BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:14 PM

Brent Bozell, head of CNS (Conservative News Service), very Right Wing, chronic gay-basher, and frequent quest on Fox News.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:28 PM

SJL: "GfS- 14 Aug 13 - 01:41 AM- A brilliant analysis- I would also factor in the role of the media and entertainment industry, along with the politicians, to explain this phenomenon of perception."

Of Course there are nine major news media sources, (teetering on eight), and they are ALL owned by major corporations in bed with our 'so-called Representatives'...well, Representatives representing the corporations in bed with the Representatives representing the corporations...pretending to represent you!

The biggest problem of brain-lock that to 'so-called liberals' have, is they can't see or grasp beyond 'acceptable political correctness'!!..and of course that limits their ability to see beyond Obama, and who he's working for. They just see 'black', and think we've come, oh such a long way. A vote for Obama was a vote for the Rockefeller crowd....but you're too infatuated with color, and too politically correct to see it!
It's a shame.. because they neutered your earliest zeal in protests, to make things right..but that movement got co-opted by the Democrats in the 60's, and you've assumed they were your 'buddies' all along. Nope..they're just the other whore.

GfS

P.S. As I've said before, 'Right wing and left wing are on the same bird'....but your political correctness, that you've signed in for, has you trapped. True Story!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM

""Oh well, I'll stop now, trying to keep in mind that this thread is about, 'Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'.""

And it fondly imagines that the preceding incoherent, factually challenged, rant had anything of respect contained within.

All the gear, NO IDEA!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:39 PM

"Right wing and left wing are on the same bird," is an ignorant cliché that indicates that the person making this statement has no understanding of where the terms "Right Wing" and "Left Wing" came from, and what they have to do with the world of politics.

These "wings" have nothing to do with birds.

Nor does GfS have a clue as to what a Liberal is. Or, for that matter, a Conservative.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:40 PM

Steve....New infection rates are falling in almost all demographics.
New infection rates amongst male homosexuals are rising steadily...approx 10% per year.
As homosexuals make up only 2/3% of the population, this means that in the population at large infection rates are relatively static......BUT in the homosexual demographic, new infection rates have reached epidemic proportions.
In London last year, new infection rates amongst male homosexuals rose by 21%.......in one year!

Please make some attempt to read the HPA or CDC reports before commenting.....It would save a lot of time and energy.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:49 PM

""Luckily you are not clever enough to be taken seriously by anyone. Do you still talk about "curing" gay people?""

Not only talks about it Ian, claims to have done it too.

And he talks about our delusions.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:53 PM

Oh, less I leave these guys out...a vote for Romney or CCain was a vote for the same crowd.
..and you thought 'protest songs' had nothing to write about???

and in reference to the previous post, I started out addressing 'SJL', then switched to 'YOU'...that 'YOU' is meant generically. I didn't put 'US' because I have to exclude myself from those who have mistakenly thought otherwise!

GfS


P.S.Steve Shaw: "Jeez, SJL, I could bloody weep."

Why?? Not everyone is closed off to being able to recognize the truth!...OR.....Rejoice! Not everyone is as dumb as you!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:55 PM

"The other 92% of such infections and sources appear to be of no concern to bigots. Probably to do with ideology and agenda."

There is no hiv epidemic amonst heterosexuals Ian..... You know very well the infection rate is miniscule.
You know the difference between percentage rates and real numbers...dont you?    yes I thought you might.

Ten in a hundred thousand is a minor medical problem.
Ten in a hundred is an epidemic.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:57 PM

Typo in last post..delete in..and an (addendum)


Oh, less I leave these guys out...a vote for Romney or McCain was a vote for the same crowd.
..and you thought 'protest songs' had nothing to write about???

and in reference to the previous post, I started out addressing 'SJL', then switched to 'YOU'...that 'YOU' is meant generically. I didn't put 'US' because I have to exclude myself from those who have mistakenly thought otherwise!

Addendum: Don T: "Not only talks about it Ian, claims to have done it too"

False!...find the post, or can it!

GfS


P.S.Steve Shaw: "Jeez, SJL, I could bloody weep."

Why?? Not everyone is closed off to being able to recognize the truth!...OR.....Rejoice! Not everyone is as dumb as you!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM

""Or a little of Mr McGraths wit?""

Very little, if any at all.

McGrath knows the difference between wit and bullshit, how to use the former effectively and detect and debunk the latter.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 08:13 PM

""Ah, lies, damn lies and statistics. HIV infection rates have been steady for over ten years. But that bald figure doesn't tell the story. There has been a far greater uptake of voluntary screening in that time, coupled with major advances in testing. So the apparent steadying of the infection rate could actually mean that true infection rates have declined. *Sigh.*""

In addition to which, the treatments available work well enough that the medical profession is now describing HIV as "a manageable condition which should not significantly reduce life expectancy."

But don't tell Ake! He is studiously avoiding that statistic and determinedly living in the past in which 50% developed AIDS and AIDS was 100% fatal.

He also insists that those at risk be denied the one thing that would undoubtedly save lives, on the grounds that he believes that gays don't want it, in spite of the fact that it is gays who asked for it in the first place.

Much easier, of course, to ignore that and attack those non gays who support it.

As for GfS, I'd have more respect for his views if he kept his mouth shut on the four days a week when his brain cell is at the laundry being sanitised.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 08:20 PM

""Addendum: Don T: "Not only talks about it Ian, claims to have done it too"

False!...find the post, or can it!""

Way back you made a big song and dance about how happy they were to be normal after sessions with you.

That would be somewhere about the time that you started telling lies about Don F.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 08:46 PM

I would imagine that the percentage of homosexual people WITHIN the entertainment is much higher than it is in the general population, for the reasons I mentioned above- and that leaves far fewer in 'normal' society. (So GfS and ake can rest easier in their lonely beds, knowing that no fiend will come creeping upon them. Isn't that nice?)

But I must take issue with the implication that Guest/SJL made, when she spoke of our youth thinking of homosexuality being 'main stream' and who therefore are at risk of becoming homosexual. Using only myself as an example, I must say that although I have shared many a hotel room with a friend, often female - in fact, when I was growing up, on more than one occasion I shared a bed with a female , beginning with a sister - and not once did the urge for copulation come upon me, and I have every reason to believe the same was true for my companion.

Homosexuality is not easily come by- I think it must be born with you. Ain't that a novel thought? Wherever did anyone get the idea that it is a cloak one dons and doffs at will? Ake? GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 08:46 PM

That would be in the Prop 8 thread, awhile back.

GoofuS claimed to be a family counselor (OY!) and that he had cured many "cases" of homosexuality.

Along in that section is a post of mine where I quoted an independent follow-up study of one so-called therapist who claimed a batch of "cures," that said his former patients had a nearly 80% recidivism rate, and a substantial portion of them avoided the issue by staying celibate. The follow-up further showed a high rate of depression in those he claimed to have cured, and six ex-patients committed suicide.

Not exactly a sterling result!!

So much for "curing homosexuality!!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 09:13 PM

Same experience here, Ebbie.

In 1959, a friend and I—my singing partner at the time—went to try our luck in San Francisco. We lived together in a small apartment, sleeping in the same room, but one on a broken down mattress and the other on the couch.

Nary once did it occur to either of us to be intimate. With each other.

Before we left Seattle for the Bay Area, he had met a young woman he was pining for, and shortly after our return to Seattle after two months of barnstorming, he married her.

I was moping over a girl I had met in Seattle when she was home from Bryn Mawr (a Philosophy Major and aspiring writer), who had returned to school at the end of the summer, then broke my heart when she decided to move to Europe. I never saw her again. (Lord!! I haven't thought of her for ages!).

My friend and I loved each other—like brothers. Still do after all these years. But the idea of physical intimacy between us is a little creepy!!

No, sexual orientation is NOT a matter merely of proximity. It has something to do with inborn inclinations—and is not a matter of "choice!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 12:04 AM

I agree, Don.

I spent the last couple of surreal hours reading the WHOLE Prop 8 thread- all 2,000+ posts of it. In doing so, I have formulated several opinions.
#1: I think that the man is sincere in his beliefs.
#2: He is also somewhat suspect in some of the credentials he claims.
#3: I think he is a more than somewhat misogynistic in his views of women; his protestations reflect a mainstream view of those societies that oppress women in the guise of protecting and venerating them.
#4: The view I had from way back that he had volunteered information about his homosexual father, I believe is incorrect. What he actually said- but did NOT post the link that supposedly would have clarified of whom he was speaking:

May 6 2009
"Again, from the 'For what its worth Department': (If you want the link, I'll post it.
By the way, all of those who think that I have no experience with this, and that I'm just spouting from no experience with this issue, you should know that my father CHOSE a homosexual lifestyle after he had 6 children with my mother.

Not to get to personal, but to squash any type of statement about my father already being gay, I'll explain this. He was molested when he was a child by his father and uncle. He learned how to deal with the shame and pain of this act by storing it inside and never talking about it. This, undoubtedly, led to prolonged psychological effects that plagued him and eventually chose him to choose his lifestyle."

That is it, ver batim. Poorly written, it is no wonder that some of us thought he was recounting a personal history.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 01:17 AM

Yeah, we've been around that bush before...that post was NOT authored by me, and even Joe Offer, acknowledged that it indeed came from my IP, it didn't sound like me, nor did he believe that I wrote it..which I didn't..and THAT is the truth!

As for Don T's assertion that I could 'cure' homosexuality, that was another false assertion he is parroting from Firth, who exclaimed that, after I posted a post referring to Dr. Cohen.

I think Firth is e-mailing his 'little helpers' to try to discredit me, as he always tries to with the same old song and dance...it ain't going to work this time, either. It's false.....Oh, Don, as long as you are posting links and recruiting surrogates, look up this phenomenal description of yourself....
HPD . Read it carefully, and see if the shoe fits!

You guys must be REALLY desperate now!...GOOD!!! Because your phony 'so called liberal' agenda is crashing down on you!

Oh Ebbie, in the course of reading all those posts, did you find the one that Don T is referring to?

I d-o-o-o-on't think so.

Have a nice night.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:43 AM

O O O O O H, yes, I did. You didn't go so far as to say that YOU cured them (multiple ones) but you skirted all around it. If you wish I will post them.

I saved them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:53 AM

Hey Goofus! Whilst you are busy disowning comments, would you care to take the opportunity to disown some of the outrageous homophobic bilge you have been spouting out this week?

Must be nice to reveal your cold twisted self and know you can muddy the waters afterwards if the only person who likes your views is a discredited old bigot who cannot find agreement with a single sane person on these threads.

Or there again, your waffle about sessions with people with psychological issues is quite good. Snag is, you don't make it clear whether you were sat in the chair or the couch?

What's that boy?

Woof!

Yeah, I reckon couch too.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:56 AM

You lack the light touch, Gnome.

Do I need it, Kevin? I thought when talking bollocks anything is allowed?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 03:00 AM

Dave, your logic is skewed.

It may be, in your opinion, SJL. I don't think so and least it is logic rather than blind prejudice.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 03:21 AM

First let's clear this up:

Joe Offer         BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? (2125* d)         RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban         24 Feb 10

    OK, so I gather the message in question was on this page posted at 12:38 AM on 6 May 2009. There are 74 messages from that group of IP numbers, and all (except a few no-name ones) were signed by Guest from Sanity. That's not absolute proof that the post came from GfS, but it's a good indication that it came from him or from somebody using his computer. At least part of the message appears to have been copy-pasted from another source, but I could not find the source and could not determine whether the statement about the father may have come from that source. Are you people really arguing about a message that was posted nine months ago?
    -Joe Offer-

       I got confused and posted this message in the "Californians" thread, and GfS responded to me there. I moved my message and the one from GfS over here. Sorry for the mistake.
       Despite evidence to the contrary, I'd tend to believe whatever GfS says about the message in question. GfS has been here for quite some time, and I have seen no evidence of deception or manipulation in posts from GfS. You people know GfS better than I do - make your decision based on your own experience.
       -Joe-

NEXT: Ebbie post the ones that I said that I could cure them...I'll post one that I said I couldn't, and deferred to someone who could!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 04:05 AM

That's not absolute proof that the post came from GfS, but it's a good indication that it came from him or from somebody using his computer.

and

You people know GfS better than I do - make your decision based on your own experience.

You use this as proof that you did not make the post in question??? If that was not enough to demonstrate your level of delusion you then come out with

Ebbie post the ones that I said that I could cure them...I'll post one that I said I couldn't, and deferred to someone who could!

So, even if you could prove did not say you could cure homosexuality, you believe it can be cured? Like an illness?

You are one sick bunny.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 04:25 AM

Getting back to the thread title, since when has this type of comment been condoned?

"I have tried to point out issues to Akenaton. He is a lying disgusting piece of filth and is incapable of debate."

Or, "He (Mr McGrath, is a Po-faced old sod"

I cant help but notice the word "old" being used as a term of abuse, Ian regularly terms me a "disgusting old bigot"!
This conduct seems far removed from his expressed wish to spread equality and outreach?
Will we soon need to think up a new acceptable word to describe folks over 60?

There are several people still posting on this thread, who's output consists of nothing but personal abuse, with no attempt made to debate the issues which have come up.

I would be very interested in the views of Larry the Radio Guy, who instigated this thread, as it has become obvious who the "abusers" on this forum really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 04:50 AM

So I'm scrolling back, looking for a particular post and found this familiar bit of Don acting up, so I addressed it back then:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 06:07 PM

Don, stop 'recruiting'. We were on a good roll, exchanging good information, and every time you're caught, accusing, and usurping the thread, you resort to the same, worn out tactics, instead of moving forward, and thereby hijacking the thread to focus on only your point of view....which has been proven, either inconclusive, or divisive, just to steer the attention to you. May we go on??...with your imperial permission..or do we have to endure more of your off topic meanderings?

You've stated your political stance...ok..You've posted links, that come to no conclusion, as said in those links....you've gathered 'support' of those who think that non bigoted, dissenters, are bigots and haters...and brought nothing new to understanding the CAUSE, of what you so ignorantly champion. Just take a rest, and let's see what may come out, that may INFORM you...instead of spouting your non-supported opinions....and this time let them, or us speak, without jumping down our throats. YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING....God forbid! ....not to mention, there may be something of interest to OTHERS.....unless, of course, keeping people uninformed is your method of control. You have offered NOTHING,except your link, which was not authored by you. Why don't you ALLOW a discussion on that link, which is what was being done. Perhaps, you did not even read the entire link, yourself, or understood the ramifications of what they were saying. Forget character assassinate Ake, or myself, or anyone else disagreeing with you. You're wasting time and space, in doing so. Now, I'll get around to your question, when I'm finished with Amos', though I think in answering Amos' questions, yours would be answered as well!!

Look at this quote from you..."GfS has posted only four times on music threads. The vast majority of posts have been dedicated to the trying to quell the same-sex marriage issue.

Ake's history is pretty similar. His posts tend to deplore homosexual practices, implying they actually create the AIDs virus, and seem to dwell on the lurid details of anal intercourse."

What's the word? Obsession? Fixation? Fetish?"

You actually went through the forum COUNTING OUR POSTS...THEN ACCUSE US OF BEING OBSESSED???????? Look who is calling the kettle black!
(and BTW, your count is wrong).
Chill out. When I get back, and have the time, I'll post, what I did before, and lost.......jeez!

GfS


AND THIS:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 06:44 PM

Don, What a friggin' cop out. You just can't admit that you might have learned something, that corrected your faulty assertions. Even 'Smedley', an admitted homosexual, has the balls to admit that homosexuals CAN terminate their inclinations. You just can't admit that you have been wrong...well good luck. It's a good thing that you are not in charge of who would be allowed to be treated, or get medical support, for anything that they might want to get treated for, if it disagreed with your political stance!..We'd all be in a world of hurt!
GfS

AND THIS:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:24 AM

Don; "Well, Jeez, GfS! why didn't you say so in the first place, instead of saying (for what seems like a couple thousand posts now) "they need to be cured."

Why did you repeatedly misquote, re-interpret, change them meaning of what I was saying, to get the other 'catters pissed off at me?? Often you steered the thread into a politically based bias, which got everyone fighting and sounding more hostile than we were. Little Hawk, Joe Offer, and myself had remarked to you, about that."

It goes on, but for brevity............

AND THIS, which caused me to ask Joe Offer to check the post in question:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 02:42 AM

Don Facade: "You have said repeatedly that, instead of being allowed to marry, they should be compelled to seek counseling."

Again you're lying intentionally, to mislead others into a hostility,..to hide the FACT that you, argued for two threads, quite a few posts, that homosexuals could not opt out. That is a blatant lie..being as later you admitted to knowing of two. Sounds like you have a 'hidden agenda'...hmm...wonder what that can be....


P. S. Now, GfS, I can understand that since your father sired a batch of kids, including you, then "decided" he was gay and left your mother and you kids to go off with a male lover, ..blah blah blah, more lies!

My Father died at 60, due to a stroke. He was married once, to my mother, who is still alive, and she never re-married.
You just make shit up..as you have all through these threads. You've twisted quotes, and responded to the twists that you make up....now just what is it, that you are trying to hide???"

I just found pretty good proof that I knew NOTHING about the post in question. I'm going to post them in another post, because this one is too long already...and I want to devote the entire post, without any 'diversions' in continuity, the way the posts ran. It is SO obvious that I didn't even know what you were talking about, when you first started hassling me about it!!!

Till next post, tomorrow.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:21 AM

To Mudcat moderators(whoever they may be)

Are there some subjects which not up for debate on this forum...like homosexual infection rates, abortion, creationism, rape, etc?

If this is the case then why is there not a list of prohibited subjects?
If it not the case and we are free to discuss any subject, why are some posters subjected to a torrent of personal abuse from a handful of other members?
You know who they are, it is cowardly to bury your heads in the sand while these people reduce civilised debate to a hatefest.

Either make clear which subjects are off the menu, or get rid of the abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:46 AM

From Ian.

"I am not debating with it. I am trying to make sure that impressionable people are made aware of the lies in his hate mail and the awfulness of his fascism."

That one sentence contains four examples of serious verbal abuse.
He refers to me as IT....a nonperson(discriminatory), a Liar (untrue, I have never knowingly lied on this forum in ten years)
A Hater( I hate no person, my one hate is the Capitalist system)
A Fascist( If I had to define myself politically, probably Radical socialist.....personally, social conservative.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:49 AM

""Oh, Don, as long as you are posting links and recruiting surrogates, look up this phenomenal description of yourself....
HPD . Read it carefully, and see if the shoe fits!""

You know what? I agree with you!

It fits absolutely perfectly with the persona you project in all your attention seeking nonsense posts.

Well done GfS! You have finally found yourself.

Oh, by the way, that door between you and reality could well be a closet door. Be careful about coming out.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 07:43 AM

I can honestly and quite proudly say that I did not understand a quarter of GfS' last few posts.

Ake, the mods are all volunteers. If you are so against personal abuse, why call them cowardly? There is only one subject which will, and should, be jumped on from a great height - Having a go at the moderators or moderation policy. It is the Mudcat's game. Don't like it? Then piss off.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 07:55 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3lUIxNSZ5Q

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:02 AM

Actually finding out whether someone has ever posted on the music threads doesn't involve tortuously going through all the threads. Just click on the name of the person at the top of a post and up comes a list of the posts they've made, which shows which are BS and which music.

Of course it doesn't show the threads they've read, so itd be quite possible for someone to come here because of an interest in the music, but hasn't posted up there but has down in BS.

I think it's quite important that we came here because of the music, because that means that beneath the disagreements here in the BS there's a communality. Though of course that can't be enforced - and the music threads can get pretty heated at times too.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:15 AM

He (Mr McGrath, is a Po-faced old sod"

Who said this? Not me, that's for sure! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:17 AM

Ebbie, here's the statement I made in my post:

"Don't forget that the 5% is overrepresented in the entertainment industry compared with the general population and that plays into the hype as well, making what is a fairly unorthodox lifestyle seem ubiquitous and mainstream. It is being actively promoted to the population at large."

How does that mirror your statement below?

"But I must take issue with the implication that Guest/SJL made, when she spoke of our youth thinking of homosexuality being 'main stream' and who therefore are at risk of becoming homosexual."

Those are strictly your inferences, not my thoughts. When I say "promote," I mean PR. I said population, not youth. I said overrepresentation leading to a perception that the numbers are higher as in , "Hey look at us, we're everywhere! Aren't we the bomb? We're just exactly like straight people, only different. Give us everything you have, we demand or you're a homophobe etc." As a political entity, they have gone beyond pride. They have become arrogant bullies.

Why same sex marriage? Even in ancient Greece where homoeroticism was commonplace and an accepted part of the culture, there was no such thing as same sex marriage. Were the Greeks oppressed because they didn't have it? Is this about the monogamy associated with marriage? If we go outside of traditional marriage, why not polygamy? I mean, what's the big morality surrounding monogamy? Why should a man ditch his first wife and remarry when he can keep both of them?

GfS, "It's not genetic but behavioral."

As you know, this has been a longtime debate, but for most of us, sexual attraction and desire are something of a mystery, meaning we don't necessarily make conscious choices about these things. We experience them as things that happen to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:18 AM

I wasn't referring to you Dave, everyone says or thinks   "bollox" from time to time.
Perhaps you are correct and I withdraw the word "cowardly", but at some stage, someone will have to make a decision on moderation, or the forum will become simply a smaller version of facebook

There is a world of difference between that reaction and the stuff Ian produces. It is designed to intimidate, just as insinuations on a persons sexuality or mental capacity are.
These insults are designed to silence debate, and are used when the abusers have no rational response to add.

There is without doubt an epidemic of sexual disease in the MSM demographic, why is it "bigotted" to debate the reasons for this epidemic and possible ways of stopping it

Perhaps you are correct and I withdraw the word "cowardly", but at some stage, someone will have to make a decision on moderation, or the forum will become simply a smaller version of facebook

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:28 AM

I cross posted with Guest SJL, I think we have an extremely perceptive contributer in our midst.

Perhaps as SJL is new here and obviously a woman, she can be listened to without the usual derogatory abuse.
From the "Infamous Five".

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:31 AM

Ahhhh - OK, SJL, your earlier conclusion makes more sense to me now and I can see why you would think that the overestimation is a result of over publication as in PR. I don't necessarily agree but can quite happily agree to differ with you on that. What I do take exception to is -

As a political entity, they have gone beyond pride. They have become arrogant bullies.

That is a gross generalisation. Yes, there are arrogant bullies in the gay community. They are everywhere. But it is because they are arrogant bullies that they make the news, not because they are gay. To follow such generalisations results in the demonisation of a particular section of society.

Gays are arrogant bullies
Moslems are terrorists
Irish are stupid

I am of the firm belief that the proportion of good and bad people is the same across ALL sections of society. There are no more arrogant bullying gays than there are arrogant bullying heterosexuals. There is just one section of society that, in my opinion, is an exception. Politicians. By nature they must be megalomaniacs and sociopaths. I would hate to get caught up in their machinations!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:48 AM

From GFS

"Yeah, we've been around that bush before...that post was NOT authored by me, and even Joe Offer, acknowledged that it indeed came from my IP, it didn't sound like me, nor did he believe that I wrote it..which I didn't..and THAT is the truth!"

You need to put a password on your computer. Remember all the posts from Cecil and lansing that came from your computer but you say were not authored by you? Your "friends" are abusing you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:56 AM

Have to get the stereotypes right, Dave. Irish are "stupid terrorists".

Actually in all these matters the arrogant bullies tend not to be members of the group themselves so much as non-members taking advantage to push an agenda of their own. Objections about stuff like Christmas Cribs as offending Muslims tend not to come from Muslims. Opposition to mosques being built as being anti-Christian typically isn't from Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 09:23 AM

Too true, Kevin - It is usually the politicians :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 09:46 AM

Sorry Steve, your words were "Bloody po-faced so and so".
I should have checked.

However.
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM

"new infection rates are rising more quickly than ever."

This is an absolute lie. You don't get to just say what you bloody well like in order to make your bogus case, charlatan.

My Actual words were.
" The agencies themselves, have up until now, relied on Education, Inclusion, and Outreach(self regulation), to try to make some impession on infection and transmission rates in this demographic, with absolutely no success, in fact, the new infection rates are rising more quickly than ever."

CLUE....."In this demographic"

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM

Interesting news item. Health care professionals with HIV are going to be allowed to conduct the full range of procedures following the lifting of an outdated ban. From the article -

It is more likely that somebody will be struck by lightning than be infected with HIV by their doctor or dentist, said chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies as she announced the change of policy.

HIV levels in the blood of those on modern combination drug therapy are too low for the virus to be transmissible. There are only four known examples of a healthcare worker infecting a patient, none of them in the UK, and in every case, the doctor or dentist was not on drug treatment.

So, even our chief medical officer is more relaxed about the HIV 'epidemic' than some of our posters. I somehow doubt that she condones compulsory testing.

Full story here.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 10:30 AM

Of course I post abuse at Akenaton. You can't debate with a book that is written and published, you can only review it.

It ain't worth reading.

Oh, the reference to old. It was on purpose. It signifies that wisdom and experience should be there by now but obviously isn't.

Whilst we are at it. I don't technically post abuse, I return it in language which isn't veiled in false reasoning. You know when I react to filth. Filth reckons that being clean means you are vulnerable to filth, hence false concern rather than just saying he doesn't like gay people and would advocate stigmatising them for no reason.

Mind you, he has come out with it to be fair. Once you either provoke him or somebody tries to understand him, he lets it slip that the liberal society needs stopping and tolerating gays is a sickness of liberals. Nice.   When you are lonely in your views you grasp at any straw.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 10:42 AM

I find your posts almost incomprehnsible Ian, I really think you should see a doctor, as far as debate or exploring the causes of, or the solution to the epidemic is concerned, you are a complete waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 10:50 AM

Nice people are nice and mean people ain't... Ain't about being gay, or Presbyterian, or left handed or any of that stuff...

But even nice people can be pushed too far by the mean people and then they don't sound so nice... Myself included...

But, hey, everyday when I wake up I think to myself, "What are you going to do today to be nice?"... Doesn't mean I won't disagree with you... It does, however, mean that I try to do it nicely...

If everyone made just a little effort we'd all be better off...

In the words of the late Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 11:23 AM

"Oh, the reference to old. It was on purpose. It signifies that wisdom and experience should be there by now but obviously isn't. "

That's clever, but somehow rings a bit questionable.

I suppose that when we use say "fat" or "black" in the same way we could say something similar. I don't think it would convnce too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 12:16 PM

GUEST,Musket evolving slowly

Whilst we are at it. I don't technically post abuse, I return it in language which isn't veiled in false reasoning.

So when you called me a "Dozy sod" what that I had said were you "returning"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 12:28 PM

I woulldn't class "dozy sod" or "fescking eejit"really as abuse. Nor for that matter really "bloody po-faced so and so". They don't really add too much to the discussion, but I suppose they satisfy some need. "Ventilating" is how Social Workers term it. Better than being clobbered, though of course that option isn't available here.

So long as they don't say "I know where you live"... With a picture of your house from Google.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 12:56 PM

Well I did live in Loughton, with rellies in Harlow, so it wouldn't be too hard... ;-)

The need satisfied in me by my calling you a po-faced so-and-so, and calling Snail lotsa things, relates to the frustration I feel when youse misrepresent what I'm saying or what you think I'm thinking. People do it in order to make their own argument instead of being straight, and it happens all the time. Tell me if I'm wrong, but, on the whole, I think I express myself clearly enough for me to be able to expect it not to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket penny dropping on snails
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 01:13 PM

That isn't abuse. Believe me. A ventilation methinks but not abuse.

In the meantime, don't mind me I'm a waste of time apparently. By wonderful coincidence I wasted said time today discussing the commissioning of sexual health services, the slightly different needs of our local population, a third rural and two thirds in the city. I tried to see if anybody was going to suggest registration and enforced screening of people but nobody seemed to be lever enough to suggest it.

Possibly because we made the mistake of only inviting members of the human race to the meeting. Sadly, public health doctors, gynaecologists, substance misuse social workers, finance people, estates management types and those of us trying to hold the fort together seem to fit in that category.

So it looks like we are all going to die horribly and float off to Hell in a handcart. If only humans were able to factor in hatred, lying about figures and views held by 0.00001% of the population eh?   

They may be 0.00001% but they are clearly the bottom 0.00001%.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 01:18 PM

I wasn't complaining, and as I said I don't see the words as anything to worry about, but it makes more sense to spell out the disagreement. If I have misrepresented your meaning that was a mistake, and I apologise.

I think it can be fair to identify what we see as implications of what someone says which they might not like, or which we see as involving self-contradictions, but we should never present those as things they have actually asserted, which I think is what you mean there. That does happen quite a lot - it's a very common debating trick.