Reply-To: "Beth" <BethStone21@hotmail.com>
From: "Beth" <BethStone21@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.os.development,comp.os.minix
References: <MPG.14c3f049f50eae198984f@news.direcpc.com> <slrn95lq75.i3s.pino+comp_os_minix@mud.stack.nl> <93fssi$la1$1@news.ilstu.edu> <slrn95ooht.qhl.pino+comp_os_minix@mud.stack.nl> <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010110234351.5152D-100000@winnie.obuda.kando.hu> <93ku3p$6vn$1@news.ilstu.edu> <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010112014034.20983K-100000@winnie.obuda.kando.hu> <93m9kb$iv1$1@news.ilstu.edu> <AHA96.6641$3N1.143602@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> <947ibd$1mbf$1@gavrilo.mtu.ru> <XMwa6.7729$vH6.117213@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com> <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010121232621.854A-100000@winnie.obuda.kando.hu> <qHXa6.54983$0d.6308404@nnrp4.clara.net> <ttAb6.1139$Z%5.19288@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> <94n8im$gt2$2@gavrilo.mtu.ru>
Subject: Re: dumb question: do you fork()?
Lines: 170
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Message-ID: <fsQc6.2387$YT3.75324@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:55:34 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.104.138.37
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: news6-win.server.ntlworld.com 980669323 213.104.138.37 (Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:08:43 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:08:43 GMT
Organization: ntlworld News Service
Path: news.adfa.edu.au!clarion.carno.net.au!news0.optus.net.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news.mel.connect.com.au!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.tele.dk!195.224.53.60!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!gxn.net!server6.netnews.ja.net!server4.netnews.ja.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news6-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news.adfa.edu.au alt.os.development:1073 comp.os.minix:36693

Maxim wrote:
> OK, let's run offtopic :-) :
>
> > Anyway, as though some of the feminists out there aren't
"man-haters"...I
> > hate to be associated with some of the clap-trap that's spouted...you
> know,
> > "all men are potential rapists" and all that BS...
>
> The majority of feminists (called "feminazi") are the following kind of
> girls:
> - they were nurtured in the way of "expecting the Perfect Prince".
> - so, they have a very high "plank" of requirements to men
> - since these requirements are usually plain unreal (there are no men to
> meet them) - they start to hate all men around for not matching their
> standards.

lol..."feminazi"...never heard that before...that's quite funny...hehehehe
;)

you missed a few:
- they are lesbians and find men completely superfluous and a waste to
"women's" resources...lol ;)
- they have sat down on the toilet after a man left the toilet seat up and
fell in...lol ;)
- they have handled men's underpants in some fashion...lol ;)
- football came on the TV during the middle of a heart-to-heart discussion
about "the future of this relationship" and the true love of their life was
revealed...lol ;)
- they found their men in bed with another woman and by turning it into a
political struggle against evil oppressors is a sanity thing, rather than
accepting that her bum really _did_ look big in that dress and he was just
lying all that time...lol ;)

Anyway, I detect a bitter tone to your words...so...was she cute? grrr...the
bitch! lol ;)

Personally, no-one "groomed" me to expect anything really...that's just
natural...this is someone you want to spend the rest of your life with and
possibly have kids with...standards _have_ to be maintained...especially
when men don't bother with this sort of stuff and work completely on a
"breast size" to "is she a goer?" basis...just kidding, just kidding...don't
rip my head off...lol ;)

> Some of these girls even write books - reading such a book causes great
> doubt in the author's mental health :-))) being unable to accept reality
is
> surely not a way of sane behaviour.
> For instance - if the girl's book has the idea "I love sex, but not these
> nasty males" - this is a kind of such. I don't think she is lesbian.

If she meant...ummm..."self-referential" sex...then its not
contradictory...though, technically, it is "lesbian activity" of a
kind...lmfao ;)

Anyway, that's hypocritical...so, by that rationale, you're saying that if a
good-looking "feminazi" offered to sleep with you, you'd refuse on "moral
grounds"?? Nope, admit it, you'd sleep with her and "love the sex but not
those stupid feminazi"...same rationale ;)

Though I personally don't advocate it - I like guys just fine and when not
arguing the finer points of OS design, get on just fine with them too :) -
it is possible to have sex with someone and enjoy the sex without actually
liking the person you're doing it with...let's be frank, if you're drunk
and/or desparate we can even scrub the "good-looking" bit too...lol ;)

Code example of "self-referential" sex:

typedef struct _sex {
    struct _sex     *Sex;
} sex;

But don't look at this code for too long or you'll go blind!!! :)

> > The whole point is _equality_ that means no bias...EITHER
WAY...accepting,
> > of course, that men and women are _not_ the same...so just doing as the
> > other does is not a solution either...
>
> There are lots of articles over the web on "gender behaviour". People are
> different. I can show (selecting them from my friends) the male and the
> female who do not differ much in their behaviour.

Actually, the stuff about "gender behaviour" in Dawkin's contempory classic
"the Selfish Gene" makes about the most sense from what I've read...but he
still has major male bias in his thought patterns ("why do woman reject me?"
can be eaily read between the lines...the entire chapter, in fact, follows
that entire line of thought if you look carefully at it...lol ;)...

All the other stuff is usually based on pre-Darwinian theories and have
loads of antiquated ideas in them about things like the size and shape of
someone's head but, as always, the new theories don't succeed, the old ones
just die and that's what's left over...that's something Dawkins et al should
work on...why are humans so incredibly stubborn, even in the face of knowing
they're talking obvious BS?? lol ;)

Although, that said, too much emphasis is placed on genetics/physicality...a
lot of it is mental, in my opinion, as a lot of effeminate gay men seem to
think "lady-like" when you chat with them...and a lot of those butch
"feminazi" are so masculine in thought and deed (and crew cut ;)...it's just
not clear-cut and, hence, confusing...

Unless, of course, you're bisexual...which does have its benefits from time
to time...lol :)

> If you mean the "strength of character" - I saw the very good article on
> exploring this phenomenon and deriving it from the hierarchial "rank" of
the
> flock-living animals like pavians or wild hens. The article stated that
> females are NOT weaker in this then males - if we will take things in
> general.

Yup...that sounds like one of those weird pre-Darwinian theories...

And, _of course_ females are NOT weaker...oh dear...where did that idea
spring from? Is that what they nurture you guys on these days?

Ever seen a mother protect her children?

It's not physical strength maybe...it's mental
strength...determination...fortitude...obstinance even...that sort of
thing...and, trust me, you guys don't stand the slightest chance in that
arena...no offence, of course ;)

> > Anyway, I'm just a happy and an emotional girl all the time, what can I
> say?
> > lol ;)
>
> Great to see a girl here :-))) I saw several girls who are good software
> developers - but such ones are very, very rare.

Heck, I must be one of those rare ones then...*giggle* ;)

Actually, its very strange that, though...because they've done loads of
surveys on these sort of mental differences and woman apparently have much
better logical thought...whereas men are good with spatitial awareness...

Generally speaking, of course, there is some overlap and exceptions to the
rule in all characteristics...some of those women wrestlers could obliterate
your average man...lol ;)

So, it is "scientifically proved" (lol :) that women are better drivers to
have in an emergency (better at quick, clear logical thought) but when it
comes to parallel parking (a spatial awareness task) then let the guy do the
driving...which sounds about right to me...we'll do all the actual driving
and you men can just do the valet parking when we get there...sound fair?
lmfao ;)

No, really, by those surveys then women should make the better programmers
(generally speaking, of course...and, at a minimum, equally good, if not
better) but it doesn't seem to be the case...the question is, is it just the
severe lack of numbers because they are next to no women because it's
perceived as a "male" thing? or is it that there's a big spatial awareness
thing that's necessary? I don't know...like being able to visualise bits and
bytes on the stack or something like that...but then HLLers (which most
programmers are) don't do much of that sort of thing...hmmm...food for
thought, no?

Actually...Woah!... now there's a thought...because the "BethTool" (name
donated by CLAX posters ;) I've been working on and debated over in CLAX, is
basically a visualisation tool...it's a "girly" tool, then...lmfao ;)
No wonder they mostly didn't like the sound of it in CLAX...hehehehe :)

Anyway, this is waaay OT, isn't it?

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
Beth :)



