BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:19 PM

....or you can go back and read the whole thread.....it's rather revealing, as to the cast of characters, and the tactics....mostly frothing and foaming, name calling, but little facts, by the 'usual suspects!

GfS

---

BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban - the whole huge thread. I'm going to delete GfS's 759-line post quoting much of this grudge match.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:44 PM

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.

Fine. But you omitted to say that you were also being provocative and mischievous. You suggested that my not wishing to gainsay Charles Darwin somehow had religious overtones. It was a stupid remark which had no connection with my real feelings on the matter, which you know only too well. You were misrepresenting me in that, by saying what I did, I was simply trying to remain accurate in the scientific sense, but, for my sins, I attracted a stupid comment from you and a hefty dose of brainless camp-following from pete and Snail. And you wonder why people get narked when they're misrepresented. Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:48 PM

A link to the thread would have been sufficient, and, I dare say, attracted more readers than taking up the board with masses of copy and paste, which merely irritates everybody. We already know you're a waste of space. There's no need to try to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 03:00 PM

I just returned to this thread after spending a little time in the REAL world.

MY GAWD!!!

First of all, Ebbie, I have to admire your stamina in reading the whole bloody thread! You must really have a strong stomach!

And as to YOU, Goofball, "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,"

You certainly have a hyper-inflated idea of your own importance as far as I'm concerned. I don't have (or need) "little helpers," and as far as trying to "discredit" you, I don't need to. You do a fine job of that yourself, every time you post something.

Crawl back into your Petri dish.

(I'm going back to the real world. It smells better.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 03:08 PM

That last post by "Sanity" should perhaps have been shown in green ink.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:04 PM

McGrath of Harlow

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.

Not in the same league as some of the stuff that's being thrown at Akenaton, GfS and pete but it's the principle of the thing. You seemed to get a bit agitated about Steve's reference to a "thick French peasant" (presumably a reference to Saint Bernadette Soubirous). The need that is satisfied is the put down. Putting the insolent little oik in his place. The psychology of the school yard.

You quite rightly said that Steve can sound in danger of falling into treating Darwin as a belief system not open to revision. Strangely he didn't pick you up on that, only called me a "feckin' eejit" when I agreed with you. In his reply to your post, he did say "Carry on like that and you'll end up in the naughty corner with Wacko, Ron, pete, Hawk and Guffers.". (Not me I notice. Not sure if that's good or bad.) I wonder what gives him the right to talk to you like that. I have never knowingly misrepresented Steve but I may, from time to time, have misunderstood what he was saying as he is frequently self-contradictory and inconsistent.

GUEST,Musket penny dropping on snails

Sounds like a day well spent but I'm not sure what any of it has to do with me. In what way has the penny dropped? Do you think I'm part of the " bottom 0.00001%"? Do you think I'm a homophobic, racist bigot? Have I accused you of being "a waste of time"? You picked me up on what, to anyone who doesn't have a scientific background, might seem a fairly abstruse point but does in fact relate to my "disagreement" with Steve, that is, the status of a scientific theory. What was the purpose in starting off "Dozy sod""? Later "I don't have a working hypothesis on human snails. If I called you a dozy sod it would be deduction from observation.". Is this really the language of someone with a PhD in mechanical vibration and a senior management position in the NHS?

I can understand the reaction to the likes of Akenaton, GfS and pete (even if I can't quite see the point) but when you extend it to your responses to anyone who doesn't quite see things your way, I think you need to stop and take a look at yourself.

Steve and Ian (and their trusty henchgnome Dave) are coming over like a bunch of playground bullies demanding respect on pain of a good beating.

P.S. Ian, I still think you're wrong about Newton v Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:09 PM

Since then -

I attracted a stupid comment from you and a hefty dose of brainless camp-following from pete and Snail.

Reee-spect!

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

No-ones henchgnome, Bryan. I follow my own feelings and no-one else. How are things in Lewes? Still running the perfect folk club with no bad acts ever daring to enter the hallowed doors?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:19 PM

Well that was a tremendous amount of work..going through six months of Joe Offer's posts, to find those posts, NOT from the 'Prop8' thread. but rather the Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 02:42 AM ...and on down. You will plainly see that when From: KB in Iowa Was I even aware of the post in question!!!
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 12:49 PM


.......As for your father, being molested, having six kids, then turning homosexual....maybe he should have tried the counseling, that you seem to deny the rights of homosexuals to be able to get?...even heterosexual rape victims get counseling.

Your 'rap' still falls down!

GfS

Don was quoting you there GfS, not talking abut his own experience.

..Then This: From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 08:33 PM

Gosh, I can't find that post...refresh my memory....my father was NOT ever a homosexual....let me see if that post is even there...or show me.
(or someone used my name)..... "

To this: "From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:14 AM

OK, Ok, calm down. If you need me to verify authorship of a post, give me the date, time, thread name, and the posted user name.
-Joe-
[e-mail]

TO THIS: Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 01:24 AM

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-

To THIS: "From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:07 PM

GfS, whether you actually wrote that or not is still up in the air.

From Joe:

    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 [emphasis mine – DF].

So--Joe's research did solidly establish that it did not come from me! And that's what you've been trying to claim—that I posted the comment about your father, using your handle.

TO THIS: "From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:47 PM

You are quite wrong Ebbie, What Joe actually said was that he did NOT believe Sanity had written the piece in question."

SO from 9 Feb 10, to 25 Feb 10 Should cover it.!!

Dollars to doughnuts it wasn't Joe who erased my post!

If anyone one wants a real clue what this is about!

REPEAT, not the 'Prop.8' thread......the discovery was made in the "Death penalty for homosexuality?" Thread!!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:25 PM

Anyone else losing the will to live?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:28 PM

If it quacks etc. Yeah, guilty on both charges. Anyway, getting a bit paranoid aren't we? Only that thick twat in Scotland is part of my arbitrary percentage. Goofus doesn't count on account of his physical location and mental condition.

Oh. You raise the Principia again. Don't blame me for saying it this time. Your fault.

Dozy sod.



We must have met. I played a few gigs in Lewes when I was a director of a company near you, all based on thermodynamics.   There was a time when they understood physics in Sussex by the sea. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:34 PM

Once again, you make absolutely no sense!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:41 PM

No, it wouldn't GfS. We are not speaking in tongues.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:05 PM

The mental processes of the Musket -

"Well, here's a chap who has some sort of education in science but clearly not up to my PhD in mechanical vibration. How should I respond to him? I could present a coherent logical argument to make him realise the error of his ways or I could listen to what he has to say to see whether or not he has a valid point to make.

Sod it! This is Mudcat.

DOZY SOD!

P.S. DId you follow that link in my "parting shot"? Probably not. It included the lines -

Thus the new theory of gravitation diverges widely from that of Newton with respect to its basal principle. But in practical application the two agree so closely that it has been difficult to find cases in which the actual differences could be subjected to observation.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:23 PM

You quite rightly said that Steve can sound in danger of falling into treating Darwin as a belief system not open to revision. Strangely he didn't pick you up on that

Strangely, yes I did pick him up on it. Here's what I said, just a couple of posts down the thread from where he said that:

That's a pretty silly remark. Darwin demarcated natural selection, for the purpose of his theory, as the non-random survival of heritable factors within species. You draw up one of the greatest of all scientific theories not by being sloppy but by defining your frames of reference carefully. I'll leave it to the "social Darwinists" or eugenicists, far lesser men than Darwin, to tendentiously redefine his terms, thank you.

You see, Snail? Not only did I pick him up on it, I explained comprehensively to him why he was wrong. It was a misrepresentation of the idea I'd expressed, and now here you are misrepresenting me on top. As you don't like being called names, I'll leave the rest of the readership here to decide for themselves whether you're a liar. Or we could just be really kind to you and simply call you sloppy and careless.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:23 PM

If it quacks etc. Yeah, guilty on both charges.

Hang on a minute. I assumed you were pleading guilty on "both charges" although I wasn't sure which. Are you actually saying that I am guilty both charges? Do you actually think I'm part of the " bottom 0.00001%"? Do you actually think I'm a homophobic, racist bigot? You'd better have a good lawyer.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:29 PM

Dearie me, no he doesn't include you in his bottom 0.00001%. Quoth he:

Only that thick twat in Scotland is part of my arbitrary percentage.

You are having difficulties tonight, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:35 PM

So what did he mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:40 PM

Read his lips, fer chrissake. "Only that thick twat in Scotland is part of my arbitrary percentage", generally speaking, means "Only that thick twat in Scotland is part of his arbitrary percentage". I hereby wish to apprise you of a significant little fact. That thick twat in Scotland is not you. You are not "it". Hope this helps, at least before I start to question my own bloody sanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:46 PM

If it quacks etc. Yeah, guilty on both charges.

So what did he mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:51 PM

He'll tell you if he can be arsed. Just be thankful that you're not that thick twat in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:54 PM

Only in a thread about respect could the usual bunch of shits stand out so glaringly.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 07:03 PM

I think there might have been a misunderstanding, Steve. My point about "not to gainsay Darwin" wasn't that I was saying anything about Darwin, or disputing anything he wrote. I was remarking that to me the phrase seemed to suggest an attitude that the fact Darwin had said something was in itself a reason to accept it.

In other words you could be in danger of falling into the fallacy of appealing to authority. It's very easily done when we greatly respect the authority.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 07:58 PM

But that is not what I was doing. Darwin was extremely careful to define natural selection. The term, along with its bedfellow "survival of the fittest", has been widely abused by charlatans who have applied it inappropriately to other fields of human discourse, all the way along to Adolf Hitler. Even during his life, Darwin counselled against the loose use of the term. Once you loosen its application, you degrade its meaning. I was being careful not to apply the term to pre-life chemistry, though for all I know it may have occurred in some form. I can hardly attack its widespread misuse, as I often do, if I misuse the term myself. My approach was careful, considered, measured, and not in any sense devotional or religious or appealing to authority. A moment's thought would have revealed that to you, but instead you decided you just couldn't resist the silly dig.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM

"Even during his life..." - ah, the absurdities go on... :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:01 PM

""These insults are designed to silence debate, and are used when the abusers have no rational response to add.""

There simply isn't any rational response to incoherent, ignorant, biased rants.

If GfS put more thought into constructing rational, coherent prose instead of self praising burblings, there might be.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:06 PM

Ian, why would you insult my friend akenaton?

Anyone who wants to be "fucked in the arse" is a masochist.

That's no reflection whatsoever on my friend Pat.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ian.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:15 PM

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

Unfortunately we can't Bobert unless we are prepared to condone the narrow blinkered outlook of people like Ake and GfS, who are too mean spirited to keep their noses out of other people's sexual orientation.

It used to be Black People, then Communists, now it's Muslims, Travellers and Gays, with a smattering of anti liberalism from people who wouldn't recognise liberalism if it bit 'em on the arse.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:18 PM

Because when Akenaton produces FACT, that are not 'politically correct' to the 'so-called liberal' agenda, and shows their main concerns are not anything based in reality, they call him/us names, and go out of their ways to draw attention AWAY from the human factor, and onto the plastic political pipe dream....which, of course was sold to them by the corporate/governmental conglomerate!

...and they don't even see it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:19 PM

Are you saying that you disapprove of what consenting adults do in private or what? I've always regarded it as none of my business. And calling persons who practise things you're not keen on "masochists" says a lot more about you that it does about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:29 PM

There simply isn't any rational response to incoherent, ignorant, biased rants.

If GfS put more thought into constructing rational, coherent prose instead of self praising burblings, there might be.

Yebbut that's as likely as a duff bottle of Hirondelle, Don. I find myself hardly ever reading his posts nowadays. I ignore him, more or less. It doesn't matter even if he says very nasty things, because everybody here knows he's as daft as a brush. Barking, I'd say. Let the poor chap get on with it!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:44 PM

Yeah, Steve, I've heard that ignorance is bliss..you must be one happy person!
How come you don't sound like one?

Hmmm .......could 'delusion' have anything to do with it??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 02:01 AM

Bloody hell snail. . You quoted my qualification and present role. Yes. I am guilty of both. Stop thinking the world revolves around you for once. I was referring to me, and two observations you made about me.

Dozy sod.

I don't insult Akenaton. I go out of my way to find stronger and stronger insults to hurl at those who insult common decency. That the person behind Akenaton, your post confirms what I was told recently by the way, seeks to stigmatise a whole section of society with no reason makes him not fit for debating with. I return to my earlier point. You cannot debate with a book that is written, you can only review it. He was given the facts about his hobby horse a long time ago. He looked at official figures and deliberately misrepresented them. He didn't alter his view in the light of evidence and went on to confirm his real agenda.

Nothing respectful in what he writes. Nothing decent in what he portrays.


Hi Goofus! How's the medication going?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 03:38 AM

Only in a thread about respect could the usual bunch of shits stand out so glaringly.

I'm not even going to ask who you refer to, Jeri. I just find it so funny to have a go at people about respect by calling them a bunch of shits! Best laugh on the thread so far :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 04:07 AM

Thank you for that clarification, Musket. Given your track record, you can hardly be surprised that I thought you might be habding out more insults.

I wonder what you're like in business meetings.

Off to Whitby. Be nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 04:16 AM

The usual suspects trashing each other about trashing each other.........Jeri, you said it well!


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 05:34 AM

Off to Whitby? You mean he's not here? Groovy! Ahem:



EVOLUTION IS TRUE! EVOLUTION IS TRUE! EVOLUTION IS TRUE!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 05:37 AM

From Steven

"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."


:0)....But don't you realise Steve that Ian and yourself do exactly that...all the time.

Your response to my opinions, are that you think I hate homosexuals, despite me having denied that countless times.
I do infact care about infection rates in this epidemic, I feel they are being ignored or concealed for political reasons and people are dying needlessly or living out a life sentence of ill health.
Who know what the long term effects of anti- viral therapy will be?


Same with people of faith, you think they have a desire to convert people, or are "tea party conservatives", or wish to denigrate science.
Most people of faith that I know, just want to feel a little more secure in a world which seems to be falling apart socially.
They are all good people, I admire them and sometimes wish that I could have a faith.....a social and moral roadmap some sense in it all,especially our own short lifespan.

Your abuse is directed at what you imagine other people to think, the
very thing which causes YOU to become frustrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

sometimes wish that I could have a faith.....a social and moral roadmap some sense in it all,especially our own short lifespan

You don't need a faith for that. If you want to see sense in it all, a faith will simply block your view (you might still be happy, however). There are millions both with and without faith who have superb moral and social roadmaps, as well as millions in both camps who don't. A faith is a crutch that you can easily do without. Healthy minds don't need crutches any more than healthy bodies do.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 06:47 AM

""Because when Akenaton produces FACT, that are not 'politically correct' to the 'so-called liberal' agenda,""

But when we quote FACTS which conflict with his/your homophobic agenda, and give the lie to the claims of an epidemic of hellish proportions, such as the fact that the medical profession have reduced HIV to ""a manageable condition which should not significantly reduce life expectancy"", they are simply ignored.

You gay haters are entitled to your own opinions, but NOT your own facts, and in any choice between your bias and qualified medical opinion, all facts have to be acknowledged, not just those you twist to make your mean spirited points.

And Ake should really make the effort to catch up and drop the "only interested in the health risks" nonsense, which has been thoroughly busted many times over.

His agenda is very obviously NOT anti HIV, but consistently anti gay.

"Live and let live" is not on his radar, and not just when it comes to gays, but travellers, voters for the "wrong" party, liberals (whatever he means by that) and anyone else who disagrees with the great Pharaoh.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 06:55 AM

Many people need crutches Steve......there are many minds out there....isn't "equality" a "crutch" of sorts?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 07:11 AM

Don, could you please explain how anyone with a brain could be anti-homosexual?
My stance has always been against the promotion of male homosexuality as a safe and healthy alternative lifestyle and legislation to bring that lifestyle into the social mainstream.
Such legislation is a distraction and an impediment to the treatment of the huge rates of sexual infection within that group.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 08:08 AM

This is rather like playground squabbles. "You are a sneak/fat/rubbish" "No I'm not" "Yes you are" ad infinitum, or till the bell goes for playtime's over.

The search facility makes it easy to pull up a link to a set of anyone's previous posts if anyone wants to clarify where the truth lies in these exchanges. But surely life's too short for that kind of thng?...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 08:17 AM

Life's too short, apparently, for a few people round here who think they know what you said and think they know what you think but can't be arsed to go back and check before spouting off.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 08:17 AM

Life's too short, apparently, for a few people round here who think they know what you said and think they know what you think but can't be arsed to go back and check before spouting off.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 08:23 AM

...against the promotion of male homosexuality...

Ah yes, the old "promotion" chestnut. So who's "promoting" male homosexuality (which presumably means recommending it as better than heterosexuality)? I see no evangelical crusade to encourage people to be male homosexuals. Certainly, no-one here is "promoting" it. Defending it against bigotry is not promoting it, just in case you're confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 09:47 AM

I don't think he's confused. I have given him plenty of opportunities to wriggle out of hissstance and he hasn't.

I think he is fucking evil for what it is worth.

My evidence being that he speaks of promoting something to bring it in to mainstream lifestyle.

It is mainstream lifestyle for whomever wishes it to be so. No promotion. Just fact. Demonising people purely for existing is fucking evil.

Pardon my French.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 10:47 AM

Steve Shaw: "EVOLUTION IS TRUE! EVOLUTION IS TRUE! EVOLUTION IS TRUE!"

Not saying that it isn't, but, What happened in your case?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 10:52 AM

When people talk about 'mainstream' in terms of music it's about identifying what is most widespread, not about denigrating music that only has a minority appeal.

It would be absurd in this society to talk about folk music as 'mainstream' though perhaps I would wish it to be so. I might object to someone saying that my taste in music is abnormal (though I couldn't care less if they did, so long as they didn't interfere with my freedom to play it and hear it) but 'not mainstream', that's a different thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 12:00 PM

Best post on this entire thread:


Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 11:51 AM

After 173 posts I think it is about time someone told y'all to go fuck yourselves.


Go fuck yourselves........



Spaw


I laughed so hard! I cannot even tell you how funny that was. Still is...