Contributions (was Re: Multi-rant)

[Guest guest]

Klein said:

>Your opinion is wrong.

I can't help being tempted to ask: can I use this one as a quote on my

blog or my .sig file? I like it. (I'd only use it if the person I am

responding to is being factually incorrect or massively illogical, of

course. )

[Guest guest]

> Well, the way you looked after that woman you describe (down below)

> makes you a man, like it or not. You are looking after her, that is

> our role.

Wow!

So that must make me a man, because I've provided for people in similar

ways to what 's doing.

And it must make the person quoted in my signature file a man, because

she's provided for me in similar ways to what 's doing.

And my aide's girlfriend must be a man because she provides for my aide

since my aide isn't making enough money to live on.

And all this time I never *thought* I had a dick... I'll have to check

with and my aide's girlfriend to see if they have them and just

weren't telling me.

--

" Nobody achieves sainthood by having an autistic kid. " - A.

Tisoncik

[Guest guest]

danced around singing:

>Wow!

>So that must make me a man, because I've provided for people in similar

>ways to what 's doing.

>And it must make the person quoted in my signature file a man, because

>she's provided for me in similar ways to what 's doing.

>And my aide's girlfriend must be a man because she provides for my aide

>since my aide isn't making enough money to live on.

>And all this time I never *thought* I had a dick... I'll have to check

>with and my aide's girlfriend to see if they have them and just

>weren't telling me.

LOL!

Count me in as a " man " as well... I basically support my mother, I

supported my first boyfriend, and I intend to find a way to support my

second one.

btw, on " men that have breasts " the penis is a small protuberance slightly

above the urethra. ;o)

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

" Screw normality. Normality is overrated. " -- K. Yelbis

[Guest guest]

> danced around singing:

> >Wow!

> >So that must make me a man, because I've provided for people in similar

> >ways to what 's doing.

> >And it must make the person quoted in my signature file a man, because

> >she's provided for me in similar ways to what 's doing.

> >And my aide's girlfriend must be a man because she provides for my aide

> >since my aide isn't making enough money to live on.

> >And all this time I never *thought* I had a dick... I'll have to check

> >with and my aide's girlfriend to see if they have them and just

> >weren't telling me.

> LOL!

> Count me in as a " man " as well... I basically support my mother, I

> supported my first boyfriend, and I intend to find a way to support my

> second one.

Wow. All these men running around with female names and anatomy, and

not even getting sex changes, and I never realized.

I wonder if this explains the observed discrepancy between the amount of

female autistics online and the amount of female autistics reported in

the literature. Maybe a lot of us are really men in disguise.

That's what a parent on an autism channel on IRC once thought, anyway.

I was using a gender-neutral handle to avoid the usual IRC-harassment of

females, and suddenly found myself being used as an example of the

difference between female autistics and male autistics -- *as the male*.

> btw, on " men that have breasts " the penis is a small protuberance slightly

> above the urethra. ;o)

<grin>

Although some men can grow breasts for various reasons.

--

" Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a

system of government. " -Monty Python

[Guest guest]

Gareth wrote:

>> Thats who we are. And remember, if we are on social security,

>> somebody else is paying for us.

and responded:

>Damn right they are. If they don't like it, they can quit treating us

>like fifth class citizens. I have no problem taking my sustenance from

>their checks if they raise the bar so high for someone like me. I see

>it as a kind of poetic justice. It is their prejudice that makes me

>disabled-- so let their paychecks pay for my disability.

I'm generally " on your side " with all of this, , but

logic prompts me to require a differentiation of your

" they. " From the paragraph of yours quoted above, one

might assume that all people who work are treating " us "

like 5th class citizens, raising the bar, etc. The

reality is that some of " us " are workers. Me, for

example. I get a paycheck from which taxes are withheld.

As it happens, I am happy to have my taxes contribute

towards social welfare. I would be happy if my taxes

contributed a heck of a lot more to welfare (using the

term literally, not referring to the bureaucracy). For

example, I'd like everyone to have a guaranteed annual

income. A livable one. Paid for by taxes. Fine. Good,

Let's do it! Not all people who work are the " they " who

structure the workplace so as to exclude so many.

Jane

[Guest guest]

With thirty posts to go before I catch up with this little

donnybrook, I have to stop here and just mention to Jane

that I have a book I know she'd like. It's an old one,

though. 1897. " Equality " , by Bellamy. It really is

a masterful blueprint of how society should be arranged

economics-wise, government-wise, education-wise, everything.

Definitely leftist, liberal, and progressive. There are

several places on the net where they have out-of-print

books, if interested.

Clay

> For example, I'd like everyone to have a guaranteed annual

> income. A livable one. Paid for by taxes. Fine. Good,

> Let's do it! Not all people who work are the " they " who

> structure the workplace so as to exclude so many.

>

> Jane

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

>With thirty posts to go before I catch up with this little

>donnybrook, I have to stop here and just mention to Jane

>that I have a book I know she'd like. It's an old one,

>though. 1897. " Equality " , by Bellamy. It really is

>a masterful blueprint of how society should be arranged

>economics-wise, government-wise, education-wise, everything.

>Definitely leftist, liberal, and progressive. There are

>several places on the net where they have out-of-print

>books, if interested.

Thanks, Clay. I'll send myself an email to remind me to

look for it next week at work.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

> I'm generally " on your side " with all of this, , but logic

> prompts me to require a differentiation of your " they. " From the

> paragraph of yours quoted above, one might assume that all people who

> work are treating " us " like 5th class citizens, raising the bar, etc.

> The reality is that some of " us " are workers. Me, for example. I get

> a paycheck from which taxes are withheld. As it happens, I am happy

> to have my taxes contribute towards social welfare. I would be happy

> if my taxes contributed a heck of a lot more to welfare (using the

> term literally, not referring to the bureaucracy). For example, I'd

> like everyone to have a guaranteed annual income. A livable one. Paid

> for by taxes. Fine. Good, Let's do it! Not all people who work are

> the " they " who structure the workplace so as to exclude so many.

Yes, I know. I was thinking about that when I wrote it. Since there is

no way to prove otherwise, I prefer to think of my sustenance as coming

from the NTs, while taxes from people like you go to someone or

something else. Like writing " not to be used for war " on a tax form or

check or something. At any rate, the people like you (the non-NTs that

work) are in the minority of workers, so in the aggregate, it is more

true than not to say that my sustenance comes from NT paychecks.

I would work and contribute to the tax base part time if the government

would let me. As it stands, though, the government makes sure that I

cannot earn anything without them cutting my benefits by the same

amount. If I work, it will be to improve my existence, to have a little

more money than I have now... and I am not allowed that.

[Guest guest]

<-----Original Message----->

From: DeGraf

)

danced around singing:

>Wow!

>So that must make me a man, because I've provided for people in similar

>ways to what 's doing.

>And it must make the person quoted in my signature file a man, because

>she's provided for me in similar ways to what 's doing.

>And my aide's girlfriend must be a man because she provides for my aide

>since my aide isn't making enough money to live on.

>And all this time I never *thought* I had a dick... I'll have to check

>with and my aide's girlfriend to see if they have them and just

>weren't telling me.

LOL!

Count me in as a " man " as well... I basically support my mother, I

supported my first boyfriend, and I intend to find a way to support my

second one.

btw, on " men that have breasts " the penis is a small protuberance

slightly

above the urethra. ;o)

Apparently Im male too...but my friends have been accusing me of such

all year.

Kassiane the supremely nongirlie

_______________________________________________________________

Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at

http://www.mail2world.com

[Guest guest]

>Clay wrote:

>>With thirty posts to go before I catch up with this little

>>donnybrook, I have to stop here and just mention to Jane

>>that I have a book I know she'd like. It's an old one,

>>though. 1897. " Equality " , by Bellamy. It really is

>>a masterful blueprint of how society should be arranged

>>economics-wise, government-wise, education-wise, everything.

>>Definitely leftist, liberal, and progressive. There are

>>several places on the net where they have out-of-print

>>books, if interested.

>

>Thanks, Clay. I'll send myself an email to remind me to

>look for it next week at work.

>

>Jane

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chemer wrote:

> I am sure you will have a pair of underpants that she would like, but

> probably like everything you touch it would be full of s*it

That's enough, Steve. You can disagree with someone, but that is over

the line.