Hello Angela dear,

You wrote,

Quote Originally Posted by Angela Kennedy View Post
Maarten you are very mistaken in your assumption that my explanations of a feminist empirical sociologist approach is 'attenuated po-mo'. I think you believe what I write is 'po-mo' because you do not know much about sociology, frankly. That's not a crime- but you are wrong in your assumptions.

Right: Pig-ignorant, that's me.

Quote Originally Posted by Angela Kennedy View Post

This comment is pretty amazing too:

"I *really* wish you well Angela, and I don't mind that we think rather differently about philosophy, but IF we are to discuss I go for the truth by any stylistical means, and I don't think we are equals in the respects of philosophy, logic or written argument."

Really? You go for the truth? And what would you see me as doing? And we're not equals? So which of us is better? Have I got to make another pop-cultural reference to Harry Hill again?

Well... being so pig-ignorant I believed qualifiers, such as "go for the truth by any stylistical means" might matter for The Sociological Mind (fem.), but it seems to me (who is pig-ignorant, besides nearly brain-dead) this is not so. How mistaken one can be!

Also, Angela dear, I am almost 60 (pants, coughs), and I wouldn't know who or what Harry Hill might be, nor do I know anything else that is "pop-cultural" (after 1970). Really!

But I did refer you to another Hill, Reginald of that ilk, and his heroine Ellie Pascoe, the raven-locked grey-eyed, feminist lecturer in sociology, and leading member of WRAG (was that "Women's Rage Against Genderstereotyping" or what?), who also is beautiful when she is angry.

Then a point of logic. I hope you agree that - outside the area of Feminist Algebra - ~(Angela = Maarten) (with "~" the tilde you know from your deep studies in the Principia Mathematica), whence it follows that - if I may say so - we are not equals, at least not if you are Maarten and I am Angela, or vice versa.

This implies nothing (outside Feminist Logic, that is) about "which of us is better?", but it does seem to me certain that you must be better at certain things than I am, while it may be, perhaps, conceivably possible, if the weather is right, that I may be just a teeny weeny bit better at peeing while standing up than you are, and perhaps also in some other things.

So once more, Angela: I hope you are beautiful when you are angry ("that's another condescending male chauvinist remark, o Sisters Of The Feminist Church Of Infallibe Insight!"), but please: desist. Beat others in argument; complain to others about their general ignorance and their sociological lack of nous in particular; and look upon me as a benighted mere male who couldn't possibly plunge the depths of your feminine wit.

OK? Peace out & ♥,

Maarten (xxx).

P.S. For those not educated to the gills with socio-logic or Principia Mathematica: "~" = "not".