Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.Rich doesn't know what that means. He could look it up (maybe) but he still wouldn't comprehend the implications.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways >have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all >done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:But isn't Rich in reality an oxymoron? :)
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways >have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.Rich doesn't know what that means. He could look it up (maybe) but he still wouldn't comprehend the implications.
He appears to be a part of that!Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:But isn't Rich in reality an oxymoron? :)
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.Rich doesn't know what that means. He could look it up (maybe) but he still >> wouldn't comprehend the implications.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman? >> >
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways >> >have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman? >>
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways >>have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all >>done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to beMore abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it havve no idea what theya re
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something w all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways >have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all >done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Wrong again Rich. The honour is as usual all yours :)
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways >have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it havve no idea what theya re
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something w all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman? >>>
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways >>>have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >>>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all >>>done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it havve no idea what theya re
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something w all have encounter at times - this >>appears to be your turn, Gordon.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell us your answer...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways >> >>>have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell us your answer...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways >>>have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >>>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be >>conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it havve no idea what theya re >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something w all have encounter at times - this >>appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyNeither. Yoiu have posted no logic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman? >>>>
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways >>>>have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >>>>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it havve no idea what theya re >>>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something w all have encounter at times - this >>>appears to be your turn, Gordon.
It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
summary - which is it, Tony?
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell us your answer...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >> >>>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative. >> >>>
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes >> >>- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been
said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, orTypical of you to use what is obviously a woke dictionary corrupted by typical left wing feral ideas!
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple
search . . .
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John BowesRich, no matter what you the PM or the Cambridge dictionary say people born XY or XX chromosome will ALWAYS have those chromosomes and no matter what surgery or drugs the take they will ALWAYS have those chromosomes and absolutely nothing any of you
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell us your answer...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >> >>>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative. >> >>>
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes >> >>- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been
said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple
search . . .
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:10:33?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:female humans regardless of age.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell us your answer...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >> >> >>>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative. >> >> >>>
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes >> >> >>- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this >> >> >>appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been
said to have a different sex at birth, or
This supports Hipkins bullshit belief that just because a mentally deficient male wants to cheat at sport what he choses to believe counts. I've got news for you Rich. Despite some half backed bunch of academics
claiming different you are the gender you were born with QED!
* a wife or female sexual partner, orTypical of you to use what is obviously a woke dictionary corrupted by typical left wing feral ideas!
*women in general
If you want to check, see here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple
search . . .
Here's a much better one for you: A woman is an adult female human. Prior to adulthood, a female human is referred to as a girl (a female child or adolescent). The plural women is sometimes used in certain phrases such as "women's rights" to denote
Nothing about Labours airie fairie what someone identifies as! Just pure biological FACTS!
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 13:29:30 -0700 (PDT), John Bowesfemale humans regardless of age.
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:10:33?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell us your answer...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change, >> >> >>and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right" >> >> >>has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >> >> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been
said to have a different sex at birth, or
This supports Hipkins bullshit belief that just because a mentally deficient male wants to cheat at sport what he choses to believe counts. I've got news for you Rich. Despite some half backed bunch of academics
claiming different you are the gender you were born with QED!
* a wife or female sexual partner, orTypical of you to use what is obviously a woke dictionary corrupted by typical left wing feral ideas!
*women in general
If you want to check, see here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple
search . . .
Here's a much better one for you: A woman is an adult female human. Prior to adulthood, a female human is referred to as a girl (a female child or adolescent). The plural women is sometimes used in certain phrases such as "women's rights" to denote
Like most of your bleats Rich it doesn't matter! YOU are the one who over politicizes things yet it was YOUR PM who waffled on because like you and the Cambridge dictionary you failed basic biology!Nothing about Labours airie fairie what someone identifies as! Just pure biological FACTS!The definition did not come from Labour or National, but the Cambridge Dictionary.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:32:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowesqueer bastards say will change that fact!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:10:33?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John BowesRich, no matter what you the PM or the Cambridge dictionary say people born XY or XX chromosome will ALWAYS have those chromosomes and no matter what surgery or drugs the take they will ALWAYS have those chromosomes and absolutely nothing any of you
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell us your answer...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change, >> >> >>and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right" >> >> >>has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >> >> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been
said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple
search . . .
I have not claimed they would - the English language is not hostage to
your views, John.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:10:33?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:queer bastards say will change that fact!
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John BowesRich, no matter what you the PM or the Cambridge dictionary say people born XY or XX chromosome will ALWAYS have those chromosomes and no matter what surgery or drugs the take they will ALWAYS have those chromosomes and absolutely nothing any of you
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell us your answer...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >> >> >>>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative. >> >> >>>
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes >> >> >>- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this >> >> >>appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been
said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple
search . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John BowesThe Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word, and
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a >>>> >>>woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old >>>> >>>ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >>>> >>>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative. >>>> >>>
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes >>>> >>- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this >>>> >>appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been
said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple
search . . .
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you >have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially >nowadays with the trans movement.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John BowesThe Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word, and
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a >>>> >>>woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old >>>> >>>ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative. >>>> >>>
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change, >>>> >>and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes >>>> >>- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right" >>>> >>has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >>>> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this >>>> >>appears to be your turn, Gordon.
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>search . . .
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you >have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially >nowadays with the trans movement.
definition given in the first result that came up.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is.
Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition
given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language
than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying
to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John BowesThe Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word, and a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially nowadays with the trans movement.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is >>from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell >>us your answer...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >>> >>>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is >>> >>>all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been
said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple
search . . .
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 3:50:47?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:is referred to as a girl (a female child or adolescent). The plural women is sometimes used in certain phrases such as "women's rights" to denote female humans regardless of age.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John BowesThe Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word, and
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a >> >>>> >>>woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old >> >>>> >>>ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative. >> >>>> >>>
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change, >> >>>> >>and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes >> >>>> >>- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right" >> >>>> >>has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this >> >>>> >>appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been
said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple
search . . .
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you >> >have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially >> >nowadays with the trans movement.
definition given in the first result that came up.
Only no tech skilled fucking imbeciles are stupid enough to do that. but then again with your propensity to lie it has to be a lie. why? Because this is the first Google result I did: A woman is an adult female human. Prior to adulthood, a female human
https://www.google.com/search?q=women&rlz=1C1GIGM_enNZ746NZ746&oq=women&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j35i39j46i433i512j0i131i433i512j46i433i512j46i340i433i512l2j0i512j46i340i512.4414j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8You have not identified any lie - I was asked to provide a definition
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is.
Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition
given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language
than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying
to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
BULLSHIT! What you posted was a lie and therefore like most of your posts irrelevant. Much like you are Rich :)
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 21:02:42 -0700 (PDT), John Boweshuman is referred to as a girl (a female child or adolescent). The plural women is sometimes used in certain phrases such as "women's rights" to denote female humans regardless of age.
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 3:50:47?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John BowesThe Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word, and
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >> >>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term >> >>>> >>"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect >> >>>> >>hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >> >>>> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >> >>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple
search . . .
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you
have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially
nowadays with the trans movement.
definition given in the first result that came up.
Only no tech skilled fucking imbeciles are stupid enough to do that. but then again with your propensity to lie it has to be a lie. why? Because this is the first Google result I did: A woman is an adult female human. Prior to adulthood, a female
As you well know the definition you provided was NOT the first one that popped up when you supposedly did a Google search Rich! THAT is just the latest lie from you!https://www.google.com/search?q=women&rlz=1C1GIGM_enNZ746NZ746&oq=women&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j35i39j46i433i512j0i131i433i512j46i433i512j46i340i433i512l2j0i512j46i340i512.4414j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is.
Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition
given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language
than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying
to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
BULLSHIT! What you posted was a lie and therefore like most of your posts irrelevant. Much like you are Rich :)You have not identified any lie - I was asked to provide a definition
- I did. I doubt I could have given a definition that you agreed with;
you do not appear to have thought the issues through to be able to articulate anything that made sense, but that is typical of your
posts, John.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong when it was publised and moreso now.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:The Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word, >>and
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women >>>>is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a >>>>> >>>woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old >>>>> >>>ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >>>>> >>>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it >>>>> >>>is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative. >>>>> >>>
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change, >>>>> >>and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes >>>>> >>- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right" >>>>> >>has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >>>>> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this >>>>> >>appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and >>>>tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >>>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>>search . . .
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you >>have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially >>nowadays with the trans movement.
definition given in the first result that came up.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is.
Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition
given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language
than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying
to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong when >it was publised and moreso now.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:The Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word, >>>and
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women >>>>>is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >>>>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a >>>>>> >>>woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old >>>>>> >>>ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a >>>>>> >>>certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it >>>>>> >>>is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative. >>>>>> >>>
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change, >>>>>> >>and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes >>>>>> >>- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term >>>>>> >>"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right" >>>>>> >>has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect >>>>>> >>hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >>>>>> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this >>>>>> >>appears to be your turn, Gordon.
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and >>>>>tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >>>>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>>>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>>>search . . .
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you >>>have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially >>>nowadays with the trans movement.
definition given in the first result that came up.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is.
Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition
given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language
than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying
to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly.
Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:27:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong when
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:The Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word,
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Stop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >>>>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> >>More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it
is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change, >>>>>> >>and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term >>>>>> >>"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right" >>>>>> >>has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect >>>>>> >>hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >>>>>> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
is
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and
tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >>>>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>>>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>>>search . . .
and
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you
have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially >>>nowadays with the trans movement.
definition given in the first result that came up.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is. >>Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition >>given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language >>than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying
to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
it was publised and moreso now.
give a definition. That I did. You however appear to still be unable
to give a definition, and now assert without any evidence that the definition I posted is wrong. Get back on topic, Tony, you are
drifting all over the place, and demonstrating that you have nothing
to offer . . .
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly. >Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:27:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyAll I have been doing is showing how illiterate you are and how you are the one that went off topic, following which I responded to your nonsense.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong >>when
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:The Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word, >>>>and
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a >>>>>>women
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >>>>>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>> >>More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a >>>>>>> >>>woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old >>>>>>> >>>ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done >>>>>>> >>>a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think >>>>>>> >>>it
is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative. >>>>>>> >>>
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change, >>>>>>> >>and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes >>>>>>> >>- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term >>>>>>> >>"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right" >>>>>>> >>has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect >>>>>>> >>hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >>>>>>> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this >>>>>>> >>appears to be your turn, Gordon.
is
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and >>>>>>tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >>>>>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>>>>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>>>>search . . .
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you >>>>have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially >>>>nowadays with the trans movement.
definition given in the first result that came up.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is.
Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition >>>given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language >>>than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying
to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
it was publised and moreso now.
give a definition. That I did. You however appear to still be unable
to give a definition, and now assert without any evidence that the
definition I posted is wrong. Get back on topic, Tony, you are
drifting all over the place, and demonstrating that you have nothing
to offer . . .
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly.
Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:01:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:If you were correct, then you should be decrying the blatant attempt
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:27:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyAll I have been doing is showing how illiterate you are and how you are the one
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to >>give a definition. That I did. You however appear to still be unable
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong >>>when
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the >>>>definition given in the first result that came up.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>>>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:The Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word,
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Stop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a >>>>>>>women
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >>>>>>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done
a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think
it
is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be >>>>>>>> >>conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term >>>>>>>> >>"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect >>>>>>>> >>hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
is
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and
tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >>>>>>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>>>>>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>>>>>search . . .
and
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you
have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially
nowadays with the trans movement.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is. >>>>Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition >>>>given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language >>>>than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying >>>>to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
it was publised and moreso now.
to give a definition, and now assert without any evidence that the >>definition I posted is wrong. Get back on topic, Tony, you are
drifting all over the place, and demonstrating that you have nothing
to offer . . .
that went off topic, following which I responded to your nonsense.
I have no intention of ever defining women, or men for that matter. You have
tried and failed miserably.
No dictionary can define women you fool.
to blind-side the Prime Minister by Sean Plunket - however you are
wrong. You may noit agree with all definitions, but it is desirable
that disagrerement be respectful; sadly that trait seems to be missing
in your character.
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly. >>>Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:56:18 -0700 (PDT), John Bowespreforming the supreme act of bearing children they, you and Hipkins might have leg to stand on. Till then your definitions are utter crap and an affront to women's rights!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 9:15:28?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:27:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong when
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John BowesThe Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word,
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >> >>>>>> >>More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it
is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term >> >>>>>> >>"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect >> >>>>>> >>hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
is
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and
tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been
said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >> >>>>search . . .
and
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you
have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially
nowadays with the trans movement.
definition given in the first result that came up.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is.
Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition
given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language >> >>than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying >> >>to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
it was publised and moreso now.
give a definition. That I did. You however appear to still be unable
to give a definition, and now assert without any evidence that the
definition I posted is wrong. Get back on topic, Tony, you are
drifting all over the place, and demonstrating that you have nothing
to offer . . .
As usual the misconceptions and prejudices were all yours Rich. You are like so many on the left and mentally incapable of defining what a woman is. They're not trans they're human females capable of giving birth. If transexuals are ever capable of
Your words are an affront to women - particularly those who are not
capable of giving birth - either due to age or physical impairment.
You are a spiteful unthinking and disrespectful little weasel,
thinking only of yourself, John.
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly. >> >Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 9:15:28?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:preforming the supreme act of bearing children they, you and Hipkins might have leg to stand on. Till then your definitions are utter crap and an affront to women's rights!
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:27:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong when
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John BowesThe Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word,
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a women
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >> >>>>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think it
is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change, >> >>>>>> >>and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right" >> >>>>>> >>has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >> >>>>>> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
is
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and
tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >> >>>>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple
search . . .
and
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you
have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially >> >>>nowadays with the trans movement.
definition given in the first result that came up.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is.
Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition
given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language
than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying
to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
it was publised and moreso now.
give a definition. That I did. You however appear to still be unable
to give a definition, and now assert without any evidence that the
definition I posted is wrong. Get back on topic, Tony, you are
drifting all over the place, and demonstrating that you have nothing
to offer . . .
As usual the misconceptions and prejudices were all yours Rich. You are like so many on the left and mentally incapable of defining what a woman is. They're not trans they're human females capable of giving birth. If transexuals are ever capable of
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly.
Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:27:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyAll I have been doing is showing how illiterate you are and how you are the one
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong >>>when
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:The Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this word,
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Stop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a >>>>>>>women
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >>>>>>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are done >>>>>>>> >>>a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think >>>>>>>> >>>it
is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be >>>>>>>> >>conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change, >>>>>>>> >>and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term >>>>>>>> >>"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right" >>>>>>>> >>has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect >>>>>>>> >>hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >>>>>>>> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
is
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit and >>>>>>>tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >>>>>>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>>>>>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>>>>>search . . .
and
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, you
have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially >>>>>nowadays with the trans movement.
definition given in the first result that came up.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is. >>>>Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition >>>>given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language >>>>than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying >>>>to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
it was publised and moreso now.
give a definition. That I did. You however appear to still be unable
to give a definition, and now assert without any evidence that the >>definition I posted is wrong. Get back on topic, Tony, you are
drifting all over the place, and demonstrating that you have nothing
to offer . . .
that went off topic, following which I responded to your nonsense.
I have no intention of ever defining women, or men for that matter. You have >tried and failed miserably.
No dictionary can define women you fool.
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly. >>>Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:01:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyA definition of a word is not a definition of the person that word describes. You are wrong not me.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:27:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyAll I have been doing is showing how illiterate you are and how you are the >>one
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to >>>give a definition. That I did. You however appear to still be unable
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong >>>>when
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the >>>>>definition given in the first result that came up.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:The Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this >>>>>>word,
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Stop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a >>>>>>>>women
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >>>>>>>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is >>>>>>>>> >>>a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the >>>>>>>>> >>>old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are >>>>>>>>> >>>done
a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think >>>>>>>>> >>>it
is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the
right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be >>>>>>>>> >>conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change, >>>>>>>>> >>and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and >>>>>>>>> >>attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term >>>>>>>>> >>"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right" >>>>>>>>> >>has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect >>>>>>>>> >>hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >>>>>>>>> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - >>>>>>>>> >>this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
is
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit >>>>>>>>and
tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >>>>>>>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>>>>>>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>>>>>>search . . .
and
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, >>>>>>you
have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially >>>>>>nowadays with the trans movement.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is. >>>>>Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition >>>>>given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language >>>>>than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying >>>>>to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
it was publised and moreso now.
to give a definition, and now assert without any evidence that the >>>definition I posted is wrong. Get back on topic, Tony, you are
drifting all over the place, and demonstrating that you have nothing
to offer . . .
that went off topic, following which I responded to your nonsense.
I have no intention of ever defining women, or men for that matter. You have >>tried and failed miserably.
No dictionary can define women you fool.
If you were correct, then you should be decrying the blatant attempt
to blind-side the Prime Minister by Sean Plunket - however you are
wrong. You may noit agree with all definitions, but it is desirable
that disagrerement be respectful; sadly that trait seems to be missing
in your character.
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly. >>>>Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:that.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:01:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyA definition of a word is not a definition of the person that word describes. I did not claim that it ws - the definition that I quoted does not do
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:27:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyAll I have been doing is showing how illiterate you are and how you are the >>>one
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to >>>>give a definition. That I did. You however appear to still be unable
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong >>>>>when
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the >>>>>>definition given in the first result that came up.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:The Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this >>>>>>>word,
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Stop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a >>>>>>>>>women
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >>>>>>>>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is
a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the >>>>>>>>>> >>>old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are >>>>>>>>>> >>>done
a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think
it
is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the
right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be >>>>>>>>>> >>conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and >>>>>>>>>> >>attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term >>>>>>>>>> >>"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect >>>>>>>>>> >>hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are >>>>>>>>>> >>trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - >>>>>>>>>> >>this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
is
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit >>>>>>>>>and
tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >>>>>>>>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>>>>>>>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>>>>>>>search . . .
and
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, >>>>>>>you
have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially
nowadays with the trans movement.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is. >>>>>>Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition >>>>>>given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language >>>>>>than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying >>>>>>to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
it was publised and moreso now.
to give a definition, and now assert without any evidence that the >>>>definition I posted is wrong. Get back on topic, Tony, you are
drifting all over the place, and demonstrating that you have nothing
to offer . . .
that went off topic, following which I responded to your nonsense.
I have no intention of ever defining women, or men for that matter. You have >>>tried and failed miserably.
No dictionary can define women you fool.
If you were correct, then you should be decrying the blatant attempt
to blind-side the Prime Minister by Sean Plunket - however you are
wrong. You may not agree with all definitions, but it is desirable
that disagreement be respectful; sadly that trait seems to be missing
in your character.
You are wrong not me.You appear not to understand the purpose of a dictionary - in this
I have no idea what Plunket has written or said - why would you think that I do?
Answer - because that sort of resonse is all you have, no debating and no >fairness - you are a foolish old man.
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly. >>>>>Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be
conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 01:30:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyMere weasel words from a feral weasel! Typical of you when you know your bullshit is rebounding on you Rich! If you stop lying like this you might become a debated instead of just being a lying mouthpiece defending the feral Labour party!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not claim that it ws - the definition that I quoted does not do
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:01:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyA definition of a word is not a definition of the person that word describes.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:27:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:All I have been doing is showing how illiterate you are and how you are the
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to >>>>give a definition. That I did. You however appear to still be unable >>>>to give a definition, and now assert without any evidence that the >>>>definition I posted is wrong. Get back on topic, Tony, you are >>>>drifting all over the place, and demonstrating that you have nothing >>>>to offer . . .
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the >>>>>>definition given in the first result that came up.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>>>>>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:The Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this >>>>>>>word,
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Stop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What is
a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the
old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are >>>>>>>>>> >>>done
a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they think
it
is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the
right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be >>>>>>>>>> >>conservative - others recognise that facts and language can change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and >>>>>>>>>> >>attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term
"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect
hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times -
this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
summary - which is it, Tony?
women
is
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit
and
tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been
said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>>>>>>>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>>>>>>>search . . .
and
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake,
you
have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, especially
nowadays with the trans movement.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is. >>>>>>Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition >>>>>>given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language >>>>>>than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying >>>>>>to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
when
it was publised and moreso now.
one
that went off topic, following which I responded to your nonsense.
I have no intention of ever defining women, or men for that matter. You have
tried and failed miserably.
No dictionary can define women you fool.
If you were correct, then you should be decrying the blatant attempt
to blind-side the Prime Minister by Sean Plunket - however you are
wrong. You may not agree with all definitions, but it is desirable
that disagreement be respectful; sadly that trait seems to be missing
in your character.
that.
You are wrong not me.You appear not to understand the purpose of a dictionary - in this
I have no idea what Plunket has written or said - why would you think that I do?
Answer - because that sort of resonse is all you have, no debating and no >fairness - you are a foolish old man.
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly. >>>>>Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
case I gave the dictionary definition of the collective noun. You have
not pointed out any mistake.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 01:30:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat you posted is not the definition of a woman. That is a fact, it is the meaning of the word "woman" that is what dictionaries do, they define the meaning of words they do almost nothing more apart from pronunciation.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:that.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:01:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyA definition of a word is not a definition of the person that word describes. >I did not claim that it ws - the definition that I quoted does not do
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:27:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:All I have been doing is showing how illiterate you are and how you are the >>>>one
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to >>>>>give a definition. That I did. You however appear to still be unable >>>>>to give a definition, and now assert without any evidence that the >>>>>definition I posted is wrong. Get back on topic, Tony, you are >>>>>drifting all over the place, and demonstrating that you have nothing >>>>>to offer . . .
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong >>>>>>when
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the >>>>>>>definition given in the first result that came up.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>>>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:The Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this >>>>>>>>word,
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Stop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a >>>>>>>>>>women
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >>>>>>>>>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What >>>>>>>>>>> >>>is
a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are >>>>>>>>>>> >>>done
a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they >>>>>>>>>>> >>>think
it
is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the
right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be >>>>>>>>>>> >>conservative - others recognise that facts and language can >>>>>>>>>>> >>change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and >>>>>>>>>>> >>attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term >>>>>>>>>>> >>"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the >>>>>>>>>>> >>right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect >>>>>>>>>>> >>hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they >>>>>>>>>>> >>are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - >>>>>>>>>>> >>this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
is
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit >>>>>>>>>>and
tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >>>>>>>>>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>>>>>>>>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>>>>>>>>search . . .
and
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, >>>>>>>>you
have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, >>>>>>>>especially
nowadays with the trans movement.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is. >>>>>>>Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition >>>>>>>given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language >>>>>>>than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying >>>>>>>to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
it was publised and moreso now.
that went off topic, following which I responded to your nonsense.
I have no intention of ever defining women, or men for that matter. You >>>>have
tried and failed miserably.
No dictionary can define women you fool.
If you were correct, then you should be decrying the blatant attempt
to blind-side the Prime Minister by Sean Plunket - however you are
wrong. You may not agree with all definitions, but it is desirable
that disagreement be respectful; sadly that trait seems to be missing
in your character.
You are wrong not me.You appear not to understand the purpose of a dictionary - in this
I have no idea what Plunket has written or said - why would you think that I >>do?
Answer - because that sort of resonse is all you have, no debating and no >>fairness - you are a foolish old man.
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly. >>>>>>Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
case I gave the dictionary definition of the collective noun. You have
not pointed out any mistake.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 01:30:24 -0000 (UTC), TonySee this
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:that.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:01:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyA definition of a word is not a definition of the person that word describes. >I did not claim that it ws - the definition that I quoted does not do
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:27:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:All I have been doing is showing how illiterate you are and how you are the >>>>one
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was not asked to satify your misconceptions and prejudices; just to >>>>>give a definition. That I did. You however appear to still be unable >>>>>to give a definition, and now assert without any evidence that the >>>>>definition I posted is wrong. Get back on topic, Tony, you are >>>>>drifting all over the place, and demonstrating that you have nothing >>>>>to offer . . .
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 03:30:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No that is wrong. The definitiuon you found is wrong today - it was wrong >>>>>>when
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not confuse anything. I googled "woman" and quoted the >>>>>>>definition given in the first result that came up.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>>>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:The Cambridge dictionary is in a minority and way out of date on this >>>>>>>>word,
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:03:53?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 05:29:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Stop talking shit rich. We're still waiting for you to define what a >>>>>>>>>>women
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It seems you either cannot stick to the subject, or cannot fault my >>>>>>>>>>> summary - which is it, Tony?
On 4 Apr 2023 03:44:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>More abuse from rich80105. What else does he have?
Rich used the phase "woke right" is a recent post.
So what exactly is a woke left, we can work on this after, What >>>>>>>>>>> >>>is
a
woman?
People who are right tend to be conservative, the argue that the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>old
ways
have some good logic in them. There is a reason why things are >>>>>>>>>>> >>>done
a
certain way. They consult history for guidance.
The woke have an idea, and because they have thought it they >>>>>>>>>>> >>>think
it
is
all
done and good. The woke will not be found in the
right/conservative.
Thus woke right is an oxymoron.
So first you admit that some who are "right" only tend to be >>>>>>>>>>> >>conservative - others recognise that facts and language can >>>>>>>>>>> >>change,
and that new knowledge may lead to changes in knowledge and >>>>>>>>>>> >>attitudes
- and that history may not always be a good guide. Even the term >>>>>>>>>>> >>"woke" so beloved of some who classify themselves as "on the >>>>>>>>>>> >>right"
has never had a single definition - that ambiguity has I suspect >>>>>>>>>>> >>hidden the reality that most who use it have no idea what they >>>>>>>>>>> >>are
trying to convey.
Still, being wrong is something we all have encounter at times - >>>>>>>>>>> >>this
appears to be your turn, Gordon.
is
from your question in another thread. So how about quit talking shit >>>>>>>>>>and
tell
us your answer...
If it will put you out of your misery and ignorance then:
(noun):
* an adult female human being, or
*an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been >>>>>>>>>said to have a different sex at birth, or
* a wife or female sexual partner, or
*women in general
If you want to check, see here: >>>>>>>>>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman
It seems clear that the 'woke right' have no idea how to do a simple >>>>>>>>>search . . .
and
a wrong minority at that. You and they have both made the same mistake, >>>>>>>>you
have confused sex with gender. They are very different things, >>>>>>>>especially
nowadays with the trans movement.
You are confused - the request was that I define what a woman is. >>>>>>>Nothing else is relevant. Quibble all you want, that is a definition >>>>>>>given by a group of people well more qualified in teh English language >>>>>>>than anyone posting to nz.general - you are, yet again, merely trying >>>>>>>to avoid the truth by going Off-Topic.
it was publised and moreso now.
that went off topic, following which I responded to your nonsense.
I have no intention of ever defining women, or men for that matter. You >>>>have
tried and failed miserably.
No dictionary can define women you fool.
If you were correct, then you should be decrying the blatant attempt
to blind-side the Prime Minister by Sean Plunket - however you are
wrong. You may not agree with all definitions, but it is desirable
that disagreement be respectful; sadly that trait seems to be missing
in your character.
You are wrong not me.You appear not to understand the purpose of a dictionary - in this
I have no idea what Plunket has written or said - why would you think that I >>do?
Answer - because that sort of resonse is all you have, no debating and no >>fairness - you are a foolish old man.
I am absolutely on topic but you quoted something which is today silly. >>>>>>Sex and gender are no longer synonymous.
You have made the same mistake as the publisher of the definition.
case I gave the dictionary definition of the collective noun. You have
not pointed out any mistake.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 122:28:33 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,620 |