[I'm finally starting to understand what Nico was saying about the
Griffin Gender OP.
Actually specifically it is a Claremont College gender op from what
appears to be the intellectual center of the Satanica movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Radford_Ruether
presenting a staged equality of identical treatment which brings us
spectacle like a 69 year old widow being treated just like any other perp.

Killtown has the old messages that were precursor to the now famous one,
http://www.911researchers.com/node/607]
-I gave you the precursor:

When a man protects a woman it just about guarantees
she will not speak out against him.
-Webfairy. 13/06/2007

[which was originally written to a small list of what I thought were friends.
It might get a little poetic, but that was my mood that day, and I had
no clue that would be the last message I'd be able to post for almost 4
days.
When I came home from errands my hard drive and DSL modem were both fried.

Exactly how women's natural loyalty to the men who protect them got
twisted into political instability, untrustworthyness or whatever all
erupted in Coffinman's imagination, which he mistakes for "objective
reality" since he knows there is such a thing as objective reality.]
-If what she calls a womens natural loyalty to men who protect them overrides their considered judgement on matters of great importance then that would indeed cause political instability, untrustworthiness or whatever.
But I disagreed with her about that.
I said that such a proposition could not be put forward as an acceptable reason for Wood's refusal.
Especially from a third party who had simply presumed that such was Wood's reasons.

[I found someone with the earlier messages that the "famous one" follows,
which ought to provide some context, and I expect/hope/pray he can dig
them up today.]
-I have them all. Which one did you want?
I think you should be looking through the messages titled "nailing".
After you started V3 bodyguarding of Wood I changed the title to "bodyguarding", with a post I have repeated here.
I say in that post that "women's problems just don't cut it".
That was because you had already proposed your reasons for Dr Wood's silence.
Rick answered you by saying that he didn't care whether or not Wood had a sandy vagina. Do you remember?
You also said:
Meanwhile instead of Forwardly promoting the VERY interesting facts of
the Political Implications of Newton's Third Law, it's turned into a
rock throwing party against a brilliant and vulnerable woman.
-Which is the first instance I can find of the gender issue being raised.

[My feelings toward Gerard Holmgren were inappropriate considering the
difference in age and tremendous distance. I couldn't stop having those
feelings so I hid them, even from myself as best I could. Actually I
was talking about love, not hormones,]
-Now you say that you said the wrong thing?
Yet you didn't say that when I was opposing what you had said with philosophical argmuent.
No, you lied and tried to destroy me by smears.

[but the habit of covering up my
feelings was so engrained that's how it came out.
And I was talking way more about me than about Judy Wood.]
-But you said:
A woman experiences a hormonal level rush of loyalty toward a man who will fight her battles for her.
This is part of the complex set of biological drives aimed at self preservation and the perservation of the species that comes programmed into the human species automatically, as part of the genetic code that proved it's mettle over the past hundred thousand years, or whenever it is humans first arose.

It is inevitable as Newton's Third Law of Motion. A sign of authenticity like a bellybutton.
-To me it seems like you are saying that it is definitely so for all women.
Especially this bit:
It is inevitable as Newton's Third Law of Motion. A sign of authenticity like a bellybutton.
-So I would suggest that you are lying now, trying to repair damage because you think that I will stand back and let you.
If you want to repair damage here you will have to start by coming clean.

Do you remember saying this:
If she makes a strong statement in support of Newton's Third Law of
Motion, either alone or in conjunction with Morgan Reynolds, I will
defend her even if she turns out to be an android man/machine interface
project of NASA, cos her work is good.
But if she's siding with Fetzer's lack of principles and moral
relativism, then I have lost all respect.
-Did Wood she make a strong statement in support of Newton's Third Law of
Motion that I missed?
Have you lost all respect?
We don't want her statement anyway.
What we wanted was her opinion on Fetzer's variable physics, and now on Morgan's "mass hypothesis".