[Mamzelle]

What ad hominem? Check back through the thread for names hurled at me, to which I am sanguine (except for that Lott shot). The internet can be a boisterous place. To wit, I am a liar, on the side of perfidous women, a victim of various female frustrations. On and on. But except for that dreadful Trent Lott insult, I am only amused.

BB has posted more than these two on this subject, and other interesting threads with the theme of Those D@mned Women. Have I challenged his right to post, or rather expressed curiosity about the obvious attachment to the issue? Now, I shouldn't be intrigued? What are the threads offered for, if not intrigue.

[constable tom]

Wow. I guess you are still entertained. I've lost my appetite for corresponding with you. Actually, every time I see your handle attached to a post from now one, I think I'll just skip that one.

[BuddhaBoy]

BB has posted more than these two on this subject, and other interesting threads with the theme of Those D@mned Women.

No, dear. That is YOUR INTERPRETATION of my comments. I think I remanded you previously for having no sense of humor.

You bear that out today. you, you, you,.........MAN-BASHER.

ROTFLMAO!

[Smogger]

What ad hominem? Check back through the thread for names hurled at me, to which I am sanguine (except for that Lott shot). The internet can be a boisterous place.

Instead of commenting on the article you direct your comment at BB's rationale for posting it. Plainly, the implication was that he was some sort of woman-hater. Certainly, there have been attacks directed at you, but I believe your post was the opening salvo.