Who is Wade Englund?

[_EAllusion]

Wade's website pretended to be a academic center for study and habitually referred to itself in the plural when it in reality just was a website run by him. Odd that he forgot to mention that. I guess he was too busy assuring us that he has had gay friends. Maybe if he says something racist he'll assure us he has black friends too.

I'd love to hear the social science backing up the assertion that females tend to be vane, catty, overly dramatic and full of gossip as compared to men.

[_wenglund]

How odd that you now claim you got along "marvelously" with people you describe with pejoratives - characteristics you find "repellent."

There isn't a human living on earth that can't be discribed, in part, using pejoritives, or for whom there isn't a single repelling characteristics. We all have our imperfections and areas of dislike. Even loving parents can reasonably find things that theoir children do that are repelling. Yet, even so, some us still manage to gert along marvbelously with others. Why you would find that odd, is itself, odd.

Your website, the so-called "center", associated homosexuality with bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia. And you pretend to be surprised by the negative reaction?

Yes. I created a single disorder (sexual attraction disorder) that, logically, included all types of sexual attraction disorders. I created a super set that was comprised of subsets (i.e. specific kinds of sexual attraction disorders). This is not unlike associating murderers and rapist with deeply moral citizens under the general classification of "humans." Such super-set classificatoion are common to life and science, and are hardly controversial expect to those, such as yourself, who are looking for the least pretence to be offended.

You're full of it.

by the way, have you ever struggled with same-sex attraction?

No. I would think that was obvious from my past comments, but since for you it wasn't, I am glad to have clarified--not that my clarification wil do any good for me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

We've been over this ad nauseum to no avail in the past, but if I had created a website studying social movements, and lumped in Mormonism with the Nazis, you and every LDS would be deeply offended, with good reason. That you pretend to not understand that speaks either to your ability to dupe yourself, dishonesty, or social ineptitude.

[_wenglund]

Wade's website pretended to be a academic center for study and habitually referred to itself in the plural when it in reality just was a website run by him. Odd that he forgot to mention that.

I don't know that it would be odd for me to omit certain things I deemed unimportant when briefly describing what was contained on that one-page written optimistically over a decade or more ago. My response to Liz wasn't intended as an exhaustive treatise of the mere blimp on the far distant horizon, but simply a basic sketch of the things I considered of significance. But, I appreciate you mentioning some of the things you found most memorable and that continue to personally affect you over the years. LOL

I guess he was too busy assuring us that he has had gay friends. Maybe if he says something racist he'll assure us he has black friends too.

Evidently, even the most innocent of explanations can be cast in the most sinister lights. If people are intent of seeing bigotry, they will--which, ironically, inadvertantly exposes their own bigotry. Nicely done.

I'd love to hear the social science backing up the assertion that females tend to be vane, catty, overly dramatic and full of gossip as compared to men.

For that, you will have to look open-mindedly at cultural artifacts like women's fashions, women's magazines, "chick flicks", romance novels, soap operas, plastic surgery, eating disorders, etc.. Spend some time in a beauty solan, and observe not only the essential nature of the business, but also the common topic of conversations, and the nature of those conversation. Then, note the conspicuous absense of male clients.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_MrStakhanovite]

For that, you will have to look open-mindedly at cultural artifacts like women's fashions, women's magazines, "chick flicks", romance novels, soap operas, plastic surgery, eating disorders, etc.. Spend some time in a beauty solan, and observe not only the essential nature of the business, but also the common topic of conversations, and the nature of those conversation. Then, note the conspicuous absense of male clients.

Sounds like you've done your research!

[_Blixa]

For that, you will have to look open-mindedly at cultural artifacts like women's fashions, women's magazines, "chick flicks", romance novels, soap operas, plastic surgery, eating disorders, etc.. Spend some time in a beauty solan, and observe not only the essential nature of the business, but also the common topic of conversations, and the nature of those conversation. Then, note the conspicuous absense of male clients.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dude, have you never read any cultural studies or anthropology? Are you seriously unaware of how those things are symptomatic of life under patriarchy? Are you that thoroughly ignorant and misogynistic?

I'd also like to see the dictionary you're using. At least get the spelling right if not the application: vain.

[_MrStakhanovite]

There goes Blixa again.....


Here is some moar research Wade.

[_wenglund]

We've been over this ad nauseum to no avail in the past, but if I had created a website studying social movements, and lumped in Mormonism with the Nazis, you and every LDS would be deeply offended, with good reason.

Not necessarily. It all depends upon how we are lumped together with Nazis. If we are lumped together under organizations that existed in Germany prior to WWII, I don'[t think LDS would be the least bit offended by that. I certainly wouldn't be. Even if we were lumped together within the broad-rqanged superset of authoritarian organizations, I don't know that I would object.

It also depends upon why we are being lumped together. If the intent is to shift the discussion from personal attacks to looking at public policy issues in a progressive way (as was the case with me), then I can't see LDS being offended. However, if the intent is to personally attack (which mine wasn't), then I can see your point.

You may recall that during the discussions in the past, I mentioned that I have a learning disorder--audio processing. As such, I am lumped together with people of differing learning disorders, form moderate to severe. Because of my learning disorder, I may rightly be lumped into the general category of disorders along with people with sexual attraction disorder (including those to which you take offence). All, for good reason, and without the least bit of offence intended or the least bit of offence taken by me.

But, like with EA, you are bound and determined to project prejudice onto what I said and did, and I am okay with that, and in fact I couldn't care less. It says more about you than me.

That you pretend to not understand that speaks either to your ability to dupe yourself, dishonesty, or social ineptitude.

There is no pretending on my part, only projection on yours. But, I have paid you far more mind than you deserve, and so I will leave you to paint me in whatever fashion suites your narrow and closed mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Dude, have you never read any cultural studies or anthropology? Are you seriously unaware of how those things are symptomatic of life under patriarchy? Are you that thoroughly ignorant and misogynistic?

I'd also like to see the dictionary you're using. At least get the spelling right if not the application: vain.

Sweetie,

Please put on your listening ears (to coin a phrase from Judge Judy). I wasn't speaking to why those things are symptomatic, but rather that they are sypmtomatic (but, it is good to see that at least you implicitly concur with me). As such, my silence in regards to the "why" (which I have yet to address, and hadn't intended to address) can't resonably be interpreted as misogynistic or suggesting a lack of awareness (serious or otherwise) or thorough ignorance of the things you mentioned--though maybe you can blame your having wildly jumped to this false conclusion on patriarchy. LOL

Oh...and I forgot to mention another unflattering characteristic of women, which is the tendency to blame men for their problems. :)

Also, the fact that I periodically misspell (no doubt a function of the patriarchy) doesn't rationally suggest that I am using a different dictionary. Instead, reason would suggest that I am not using a dictionary nor a spell check.

So, you managed to jump to two false conclusions in so many paragraphs. But, you will have to try much harder if you ever wish to match Beastie's remarkable flights from reason.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_EAllusion]

Wade -

How would going to a beauty shop help me establish that women collectively are vain compared to men such that we can call that a negative trait of women? Do you even know what vanity is?

I love how you try to make yourself into a victim here Wade. You even try to hide behind insulting others by summoning the dreaded letters PC. As if it's a laudable thing to be politically incorrect by expressing bigoted things.

Anyway, most Jews I know are money-loving power-mongers, so I find Jews repellant. Don't worry. I have Jewish friends captain PC.