In a message dated 3/8/01 4:33:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com writes:

<< My error in stating that 'sex and pornography are not the same thing'. There is/was no error in this sentance. It remains true.<<

Be it all known, one and all, that Wilsonfisk2 believes that gender is pornography. You may not refer to your children as a little boy and a little girl, because you are making a pornographic statement. You may not have sex with your wife in the privacy of your own home, because Wilsonfisk asserts to his dying breath that it's pornography. And you may certainly not read about romance that culminates in physical intimacy, because all of it...every last bit, is pornography.

...

'The one who pretends that they do not

understand an unfeasibly straightforward statement as a means of prevarication is the one who is indulging in pointless semantic behaviour.'<<

Certainly, if you actually *meant* the above generalization as you insist. Please, do continue! There is nothing I could possibly say that would prove my point better than you seem to be determined to show, on your own. Nice job of it, too.

...

Prevarication. Confusion. <<

I'm sorry you're confused.

...

An avoidance of the real issue under discussion. The equivalent of

correcting someone's pronounciation to distract from the valid point they made.<<

Oops! You have me mixed up with Neil. Take the grammatical corrections and spelling up with him. And while you're at it, do some research on changing the subject to personal attack on your debate opponent when you become bankrupt in the subject of the debate. That one is so hackneyed that it's humorous.

Leah