Clearly, you enforce YOUR views and YOUR own strict interpretation of the rules. You DO NOT seem to tolerate differing opinions – something forums are meant to do. That is why this forum has very little activity.

I stand by what I said earlier. Other members pose questions, I answer them from a man"s perspective. No where do I guarantee or even imply that most members of this forum will "like" the answer, but the answer is honest and representative of most men (notice I stated "most" and not "all"). "…Certainly those who already know everything could start their own biased blogs?" Is this a question or a statement? I don"t know how to respond. As for contempt for the rules: I still don"t know which rules I broke. Please tell me.

As for your last statement: "…And I thought it was only the left that screamed about their free speech "rights" all the time…" This sounds like a very biased generaliztion to me. I guess you are breaking the rules now too

You said: "…Oh, I wasn"t referring to anyone in particular." OK so you weren"t referring to me or anyone else. As for your first point in your original post: ."…I get why guys rant about these things, just not why they do it here…" Again, this is a statement and not a question. Since you are not referring to anyone in particular, why would I answer it? As for your final question, which seems unrelated to your other points: "WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR POSTING @ HUS?" The answer is: because I can. I am a member – just like you.

I did want to get answers to some questions that I have, but dissent is not tolerated on this forum. It is called "sexism" and discarded. That is why there is very little activity in these forums: no differing opinions.

Because I can.

As I suspected. No actual valid reason. The ability or right to post, in and of themselves, aren"t good reasons to participate. My reasons for posting (rarely) are that I generally support the blog"s stated mission, and appreciate Susan"s knowledge and perspective. Can you honestly say the same?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Moderator showing someone the door when he or she is hostile or antagonistic towards THE BLOG AND ITS OWNER. You"ve got a thousand other places to go online. Crying about selective censorship on one site on the internet is always a weak argument.

And I"ve yet to see any compelling evidence that your opinions are representative of most men. They"re way too PC, for one thing. In that sense, you"re like most male regulars around here. But they tend to couch their sexism in polite, clever rhetoric. You might learn a thing or two from them…

Cooper said:

I"ll be the first to admit that some of what I say here, on HUS, may not necessarily be very welcomed, or well received. (the site isn"t exactly intended for male audience)

Funny, Coop, but I"ve found that what I"ve said on HUS is generally well-received by the Queen and the target demographic (young women). It"s the older male regulars, the PC crowd, who seem to have problems with alterative opinions… especially from other men IMO.

You"ve actually challenged some conventional male wisdom, which is admirable. I think the ladies appreciate that kind of thing.

You"re a good kid, and I"m certain you"ll find that special girl one of these days. Maybe sooner than you think. If I did (3 years after college), a former omega-level loser, you will too.

Remember, it isn"t about a Blue Pill or a Red Pill. False Dilemma. There is a Green Pill…