 sj |
||
|
||
Pain in tha arse
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 16 Apr 01 - 10:42 AM But don't you see a sort of irony in fighting homophobia by saying anyone full of hate must be gay? What's your thinking? Or are you just assuming that calling someone gay would be a pithy insult. Either way don't you think you are belittling the very group you claim to defend. In essence you have become what you are attacking. You claim Clinton's mentioning of someone being effeminate or weak is an attack on gays and respond by saying he is a jerk and must be gay. Your generalization is neither more fair nor less offensive just be cause you are gay...maybe some of Clinton's best friends are gay, then his comment is no longer offensive....see what I'm saying. Kat, my stronger objection is to Peg's response that says since Clinton called somebody a sissy he is condoning the brutal slaughter of a human and in addition UB Dan is an asshole (?) |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: UB Ed Date: 16 Apr 01 - 10:49 AM Wait a minute here. So, I'm the asshole and not Dan? |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: gnu Date: 16 Apr 01 - 10:59 AM From above, a phrase, taken out of context, reads....is homophobic and an asshole.... Some assholes are homophobic. Sorry - I just couldn't resist. (ROTFL) |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Peg Date: 16 Apr 01 - 11:00 AM UB Dan wrote:
But don't you see a sort of irony in fighting homophobia by saying anyone full of hate must be gay? --where did I ever say anyone full of hate must be gay? I am speculating that Clinton Hammond is full of hatred towards gays ("faggots" to use his favorite term) because he himself may harbor feelinsg of latent homosexuality that frighten or repulse him. That is all. What's your thinking? --see above. Or are you just assuming that calling someone gay would be a pithy insult. --I have no problem with the word "gay" which is, I feel, usually a positive term. Referring to someone in a vindictive way as a "faggot" as Clinton has done in this forum on many occasions is NOT positive; but of course he tries to say, hey, it's okay, that's THEIR word that THEY use with EACH OTHER. That's like saying it is okay for a whitey like Clinton to use the "N" word when referring to a black person because some blacks use that word in their community...this is really arrogant (and ignorant at the same time). Either way don't you think you are belittling the very group you claim to defend. --no, I don't. In essence you have become what you are attacking. --a homophobe? Not me. You claim Clinton's mentioning of someone being effeminate or weak is an attack on gays and respond by saying he is a jerk and must be gay. --not at all what I said, and you really must choose your words more carefully. I take offense at his pejorative and derogatory terminology (which I notice you conveniently fail to address here; why is that?)
Your generalization is neither more fair nor less offensive just be cause you are gay... --I'm not gay; I am just not a bigot. maybe some of Clinton's best friends are gay, then his comment is no longer offensive.... --but people whose "best friends are gay" don't refer to people like Ashley MacIsaac as "faggot" and "pedophile" and say "he pees on little boys" etc.--my best friends ARE gay so allow me to know what I'm talking about. see what I'm saying. --not really. Kat, my stronger objection is to Peg's response that says since Clinton called somebody a sissy he is condoning the brutal slaughter of a human and in addition UB Dan is an asshole (?) --gee, now you're really making sense... My reference to Matthew Shepard was pretty clear; it is homophobia and hatred towards gays that allows such behavior (gay bashing which tunrs into vioent attack and in this case, murder) to be sanctioned and glorified. I try to be careful in the way I use language. I realize I can't expect that from everyone. But is it too much to ask that you at least read more carefully? BTW, still waiting for that quotation wherein I called you an asshole for disagreeing with you about Kyoto...
|
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: gnu Date: 16 Apr 01 - 11:01 AM I apologize if my last comment was off the subject. I'm going to faint..... |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 16 Apr 01 - 11:37 AM UB Dan wrote:
"--where did I ever say anyone full of hate must be gay? I am speculating that Clinton Hammond is full of hatred towards gays ("faggots" to use his favorite term) because he himself may harbor feelinsg of latent homosexuality that frighten or repulse him. That is all. "
(UB Dan):What I'm saying is if you perceive someone to be a jerk...maybe its just because they are a jerk and has nothing to do with sexuality. Judging someones sexuality based on non-sexual actions is the same as pre-judging how sopmeone will act based on knowing their sexuality. This is the definition of prejudice.
"--I have no problem with the word "gay" which is, I feel, usually a positive term. Referring to someone in a vindictive way as a "faggot" as Clinton has done in this forum on many occasions is NOT positive; but of course he tries to say, hey, it's okay, that's THEIR word that THEY use with EACH OTHER. That's like saying it is okay for a whitey like Clinton to use the "N" word when referring to a black person because some blacks use that word in their community...this is really arrogant (and ignorant at the same time)."
"In essence you have become what you are attacking.
--a homophobe? Not me.
"Your generalization is neither more fair nor less offensive just be cause you are gay... "
"maybe some of Clinton's best friends are gay, then his comment is no longer offensive...."
"--but people whose "best friends are gay" don't refer to people like Ashley MacIsaac as "faggot" and "pedophile" and say "he pees on little boys" etc.--my best friends ARE gay so allow me to know what I'm talking about."
"Kat, my stronger objection is to Peg's response that says since Clinton called somebody a sissy he is condoning the brutal slaughter of a human and in addition UB Dan is an asshole (?)"
"My reference to Matthew Shepard was pretty clear; it is homophobia and hatred towards gays that allows such behavior (gay bashing which tunrs into vioent attack and in this case, murder) to be sanctioned and glorified.
I try to be careful in the way I use language. I realize I can't expect that from everyone. But is it too much to ask that you at least read more carefully?"
"BTW, still waiting for that quotation wherein I called you an asshole for disagreeing with you about Kyoto..." (UB Dan):I had assumed that you would have some reason for calling me an asshole...that is the only topic in which you and I have ever met (as far as I know). I didn't realize that it was just a random insult at a random person...you're right...the randomness of it does make it morally superior to an attack on a specific person for a specific action (i.e. Clinton insulting Ashley). Although, I guess it was a typo and it was actually Ed that you intended to call an asshole...because....well, I guess it is still pretty random... |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 11:45 AM Random linguistic violence. Is this the best Mudcat has to offer? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: UB Ed Date: 16 Apr 01 - 11:48 AM Hold on a second! Now I'm a random asshole? I'm with Gnu! |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: katlaughing Date: 16 Apr 01 - 12:53 PM UB Dan: perhaps you have not been here long enough to know the many, many times, Clinton has used this kind of hatefilled language. That, basically, is what Peg and I are speaking up about. Obviously he considers it a put down to allude that someone may be gay, otherwise he wouldn't use the language he does. Also, sticking point with me, if you refer to my sexuality, I prefer bisexual. You could even say "bisexual with a male SO." Neither Peg, not I have become the bigot we accuse Clinton of being. If you read through any of our posts, you will find that we are both very caring and open people. Neither one of us is content to stand by when someone denigrates a class of people as a matter of course. I think I understand what you are getting at: that by calling Clinton an asshole or whatever, we are no better than him with his name-calling, i.e. we've sunk to his level. I disagree. When I spout off it is usually for a very good reason and not my usual way of language. I am sure Peg would say the same. Clinton does it all of the time and seems pretty darn proud about it, too. So, bottom line, I won't stay silent when I see such rhetoric. It would be the same as if I stayed silent when someone called my grandsons "picaninnes" or "nigger" because their dad is mahagony and their mom kind of pinkish. If I cannot speak up against bigotry then I have no reason, nor right, to exist. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 16 Apr 01 - 01:41 PM Kat, I didn't realize you have a past unresolved conflict with Clinton. What I was suprised at was that, in the context of this thread, Peg was accusing Clinton of condoning or encouraging the brutal murder of anyone. Sorry about the incorrect identification of your sexuality, but I don't think that changes the message I was trying to convey. My surprise wasn't that you thought Clinton might be offended if he were called gay, but rather that you thought a good offensive remark was to call Clinton gay...subtle difference (like imply and infer it only matters which side of the fence you are on). I can understand your dislike of a word...but from what I gather from this thread and going back to the Ashley thread (I read it to gain perspective). You dislike Clinton for using an offensive term and Clinton dislikes Ashley for either engaging or claiming to engage in an offensive act (pedophilia). I'm not saying you are as bad as Clinton, I'm saying Clinton is no worse than you...I may need to read more older threads, but I don't see any explicit attack on all gay people...only one implied from his use of a term which you object too (which, as I said, I understand). Perhaps he would be more receptive to a suggestion that was not given in such a acidic manner. No one likes it when confronted with amoral superior attitude... Perhaps I just need to know more of the history between you all though. Peg's attack on Clinton came at about the same time she was calling me an asshole...I thought that if they were both based on the same thought and logic she gave to attacking me, I could only assume that Clinton, himself was responsible for single handedly saving the life of every single gay person on both sides of the equator. |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 01:44 PM Calling pedophilia an "offensive act" is like calling rape-murder "objectionable." Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 16 Apr 01 - 02:04 PM well, I'd object :) |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Clinton Hammond Date: 16 Apr 01 - 02:06 PM No kiddin eh MT! |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Sourdough Date: 16 Apr 01 - 02:34 PM Whew! I couldn't read all the way through this thread. It isn't pleasant seeing normally thoughtful and positive people being driven into such anger by the prodding of someone who seems to enjoy lighting fuses more than he does exploring an issue but then, perhaps he is so sure that he is correct, he does not need further input that might modify or change his position. The worst part, though, is he manages to bring forward the less than best parts of others. This is not a valuable skill. The reason I opened this thread in the first place was curiousity about a thread name had attracted so many posts. The first post, anyway, made me smile. Again it was a GUEST who had discovered the value in Clinton Hammond's posts. So many GUESTS have a lot to contribute and many of them join Mudcat when they see what it has to offer. It seems tha there are a few who come to Mudcat, discover Clinton Hammond, write a message or two in his support and disappear. Sourdough |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: katlaughing Date: 16 Apr 01 - 03:04 PM That's some very weird logic that you are reading into things, UB Dan. I don't consider that Peg, nor I, either one, have "amoral superior attitudes." And your last inferrence about Clinton saving all the gays in the world is facetious at best, horribly blind at worst. I never said anything ahout unresolved issues with Clinton. I have no issues with him at all, except when he starts spouting off homophobic slurs, then I call it as I see it. I will not post to this thread, again, as it seems pointless to parse with someone who obviously reads into messages whatever they want. kat
|
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 16 Apr 01 - 03:18 PM sorry...I meant "a morally superior attitude" not "amoral superior"...in this case a typo drastically changed the meaning and I am sorry if this offended you (I'd be suprised of course) My last inferrence about Clinton saving all the gays in the world is facetious at best, horribly blind at worst? Wow you mean I might have been being facetious...huh, I never would have wanted that...I do truly believe it is a fact, I don't know how anyone with the word "laughing" in her name could have thought I was joking. |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: gnu Date: 16 Apr 01 - 03:42 PM Danny boy, the pipes are calling you home on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 16 Apr 01 - 04:25 PM Gnu, you may be right...my last post is a little ascerbic...Kat, "amoral" really was a typo of "a morally", I'm sorry if you thought it was meant otherwise. And in my last post I could have said what I meant without resorting to a personal attack. I just became frustrated when you said that I read whatever I wanted into people's remarks...but I understand how you could have been frustrated by my amoral vs a moral mistake. |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: GUEST,Dragonball Z Date: 16 Apr 01 - 04:44 PM In life as with anything, there are winners and losers. Clinton has made it very clear which category he falls into. (Write him off and move on.) |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Kim C Date: 16 Apr 01 - 04:55 PM Clint's always been nice to me... |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: CarolC Date: 16 Apr 01 - 05:53 PM I said... "I don't really have any desire to be a part of the discussion about whether or not Clinton is a latent anything." And kat/katlaughing said... "You and Carol just displayed textbook examples of turning the defender into the perpetrator, i.e. gays and Peg."
Based on what I have said, and repeated in the first part of this post, I think I is fair for me to say that I have not done what I have been accused of by kat/katlaughing. I am not participating in the discussion about Clinton. I believe my question is a fair one, and applies to anyone who may be a latent homosexual but is not ready to come out about it yet. I'm beginning to become tired of being flamed by you kat/katlaughing. Your anger gets in the way of your highest and best expression of yourself. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: CarolC Date: 16 Apr 01 - 06:38 PM ...and I will state here, for the record, that I have a close family member who is gay. I have close family members who are black, and some who are part Vietnamese, some who are part Native American and Hispanic. I understand the hurt and damage that is caused by bigotry. But I don't see that backing people up into corners has accomplished, or is accomplishing anything for you except causing people to become even more intrenched in their existing thought processes. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 06:39 PM Is there any way to define "latent homosexual" that isn't psychobabble bullsh*t? If someone likes women, dates women, f*cks women, loves women, maybe has married a woman or two, and yet doesn't do all these things with/to men, isn't calling him a "latent homosexual" because of things he says about gays a little -- um -- unverifiable? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: enkd Date: 16 Apr 01 - 07:08 PM Alex- I think that is the very appeal of the term... It is a way of questioning someone's sexuality for which there is no rebuttal. This also makes it come across as something of a cheap shot in a discussion such as this, IMHO... Ian |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 07:10 PM Ian, that's kinda what I thunk. thanks. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 07:12 PM It works something like this: "You're secretly X, but you're in denial!" "I am not!" "See?!" If it can't be disproven, what does it really mean? Usually not a hill o' beans. |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Peg Date: 16 Apr 01 - 08:17 PM Mousethief and enkd; the point, which I am sorry you have missed, is that Clinton uses hateful, homophobic language; THAT is why I think he may have some issues with his sexuality...I could honestly give a shit if he is gay, or bi-curious, or whatever. It is his repellent and consistent use of the word "faggot" which offends me, and like katlaughing, I will NOT sit back and ignore it when someone uses that word, or any other which is offered in the hateful way it is. Leaping lizards, does no one understand the English language anymore? |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: gnu Date: 16 Apr 01 - 08:33 PM I do. If I see a particular kind of electrical distribution panel in a building I am inspecting, I notify my client that the breakers in this panel have the possibility of being a latent fire hazard by virtue of the fact that they may remain closed in overcurrent. Due to this malfunction, they do not perform the safety function intended. While they do not cause the fire, they continue to feed the fire and, thusly, are a latent fire hazard. As for the definition of latent homosexuality given in the article blue-clickied above, the defining sentence is not a sentence - at least not in the English language. I repeat it for your convenience : "Latent homosexuality can be defined as homosexual arousal which the individual is either unaware of or dent. " Now, I know what a latent fire hazard is, but I'll be d***ed if I know what a latent homosexual is.
|
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Clinton Hammond Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:45 PM I use HATEFUL language sometimes (period, full stop!) because there are things that I hate... Like pedophiles, rapists, car-jackers, starvation, abouse, just to name a few... When I tralk about them, I use every hateful tool in the english language bag of tricks because I like too... I've even used the word "Mudcatter" as a slur! I'm also tickled pink (read into that what you will) that you people care enough about my willie and where I put it, to have this discussion... I feel all John Holmsian at having a 78+ post thread about my 'cack'! MT... Nice point... I'd never though of that before... I like the way you put it... It reminds me of the babble that some zelot X-tians have tried to use on me to 'convert' me... "there's only one god", they say... "how do you know" I ask... "the bible says so" is their response... Not worth a pile of dingo's kidneys, and argument like that... |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:50 PM With you all the way, Clinton. Circular arguments hold no water with somebody who doesn't already buy into at least one of the premises. Peg, I understand the English language well enough to know that if a claim can't be DISPROVED, then it's meaningless. There is nothing Clinton could do to prove he's not latently homosexual, since the very "definition" of that term indicates it's subconscious. If I hate blacks, am I latently African? If I hate Jews, am I latently Jewish? If I hate skateboarders, am I a latent thrasher? It's bullshit. It's a groundless venemous attack, or it's psychobabble. Either way, it has no place in a rational discussion. Mind you, I'm not saying I hate blacks, Jews, or thrashers. (Somebody will always bring this up -- some people apparently are immune to the concept of "example" -- if this doesn't apply to you, ignore this paragraph.) Neither am I saying that I condone the use of the word "faggot." I do not. I wish Clinton wouldn't use it. But I don't think that his use of it makes him a "latent homosexual." Perhaps a blatant homophobe. But not a latent anything. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Rick Fielding Date: 17 Apr 01 - 03:32 PM I HATE onions! Just seeing one in front of me can make me queasy enough to throw up! Yes, it comes from a bad experience I had when they tried to force me to eat a creamed onion (barf) at Private School when I was 13. (My parents thought I'd learn responsibility and discipline with a stint in Boarding School...Ha Ha!) Yeah, so it was only ONE onion, and now I take it out on ALL onions. I don't care. I don't want them in my house, and I only grudgingly accept them in restaurants. I'd send every one of 'em right back to the ground where they came from. Holy cow, I'm an Onionophobe! Oh no, I'm a latent Onion myself!! Sorry. Carry on Rick |
|
Subject: Pain in the arse From: Clinton Hammond Date: 17 Apr 01 - 03:34 PM LOL!! Rick... yer a goof... Keep it up eh! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 04:36 PM I love latent onions! In a cream sauce with shallots... Delicious! Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: gnu Date: 17 Apr 01 - 05:10 PM Clinton, if I am ever to take you seriously, which I am unsure of at present, given your misuse of Canajun, you must understand, it's "eh ?" or "eh !" or some combination thereof. Some respect for the Canadian language would be appreciated, eh ? BTW, lose the faggot stuff, eh ? It may stir up some shit and discussion is good, eh, but, really, when you piss off people like Kat and Peg, eh, you piss off a lot of the rest of us, eh... oops, didn't mean to speak for anyone but myself, eh... you piss me off when you do that, eh! I welcome the opportunity to banter with you and learn from you, but, hey, eh ?! |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Matt_R Date: 17 Apr 01 - 05:51 PM Do I have to spell it out? C-H-E-E-S-E--A-N-D--O-N-I-O-N-S oh no! |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:23 PM Man and machine Keep yourself clean Or be a has-been Like the dinosaur.... |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Matt_R Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:31 PM WOOOHAAA!! Alex knows what I'm talking about! YE-YES!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: RichM Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:36 PM Rick, ya don't know what you are missing! Onions, leeks, garlic, chives, shallots...a whole spectrum of good flavours that add to the total delicious-ity of food... My dad would agree with you tho...he was a strict meat and potatoes man, no spices, no condiments except salt pepper and ketchup.And none of this fresh vegetable crap either--canned peas yessir! My mom would occasionally try to sneak some onions/garlic etc into the roast beef, but Dad caught it every time... |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:37 PM Here we are once again, on another one-night stand We're only here for you out there, So give yourselves a great big hand Major Happy, Major Happy Major Happy's Up and Coming Once-Upon-A-Goodtime Band Neil Innes rocks. |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Matt_R Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:43 PM I was born in the country, beside a chicken shack... |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:45 PM I know you know what you know But you should know by now that you're not me. |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:46 PM Can you tell me what you thinka bout this low-fat diet shampoo? Do you think it's crunchy, half-crunchy, or not crunchy at all? Put a tick in the appropriate box, there's nothing to it.
Yes, no, don't know, I don't care. |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Matt_R Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:48 PM Hey Diddle diddle Cat and a fiddle Piggy in the middle Poo-ah-a-poo! |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Peg Date: 17 Apr 01 - 08:07 PM Alex wrote: "Neither am I saying that I condone the use of the word "faggot." I do not. I wish Clinton wouldn't use it." That is my point entirely. Why you are all in a huff about whether his latent homosexuality can be proven or disproven, I have no idea. I accuse of him of such because a) I think it is true and realizing it might make him accept it and move on from his childish, hateful slurs, and b) usually doing so infuriates homophobic jackasses like himself... But I would also agree with your assessment of "blatant homophobe" in lieu of "latent homosexual." I personally do to think the latter term is a necessarily negative thing, unless it is repressed and festers into hatred and ignorant bigotry...as it has in the case of our ever-so-eloquent Canadian friend here...who is, indeed, a blatant homophobe.
|
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:38 PM Why you are all in a huff about whether his latent homosexuality can be proven or disproven, I have no idea. Well, I thought I had made it plain; I shall try to put it another way. Say that you really hated something, anything. Let's say -- um -- child molesters. Now let's say that I'm married to a child molester, or perhaps am a clinical psychologist that works with child molesters. And it really bugs me when people hate child molesters. So I say that you are a "latent child molester." You wouldn't really hate these people unless you have something inside of you that you are afraid of or not in touch with. Now there is no way you can disprove this, because it's a bunch of crap and not subject to verification or falsification. It's a low blow, a cheap shot, and a bunch of crap to boot. Going around calling people names is not a good thing. Thus my calling you a "latent child molester" is a nasty piece of work. These are the sorts of things I get in a huff about. So sue me. I hate bullshit, I hate low blows, I hate psychobabble. This is all 3 wrapped up into one. If you still don't get it, I'm afraid I can't help you. Maybe somebody else can explain it better. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Peg Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:51 PM Alex-- you still don't get it (and I don't really understand why you are getting all upset at ME unless it is something personal issue you have with me from past dealings on this board; hey, dude, whatever). You have completely missed my point, which is that I don't CARE if CH is a latent homosexual or not (did I not say this already at least once? Correct me if I am wrong). He is a bigot. He uses homophobic language and has done repeatedly on this board even though people have called him on it. For you to demonize me with this picayunish nonsense about what a "low blow" (Freudian slip?) it is to infer he is a latent homosexual because he is such a homphobe is to basically give tacit approval to Clinton's attitudes and language. If that is where you are coming from, well, say so. Latent homosexuality has a very specific meaning and context; your rather lame attemnpt to draw a parallel by using the word "latent" to apply to something it does not apply to, is, like I have said already a couple of times, missing the point. Feel free to address my original context. To treat this like a squabble about terminology strikes me as ridiculous. And for you to accuse me of "calling people names" is patently absurd, given the asshole (there's a name for ya) you seem to be defending here.
|
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: mousethief Date: 18 Apr 01 - 12:24 AM Just because somebody calls names doesn't mean nobody can call HIM names. Now THAT is absurd. He is a bigot. He uses homophobic language and has done repeatedly on this board even though people have called him on it I never contradicted any part of this description. For you to demonize me with this picayunish nonsense about what a "low blow" (Freudian slip?) it is to infer he is a latent homosexual because he is such a homphobe is to basically give tacit approval to Clinton's attitudes and language. Not in the least. To say that it's wrong to punch Harry is not to condone Harry's punching you. As I pointed out, I am also offended by Clinton's language. You somehow seem to think that if someone is offensive, "anything goes" in what you say to/about him in response. This is wrong. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. Latent homosexuality has a very specific meaning and context It's psychobabble bullshit and, as I said before, it has no place in discussion. your rather lame attempt to draw a parallel by using the word "latent" to apply to something it does not apply to, is, like I have said already a couple of times, missing the point. Ooooh, now we're getting NASTY. My analogy was "lame" was it? How good are you at analogies? How much training in rhetoric or logic do you have? As was pointed out above, "latent" doesn't apply to homosexuality any more than it applies to child molestation. Just because a bunch of psychobabblers have used it in psychobabble books doesn't mean it MEANS anything, or has any corresponding reality outside those books. I don't really care what YOUR issue is; if you use bullshit logic to defend it, then you're guilty of using bullshit logic. I was not acting as a defender of Clinton here. I think he was wrong and have said so. In my "attack" on the term "latent homosexuality" I am acting not as a defender of Clinton, but as a defender of rationality. I'm sorry you don't see the difference, as you have repeatedly admitted. Finally, I don't have anything against you (yet); I am just responding to what is being said. I don't care if it were said by Santa Claus or by the Masked Marvel; if it's bullshit, it's still bullshit. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Jon Freeman Date: 18 Apr 01 - 12:29 AM All this talk of faggots is making me hungry. Sorry they have onions Rick:
800 grams pigs liver Fry the liver. Slice the liver and fat back. Peel and slice the onions. Put the meat and onions in a saucepan with just enough water to cover them. Heat to boiling point, cover the pan, reduce the heat, and simmer for 30 minutes. Strain off the liquid and reserve for gravy. Mince the meat and onions finely. Add the herbs, salt, pepper and nutmeg. Beat the egg until it's liquid and stir in. Mix in enough breadcrumbs to make a mixture which can be moulded. Divide it into 8 equal portions and shape them into round balls. Cut caul fat, if used, large enough to encase the balls and wrap each ball in fat. Alternately, roll each ball in flour. Lay the faggots side by side in a greased baking tin. Cover the tin loosely with foil. Bake in a moderate oven at 180 centigrade for 25 minutes. Remove the foil and bake for 10 minutes to brown the tops of the faggots. Serve hot with a thickened gravy made from the cooking liquid or a tomatoe sauce.
|
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Peg Date: 18 Apr 01 - 12:32 AM Fine, Alex, if your defense of all this is that I'm irrational and talking bullshit and psychobabble and you insist on telling me what does or does not "have a place" in discussion, that's the way it is. Whatever. I don't call that debate, I call it tyranny. Try doing some research before you dismiss soemthing as "psychobabble." Looking at one website doesn't count. Training in rhetoric? Yes, in fact; I teach writing for a living. |
|
Subject: RE: Pain in tha arse From: Matt_R Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:12 AM Maybe it's like when little boys are mean and chase and bother little girls, and say they're icky and have cooties when they REALLY like them! |
| Share Thread: |