You may need to refer to Merriam for the definition as well. Then read the part about their intelligence being a moot point. Maybe I should have phrased it better, like they "act" dumb.

ETA-Also the second line should give you another clue that I have not called women dumb, stupid, etc.

"For the sake of argument, let's agree that women are equal in intelligence."

As for the liberal definition, sure you might be right, but this is a professional-oriented website and since political correctness is the norm, unfortunately it goes hand-in-hand with lliberalism. So on here, we should appear to be liberal (dumb).

 

[SuperAlpha]

There is a major reading comprehension problem here.

Maybe it is the font size on your screens.

If you would go beack and read exactly what I said in my first post, then you shall see that I never once said women were stupid, dumb, etc.

 

[EM_PS]

You're coming across as desperate dude: desperate to somehow expunge your defaming statement earlier & in the way you lobby to prove to the public forum members here that you can 'get chicks' - are we in 8th grade here? By the way, David Hasselhoff called: he wants his 1984 Trans Am back.

:holyness: Rereading your initial post, you state: most women appear to be D-U-M-B simply because they act like "women" - so no, you don't come out and call women dumb, you just state that they APPEAR dumb because they ACT like WOMEN! Therein, if in acting like a woman you appear dumb - ipso facto women must be dumb? How else are we to take your statement?

Hello McFly! Anyone home McFly!?

opcorn:

 

[mudpuppy]

For the sake of argument, let's agree that women are equal in intelligence.
. . . Therefore their intelligence is M-O-O-T!!!!!

Ok, you never came right out said women are stupid. You said their intelligence is moot and then you went on to list a bunch of stupid things that they allegedy all do. I don't see a difference.

BTW--I apologize if my citing definitions was offensive; it was only meant to establish a baseline for a rational argument.

(edit--yeah, what Error Matrix said)

 

[SuperAlpha]

You're coming across as desperate dude: desperate to somehow expunge your defaming statement earlier & in the way you lobby to prove to the public forum members here that you can 'get chicks' - are we in 8th grade here? By the way, David Hasselhoff called: he wants his 1984 Trans Am back.
:holyness: Rereading your initial post, you state: most women appear to be D-U-M-B simply because they act like "women" - so no, you don't come out and call women dumb, you just state that they APPEAR dumb because they ACT like WOMEN! Therein, if in acting like a woman you appear dumb - ipso facto women must be dumb? How else are we to take your statement?

Hello McFly! Anyone home McFly!?

opcorn:

You guys have serious reading comprehension issues. Turn off the emotion (yeah...you know what I mean) and look at my statements from a logical point of view.

Are you saying that I stated women are DUMB? If so, please quote my exact statement of fact to back up your statement.

That part about the chicks was in response to someone else's attempt at a ***.

It is a fact that typical women "act" dumb. If we are to accept (as agreed in my first post) that they are at least as intelligent as men are, as Jen's article says, then their intelligence is masked by how they act.