BS: the demise of the boring thread

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 02:52 PM

A complete, total, and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said! And of the situation I described.

People, read what I said, not what this creature says I said!

Goofball, how can you be such an egregious liar and still look at yourself in a mirror?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 02:24 PM

Yeah..Don is now trying to prove that people can be homosexual, by choice.....or something like that...if he thinks a guy can just turn it on and then turn it off(or the other way around), do I need to say more??....except, that the post was not mine....but if Don wants to think so, he just shot himself in the foot!...along with all the other 'No Choice' advocates!!

'Stereo politicians', speaking out of both sides of their mouths!!

This is a riot!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 12:50 PM

Jeri, it's on the Prop 8 thread, on page 31. Posted on 06 May 09 - 12:38 AM. Word for word.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 11:18 AM

Which one?...I'll even help you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 10:01 AM

Don, I couldn't find the quote, as written originally by GfS, on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 02:10 AM

Be my guest...explain it.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 12:06 AM

You don't know the complexity of the circumstances, Goofball. You are making the whole thing up. And once again--

The encounter was NOTHING like the way you're trying to characterize it. Far different.

You are lying through your teeth--again--and, as usual, you are assuming that I am the kind of person who would operate with YOUR standards of behavior!

No way!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 11:43 PM

oh.....and blaming her for the whole thing!!!
What a 'Gentleman and a Scholar'!!
Did you also 'champion 'Women's Rights'???...to 'feel' important??

Get real!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 11:29 PM

'Common decency'?? coming from you??....what are you referring to?...knocking up some chick and leaving her pregnant to go pursue your 'career'??
You are the Achilles heel for your whole trip!

....and I'm being 'kind'...all things considering!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 11:16 PM

No political agenda, Goofup. Just common decency.

He's beginning to sound a bit desperate--

No, he's been desperate all along.

And this--individual--once claimed that he was a family counselor!!

Ye Gods!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 10:50 PM

Bullshit, Don...Mudcat is the ONLY forum, or website I have posted on.

"The idea that a gay man might marry and even have children before he takes up with a male lover does not mean that he "decided" to be gay. He may have been gay all along, but fighting his natural inclinations."

What a twist of spinning!...If he was having sex with a woman, bearing children, and raising them, is a attribute of being heterosexual...unless YOU decide he 'changed his mind'...which of course, blows your argument out of the water that, 'they can't change'.

Good Lord, keep track of which side of your mouth your talking out of...unless, of course, you are using a different orifice!

see, that's the whole gist of politicizing, using opinions rather than fact, and playing on people's emotions....they'll use whatever bullshit serves their immediate purpose!...Which also fits Don's profile of supporting non-facts, speculations, and lies to put over whatever crap he's pushing.
Ya' want to re-live history??....why don't you give us the bullshit lines you used to get laid...and then top it off with why you decides to leave her...and why she wanted NOTHING to do with you!!...even moved to Canada!...but who could believe you'd tell the truth??...and now you want to politically champion other sexual behaviors???? What an 'expert'!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 10:13 PM

Ver-r-r-ry interesting, Jeri…….

Word for word, which means either that Goofus is spreading his propaganda over other web sites as well as Mudcat – or that, among other things, he is a plagiarist.

The idea that a gay man might marry and even have children before he takes up with a male lover does not mean that he "decided" to be gay. He may have been gay all along, but fighting his natural inclinations. In other words, in denial. I know a gay man (the one in our writers' group) who was married to a woman, but the two of them were never really happy. She didn't know what the problem was until he told her straight out (having come to terms with his own urges) that he was gay and was trying not to be—and it wasn't working. She gave him a divorce, and a little while later, he moved in with the man he's living with now (they were married a few months ago, right after Washington State legalized gay marriage). Now? No problem! He's still friends with his ex-wife, so no sweat. She's happy that he's happy, and she's going her own way. Fortunately the split came before they had children.

I can't help but think about young Matthew Shepard, who was taken out on a country road, tied to a fence, then tortured and pistol-whipped. His assailants left him simply hanging there, with a fractured skull and severe brain damage. Many hours later someone found him and took him to a hospital where he died without ever regaining consciousness.

Why?

Because he was gay.

So other than being gay, what had he done to deserve that kind of fate?

Nothing!

That's the result of the kind of irrational hatred that a couple of people on this thread are spewing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 08:08 PM

GfS, I can't find any post you might have been denying having written, but I only went back a couple years in that thread.

I did find this on Yahoo:

"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.

BTW, that's not the entire piece.

I'm going to read the whole "people choose to be gay" thing as meaning the person asserting so made a choice to be straight, meaning they could've been gay or bisexual. Not everyone is inclined in both directions. I don't think there's anything wrong with people who DO have the option to decide, but it's not something everyone has.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 07:56 PM

historic perspective on homosexuality and biology 

A historic article from the 1990s. It's interesting how not much more has been confirmed by research since this article was written, thogh there hsve been a number if "dead ends" and steos backwards after research and therepy errors were exhausted or exposed. It is also interesting how many "experts" with an agenda are certain they know much more on tge topic than exhaustive research has been abke to unearth.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 07:49 PM

Epigenetics.

Not just the genes themselves, but how the genes express themselves.

Fertile field. Explains a lot.

But no matter how you try to slice it, sexual orientation is STILL not a matter of choice.

Look it up, Goofus. I want to see what kind of a hash you manage to make out of that.

Don Firth

P. S. I love science! It can get complicated, but it's so clean.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 06:59 PM

I repeat research gfs, not your opinion of how the complex human body and mind works (which seems in your last post, IMO, extremely simplistic).

My request seems reasonable, and indeed not greater scientific evidence than you have requested of others.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 06:40 PM

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Goofup.

Twist and shout.

Nurse!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 05:59 PM

Stressed hormones are caused by stress, which is behavioral. Genes are inherited.
What else do you need to know?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 05:55 PM

Ebbie: "
I'm kind of tired of the dancing around the subject. Here is what was said from GfS's computer some years ago:

"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."

Are you trying to say that homosexuality is a CHOICE???????????????...and NOT genetic, but cause by the behavior of a molester????

Don't tell Don(and others) that you are breaking ranks!

Also, you didn't post this one, either by negligence, or intentionally:

"Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:02 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)....." ...and called for the mods to check the source....because I didn't know where the hell that came from!
But, yes, it was posted from my computer.
..and somebody did...the post was NOT from me....Jeez, the liberal based mindset must cause Alzheimer's!!
How many times do we have to go over this??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 05:27 PM

Do you have evidence (research) to show homosexuality is behavioral versus biological (not limited to genetic), gfs? If so, I have not seen the research put forward for consideration.

If not, would it not be an "over-reach" to classify if as behavior based. A few cases involving personal choice hardly makes a sufficient case to make that leap (most logical thinkers have a higher standard of proof than that).

I am not doubting your conviction. However, as you make a statement, it is your task to show others how it so, or at least on what basis you were so convinced of such a conviction. If one cause has not been determined, this does not give another one more validity because of that.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 05:14 PM

D.F: "We do not (or certain should not) deny rights and privileges to those whose skin color or eye shape is different from ours, nor do we discriminate against those whose dominant hand is different from ours."


You intermingle two separate things...You are equating a 'civil right' issue, (genetic), to a behavioral(non genetic) issue.

Different animal.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 05:10 PM

I'm kind of tired of the dancing around the subject. Here is what was said from GfS's computer some years ago:

"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 withthe 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."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 04:37 PM

"Chimpanzees are humans closest living relatives.  They have been on a separate evolutionary path from humans for only 6-7 million years.  Subsequently, they still share most of the human genes... differing by only 1-2% in terms of DNA sequences. "

Unlike some human males, in some countries, chimpanzees don't "masterbate in front of their computers while watching pornography". Given ths choice, it is unlikely they would do so either.

The reason clearly must be in the 1-2 percent of the genes, or possibly better upbringing and values than their human counterparts?

Note:
(The above example can possibly be confused with some of the logic put forward in this thread).

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 04:08 PM

After all this latest twisting and writhing of his, does anyone have any doubt that Goofball is in serious need of psychiatric help?

Nurse!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 03:48 PM

Yeah...maybe we should remember Pelosi's now most famous quote.."Let's pass this bill so we can see what's in it"....sounds like 'democracy' to me!...The insurance companies, who stood to benefit the most, aren't a majority of people...BUT, they are pretty powerful cronies!!

AND....

NEWS ALERT:
SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE FOUND A GENE THAT CAUSES MIDDLE AGES MEN TO MASTURBATE IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPUTER SCREENS, WHILE WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY!... Details at ten.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 03:20 PM

Corruption is one thing, ignoring the wishes of citizens who elect them...those they are elected to represent... is a very serious issue for democracy. No wonder respect for polititions and politics is at an all time low (my observation). Significant at a time where awareness is at an all time high (internet). One result is apathy and frustration, but not protest and change?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 03:01 PM

Mudbutt: "Top man!
What's your secret Don?"

That's all we need, another General in the crowd!
You obviously aren't reading or comprehending the posts!..which doesn't surprise me!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 02:21 PM

Ed T: "GFS, do you actually believe that the current democratic system is immune to that type of thing in other areas? If so, you shojld take off your rose coloured democractic glasses."

Actually, I've been railing about corruption in politics for quite a long time now...Bobert and I went round a bout, repeatedly. He was all about 'everything Democratic Party', while I was telling him that BOTH parties are corrupt.
Does anyone contest the obvious fact???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 02:19 PM

Top man!

What's your secret Don?



Goofus doesn't surprise me. That said, I'd love him to actually understand other posts because to date, he posts based on misunderstanding them, not to mention his character assassination of Don.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 02:16 PM

No Don, someone didn't 'sneak in' and use my computer...BUT, I suspect it was done by another musician who thought that arguing with political meat-heads, was wasting too much rehearsal time.


My father did not run off with a 'male lover'....if he would have, that would have shot your whole premise in the head....about people changing their 'sexual orientation' My dad died at 60, after having six children, and being faithful to his wife, the whole time...something that just confounds people like Don...a rather novel concept to him and his ilk!!

D.F.: "Goofus was trying to "prove" that sexual orientation is not genetic but a matter of choice with that little story, then, too late, he realized he'd shot himself in the foot—and claimed the I had posted it using his handle. When one of the mud-elves checked the IP address on the post, it showed that it had come from Goofup's computer!"

Gosh, did it ever occur to you, that I had NO idea, at the time, WHERE that post came from?????

As far as 'proving sexual orientation is not genetic' I'm not trying to prove anything of the sort...but speaking of 'proving', nobody has proved that it IS genetically based...so let's not try another ATTEMPT at spinning your 'hunch' that it is genetic...besides, "..other factors play a greater role..." (from not only the latest study, but quite a few before it)...something you fail to address, in your 'quest' to make it something that it is, either not, or has yet to have been proven!!....and 'blame' it on women who 'carry the gene!!

D.F.: "Does anyone have any doubts that Goofball is pathologically incapable of telling the truth?"

Look who is calling the kettle black!....and I bet you there ARE those who have serious doubts that I'm incapable of telling the truth....and there are those who see me as telling the truth..but that shouldn't matter to you...TRUTH isn't included in your agendas!!

D.F.: "And as to his allegation about my getting a girl pregnant and then taking off—never happened!"

WHAT???????....Talk about bold face lying!!!...not only that, you blamed the girl!!!!...and said she did everything she could to keep you away from them!..Need a 'cut and paste'??

D.F.: "Goofball's vivid imagination. Or more likely, an attempt on his part to discredit me any way he can."

No, Don....you don't need any more help, you've done a great job all by yourself!!

But then, you will support a lie, or even speculation if you think it will get you what you want to believe!

Remember and how many times I had to answer you with Kennedy's quote on evading a question by answering his own misstatement??...but even Kennedy acknowledged that sooner or later, people catch on....

OR, as Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

That's politics for ya'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 02:04 PM

And as to Goofball's riff about my having my "homosexual buddies" over as dinner guests with no mention of women present…….

Bull droppings!

My wife and I often have dinner guests in on holidays, and these guests generally include one man who is in our writers' group who is gay, and he comes with his partner. Women guests include Bernice and Mariah, who are also in the writers' group, and Rebecca, an artist who lives upstairs along with her actor husband Paul, who also comes—plus a few other people if they are available, such as my sister, Pat.

Goofus is apparently trying to make it sound like I have gay orgies at my apartment. But how can that be, when I'm always out picking up girls in bars, knocking them up, and dumping them? And my wife says nothing about this!??

I must be a very busy fellow. Virile, too!!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 01:22 PM

"Gosh, what other violations of the will of the people get overturned....BASED ON A HUNCH???"

GFS, do you actually believe that the current democratic system is immune to that type of thing in other areas? If so, you shojld take off your rose coloured democractic glasses. (I suspect you are mostly caught up in making a point on homosexuality related issues, and did not think that one out objectively).

Once elected, under representive democracy, the will of those in power, and those who theh are connected to is the #1 priority. Only during election time are promises made to lure voters, and quickly forgotten, put on the back burner, or explained away until the next election time. That mostly sums up the state of "the will of the people" in a current democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 01:18 PM

The kind of hate that is spawned by people like Ake and Goofball HAS led to atrocities like the brutal torture and murder of Matthew Shepard. If you don't know who Matthew Shepard is, I suggest you look him up and read what happened to him at the hands of two homophobes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 01:02 PM

Does anyone believe that riff of Goofus's that someone else snuck in and used his computer to post a message that his father, after siring six kids, decided to be gay and ran off with a male lover—as a joke?

Goofus was trying to "prove" that sexual orientation is not genetic but a matter of choice with that little story, then, too late, he realized he'd shot himself in the foot—and claimed the I had posted it using his handle. When one of the mud-elves checked the IP address on the post, it showed that it had come from Goofup's computer! Busted!! So twisting like a snake, he then claimed that one of his buddies snuck in and posted the message as a joke!

Some joke!

Does anyone have any doubts that Goofball is pathologically incapable of telling the truth?

And as to his allegation about my getting a girl pregnant and then taking off—never happened! Goes along with his lies about me picking up girls in bars, knocking them up and then deserting them. Never, not even once. Goofball's vivid imagination. Or more likely, an attempt on his part to discredit me any way he can.

Desperate, pathetic little dork!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 12:03 PM

Mudbut: "They don't even say an uncomfortable truth, they are just fantasy based on fear and ignorance."

Sorta like believing that homosexuality is based on genes...and passing laws based on a 'hunch'....even overriding the democratically voted on, will of the people!
Gosh, what other violations of the will of the people get overturned....BASED ON A HUNCH???

This has NOTHING to do with 'homophobia' or 'bigotry'....it has to do with subverting the democratic process!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 09:44 AM

No. It can be harrowing, it can be uncomfortable but it can never be an insult.

Which is why your observations are an insult. They don't even say an uncomfortable truth, they are just fantasy based on fear and ignorance.

Don't bother with the potted history, just the bit where you decided to come out with your base bigotry and assume anyone wished to hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 07:14 AM

Can the truth ever be an insult Ian?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 06:43 AM

And your filth is an insult to thousands and thousands of gay couples in this country alone.

But don't let common decency stop you, worm.

We'll never know if you are a closet gay or not, because gay men have their standards.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 04:24 AM

Don, your assertions are an insult, to both myself and my wife of 45 years.
I could give you a potted history of my life, but what's the point?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 03:13 AM

You see, Don, I don't have anyone close to me or in the family who decided to change their 'orientation', and we've been around this bush before, about yes the post was from my computer, but it was not authored by me....(I don't know how many times(I think a half dozen...now go count). Even the mod, Joe told you before it didn't even sound like me....but that's another issue..what's really amazingly typical, is that you had to throw that in, as to 'color' is some weird light, that you'd like....but that doesn't surprise me...because from your 'explanation post' you pretty much said that you would support and promote a lie, or speculation, if it got what you what you want to believe!!!...True story..go back and read it...and my question...(besides, you're known for spinning the truth on here...so much that others have told you, as well.

Speaking of genetic based, versus hormonal influences, a funny thing happened when you directed me to check out the archives('Prop 8')...I noticed while you were 'celebrating the fact' that you were 'so hip', that you had all your homosexual buddies over for dinner,(and I brought this up to you before)...but something jumped out, anew....(I should cut and paste this)....I suspect why you insist on the 'gene' theory....and most always you make a point that the woman carries that 'GENE'....and, you are pretty famous for never admitting a flaw, no matter how much it glares out...OK..back to the point...I've always maintained that the influences of the hormones while the baby is being formed, from a stressed mother(being as they share the same nervous system, in the formative stages) had a greater influence, than a simple gene(and THAT is BACKED up by studies)......maybe you don't want to think of yourself as the cause of that stress, because, in the names you mentioned, as dinner guests, that night, I noticed you included your son's name...and no women were mentioned as present.
It would only make sense, to want to 'champion' a lie, maybe to make amends, for getting the girl pregnant and taking off...(you can insert your own rationalization).....Oh, and that's 'only' a
SUGGESTION and speculation, with reasonable evidence....just like what you support!!!
....but then, like I said:

"but that doesn't surprise me...because from your 'explanation post' you pretty much said that you would support and promote a lie, or speculation, if it got what you what you want to believe!!!...True story.."

It got you laid, didn't it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:33 PM

No, Ake, I'm spot on.

It's long, but read the whole thing:   Homophobia: The Fear Behind The Hatred.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 07:57 PM

Sorry Don, but you really have lost the plot.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 02:37 PM

"What I found 'telling', is that when YOU found someone you suspected of being homosexual, you called it 'dirty', as you referred to it!
" ...Sorta a 'Freudian Slip' there, Chief."

Sorry, Goofup, but you've once again got the wrong end of the stick. The "dirty little secret" is not that same-sex orientation is "dirty," but that you denying the likely genetic base of sexual orientation because a very close relative of yours (according to you) "decided" to be gay and deserted the family to run off with his male lover is pretty limp. If there is a genetic basis for sexual orientation, then your own orientation can appear pretty precarious, so you go into severe denial. Which includes trying to convince yourself that there is nothing to the idea of sexual orientation being genetics based. Claiming that sexual orientation is just a matter of choice is simply you whistling in the dark, AND to take a political or social activist position on that basis is pretty damned sleazy. THAT's the dirty little secret.

I've met flaming homophobes before, and every damned one of them has been a closet gay—in the closet to themselves, even though their problem was patently obvious to everyone else.

Both you and your Scottish buddy need to take a good look in the mirror and ask yourselves why you are so rabid about this subject.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 01:51 PM

Yes, but I'm an anorexic lesbian. I fancy women and every time I look in the mirror I see a fat person.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 09:27 AM

"My cousin is an agoraphobic homosexual, which makes it kind of hard for him to come out of the closet". ~Bill Kelly

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 09:26 AM

"The world is not divided into sheeps and goats.  Not all things are black nor all things white.  It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories.  Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes.  The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.  The sooner we learn this concerning sexual behavior the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex."  ~Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948


"Labels are for filing.  Labels are for clothing.  Labels are not for people."  ~Martina Navratilova

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 09:21 AM

"People who can't think of anything else but whether the person you love is indented or convex should be doomed not to think of anything else but that, and so miss the other ninety-five percent of life".  ~Robert Towne

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:37 AM

:0)......Didn't get the PN joke tho'.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:16 AM

"My sexual preference is often".  ~Author Unknown

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:15 AM

"I'm a supporter of gay rights.  And not a closet supporter either.  From the time I was a kid, I have never been able to understand attacks upon the gay community.  There are so many qualities that make up a human being... by the time I get through with all the things that I really admire about people, what they do with their private parts is probably so low on the list that it is irrelevant".  ~Paul Newman

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:13 AM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:11 AM

"Did you hear about the Scottish drag queen?  He wore pants. " ~Lynn Lavner

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 07:38 AM

"Well, he would say that....wouldn't he? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 07:33 AM

"Homosexuality, is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce."
 Plato quote  

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 03:32 AM

I'd be fascinated to know who diagnosed your Scottish man a dangerous weirdo? Doesn't sound like a diagnosis contained in NICE guidelines to me.

Why "psychiatric services" rather than psychiatric services? Out of interest, neither is correct as there is no such thing in The UK. There are mental health services that have psychiatric input but I expect your knowledge of healthcare in this regard to he about as ignorant as your interpretation of sexual health.

You should write a book. Politicians are crying out to find out how the minds of chauvinist chavs work and how to appeal to their numbers come elections. Hopefully after reading it, they'd all get on with trying to appeal to decent people instead and resist their race to the bottom.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 02:07 AM

Well, that was nicely laid out....but the fact is, that there are those who purport that, these theories are indeed fact..and they are not known to be such...sorta like WMD's in Iraq...'strong evidence', and 'most probably's', don't quite necessarily make it true...BUT...at least you stated your position...

Now, as far as me answering you, I was not 'lying through my teeth'...however, I was mostly referring to my posts with you, and I'm sure that if you didn't go back and research it, you would have not even remembered Amos's post..I didn't. So I checked it out, and yes, he did mention it before I..I just didn't see it...(not sure you did either). I'm surprised that you weren't discussing it from Amos's post till after mine...that said, Amos's post, nor any of yours, mentioned the 'receptors' and hormonal influences on Xq28, which HAS turned out to be true...(as referred to in "..greater influences..")...and Amos's study is from 1995. Still, nothing has been shown to say that it is strictly genetic, or anyone has found the 'gene'...fair enough?

...as to, "These are physiologically based differences—as is sexual orientation. We have laws against discrimination of this sort."

If the 'physiologically based differences' were 'genetically based' you might have a point...but there is no direct evidence of that....AND, hormonal influences can, and do make 'physiologically based differences'...as in other areas, as well.

Now, the question remains, 'Do you really believe this?:
D.F. "Sexual orientation is NOT a matter of choice."

If you answer, 'Yes, I believe that'...and a person CAN'T change, then what's this shit about 'dirty little secrets'???
He was either having a hetero-traditional family, while being a homosexual, which by definition is a contradiction, or he CHANGED, (which he didn't), and you say they CAN'T....or your prized 'dirty little secret' is totally false, and just vindictive bullcrap ...which I've told you repeatedly..every time you've used that bullshit threat...when you've run out of excuses and spins.
Think about it for a moment, and even you would agree!(and I'm being 'generously kind')

What I found 'telling', is that when YOU found someone you suspected of being homosexual, you called it 'dirty', as you referred to it!
...Sorta a 'Freudian Slip' there, Chief.

Which brings up a whole other matter, as to why you'd think it that way....but that's for another moment....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 09:08 PM

I support the idea of same sex marriage for a number of reasons. One of which is that, although the research is not conclusive to everyone's satisfaction, there are very strong indications that same sex orientation has a genetic base—not a specific gene, necessarily, more likely a combination of genes, as almost all genetic traits are. Sexual orientation most certainly has a physiological base, as has been established by brain science. Certain lobes within the brains of male homosexuals display characteristics of those of the same lobes in the brains of females—and female homosexuals' brains display characteristics of male brains. That is measurable, and not a matter of debate.

This is neither lie nor diversion. And I have said this repeatedly, but obviously Goofball doesn't like it, so he calls it a lie. HIS boo-boo, not mine.

Sexual orientation is NOT a matter of choice.

We do not (or certain should not) deny rights and privileges to those whose skin color or eye shape is different from ours, nor do we discriminate against those whose dominant hand is different from ours. These are physiologically based differences—as is sexual orientation. We have laws against discrimination of this sort.

If Steve and Paul, or Stephanie and Pauline form a loving relationship and want to live together as life partners, along with the same rights and privileges as mixed married couples, I have no objection. It does not affect my wife's and my marriage in any way whatsoever. And my wife feels the same way.

And I would say that if the idea of a same-sex couple chose to live together in a committed sexual relationship, and the thought of that offends certain people, those certain people had best stop obsessing about it and mind their own business.

I have said this many times and in several different ways over threads in which the discussion is appropriate, but Goofball is either incapable of understanding plain English or he is so offended by the idea that he broods unhealthily on the matter and feels compelled to continually attack and harass anyone who believes as I do.

And my beliefs are based on scientific evidence and a sense of fairness and equity.

The problem is Goofup's, not mine.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 07:17 PM

Dave, His 'question' was an avoidance and diversion, of him giving me an answer to the question 'WHY' does he support and promote lies and speculations, for the basis for laws and public policies....I'll be VERY happy to address his questions...but if I did it now, it would only ADD to Don's diversion tactic!
We know he supports the lies and speculations..my question was 'WHY?'.

I'll wait....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 06:29 PM

No, sorry goofus. Is the medication too strong again? Still no answer to Don's points about you lying through you teeth? Thought not. I shall continue to speak your language then. Gronng ong pong. It's the trousers! Flying rabbits do that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 05:59 PM

Dane the Gnerd: "No, they can't, Brendan. No-one has any clue whatsoever what goofus is on about."

No one??..You mean you're doing everyone's thinking for them??...Maybe he can figure it out..it's not hard...and maybe he''s a little 'brighter' than you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 05:56 PM

No, they can't, Brendan. No-one has any clue whatsoever what goofus is on about.

Ake. the answers are contained in my last post.

No they aren't. I think you are getting into bad habits from certain others on here. Let's just take two of my questions -

What makes her life miserable now and what would you do to make it less so?

Go on, humour me. Assume that I am stupid and tell me how on earth your last post answers that?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 05:47 PM

Brendan, It is referring to Don diverting the thread, and instead of addressing the question, talks about everything but...
Just scroll back, maybe a page or two, to get the context. It's quite self-explanatory....

..oh Don, that should answer your question, as well, too bad you won't/can't return the courtesy!

GfS

P.S....Oh yeah, WHY do you support and promote false premises for public policy??

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: BrendanB
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 05:35 PM

'Guest from sanity 06 June 14 - 03.02pm'
Can anyone explain what this post means?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 05:23 PM

By the way, Goofup, what in the hell are you talking about?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 04:57 PM

Goofball, no matter how loudly you shout at the hangman that the jury was wrong, he's still going to drop you through the trap door.

Don't come bawling to me. If you think the research is wrong, take it up with the scientists who did the research.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 03:02 PM

D.F.: "Diversionary tactic."??????????????

Well you've done your best to divert from THIS...let's get back to THIS:

If you want to say something true, (for a start), try working on WHY the passing of laws and policies, based on a lie...or even at best, speculation...Let's now be honest....WHY?????

...as far as this, "Hmm......methinks I'll start posting pairs of links to self-contradictions that you've posted. You know, posts in which you say one thing, followed by another in which you say just the opposite....."

Let's approach that when you first explain WHY you support laws an policies based on false, misleading lies, and/or at best, speculation.

Truth to tell you spun a web that you got caught in....but first, Let's approach that when you first explain WHY you support laws an policies based on false, misleading lies, and/or at best, speculation.


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 02:43 PM

Dave, the answers are contained in my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 02:16 PM

I notice you have avoided my questions. ake. C&P coming up...

Ake: What purpose does this pantomime serve, other than to make the poor guy's life even more miserable and to further exclude him from normal society?

DtG: Go on then, ake. Simple questions here. What makes her life miserable now and what would you do to make it less so? Why do you say " what is laughingly referred to as Psychiatric Services", and what makes you better qualified to help her than they are?

I will add another. Why no answers?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 01:51 PM

I knew a girl in high school who was quite tall, and had a sweet soprano singing voice. I lost track of her after graduation, then ran into her again about ten years later.

In the intervening time, she had got married, had a child, got divorced, smoked like a chimney, causing her singing voice to go down a couple of octaves, and had worked at a variety of jobs.

One of which was a "Victor/Victoria" thing. There was a gay night club on Seattle's First Avenue at the time and it featured female impersonators. My friend could sing pretty well, and she could dance (she'd been in high school productions), and she was looking for a job, so she went to the club and applied for a job as a female impersonator. And got it!!

And she got away with it! All the patrons thought she was a guy dressed up as a woman (tall, husky voice, etc.), but only she and the guy who owned the club knew the truth.

That was years before the movie, "Victor/Victoria" came out.

She was definitely of the female persuasion despite the general confusion other people had about her sexuality.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 11:22 AM

the guy is not a homosexual, he used to be perceived as a "bit of a daftie", folks humoured him, gave him wee jobs to do and protected him from cruelty.

Since "Psychiatric services" have convinced him that he is really a woman in a man's body, he is viewed as a dangerous weirdo.
He upsets the shop girls who have not the facilities to deal with him, they are really scared of him in their small changing rooms.
Other female customers have stopped using the shops.

Is his life better for the intervention of "Psychiatric Services?"
Who are the real dafties?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 09:45 AM

I knew a bloke called Harold who became a woman called Heather. Wore the frocks. Grew her hair. Used make up. Smoked a pipe... Honest! Another time, when Paul became Paula, I thought I would be gentlemanly and offer her my chair. No thanks, she replied, I have only just had the operation and it is still a bit sore. I did point out there is such a thing as too much information :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 09:32 AM

Plenty of wisdom from many a transvestite for that matter.

A bloke I used to know who wasn't undergoing gender reassignment, wasn't even gay for what it's worth, but enjoyed wearing women's clothes, makeup etc was carrying three pints from the bar to the table where he was sat with his mates and the barmaid shouted that he would make someone a lovely wife.

He went to the darts backboard and wrote;

W ashing
I roning
F ucking
E tc

Quite..

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 09:27 AM

"One half of the world are trying to have fun and the other half are trying to stop them."
- Andy Capp quotes

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 07:58 AM

"You know the message you're sending out to the world wearing those sweatpants? You're telling the world, 'I give up. I can't compete in normal society. I'm miserable, so I might as well be comfortable.'"
- Seinfeld quotes

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 07:57 AM

"I wanted to talk about how we had nothing to talk about."
- Seinfeld quote

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 04:52 AM

What purpose does this pantomime serve, other than to make the poor guy's life even more miserable and to further exclude him from normal society?

Go on then, ake. Simple questions here. What makes her life miserable now and what would you do to make it less so? Why do you say " what is laughingly referred to as Psychiatric Services", and what makes you better qualified to help her than they are?

BTW - I do happen to know that there is at least one trans on here. Not sure if they have completed the change or not but they definitely would prefer to be addressed as a woman now.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 03:44 AM

On reflection, I suppose an "effigy" can be burnt, by can also be treasured or revered?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 03:42 AM

Why don't you apply the same logic to that man as you just have in defence of nuns starving children and disposing of their bodies in cesspits by saying you don't have all the facts? Or do you change your moral code thread to thread?

I'd be a bit less dismissive of mental health services if I were you. They may be able to help you with both your irrational fear of gay men and your fixation with anal sex. In any event, many on here have expressed disquiet with your not so private fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 03:08 AM

Run away? you must be joking.:0)

I have a life to attend to and at this moment it is rather harrowing.
Sorry to inconvenience you of course.

The OED says "copy, representation, likeness", no mention of "burning on any fire"
I didn't read the whole article, so I cant support what may have been said later.....but the presentation was so biased as to be laughable.

A complete waste of time.

Their is a guy who lives in a town about twenty miles away, 6' 2" big beer belly, long hair, bushy beard, who thinks he is a woman. He haunts the charity shops buying women's dresses, underwear and shoes..... and terrifying the sales girls.
The poor soul has obvious psychiatric problems, but has been reinforced in his belief that he is really a woman by what is laughingly referred to as Psychiatric Services.

What purpose does this pantomime serve, other than to make the poor guy's life even more miserable and to further exclude him from normal society?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 01:39 PM

And I notice that since I pointed out that I (or anyone) can access any and every post he ever made and expose whether he did or did not say a particular thing that he claims, Goofball has been conspicuously absent.

Probably either hiding under the bed or running toward the horizon with his ass on fire.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 02:05 AM

A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words - Dr Winston O'Boogie.

Akenaton's response to the article merely underlines the article in the first place. His silence since just shows that bullies run off when the other boys turn up.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 09:27 PM

Which is to say, Ake, that the article is right on point.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 09:23 PM

True, an effigy is not necessarily intended to be burned. Effigies of Guy Fawkes, for example, yes, but that's only one specific use of both the term and the effigy itself. Hanging someone in effigy is another.

According to the dictionary:

ef•fi•gy

1.dummy representing somebody disliked: a dummy, often roughly made and intentionally amusing or insulting, representing somebody disliked or despised

2.carving: a carved representation of a person, used as an architectural decoration or a monument

The attempted dehumanization of same-sex oriented people is to be found in the use of words like "queer" in reference to a male homosexual and "dyke" for a female homosexual. There is a whole lexicon of such dehumanizing terms in reference to same-sex oriented people, but you get the idea.

You DO get the idea, don't you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 11:01 AM

'nuff said I think.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 11:01 AM

An "effigy" is a copy, a likeness, a representation, not necessarily something to be "burnt on a fire".

How emotive is that!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 10:56 AM

Dave, are you seriously trying to say that was an objective article?
It was so biased as to be laughable in parts.

Who in their right mind, tries to make the case that transsexuals are not human?

Get a grip and stop wasting our time.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 10:24 AM

Seeing as the dogs have now been let out and to get back to one of the earlier discussions, I would suggest that this article is compulsory reading. Substitue 'trans' with any demonised section of society you would care to mention.

Maybe some people will recognise themselves but I doubt it.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 10:12 AM

Don, it was an explanation, not an apology.

I hope that I have nothing to apologise to you for?
My remarks concerning name calling still stand.....just a bit of advice, ignore them if you disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 06:07 AM

Fur enough.

All this rain, make sure you don't step in too many poodles. I'll vet you have already.

And now for fans of nostalgia, one I prepared earlier.

Roses are red
I am just larking
Around on my keyboard
And Goofus is barking.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 04:59 AM

At least it gives us paws for thought.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 04:34 AM

At least two of the contributors are barking...

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 04:16 AM

This thread has gone to the dogs...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:37 AM

And pets.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:29 AM

I.ve had pups which never raced, and they all exhibited an air of aloofness....they cant be bothered with fuss or childish play that other dogs appear to enjoy.

As I said before, greyhounds are not "pets", they are companions and "fellow mortals".

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 01:11 AM

Perhaps I don't have a hang up over him sniffing other dogs' arses.

The statistical sample of one was eerily correct then as the greyhound sanctuary warned us of all if this in ex racers.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 12:16 AM

I've had two greyhounds. After retirement from the track, the bitch had killed her first litter and they took her to a vet I knew to dispose of. He brought her to me.

I have a lot of funny stories about her. Great personality. I had a couple of fenced acres so she could run free (luckily so, because even with me running full tilt beside her I couldn't break her out of a comfortable trot); in full flight she was a sight to see.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 06:07 PM

Come on Don, surely I'm allowed a little nip at Ian after such a sustained assault on my integrity.

"Integrity"??

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 06:04 PM

A, non-randomly selected, statistical sample of one.:)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 06:00 PM

Hmm!?? Dunno what happened to my cookie.......

Reset now, though.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:57 PM

Parallel to my situation with harassment by Goofball.

Your apology is accepted.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:21 PM

Come on Don, surely I'm allowed a little nip at Ian after such a sustained assault on my integrity...   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:00 PM

Insults, Ake?

Talking out of both sides of you mouth, perhaps?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:27 PM

I don't blame the dog really, don't think I would feel like eating either...if you were in the room.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:33 PM

Statistical sample of one. Sure, that makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 02:58 PM

I'll decide whether I feel them relevant or not.

I'll decide my view on animals, football, sexual orientation and how to spend my dosh.

I shall also decide whether the racing fraternity, Greyhound Action or a vet makes the best argument, then form my own view.

My little boy was a bag of nerves when we got him. It was over a year before he would eat if we were in the room. Two years before he was curious over visitors.

Four years on, it was only the other week on holiday that we let him off the lead, as the beach we were on in Fife was deserted for a couple of miles either way.   At home, he has two acres of garden to have his funny 10 mins, and he only started doing that in the second year. In the summer, he almost lives laid in the orchard. But it was not like that till recently.

Teaching an adult dog how to play is perhaps one of the saddest aspects of taking on ex racers.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 02:55 PM

I'm sorry to hear about the dog Don, these animals need to be carefully watched even when they have been in a home environment for a period of time. They never lose the chasing instinct and it gets them into lots of trouble in the world of humans.

Best thing is to get another as soon as possible, but I never allow my dogs off the leash unless I am certain they are in a secure and safe area....they are a little short in the brain dept and have absolutely no fear of injury, the red mist descends.
A greyhound of about five years old is more placid and makes an excellent companion

They are not "pets", as they are slightly detached and don't like a lot of fuss, but have a sort of nobility which I always think has to do with antiquity of the breed. They were kept by the ancient Egyptians as hunting dogs and were deified in legend.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 02:27 PM

Sherry's dog (who, unfortunately, is no longer with us) was five years old when she got him. It took him a bit of time to acclimate to his new home, but no major problems. He was friendly and curious, and as long as Sherry took him to a nearby park (a pretty large park) and let him off-leash to run for a while (at near light speed!), he seemed pretty happy with his new life.

Unfortunately, he was off-leash when he took after a car (apparently mistaking it for a mechanical rabbit), chased it into traffic, and got hit by another car. Sherry was devastated. She'd had him for a couple of years and they had "bonded."

Recently, she applied to adopt another greyhound.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 01:27 PM

Just a small point, Ake, that you have obviously missed. I do NOT name-call in every thread, as you claim. Yes, I do respond to GfS's insults, slurs, and lies in order to set the record straight. He lies about me a lot (in fact, he stalks me from one thread to another just to insult me and generally kibbitz) because he knows that I know his dirty little secret and he wants to discredit me.

But then, on the issue of human rights, you and GfS seem to be on the same page.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:41 AM

I have seen more cruelty to animals from humans, who are too selfish to have aged and infirm dogs euthanized, than in any of the racing kennels I have visited.
Dogs are like humans, in that there are nervous individuals and confident ones, It also takes dogs some time to acclimatise to living in a home among a family, after up to five years in a racing kennel, where their lives are run to a regular pattern.

I believe in rehoming, but many dogs are not kept securely by their new owners over the bedding in period and a rehomed dog can be in serious danger if allowed to run free.

My dogs in England have a swimming pool, Jacuzzi, wet weather gallops, fully fitted treatment rooms for any injuries, walks in the Hertfordshire countryside every day, and a large paddock for recreation.
They are fed a varied diet, with a dry food base and a selection of vitamins, cod liver oil etc.
When they retire, I shall have them at home or with friends.
Racing dogs are magnificent, brave creatures, when at full speed are of breath taking beauty. Running and chasing is as natural and important to them as breathing or laughing is to us.

Your reference to my views on other sections of society were uncalled for and irrelevant in this instance.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:13 AM

Funnily enough I want to agree. I am also convinced that most breeders and trainers look after their dogs.

That said, every greyhound I come across, we speak of how long it took them to settle, learn to play, stop being nervous. My nephew, a vet, speaks of the broad spectrum of welfare, from excellent practice to cruelty and doping with drugs.

It's the same as in any walk of life. Good or bad seen as representing the whole depending on your agenda.

Something you should be more mindful of when treating us to your discriminatory rants on other subjects.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:42 AM

Ian, I suggest you take a trip to a register racing kennel, there are plenty around where you live, have a look at the conditions and the health of the dogs.
While there, familiarise yourself with the rules regarding the welfare of racing greyhounds, how all dogs under rules, have to be chipped and have personal ID stored by GBGB.
It is the duty of owners to have retired dogs rehomed, and any cruelty can be traced back via the dogs ID......heavy fines or imprisonment would be involved for animal cruelty.
I have been involved in the sport for fifty years and any ill treatment of dogs has been roundly condemned by all trainers and owners.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:26 AM

Mine is a retired racer too. It took a couple of years to settle him properly. We thought he was just highly strung but it appears the cruelty they suffer when in the hands of the racing fraternity was more than I thought.

Interesting that I enjoyed a night at the dogs till I took an ex racer in.

In any event, his patience with Goofus is better than mine.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:26 AM

Don, perhaps debate might go more smoothly if you stopped name calling in every thread.
Among the USer, you seem to be the only one who continues this practice.....your posts would come over better if you addressed people by their proper handles.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:39 PM

Greyhounds are great dogs. My wife and I have a friend with one. She adopted a retired racer.

*    *    *
By the way Goofup, were you aware of the fact that every post anyone ever made to Mudcat is still available and can be accessed? I first posted on Mudcat on 02 Sept. 2, 1999 at 4:21 pm, and one can still access that post. I don't know if non-members (guests) can access them, but members have access to any message that anyone ever posted.

So if you said it, Goofball, I can find it. And if you didn't say it, I can determine that, too.

Shall I continue?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 06:45 PM

Talking of greyhounds, do you want mine to explain anything to Goofus?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 06:12 PM

Goofus, the first mention of the Xq28 gene was posted on the Prop 8 thread on Jan 4 2009 10:12pm. NOT by you. By Amos.

The first time YOU mention the Xq28 gene is in the "BS: 'Gay marriage' question" on Jan 4 2013, at 6:06pm. FOUR YEARS LATER. In your post, you say that it's only a "marker" and not the "gay gene." Whatever the hell you mean by that.

Look it up for yourself.

Busted!! AGAIN!!

(This is like shooting fish in a barrel!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 05:08 PM

Diversionary tactic.

Hmm......methinks I'll start posting pairs of links to self-contradictions that you've posted. You know, posts in which you say one thing, followed by another in which you say just the opposite......

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 04:56 PM

What ever you say 'just must be true'....If you want to say something true, (for a start), try working on WHY the passing of laws and policies, based on a lie...or even at best, speculation...Let's now be honest....WHY?????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 03:24 PM

Goofus, why do you lie when it's such a simple matter to expose you as a liar?

Not smart at all.

I can post a number of links to posts you have made that will show you up for the waffling prevaricator that you are. Shall I do that?

It makes an interesting inventory of how many times you've shot yourself in the foot.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 02:51 PM

IMO, it seems that "mixed objectiveness with broad generalizations" abound from all sides on this issue, and from many, if not most posters- regardless of the mudcat thread title or point in time. In fact, it could be a fitting thread title.
;)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 01:25 PM

Well said Sanity.

This is the creature who published libellous lies about me, concerning my treatment of my racing dogs, in an attempt to discredit my position on completely unrelated issues.

Watch him/her!!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 12:26 PM

Seaham: "Effeminate men and butch women exist in both heterosexual and homosexual personas.
You can't help being gay any more than you can't help liking brussel sprouts. Different people can react to conditioning in different ways though."

That's quite a jump in 'reasoning'....you were talking about observational facts of the human race, and personality traits and then you jumped to saying people have 'NO CHOICE' in the matter. ....and that's not true. Is altruism a choice?????...Oh, and another thing..Brussel sprouts can be an acquired taste, and often are.(BTW, pretty good with butter and dill)....

You have mixed objectiveness with broad generalizations...and made a specific rule for a limited few...but that is more than likely from a political stance, not scientific or medical!...and restrict freedom of choice.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:18 AM

I am not that young, but when I was at medical school, we were taught that any research into genetic reasoning for sexual orientation is doomed to failure as the exception clause is too large.

The need to socialise with members of your own gender is in the vast majority of people. The need to care for and be altrustic towards people you find attractive is in the vast majority of people.

The mix and match, moral thought deduction and impulsive action from just those can cover every eventuality with no gene change whatsoever.

Effeminate men and butch women exist in both heterosexual and homosexual personas.

You can't help being gay any more than you can't help liking brussel sprouts. Different people can react to conditioning in different ways though.

You are what you are, or as a colleague from Jamaica tells me, you is what you is.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 02:15 AM

Yeah....and I can pull it up. I'm the one who posted anything about Xq28, and also mentioned that the markers on it were the ones that were susceptible to the hormones.
My, how you either try to feign selective memory!...or you really have one.
Bottom line, is from an unproven theory, politics has spun this into something that it really is NOT!...and you either know that, and are part of the 'game', OR, are not as 'bright' as you pretend to be...either one says a lot about the bogus cause, and its supporters and promoters.....don't believe me??? Then tell us about how far away are they from finding the genes, or the strand.....keeping in mind, you posted a study that claimed the entire genes have been 'mapped out'. Most maps have important details....what happened here???...and if they are just a few studies away....how come we have laws and policies AS IF it was already a fact??

GfS

P.S. And instead of getting 'pissy' CONSIDER the questions..because we both know that they are on the mark!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 12:30 AM

Goofus: "I'M the one who first told you about Xq28"

You? Told me?

That you would think that you can actually get away with that assertion is UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Have you completely lost it, Goofball!???

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 12:11 AM

Me busted????? You silly spinner!...I'M the one who first told you about Xq28..I know about that gene...and I know that it is not the gene, other than the markers. But, just to remind you, "Other factors have greater influence...."

YOU are the one who is busted, because you can't spin the FACT, that this issue is based on misinformation, in fact, a downright lie! The bigger question is WHY???? Why is it so important to base any of this shit, on an unproven THEORY, that has been spun into a lie!!!
NOBODY has found 'The Gene'...and don't give me any more of the Xq28 crap!..You're only foolishly deceiving yourself....I KNOW BETTER!! ...and so do YOU!!
Nothing based on a lie has an honest motive!!...and doesn't last the test of time....and is destructive in nature, just by the nature of the deceit!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 06:07 PM

"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes" (Oscar Wilde)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 06:02 PM

"For every problem under the sun,
There is a solution, or there's none.

If there is one, try and find it,
If there isn't, never mind it."

John Bell's diary C. 1860:

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 05:42 PM

From Nature:

Nature Genetics 11, 248 - 256 (1995)
doi:10.1038/ng1195-248
Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females

Stella Hu1, Angela M. L. Pattatucci1, Chavis Patterson1, Lin Li1, David W. Fulker2, Stacey S. Cherny2, Leonid Kruglyak3 & Dean H. Hamer1
1Laboratory of Biochemistry, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA

2Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA

3Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

We have extended our analysis of the role of the long arm of the X chromosome (Xq28) in sexual orientation by DNA linkage analyses of two newly ascertained series of families that contained either two gay brothers or two lesbian sisters as well as heterosexual siblings. Linkage between the Xq28 markers and sexual orientation was detected for the gay male families but not for the lesbian families or for families that failed to meet defined inclusion criteria for the study of sex−linked sexual orientation. Our results corroborate the previously reported linkage between Xq28 and male homosexuality in selected kinships and suggest that this region contains a locus that influences individual variations in sexual orientation in men but not in women.

REFERENCES 1.Trip, C.A. The Homosexual Matrix. (Signet, New York, 1975).
2.Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S. & Hammersmith, S.K. Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men & Women. (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1981).
3.LeVay, S. The Sexual Brain. (MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, 1993).
4.Hamer, D.H. & Copeland, P. The Science of Desire. (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1994).
5.Hamer, D.H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V.L., Hu, N. & Pattatucci, A.M.L. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 261, 321−327 (1993). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
6.Pattatucci, A.M.L. & Hamer, D. Development and familiality of sexual orientation in females. Behav. Genet. 25, 407−420 (1995). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
7.Putter, M. Psychiatric genetics: research challenges and pathways forward. Am. J. med. Genet. 15, 185−198 (1994).
8.Bailey, J.M. & PiIlard, R.C. A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archs. gen. Psychiat. 48, 1089−1096 (1991). | ChemPort |
9.Bailey, J.M. & Bell, A.P. Familiality of female & male homosexuality. Behav. Genet. 23, 313−322 (1993). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
10.Bailey, J.M. & Benishay, B.A. Familial aggregation of female sexual orientation. Am. J. Psychiat. 150, 272−277 (1993). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
11.Bailey, J.M., Pillard, R.C., Neale, M.C. & Agyei, Y. Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archs. gen. Psychiat. 50, 217−223 (1993). | ChemPort |
12.Pillard, R.C. & Weinrich, J.D. Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality. Archs. gen. Psychiat. 43, 808−812 (1986). | ChemPort |
13.Pillard, R.C., Kinsey scale: is it familial? In Homosexuality/ Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation (eds McWhirter, D.R., Sanders, S.A. & Reinisch, J.M.) 88−100 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990).
14.Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B. & Martin, C.E. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. (W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1948).
15.Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., Martin, C.E. & Gebhard, P. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. (W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1953).
16.Kruglyak, L. & Lander, E.S. Complete multipoint sib-pair analysis of qualitative and quantitative traits. Am. J. hum. Genet. 57, 439−454 (1995). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
17.Haseman, J.K. & Elston, R.C. The investigation of linkage between a quantitative trait and a marker locus. Behav. Genet. 2, 3−19 (1972). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
18.Cardon, L.R. & Fulker, D.W. The power of interval mapping of quantitative trait loci, using selected sib pairs. Am. J. hum. Genet. 55, 825−833 (1994). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
19.Fulker, D.W. & Cardon, L.R. A sib-pair approach to interval mapping of quantitative trait loci. Am. J. hum. Genet. 54, 1092−1103 (1994). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
20.Fulker, D.R., Chemy, S.S. & Cardon, L.R. Multipoint interval mapping of quantitative trait loci using sib pairs. Am. J. hum. Genet. 56, 1224−1233 (1995). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
21.Tran, L.D., Elston, R.C., Keats, B.J.B. & Wilson, A.F. Sib-pair linkage program In S.A.G.E. Users Guide, Release 2.2. (Department of Biometry and Genetics, LSU Medical Center, New Orleans, 1994).
22.Freije, D., Helms, C., Watson, M.S. & Donis-Keller, H. Identification of a second pseudoautosomal region near the Xq and Yq telomeres. Science 258, 1784−1787 (1992). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
23.Kvaloyy, K., Galvagni, F. & Brown, W.R.A. The sequence organization of the long arm pseudoautosomal region of the human sex chromosomes. Hum. molec. Genet. 3, 771−778 (1994). | PubMed |
24.Lander, E.S. & Schork, N.J. Genetic dissection of complex traits. Science 265, 2037−2048 (1994). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
25.Pericak-Vance, M.A. et al. Linkage studies in familial Alzheimer disease: evidence for chromosome 19 linkage. Am. J. hum. Genet. 48, 1034−1050 (1991). | PubMed | ChemPort |
26.Cardon, L.R., Smith, S.D., Fulker, D.W., Kimberling, W.J., Pennington, B.F. & DeFries, J.C. Quantitative trait for reading disability on chromosome 6. Science 265, 276−279 (1994).
27.Boehnke, M. Limits of resolution of genetic linkage studies: implications for the positional cloning of human disease genes. Am. J. hum. Genet. 55, 379−90 (1994). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
28.Kruglyak, L. & Lander, E. High-resolution genetic mapping of complex traits. Am. J. hum. Genet. 56, 1212−1223 (1995). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
29.Haqq, C.M. et al. Molecular basis of mammalian sexual determination: activation of Mullerian inhibiting substance gene expression by SRY. Science 266, 1494−1450.(1994). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
30.Kruglyak, L., Daly, M.J. & Lander, E.S. Rapid multipoint analysis of recessive traits in nuclear families, including homozygosity mapping. Am. J. hum. Genet. 56, 519−527 (1995). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
31.Wang, L.H., Collins, A., Lawrence, S., Keats, B.J. & Morton, N.E. Integration of gene maps: chromosome X. Genomics 22, 590−604 (1994). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
32.Fisher, R.A. Statistical methods for research workers, 10th Edition. (Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh (1954).

So don't argue with ME, argue with these folks.

Face the truth and suck it up, Goofball!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 05:08 PM

Buzz off, Goofball! You've been busted!

In fact, I've busted you a half-dozen times, as everyone who has the bad taste to read our exchanges can plainly see.

Give it a rest. You're just making an even bigger ass of yourself.

(Which is quite a feat, really!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 04:40 PM

Typo on the previous post....

Oh?..Is that so??...PROVE your 'point'.....give us the gene CONCLUSIVELY, or admit that all the policies and laws passed were all on speculation, of finding it!!!

OR..shut up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 04:39 PM

Oh?..Is that so??...PROVE your 'point'.....give us the gene CONCLUSIVELY, or admit that all the policies and laws passed we all on speculation, of finding it!!!

OR..shut up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 01:33 PM

Goofus can't understand plain English.

No, that's not correct. He understands it all right, he just refuses to accept what obviously scares the shit out of him!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 11:55 AM

Yeah...Methinks you're running low on bullshit...maybe whip it for a topping!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket meister
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 11:35 AM

Looks like this boring thread finally has it's demise then. Nothing added for a while. (Sit down Goofus. I said added.)



Dum dum de dum, dum de dum dum dum dum dum.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 03:30 AM

Previous post posted before I was done.....

Don, I almost can't believe you said that!..You 'NEVER' said that it was 'A GENE'?????

ALSO,

Firth: "I said that it is a combination of genes. And that this combination of genes may be carried by the mother and governs the release of crucial hormones while the fetus is in utero."

The 'combination of genes' is NOT what triggers the release of the hormones in question....You're back peddling, trying to work in a 'combination of genes'....because it's the closest you can get, being as 'The Gene' theory is just about collapsed.....(for those who know, it has been collapsed for a LONG time)

Makes me wonder about your preference, as to motive....being 'born that way' verses 'being born that way, because of genetics'....and you seem to insist it's 'The Gene' over any other reason....interesting..when no gene or combination of genes have been found to do anything of the sort!!!....unless, of course, you're a 'so-called liberal'.....then even physics, common sense, accurate science, and anything spiritual is out the window!!...and instead, all we hear from the political left, are arguments fomented from lies, assumptions, and speculations....while having NOTHING in the FACT department to substantiate the premises.
.....and then on top of it, they knock religious people for having faith!!!!!

Hilarious!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 03:19 AM

Don, I almost can't believe you said that!1..You 'NEVER' said that it was 'A GENE'?????

ALSO, "I said that it is a combination of genes. And that this combination of genes may be carried by the mother and governs the release of crucial hormones while the fetus is in utero."

The 'combination of genes' is NOT what triggers the release of the hormones in question....You're back peddling, trying to work in a 'combination of genes'....because it's the closest you can get, being as 'The Gene' theory is just about collapsed.....(for those who know, it has been collapsed for a LONG time)

Makes me wonder about your preference, as to motive....being 'born that way' verses 'being born that way, because of genetics'....and you seem to insist it's 'The Gene' over any other reason....interesting..


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 May 14 - 02:33 PM

Goofball, the thing that you keep getting screwed up is that I never said that sexual orientation is caused by one single gene. You keep claiming that that IS what I said.

I said that it is a combination of genes. And that this combination of genes may be carried by the mother and governs the release of crucial hormones while the fetus is in utero.

By claiming that I said what you claim I said means one of two things:   you either do not have the intelligence to understand what I said, clearly and in plain English—OR you are deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying.

So which are you: a fool? Or a liar?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Corporal Musket
Date: 31 May 14 - 11:18 AM

In my case 39 years in The Devonshire Arms. 27 of them in the tap room.

Awarded VD & bar. Mentioned in dispatches. Saw active service in away match darts dominoes and crib nights.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 May 14 - 11:11 AM

Yawn...

Anything relevant in that tirade?

If I had a fiver for every bloke in the pub who reckoned he was in the parachute regiment.

I said you are not capable of debate. I pointed out your habit of confusing debate with top trumps.

Keep calling me a liar in order to explain away your own inadequacies and I shall keep pointing out your arse to the boys and girls.

(Clerkenwell. I'll give you that one. Sounds dead posh.)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 14 - 10:48 AM

I support my views with hard evidence.
You support yours with vitriolic intimidation and obscene name calling.

It probably does succeed in deterring some nice people from expressing differing views, but not me.

I went to school in Clerkenwell and was an army reservist for 39 years, 27 in the Parachute Regiment.
Naughty names!
Oh dear!

Of course you sometimes produce fake evidence.
Sick fantasies of child murder.
Quotes that Google says originate with you.
Statistics that you can not actually show anyone.

My evidence is real.
How you hate that.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 14 - 04:05 AM

Hamad is a prominent Left-Wing journalist of impeccable credentials who knew from personal experience that there was no editorial interference at Sky News so I quoted him testifying to that fact.

My view was based on such knowledge and I was sharing it.
It is what I do and how you hate it.
It exposes your ignorance.

You even had to claim you knew more about history than historians!
"Those historians should know better."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:57 AM

You know, it's the "this person I found on the internet knows more than you do" routine that is just about, with a few other close entries, the most pathetic aspect of what you surmise as debate.

Just because someone is paid by the column inch doesn't put their views beyond scrutiny by intelligent people.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:53 AM

Don, I read the whole thing...and the comments, too.

This is reporting the exact SAME study that Dave the Gnome posted, and even included some of the very same conclusions....including:

(8th paragraph)
"The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact. Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay."

AND>>>>
(10th paragraph)
"While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

This is nothing new, and if you read the comments after the article, some of the posters shredded it for the same thing!..I don't understand your renewed zeal for this article on the same flawed study.
You're trying to beat a dead horse that already got beat up.

Comments from posters:

sandgrinder

14 February 2014 4:45am
"Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows
The genes are not sufficient or necessary to make men gay but do play some role in sexuality, according to US research

Have they identified the 'straight' gene yet?

The Venus of Willendorf wants to know."

expatandhappy sandgrinder

14 February 2014 6:52am
51 Likes

"Just died laughing at this 'expert' article. If it's in the genes then they would have all died out long ago."



notdrowningjustwavin expatandhappy

14 February 2014 6:59am
634 Likes

"You clearly died pretty early on in the article as it repeatedly states that it is very clearly not all in the genes.

I believe there is a comprehension gene also that occasionally goes missing, no need for a genetic test in extreme cases...."

Jeff Gauthier

14 February 2014 3:20am
133

"Nature/nurture is just a distraction. The two are not mutually distinct. The central problem with trying to isolate the "natural causes" of a homosexual sexual orientation is that a "homosexual sexual orientation" (and sexual orientation more generally) is itself a social construction. That's not to say it's not real or that it's a casual choice, but rather that it's unclear how "homosexual" one has to be (how many partners, how many many, fantasies, etc.) to count as "homosexual." In a culture that has a long history of compulsory heterosexuality, relatively few people are likely to self-identify as homosexual. On the other hand, in a culture that has no such taboos (e.g., the ancient Athenians), it wouldn't occur to anyone to think that who she has sex with constitutes a sexual identity or orientation."

and on and on......

Don this is old stuff...and if you re-read the sensationalists sentences, it reverts to 'May', 'may suggest' 'speculates'...

Ok, I read it.....nothing there!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:40 AM

tried to denounce your own post.
No.
Completely untrue
You ridiculed it even though it was a direct quote from Hamad who knows much more about media issues than you do.
I had stated my view and posted that quote in support.
What is to denounce?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:34 AM

Usually when discussing your posts, it's my dinner that stands most chance of being brought up.

I didn't bring your weird view of journalism up, I merely used it amongst other examples of how a resurrected thread showed the same people spouting the same nonsense.

You puffed up your sense of self importance and rather stupidly tried to denounce your own post. That of course made me curious. Leopards and spots......

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 14 - 01:37 AM

Thanks for clearing that up Dave.
I tend to agree.
Musket brought up an old post of mine about Sky News and we were discussing that.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 14 - 06:48 PM

ALL media have their own bias. From reporting that Romanian immigrants are going to flood the country and that Ed Milliband's Father was a traitor to which Morris team wore the best costume and why Village United lost even though they played better! They get away with it all the time. They report what they want to and ignore the stories that they are not interested in. They are not fined because they are not telling untruths. They are just not giving the whole story.

Too right. There are four points regarding "the news" that we should always bear in mind: first, the media have limited broadcast time/print space in which to peddle their goods (so you always get potted versions, therefore judge not...). Second, they have to get masses of people interested in whatever they're peddling (so you get sensationalism). Third, you get political bias and vested interest (so you get Murdoch, Faux News and/or the Daily M*ail). Fourth, you get the subjective choice of whoever is putting the bloody stuff together as to what is news and what isn't, and, worse, as to what's more "important" than what. In all, you are fit to receive "the news" from our hallowed media only if you have a pee aitch bloody dee in cynicism. I've heard a fair bit lately about how "undemocratic" the EU is (though I tend never to forget that the EU has saved both me and my beloved son from being called up to fight yet another Europe-instigated war). In terms of democratic deficit, multinational corporations and banks win hands-down, followed by our media. The EU comes a bloody poor third.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 May 14 - 06:20 PM

Goofball, when you start using your "so-called liberal" rubber stamp, I know that a pile of bovine excrement is to follow. As a political analyst, you'd make a fairly competent garbage collector.

Read this—the whole thing!!

That is, assuming you won't get confused while trying to read a few long, but grammatically correct sentences and the occasional long word.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 14 - 03:12 PM

If the last post was for me, Keith, I am not discussing Sky news. I am just saying they are all the same. None of them can be trusted. If you rely on them you cannot help but be viewed as being easily led!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:03 PM

So why are we discussing Sky News bias if it is just the same as other UK broadcasters who are all bound by "robustly enforced" impartiality rules?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 14 - 12:10 PM

"I have only you called a liar twice...."

Was one supposed to be he truth??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 14 - 10:14 AM

What is the basis for this claim of bias?

ALL media have their own bias. From reporting that Romanian immigrants are going to flood the country and that Ed Milliband's Father was a traitor to which Morris team wore the best costume and why Village United lost even though they played better! They get away with it all the time. They report what they want to and ignore the stories that they are not interested in. They are not fined because they are not telling untruths. They are just not giving the whole story.

I am not saying that I know the whole story. I know that I don't! I am certainly not going to believe anyone who tells me we are all in it together when I know damn well we are not. I am not going to listen to the press spins of either side of the same coin. And, most of all, I am not going to get heated about a thread on an insignificant folk music forum.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:52 AM

Rich and powerful media HAVE been fined by OFCOM.
What is the basis for this claim of bias?

Musket, I have only ever called you a liar over two posts.
The one where you described a heinous massacre of school children with dismemberment and feeding to pigs.
Not one single news agency site has any report of such an event.
And the one where you said you had downloaded a quote that google could only find in your post, from an organisation that does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:27 AM

Firth: "Not whining, Goofus. Just illustrating your pathological penchant for telling lies about people when you have no way of knowing.
Piltdown man, as you obviously don't know, was a major anthropological fraud."

I know about the 'Piltdown Man'...a fraud...just like those who insist that homosexuality is all 'genetic based'...and then you promote the gene nonsense....with absolutely NO PROOF!!!...just the mere hope that somebody will find it somewhere!

Not sound political judgement to base laws and policies on...but then, the 'so-called liberals' thrive on deceit and berating as a means to ram crap down everyone's throat...and THAT IS a FACT...and you are part and parcel of doing just that!...and that IS a fact!...if not, PROVE IT...which you, or none of your 'parrot pack' has been able to do....and THAT is NOT my fault, or fraud!...just a tenant of your political beliefs....and you know how much credibility goes into unfounded political rhetoric!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:22 AM

I do not call you stupid. I never use the word thick without attaching the proviso "cunt" either for that matter.

Actually, I didn't open anything up, I merely mentioned a few contributions in an recently reopened thread and yours was amongst them. That you feel the world spins around you, or are paranoid enough to think I give you special status is your problem, not the world's.

Sly News has never been fined for impartiality... Well yes, and neither has Razzle, Viz or The Daily Sport.... Sky's partisan output tends to be ridiculed on Have I got News for You instead.

All you have to do is apologise for calling me a liar, but you won't. So ridicule and lampoonery coming your way. Funnily enough, I don't have to be creative, you often provide the material yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:14 AM

The simple fact that Ofcom have levied fines proves that people do not obey the rules. Once a biased report has been made it is too late.

Sky News has never been fined for impartiality.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:10 AM

Keith - You keep saying Musket is stupid.

No I do not.
I very rarely ever make such an accusation.

What does he keep saying I am though Dave, and never once a comment from you about that?

And what "entrenched position?"
Musket chose to reopen and old discussion ridiculing me for stating something that is demonstrably true.
No comment about that either?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:09 AM

Keith, you are missing the whole point. The simple fact that Ofcom have levied fines proves that people do not obey the rules. Once a biased report has been made it is too late. The damage has been done. No amount of financial penalty will repair it.

If I may paraphrase something I have seen recently. Take a plate. Smash it on the floor. Say sorry to it. Is the plate still broken?

There are plenty of other bodies that make and try to enforce rules. They all fail to various degrees. Penalties do not prevent people from breaking rules. Only provide some amount of reparation and/or vengeance. Yes, we do have to have rules, but just because the rules are in place and even enforced does not mean that the rules will not be broken. If so our prisons would be empty.


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 07:51 AM

"Tabloid journalism"
Guardian, New Statesman, OFCOM.

I produce hard evidence and fact while you can only make unfunny jokes, because once again you are proved wrong and I right.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 14 - 04:34 AM

Mehdi Hamad is an eminent and respected Left Wing journalist and commentator with impeccable credentials (editor of New Statesman, etc.) which make him a natural enemy of Murdock and accusations of him toadying to Murdock laughable.
Laughable Musket!

I also pointed out that Sky must follow strict rules of impartiality imposed on all UK broadcasters.
Dave questioned that the rules are enforced so I linked to this statement by Ofsted, which Dave chose not to read.
Look away now Dave.

"Ofcom takes its duty to preserve due impartiality extremely seriously. We take action against anyone who breaks our rules and Press TV was fined a record £100,000 last month for a serious breach of our privacy rules.

"Impartiality" does not mean that equal time has to be given to every view or that all broadcasters have to report events through a single lens. Neither does it prevent the broadcasting of highly critical views about a state or institution, however unpalatable these views may be.

The key word in this context is "due". It means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. When we judge these cases we take account of a range of factors, including audience expectations. For example, the audience's expectations of a mainstream UK broadcaster such as the BBC or Sky will differ significantly from the audience's expectations of a satellite service based in the UK but broadcasting outside the UK (or to an expatriate audience within the UK).

But regardless of this, tough minimum standards do apply to all broadcasters, which we will continue to robustly enforce.

Tony Close

Director of standards, Ofcom"

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 02:55 AM

Watch it Dave. Keith will find a Wikipedia entry for Sydney Harbour Bridge and defy you to challenge his well being.

Private Eye used to have a column for exposing toadying journalism fauning over Sky and Murdoch. I haven't bought a copy for a long time now but used to enjoy it.

Does it still have pseuds' corner? If Keith was anyone of interest his posts would sit rather comfortably there.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 14 - 02:41 AM

Has anyone seen Sidney? He's dead, you know.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:48 PM

And, Goofball, what the hell IS the topic of this thread?

Certainly not what you're trying to make it.

Unless you admit to being boring.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:24 PM

Not whining, Goofus. Just illustrating your pathological penchant for telling lies about people when you have no way of knowing.

Piltdown man, as you obviously don't know, was a major anthropological fraud.

YOU are a minor anthropological fraud.

Jeez, you don't even understand it when you've been zinged!!

Don Firth

P. S. Sorry, guys, for prolonging this idiotic thread. Waste of time. I'm out of here!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:58 PM

Yeah...there's a lot of that going around....and when they run out, they just think of the stupidest things....not talk about the topic, call names, and think they're going somewhere with it....ain't it a shame?
Oh, and Don, you turned(or tried) to turn that all around...it was YOUR whining about being called the 'Miltown Man' after calling me the 'Piltown Man', and now you're pissing and moaning about it?????? Jeez, You're better off making a regular fool out of your politics!
Wanna comment on that 'Amazing Breakthrough'????..or just let it 'lie'...to perpetuate 'other lies'??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 14 - 04:27 PM

Keith - You keep saying Musket is stupid. You continue to argue with him. How do you think that makes you look? This, and many other, threads, is typical of the entrenched position that makes everyone look stupid. Yes, OK, me included. But I don't care.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 May 14 - 04:07 PM

Keep it up Musket, but YOU chose to reopen the Sky News discussion, and YOU completely failed to make a case while I was easily able to support MY position with hard evidence and make YOU look stupid.
And very thick.
And more besides.
Cant.
And silly bluster.
Keep it up Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 03:05 PM

Of course he has his standards. Judging by his posts, they don't include other men.

Me? Two tits and a heartbeat.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:49 PM

Goofball, I'm not going to try to hold myself to your standards.

Pretty damned hard to do when it's more than obvious that you don't have any.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:10 PM

You really do amaze me goofus. How anyone can get the wrong of the stick so often and so consistently is beyond me. I think I will just revert to trying to out-gobbledegook you.

Obble Gobble Pobble. I don't think so. Maybe it's the fish?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:01 PM

This thread will always be boring whilst ever moderators keep deleting my posts.

All I did was give a professional diagnosis of Keith.

Stop shooting the messenger.

If you want a professional diagnosis of Goofus, it is beyond my capability. You'll have to ask the good professor.

What's that boy?

Woof! Grrrr. Woof!

I agree. But who will publish such a thesis? Mudcat doesn't like such technical terms, I tried it with Keith, and no self respecting university would publish it. Tell you what, here.. Have a gravy bone instead.

Good boy..

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 May 14 - 12:15 PM

Firth: "Interesting how, even when I haven't posted on a particular thread for a few days, Goofup can't resist taking a snotty shot at me.
Goofballupagus, for your information, I don't take Miltown and never have."

It was in response to your 'Piltown Man' remark..a shot at me when I was off for a couple of days. You might consider holding yourself up to the same standard, that you hypocritically whine about!!

Fair enough??


Dave the Gnut: "I was going to respond to the headline, Dave posted...(to prove his point....."

What?...were you going to shout from the rooftops what the 'breakthrough' was? ....BTW, what was the 'breakthrough' in that totally misleading headlined article???......that they still didn't find 'the gene', and 'there are other influences greater' than the gene???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 14 - 06:59 AM

I was going to respond to the headline, Dave posted...(to prove his point but realised I already had and I really just could not be arsed shovelling that kind of shite any more.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 May 14 - 08:26 PM

Interesting how, even when I haven't posted on a particular thread for a few days, Goofup can't resist taking a snotty shot at me.

Goofballupagus, for your information, I don't take Miltown and never have. I don't need tranquilizers or anti-depressants, and any drugs do I take are either over-the-counter, like aspirin, or prescribed by my doctor, such as atenolol for slightly elevated blood pressure, which is not unusual for my age. I drink a couple of cups of coffee per day, an occasional beer or glass of wine (rarely more than one a week, if that much), and I used to smoke cigarettes (tobacco cigarettes), but quit thirty-six years ago. I have never indulged in "recreational drugs" such as marijuana, cocaine, LSD, "magic mushrooms," or any other mind-altering substances.

I leave that sort of stuff to guys like you. If I want anything "mind-altering," I read a good, informative book.

In fact, I read a lot. Which has something to do with my ability to both recognize and write cohesive, grammatically correct sentences.

If I, or anybody, doesn't understand something YOU are trying to say, it's because you don't say it very clearly. Downright opaque most of the time. Which gives a clue to the contents of your so-called "mind."

Back to the real world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 14 - 07:54 PM

SRS: "It's easy - everything GfS posted was taken out of context."

That's what I thought, after reading the headline, Dave posted...(to prove his point)....the headline was TOTALLY misleading with the context of the article...maybe they were counting on low intelligent people going by just the headline..being as they weren't counting on their readers even reading the article...and then understanding any of it!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 04:19 PM

You are right of course SRS. But it is a bit like watching a train crash. Morbid curiosity as to how it will pan out but we can't help it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 May 14 - 03:58 PM

GfS wrote to a doctor refuting his positions: Interesting..because EVERYTHING I posted was a cut and paste from the studies that was posted by Dave the Gnome and Don Firth...which tends to discredit everything you just tried to lay out in your post.

It's easy - everything GfS posted was taken out of context.

This whole thread seems to be out of context, very boring indeed, yet here it continues, a few of you hammer-and-tongs duking it out.

This must be the prototype for electronic flypaper. Continue to stick around here and keep the vitriol in one place.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 14 - 02:42 PM

Hamad with his inside knowledge, The New Statesman and the Guardian say it is impartial.
How does Musket answer all that testimony?
He says they are "toadies."

As ever, his one and only debating tactic and argument is name calling!
Not really a winner Musket.

Now let us look at all the evidence Musket has put up in defence of his views.
Errrr, nothing.
Zilch.
They are all toadies, and that is it.

I think the "discussion" is over and was a little one-sided.
Time to move on.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 02:25 PM

Unfortunately we only have 2 cats. I think they would probably just turn their noses up if they came across that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 01:29 PM

If you have a pet dog Dave, I suggest you get him or her to debate with Goofus. Far more fulfilling all round.

"The Guardian and New Statesman don't print toadying journalism." Well done Keith. That's my boy!

Mind you, it's normally ignorant fools saying that about The Daily M*il or Daily Torygraph. Grauniad readers tend to be a cut above usually, on the basis they take comment with a pinch of salt. They may revise their editorial policy if they see people actually believing what they read and calling comment hard evidence. After all, even editors have to sleep at night.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 12:33 PM

The last link you posted to 'prove your point' backfired.

Much as I know I am going to regret this, I did not post a link to prove any point. I have no need to prove points. Especially to complete knobheads. Now, as it has become obvious, once again, that we do not seem to inhabit the same planet I would just request just once , politely, that you fuck off with your delusions and try not to analyse things you so obviously do not understand.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 14 - 11:42 AM

Dave the Gnome: "To be honest I find following links to help people prove their own points quite tedious and a tiresome exercise."

Yeah?..The last link you posted to 'prove your point' backfired. The 'Headline read, "Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows".....but when reading the article, it said THIS:

""While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLE, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

Greater than the genes??...Did it say that??...Didn't I tell you that over two years ago???

..and it goes on to say(same study), "The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a LIMITED and VARIABLE impact."

..and then it says, (Now pay attention) "Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were NEITHER SUFFICIENT, Nor NECESSARY, to MAKE ANY of the men gay."

...and this, "That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up EVERY GENE LINKED to sexual orientation would still be LESS EFFECTIVE THAN FLIPPING A COIN."

...and this one, "...we DON'T KNOW where these genetic factors are located in the genome. So we need to do 'gene finding' studies, like this one by Sanders, Bailey and others, to have a better idea where POTENTIAL genes for sexual orientation MAY lie."

..and this,"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it IS NOT COMPLETELY DETERMINATIVE; there are certainly OTHER environmental FACTORS INVOLVED."


Then you posted this link:
Don't

I can see why you think it's ".....quite tedious and a tiresome exercise.".....Playin' both sides of your own argument!

Oh well, back to the drawing boards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:45 AM

Musket, the Guardian and the New Statesman do not print toadying journalism.
Mehdi Hasan is not the kind of journalist who would toady to Murdock.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:41 AM

Rules are needed because people misbehave, but rules have to be enforced or they will be broken.
OFCOM is there to enforce the rules.

I always read the links people provide to justify and explain their views.
How can I be part of the debate if I do not consider the evidence people put up in support of their views?
If I did not put up evidence to support my own views they would just be dismissed, rightly, as personal uninformed opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:40 AM

Keith, you said the obscenely abusive posts had disappeared. You are wrong. Your posts are still there, as are the worm's.

Err.. Since when was a toadying piece of journalism hard evidence Keith? Do you know what hard evidence is?

I'd give my verdict on that but the moderators have no sense of humour.

I'll make a suggestion to moderators. When you refuse to remove offensive posts aimed at me, so I post to answer them. Either leave my fucking posts alone or remove the disgraceful slurs that forced a reply in the first place.

Keith's posts look even more silly than usual, it makes him look as if he is talking to himself. (I'll refrain from the obvious..)



Here Al! Want to buy some BSkyB shares? I offered them to Bridge a while back. Their recent rise in value prove two things.

1. Lies and bollocks have monetary value. (Someone on this thread should be a millionaire by that reckoning.

2. When I buy a shed load of mixed shares advertised as "ethical investment," I didn't expect a load of Murdoch shares and have been thinking about offloading them ever since.



Hey Goofus!

Ready boy?

Grrr. woof! Woof!   Grrrr.


I concur.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 09:02 AM

No, I didn't read them, Keith. To be honest I find following links to help people prove their own points quite tedious and a tiresome exercise. My point was simply that stating that there are strict rules does not mean people will comply with them. I don't have any links to support that view I'm afraid. It is one I developed on my own. I am sure that you have multiple links to prove me wrong.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 14 - 08:19 AM

Did you read the Guardian and New Statesman links?
These publications are no friends of Murdock.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 14 - 08:17 AM

Bias in a news report is much easier to spot than corporate tax avoidance.
Apart from its own scrutiny, anyone can report bias to OFCOM who are bound to investigate.
There has been much talk of Left-wing bias at BBC, but little criticism of Sky.

"From 2000 onwards, Sky News UK expanded its international coverage, opening bureaux in Africa, Europe, and the far East. It won awards from the Royal Television Society,[35] the latest being 'News Channel of the Year' in 2011.

Sky News has won BAFTA awards for coverage of the 11 September 2001 attacks[36] and the 2003 Soham Murders.[37]

Coverage of the 7 July 2005 London bombings won the 2006 International Emmy Breaking News award commending the "fast and accurate" reporting.[38]

In June 2007 Sky News UK was named the "Best News Channel" at the Broadcast Digital Channel Awards. It beat several other national and international broadcasters including Al Jazeera English and the BBC.[39]"

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 07:25 AM

All companies in the UK are subject to strict rules for taxation as well. I suppose that means they all pay everything due and never find ways round it. Come on, Keith, how old are you to believe that strict rules are actually adhered to?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 12:59 PM

All UK broadcasters, including Sky, are subject to strict rules of impartiality.
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2011/dec/11/observer-letters-ofcom-due-impartiality

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,big al whittle
Date: 27 May 14 - 12:40 PM

oh well if he's a blair admirer, he couldn't possibly be a tory.....although there was the precedent of mrs thatcher.

don't be daft musket - why would sky be anything other than a mouthpiece for that creepy fascist git that owns it. any lapses into impartiality must surely be the purest of accidents,

good to see the thread is growing apace.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 12:40 PM

I have not gone posting crazy.
The obscenely abusive posts I was responding to have gone.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 14 - 12:23 PM

Keith of Hertford: "If it is true, it would have been more honest to reply to Jim, "My name is Ian Mather."

Keith, I think you misread that....."My name is Ian Mather" may have been 'I am Blather".

Don, you obviously didn't read or comprehend the earlier part of this thread. Perhaps you are the 'Miltown Man'...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 14 - 12:05 PM

""Everything in the world displeases me: but, above all, my displeasure in everything displeases me.""
 Friedrich Nietzsche

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 11:39 AM

I recall Keith A hole of Hertford saying that Sky wasn't biased, then cutting and pasting as ever something to agree with him.

So you are accusing me of posting my opinion, and then supporting it with hard evidence.
That is an example of how you should make a point in debate.

Don't fucking post it then, thic.....   Err...   person who doesn't know what debate is..

So that would be you then.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 09:16 AM

If I had given my opinion about Sky News' editorial independence, it would not have carried much weight.

Mehdi Hasan actually does know, and from personal experience.
Mehdi Hasan can not be dismissed as I would be by the likes of you.
That is why I quoted him.

So, it did not come from me but I do believe him.
I expect you think he should know better.
Like you.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 07:17 AM

The article is still there.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/05/sky-news-murdoch-labour

Hasan spoke from personal knowledge as he had been a producer of Sky News.
This his profile in The Guardian,
"Mehdi Hasan is political editor of the Huffington Post UK and the presenter of al-Jazeera ­English's The Café. He was a senior editor at the New Statesman and a news and current affairs editor at Channel 4. He is co-author of Ed: the Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader."

(Chortle)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 06:36 AM

None of that was me.
It is a quote.
It was by Mehdi Hasan writing in the New Statesman.
(Chortle)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 27 May 14 - 05:31 AM

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 08 May 13 - 06:42 AM

" Sky News is, like Fox News, a 24-hour rolling news channel, available on satellite and via cable, and part of Rupert Murdoch's global media empire. But in style and in substance, of course, it is nothing like the pro-war, pro-Republican, pro-Palin Fox News Channel (FNC).

For a start, we have Ofcom (which the Tories want to abolish!) and Ofcom would never allow such blatant, on-air bias in this country (God bless Ofcom!). Indeed, I defy you to find me a single anchor or reporter on Sky News who bears even a passing ideological resemblance to Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity."

"But to accuse Sky News of pursuing "political influence" is a desperate claim. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest there is a co-ordinated anti-Labour, pro-Conservative campaign on the part of Sky News. John Ryley, the Sky News boss, Chris Birkett, his executive editor, and Jonathan Levy, the head of the broadcaster's political unit in Millbank -- all of whom I consider friends of mine -- are not Tories, and, if they are, they've done a damn fine job of hiding it from me and countless others.

Adam Boulton, meanwhile, is the semi-sympathetic biographer of Tony Blair -- and married to Blair's former "gatekeeper", Anji Hunter. Oh, and to those of you who have never worked in a TV newsroom, let me be very clear: Rupert Murdoch doesn't ring up each evening to discuss and decide the running orders with Messrs Ryley and Birkett. In fact, in my two years at Sky News HQ in Isleworth, Middlesex, Murdoch Sr physically turned up just once -- and, that too, to open a new building, not to pontificate on day-to-day editorial matters."
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/05/sky-news-murdoch-labour




Even got the "I defy you to find" assertion that follows your usual lack of conviction. It may have been a quote from someone else but used to push your view that Sky is objective, in reply to Bridge's for once accurate observation otherwise.

Sky is objective...... It answers so many questions. {chortle}

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 27 May 14 - 05:25 AM

I looked at this thread as the title intrigued me.

All I can recall now I have scanned to the end is two recent quotes from Alex Akaneaton.

"His faith in equality meaning "marriage" rights for homosexuals is a wonder to behold."

"Most(by far), believe the natural parents have a right to express opinions on the long term effect of a mad social experiment on their children."

No wonder the likes of Steve Shaw, Musket and others lament the lack of moderation on this website. It isnt blocked by my NHS server, so would get through parental locks too. (I get it on my military server for that matter when I am serving.) Hence the need for active moderation. There is no problem with wishing to influence law and pointing out laws that you are uncomforatble with, but making an argument in favour of hate and bigotry?

That is embarrassing for anyone for whom debate on this thread is desirable.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 05:14 AM

A lovely bit from Keith saying Murdoch never interfered in editorial policy.

I do not remember that.
Please remind me.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 05:08 AM

Series of attacks?
I just asked why your name was not on the lists as you claimed.
How is that an "attack" never mind a series of them?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 27 May 14 - 05:02 AM

so etching..... I really must turn off the autocorrect on this ruddy iPad....

Just had a few mins of boredom, so scanned through the UKIP thread. Now, that was only a year ago yet wasn't boring. The demise of the boring thread?

Well.. A lovely bit from Keith saying Murdoch never interfered in editorial policy. A weird bit from me on the basis of trying to debate with Akenaton rather than dismissing him out of hand. In fact, the only thing in common with recent threads is those who want to push a point making out Dave doesn't understand statistics.

Which is a pity. Because speaking as someone who claims to or at least helps form pretty fundamental decisions from analysing them, I reckon Dave is the only person here who has consistently interpreted them objectively and formed a conclusion from them, rather than use them to reiterate prior position.

I knew it was a good idea to elevate him to Messiah Emeritus with Gnomish Atrributes.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 27 May 14 - 03:55 AM

Thanks Dave. Why Keith started this series of attacks on me in the first place is neither here nor there, not do I know why. I assume I put him right on so etching and he doesn't like that. It is only recently that I have set out to deserve his vitriol, because you can't educate pork, you can't reason with fools and to be frank, he stifles debate with his dogmatic stupidity.

I decided to not put up with this, and his crassness has been the result.

Regarding professional names, I admit I am one of many people who protect their private lives. I used my real name when I was chairman of an NHS Trust but when I moved over to the dark side, it was deemed a good idea to do this. That much I keep quiet about. Why? Well, Keith, his pet worm and Goofus are good reasons for starters, before you look at the unhinged people who stalk those who they see as in charge of something they feel strongly about.

The professional side of me has responsibility that the private person doesn't. Be buggered to being stifled in this, a forum for giving your real views. This is the real me, and Ian Mather is giving Ian Mather's views. I may be influenced by what I see, hear and deliberate in my professional life, but you get the real me, not the one that has to be diplomatic. The professional me wouldn't argue the toss with ignorance. Far too busy arguing with ideology and expectation, both of which are honourable and get their information from reliable sources.

Keith's lack of knowledge of the folk would is rather interesting too. I used to think most folk performers working under assumed names were for tax reasons (ha ha) but of course, many join Equity which requires individual names and many just like a more snazzy name. When I was in a punk band, I too had a daft name and with the advent of iTunes, the odd PRS type cheque has been dropping on the doorstep from those times and I have had to get the daft name registered on my bank account... (Not enough to drop a Rolls Royce into a swimming pool. In fact, last year, it paid for Mrs Musket and I to have a weekend away. My fault for being a crap song writer...)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 14 - 03:01 AM

You make it sound a commonplace for members to have a Mudcat name, a real name and another fake one.
How many have you known?

I personally know at least 4 people that have a 'professional' name for one reason or another. We have all heard of dozens more from the world of showbiz and literature. Mudcat name in this scenario is a red herring - Everyone knows Musket's name anyway.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 May 14 - 01:20 AM

Any other presentation of the other side you'd care to share with us Goofus?

What about racial segregation? Or are we too blinkered to see the fault in that too?

Akenaton said above that gay families are a social experiment. It isn't a matter of giving an opposing view , more a matter of pointing out how outrageously wrong such bitter hatred is.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 14 - 01:16 AM

Dave, I am not saying "liar" but I am very sceptical.
You make it sound a commonplace for members to have a Mudcat name, a real name and another fake one.
How many have you known?
It may be common among rock stars and pop. icons to have stage names, but not in the folk world.

If it is true, it would have been more honest to reply to Jim, "My name is Ian Mather. I never hid behind anything but I am still hiding behind anonymity because that is not my real name either."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 14 - 11:42 PM

Piltdown man.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 14 - 11:16 PM

Once again, Steve, you are billowing nonsense....and there is nothing wrong with presenting both sides...because they both do the same thing, in regards to how they see themselves, and the other side. You taking offense to that, is self-proving, of what I posted, and is self-defeating of the point you are trying to make...ie. "It's the 'other guys' who are 'wrong'...my side is 'blameless'..we're perfectly normal!!"

Check it out!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 14 - 09:43 PM

Wondrously enough, Piltdown man still seems to be around......

In fact, a couple of specimens.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 14 - 09:16 PM

Of course, homosexuals and heterosexuals are both normal, gfs.

Except neither of them think that the other is...

GfS

Typical mindless, curmudgeonly, distempered, sweeping, unsupportable statement from the bigoted and brainless one. None of the gay and straight people I know and love are ever judgemental about the people of the other orientation, not ever. There is wonderful tolerance and acceptance ever-burgeoning in this world of ours, and troglodytic backwoodsmen like you and Ake are simply not going to prevail. You are outmoded, outdated and outvoted. Busted, disgusted, can't be trusted. Yesterday's men. Sick.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 26 May 14 - 08:41 PM

"Except neither of them think that the other is..."
Well, possibly a minority think that way?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 14 - 08:38 PM

Steve, Paul, Philip, Jamie, and Eric are some of the most normal guys I know. By the way, they all happen to be homosexual.

Some "straight" guys I acquainted with are so kinky it boggles the imagination.

By the way, some of them are on this thread.

Don Firth (not staying, just passing through.....)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 May 14 - 08:23 PM

"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief
"There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth"

"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late"...

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 14 - 06:23 PM

Except neither of them think that the other is...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 26 May 14 - 05:33 PM

Of course, homosexuals and heterosexuals are both normal, gfs.

Some on the fringes, those with "underlying prejudicial issues", those who have been marginalized in the past and those adhering to the past, seem not to "get it". Hopefully, they can move on with others and get over their "hang ups".

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:26 PM

You're the ones into 'social engineering'....What's the matter?..What's good for the 'goose' isn't good for the pander???...or was that gander?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 26 May 14 - 01:58 PM

Go and practice thought experiments on your teddy bear Goofus, there's a good chap.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 14 - 08:37 AM

"Gay is normal. Bigotry isn't."

Now just convince homosexuals that heterosexuals are normal, and 'bigotry isn't', as well!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 26 May 14 - 08:31 AM

"In law, an involuntary termination of parental rights permanently prohibits a parent from having any legal rights to the child, including the right to custody of the child, the right to visit or have any contact with the child, and the right to have any input in decisions made regarding the child. "

This rare action is taken by most states where parents, or their relatives, demonstrate no genuine concern for their childrens welfare, as most caring parents do. Actions to terminate parential rights are legally complex, rare, take all alternative actions into consideration and are based on the childs best interests - not those of the parents. Once finalized, as the term states, all parental legal rights and future decisons on the childs lives are "terminated".




Termination of parential rights in law 

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 May 14 - 07:57 AM

Oh for heavens sake, Keith. Is this going to be another accusation of lying? I am the worlds worse at picking up on meanings but it is obvious, even to me, that Ian means he does not hide behind anonymity ON HERE. Nothing whatsoever to do with his professional career. I know many people who publish works under an assumed name for various reasons.

When arguments get to this level of nit picking they are really not worth having.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 14 - 07:36 AM

When Jim Carrol accused you of hiding behind anonymity, you replied, "My name is Ian Mather by the way. I have never hid behind anything."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 26 May 14 - 05:00 AM

That may be your interpretation of the judges comments Ian, but it certainly is not mine, or the view large number of people with whom I have discussed the matter.

Most(by far), believe the natural parents have a right to express opinions on the long term effect of a mad social experiment on their children.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:40 AM

And Cliff Richard is Harry Webb.

I am my private self on these threads. My professional name isn't vanity so much as necessity.

Worm. The judge was right to criticise the social workers for pointing out the bigotry of the parents. This is related to my point to Keith above. Health and social care is non judgemental and the art of keeping your mouth shut when faced with bigotry is an art I too have had to learn. I spoke with someone from the ombudsman only the other day over a patient in a hospital who took umbrage when he was castigated for asking to be seen by white doctors and nurses. The human reaction of the hospital trust was being investigated not the bigotry of the patient. The complaints process of course didn't get closure.

But Ian Mather can point out your faults all day. And many of them are, in the opinion of just about every Mudcat member who has given an opinion, bigoted (inc two moderators) to "unfortunate." ( Keith.) Don't worry about Keith's view though, it's rarely evidence based.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 May 14 - 11:41 AM

Frankly, I just blew him off as ever having anything reliable to say...he's bullshitted just too much.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 14 - 09:14 AM

When Jim Carrol accused you of hiding behind anonymity, you replied, "My name is Ian Mather by the way. I have never hid behind anything."

Should we disbelieve that, or your claim that your name is on BMJ lists, or both?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 25 May 14 - 08:15 AM

"On Friday, Sir James Munby, the most senior judge in the family court, ruled that the parents had no grounds to appeal under UK law.

He added that while any judge should "respect the opinions of those who come here from a foreign land", he had to judge matters according to English law and by reference to "the standards of reasonable men and women in contemporary English society".

However, he criticised local authority social workers for referring to the parents as "bigoted".

The ruling follows government pressure for families to ignore previous rules, which said adopted children should be placed with families from a similar religious or cultural background, in order to increase the number of children from ethnic minority backgrounds who were adopted.

The parents are likely to appeal against the judgement in the European Court of Human Rights, in a process that could take months."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 14 - 07:56 AM

They were removed from their traditional culture and in some ways that was sad. If a Roma family put themselves forward for adopting and passed the tests, I for one one would see a good all round solution. It was weighed against abusive parents who included physical violence and disregard for ensuring attendance in school and access to medical care on two occasions.

There is no question of liberal rights, whatever they are. UK law accepts that a family situation that can successfully raise children includes same sex couples, as thousands of people of gay parents will testify. The law doesn't distinguish as this case reiterates.

The law starts and finishes with the law. The opinion you certainly did express was to slur people for being same sex couples and to the law for seeing all people as having equal opportunity.

It's called having form.




Keith. My professional identity is separate from my domestic one, as with many people in high profile situations. The disgraceful slurs from idiots such as yourself being a good reason for doing so. The freedom to say what I think rather than the constraints of office are, as I said many times, cathartic. That said, quite a few people know both the bloke with a pint in a folk club and the prof at the lectern. Neither of me would wish to know you though, judging by your attitude and actions.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 14 - 07:56 PM

I was not expressing any opinion, I was simply wondering where "liberal rights" start and finish.
The Roma couple said that their children could be psychologically damaged by the decision, and would be removed from their traditional culture.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 May 14 - 01:15 PM

You ought to lighten up.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 24 May 14 - 10:03 AM

The children have been taken from a couple. This is not done lightly.

The children are to be raised in a loving family environment, which has been assessed as being as such.

If you think a couple cannot raise children on account of their gender being similar, you are bigoted. Worse, you are beneath contempt. What evidence do you have that this couple looking for a child to adopt, are not suitable? There is a lack of willing families to give children the lives they need, and this couple need congratulating, not heckled by mindless scum.

This is getting silly. Not a single person on Mudcat shares your criminal thoughts. Give it a rest and allow Mudcat to debate issues without having to read your filth.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 10:01 AM

Musket, you told us last year what your name is, but it is not on any of those lists.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 14 - 09:37 AM

I suspect few would suggest parenting or any other lessons from folks who were so bad at being parents that they had their children removed by government social representatives, and given out to strangers.

Considering the screening involved in placement, the kids will most likely experience a loving home atmosphere for the first time in their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 14 - 09:23 AM

What a "rights" quandary for the "liberals", who just seem determined to tie themselves in knots with the tangled strands of their ideology.

Roma couple had their two young children 4 and 1, removed by Social Services, who decided to put them up for adoption.
The Catholic couple wanted their kids to go to a Catholic family, but SS decided they would be placed with a homosexual couple.
SS called the natural mother and father "bigoted" for objecting to the decision.!!!!. Rights? who's rights?


FULL STORY.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 23 May 14 - 08:02 PM

new research 

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 May 14 - 01:32 PM

Ebbie: ""...but, as noted in my previous post, there appears to be unsupported data as to WHEN those changes occur..." GfS
Quite likely they develop the hormonal changes when they decide to be gay."

'Deciding' to be a homosexual, has not been the issue...but that isn't the same as deciding not to be...as the testimony of Michael Spatze clearly illustrates.

Ebbie: "Whut?? "abnormalities of the brain?" "others born that way?"
Aren't you speaking of both? Or do you mean that the abnormalities occurred later?"

Don was the one who pulled up the brain differences, from studies he posted. As to when those differences happen he wasn't sure of, as he posted. However, the hormones affecting the nervous system through the receptors happen during gestation....much like babies who are addicted to certain drugs when they are born, because they had those substances during the fetus being formed...and the receptors got conditioned to 'needing' them.

Firth: "GfS, let me ask you this:   why do you object so strongly to the idea that sexual orientation could be the result of a gene or combination of genes?
True, they have not yet found a definitive "gay gene".

You answered your own question.

Firth:Senior Play like "You Can't Take It With You" and "Our Town,," and other productions were practically professional quality and many of those who acted, sang, and danced in these productions went on to Great Things. Movies, Broadway, Seattle and San Francisco Opera…….. Not all those who participated were gay, but a fair number of them were. Much higher percentage than the general population.

Suppress and alienate these folks and we ALL lose!"

And there is a great answer for that...ya' want the long answer or short one? (which I'll be happy to supply), Not withstanding, their talents is not the issue, which I acknowledge, and have posted as much....I'M NOT the one who doesn't think that their talent isn't worth passing on, or taking it out of the gene pool!!!...and once they flash that there IS something inside them, very much worth treasuring, and passing on, do they begin to reconsider.

Consider this post from '09....does it sound like I don't acknowledge their talent??...does it sound like 'bigotry' or 'homophobia'?? Not in the least!!!

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:28 AM

You have heard homosexuals say, "I FEEL like a woman trapped in a mans body(and vice versa)"...Ok?....Who gets trapped??!!?? VICTIMS!!!! Yes, VICTIMS..and who is victimizing them?........a combination, of neglect, and their sensitivities. That's how powerful it was! Ever notice some of the most brilliant artists, are homosexual??...Why? Sensitivities, and learning to speak to the other side of themselves, giving them sometimes a wider perspective!
I had originally thought of sharing a story with you, about a friend of mine, I mentioned in another post, I guy I knew, who was the most brilliant, composer, sound engineer, laser engineer, it think I had ever met, up to that point..and still heads and shoulders above many since. He taught me volumes about sound, and composing, that still is ahead of the pack. He finally opened up to me, when he finally felt no threat from me, or condemnation, but rather objective, caring, interest in him,, and his true inner needs. He and his father were distant, due to a long history of mutual bitterness, and disapproval. This guy was in the USMC Marine Band, had scholarships for music, and could play a variety of instruments..and WELL!
When we talked about sensitivities, I pointed out to him, that being sensitive was a huge quality, and being as he knew that, and we both acknowledged it, and he was gifted with it, I asked him, if instead of either resenting it, or hiding it, why not nurture it, in a child of his own, being as he knew so very well, how valuable, and powerful it was. Just hearing that, tears welled up in his eyes, and he admitted that he always wanted to do that, but didn't think he could because he had been Homosexual so long, that he lost touch with that ability, of what he really always wanted to do.
Not long after, he found his partner, Mark had come down with something he just could shake...and not too long after, Mark died of AIDS. Mark had the same issues with his dad, and in that, they found 'common ground'.
Deeply saddened, bordering on mourning, we talked more, and he opened up more. I asked him if his father had ever heard his incredible recordings. He was resolved to the thought, that his dad wouldn't like them, be interested in them, or him, and so his father never heard it.
Making a long post shorter, I'll skip the details of our conversations,(unless anyone is curious), and he took his recordings, and masters, up, and was going to get 're-acquainted with his dad, in Sacramento...possibly with the hopes of reconciling with him. Turns out, he stayed up there with him for better part of a year....and then died from AIDS, with his father, taking care of him, to the end.
So Dale, (the guy), you told me, that you wish you could have known before, and sooner...so where ever you are out there,..I'm honoring your wish..to all the other 'Dales' out there. I told you I would have, if I would have know sooner too!
Now, dying of AIDS was not the issue, I was trying to underscore. He could have died, for any reason....The thing is, my children's generation, is also denied of that genius and that gene pool is forever lost...NEEDLESSLY!!!!!! THOUGHTLESSLY!!!
What I just related to you, is the absolute truth....and to all those who give me crap, about being a 'bigot' or 'hating' homosexuals..."

GfS

P.S. Sorry I was so late in getting back, but I've been swamped!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 May 14 - 11:09 AM

Funny how I am on the list you provided. For more than one year.

Talking of names, is it just Keith or is it Cllr Keith now?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 14 - 09:55 AM

Funny how BMJ don't know you are one of their reviewers.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 23 May 14 - 08:14 AM

Let's start a thread where child molesters tell lies about me and moderators remove my replies.

It'll be ever so funny.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 May 14 - 04:50 PM

Carry on carping.

What a concept! Thanks, Spaw. I can just see Kenneth Williams as Keith. Musket could be played by Sid James. I quite fancy Charles Hawtry doing me, although he would have to wear a lot of padding. And who could be Ake? Well, who else, Barbara Windsor :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 May 14 - 04:23 PM

I'm glad to see the boring ass thread is alive and doing well as you have all well and nobly proven. The thread title scared me some as these have become the part and parcel of Mudcat BS replacing the stupid fun threads. Carry on carping.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 22 May 14 - 01:11 PM

Its amazing how Ian squirms(like a worm?).

His ideology is so entrenched that he will deny all evidence which contradicts it, without offering one fact to support it.
His faith in equality meaning "marriage" rights for homosexuals is a wonder to behold.

A man of faith indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 14 - 10:41 AM

We are not discussing the paper, but as AKE said,
"The paper was published by the National Centre for Biotechnology Information, under the auspices of the US National Library of Medicine and the National institute of Health.
The authors are reputable and have published many papers on medical issues.

Examining the correspondence between relationship identity and actual sexual risk behavior among HIV-positive men who have sex with men.

Blashill AJ, Wilson JM, O'Cleirigh CM, Mayer KH, Safren SA.
Author information (Blashill)
Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, 1 Bowdoin Square, 7th Floor, Boston, MA, 02114, USA, [e-mail]. "

I am asking how you know this paper was submitted to BMJ why it was rejected when BMJ guarantees confidentiality.

BTW, you claimed to be a BMJ reviewer, but they have neglected to place your name on their lists.
http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/bmj-reviewers

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 14 - 07:18 AM

I am not calling you a liar over this.
I am asking you how you know that the paper quoted by Ake had been submitted to and rejected by BMJ, and how you know the grounds for rejection including the libellous accusations against the authors.
Can we see the evidence please?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 14 - 05:14 AM

Dave, in the quote he states the reasons for BMJ's rejection as facts.
They were not.
He had no way of knowing any of that and now he does not claim to.
Judge and jury would have no doubt that his statement was false.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 14 - 05:01 AM

You stated, "It was rejected by BMJ on two counts. Failure to declare anti gay political donations by two of the authors and making unsubstantiated conclusions from the evidence. "

The truth is you do not even know if it was submitted to BMJ.
How could you?
If it was, you do not know why it was rejected.
How could you?
You do not know what donations any of the authors may or may not have received.
How could you?

If you did not make it all up, where did it come from?
That is all I have been asking you.
Why does that make you so abusive?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 14 - 01:37 AM

You do not lie Dave.
A lie must be a deliberate attempt to deceive.

I do not believe Musket somehow accessed BMJ's database and breached their confidentiality on submissions.
In my opinion he made that up, but I do not make an accusation of lying.

I only do that when it is unequivocal and proved.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 14 - 05:28 PM

I think a jury would conclude that he made it up.

They may well do, Keith. Juries are by nature laymen. A judge, proficient in legal matters would, I believe, inform the jury that all the evidence is circumstantial and the accused should remain innocent until proven guilty.

BTW - I realised that I did promise some time back that I would not post in this thread any more. Does that make a liar of me?

Oh - and 600 :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 14 - 10:25 AM

FW, here is your quote, and if it is not made up where did it come from?

"It was rejected by BMJ on two counts. Failure to declare anti gay political donations by two of the authors and making unsubstantiated conclusions from the evidence. "

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 14 - 08:55 AM

Why do you misquote me?

I said, "Musket can give chapter and verse on the specific reasons for refusal of that one paper, even though the journal guarantees absolute confidentiality, and he splurges it over an internet forum."

You did give the specific reasons why the paper was rejected by BMJ, so where did you get that information TC?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 14 - 04:11 AM

Lack of proof does not mean it is not true

Of course not, but this is just the latest in a pattern of wildly improbable claims that appear to support his views, but no evidence can be produced.

If this paper was submitted to BMJ it was one of "7000-8000" every year of which only 7% are accepted.
Musket can give chapter and verse on the specific reasons for refusal of that one paper, even though the journal guarantees absolute confidentiality, and he splurges it over an internet forum.

Of course it might be true, and is not even the most outrageous of his many such claims, but I think a jury would conclude that he made it up.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 14 - 02:04 PM

I have no idea if what anyone says on here is true unless I know about it already. I will occasionally see something that interests me and look it up but I will not take anything I find on Google as the truth. Funny thing is that I believe what Musket says, even if he cannot prove it. Lack of proof does not mean it is not true. I also believe what Keith says but, as Keith knows, I set no store whatsoever by government statistics and those supplied by parties with their own agenda. I could be proved wrong on either or both counts but I take that chance. They are both nice guys in their own way and, provided they buy ne a pint, I would have a drink with tem (See, practicing my new Yorkshire status :-) )

What I do know is that these discussions go nowhere. The mods must get sick of them. They must get even more sick of people joining in the fight and then whinging that the other party is not playing fair. If anyone expects to stir the shit and not create a foul atmosphere they are seriously deluded.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 14 - 01:16 PM

Keith, I have given up addressing Ian, he is a proven liar.
How can we have an adult discussion when he fills his posts with babble and lies.
You have caught him out on at least ten occasions to my knowledge.

I'm sure most people can see how he misrepresents anything he doesn't agree with and even if they don't agree with what we say on different subjects, they must see the pointlessness of taking him seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 12:32 PM

"BMJ editors treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents, which means they will not divulge information about a manuscript to anyone without the authors' permission."
http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-submission

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 11:13 AM

So TC, you can not produce anything at all to support your improbable claims about that paper and the BMJ and other journals.

I am sure that no-one is in the least surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 14 - 08:43 AM

I'll take that as an apology.

I know it wasn't, but it was about as good as you can get from him.

I must be going mad I know, but I thought about your posts Keith, about an hour ago.

I was in a meeting and someone picked up a paper we were discussing that was written by MOD, and not anyone in their medical side, about field hospitals and trauma.

He dropped it back on the table and said that as a microbiologist he has seen a lot of runny poo in his time but this takes the arse biscuit.

It made me giggle.

Then I thought of some of your posts on aspects of healthcare. And then some of your posts about the military looking after their soldiers.

Then I laughed out loud...

Probably the first time ever I thought of Mudcat when playing in the real world. Pity the subject couldn't be a better one mind, but as my Uncle Albert used to say, "if arseholes were gold, only the rich would have them."

Your posts are true 24 carat....

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 06:49 AM

TC's link is to a search result for "Health and Social Care Act 2008"

A bit random TC!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 06:46 AM

Basically, Keith was asking about editorial credibility with professional obligations in healthcare

No I was not.
I was asking for evidence for your claim about a research paper.
"It was sent for assessment and possible publication to The New England Journal of Medicine and over here, to The BMJ and Lancet.
It was rejected by BMJ on two counts. Failure to declare anti gay political donations by two of the authors and making unsubstantiated conclusions from the evidence."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 14 - 05:55 AM

And for anyone actually interested in the subject rather than blustering their way of of looking foolish in true Hertford fashion..

Lets get boring

Basically, Keith was asking about editorial credibility with professional obligations in healthcare. The act of Parliament the link goes to includes the obligation to register to be able to carry out healthcare. Within that, there is a regulation (Regulation 9 - Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated activities) Regulations 2010.

This requires providers of healthcare to ensure that treatment reflects published research evidence and guidance issued by the appropriate professional and expert bodies. The Care Quality Commission inspectorate, which Musket was an advisor to up till recently, defines what is appropriate.

The British Medical Journal is deemed appropriate due to their editorial policy. Knowing their editorial policy intimately, my assertion Keith refers to is robust, and has, incidentally been tested in a tribunal. To help my friend "Seaham Cemetry (sic)) here, the only American journal that passes the test is The New England Journal of Medicine.

For info as to why other publications from The USA receive a healthy dose of suspicion, I suggest you read Ben Goldacre's wonderful book, Bad Science.

Incidentally, a recent publication in The BMJ on statins made headlines as a paper was cited in another paper that was not to the standard required. As the reputation and importance of The BMJ is so critical to evidence based healthcare planing and delivery, this small oversight made big news.

Hence Keith's liberal interpretations and fanciful conclusions on anything from WW1 fairy stories to public health statistics would be potentially damaging if a) he had any credibility and b) had a large enough audience. As he dabbles with right wing politics, best nip it in the bud. This is grown up stuff Keith. Stick to British Bulldogs in the playground eh?

TC

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 05:40 AM

You lied again TC.
My link exposed it.
Your link is as worthless as all your previous non-substantiations.

Your "joke" is pathetic too.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 05:24 AM

TC, here is where I asked you the question, and you never even refer to it, never mind answer it.
So your last claim was completely untrue TC.
No answer yet.
thread.cfm?threadid=154487&messages=187&page=1&desc=yes#3626365

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 14 - 02:05 AM

"...but, as noted in my previous post, there appears to be unsupported data as to WHEN those changes occur..." GfS

Quite likely they develop the hormonal changes when they decide to be gay.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 01:22 AM

Question put to "Musket" 4 days ago,
"It seems extraordinarily improbable that the group quoted by Ake would choose the BMJ to publish their paper.
Where did you get that info about the rejection?"

No answer supplied.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 04:48 PM

?



Thinks I am in the army now

TC

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 14 - 03:40 PM

"Seaham Cemetry" how do you know that "The New England Journal of Medicine doesnt publish papers that concur with such views."

A few days ago I asked you (with your Musket hat on) how you knew that BMJ had refused to publish a paper and the reasons.

Perhaps we might have an answer this time?
I do not mind from which hat.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 14 - 02:52 PM

When I was in high school, the student productions—the annual operetta, like "The Fortune Teller" and "Showboat," the Senior Play like "You Can't Take It With You" and "Our Town,," and other productions were practically professional quality and many of those who acted, sang, and danced in these productions went on to Great Things. Movies, Broadway, Seattle and San Francisco Opera…….. Not all those who participated were gay, but a fair number of them were. Much higher percentage than the general population.

Suppress and alienate these folks and we ALL lose!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 14 - 02:13 PM

My interest in this subject is not, and never has been, motivated by politics. I have known gay people all my life. Some of the best singers, actors, and dancers I knew in high school didn't date girls—or anyone for that matter—they devoted themselves to their art. One guy, into ballet, eventually started his own ballet company and it is now world renowned. Others went on to do some pretty great things in the performing arts, and two of the sharpest attorneys I am acquainted with are gay.

A guy that my wife dated a lot when she was in high school was gay. She dated him because he was intelligent and interesting (a budding authority on the Civil War and the history of the British monarchy, and he eventually made his living tutoring the children of rich people), had a good personality and was fun in general—and she didn't have to go through the usual unwanted wrestling match in the back seat of the car. He eventually met a guy in theater arts who taught set and prop design in a college in California (and who also worked on the sets and props for several movies). They moved in together, bought a house, are solid tax paying citizens, and have been living together for a couple of decades.

Although I don't share their particular orientation, some of the brightest, most talented people I have known have been gay.   And it sets me to grinding my teeth when certain people look down on them and want to deny them the rights and privileges enjoyed by "straight" people simply because they object to their "life-style" when it in no way affects them.

The POLITICS is introduced by those who wish to deny gays and lesbians the same rights that are enjoyed by "straight" people.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 14 - 01:33 PM

GfS, let me ask you this:   why do you object so strongly to the idea that sexual orientation could be the result of a gene or combination of genes?

True, they have not yet found a definitive "gay gene" (although there are some that tend to arouse suspicion), but the research is not finished yet, and they could nail it any day now.

Recently there has been the suspicion that they might be looking in the wrong place. Perhaps the gene(s) is carried by the mother and governs the timing of the release of hormones in utero.

It's very premature to simply deny the existence of a "gay gene."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 01:10 PM

Ebbie, After i posted my last post, I thought I should clarify something I said..when I posted, "...but, as noted in my previous post, there appears to be unsupported data as to WHEN those changes occur, as Don also noted." I am referring to the changes in the size in the brain, not to the development of the nervous system and/or receptors.

...and Musket, my issues are not with the homosexuals per se, but rather all the political noise which seems to want to drown out hard data....AND even the 'religious' rhetoric that ignores understanding when dealing with compassion.
They both have led, and contributed to hostile divisions.

Got an appointment...consider it..then get back.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 12:50 PM

Interesting that Goofus shouts "politico!" when someone who knows what they are talking about weighs in....

The biology is interesting. The stance trying to be concluded from it stinks.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 12:23 PM

Ebbie: "G, (I'm being polite) aren't "hormones" and "at birth" saying the same thing?"

Hormones effecting the fetus's development to the receptors and nervous system would have a direct effect on how or what we perceive....and possibly any effect on the brain, which I'm open to...but, as noted in my previous post, there appears to be unsupported data as to WHEN those changes occur, as Don also noted.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 12:17 PM

Let me 'clarify'...by 'everything' I meant everything in quotation marks from the studies. If you have differences, I suggest you read the actual link from what was hailed as the 'latest breakthrough studies' as heralded by the article from the 'UK Guardian'.
At issue is 'genetics' but no gene has been identified conclusively.
brain differences(from Don's post, 1st 'CLICKY'), but it doesn't appear that that has been supported by actual data provided...merely as Don posted, "I don't think brain scientists know yet whether these difference existed at birth or came later."

What is known, and supported by most all studies, is that hormones, produced by the mother, during pregnancy, has a direct affect, and in the posted link, by Dave and Don, is this direct quote, "While genes do CONTRIBUTE to sexual orientation, OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

It just appears that what has been 'rumored' by the politicos, about the 'cause' of homosexuality, is not supported by the very link studies posted...nor their seems to be inconsistencies as to how much physiological changes were present AT BIRTH.

My contention, is that the stressed hormonal environment during pregnancy, in which the nervous system is being formed, would have a direct effect on the receptors in the nervous system, and I'm open to the brain differences, posted by Don, being as the brain is part of the nervous system.

I do not align myself with a 'religious', nor 'political' stance...that being said, there could be certain consistencies with either or both.
So what are they???...and..why would either of them base their emphatic 'opinions' on unsupported and/or conflicting data???...or is it just unsupported political bias, trying to appear as 'common knowledge'???
...and if that's the case, using that unsupported bias to enact laws and policies, on fabrications??
Wouldn't you be, 'at least curious'??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 14 - 11:45 AM

"...but we DO know that the hormones have an effect, which I've maintained all along, AND you also seem to be inclined to concur...am I correct??

So if you got something that verifies that they could be determined at birth, I'm listening....." GfS

G, (I'm being polite) aren't "hormones" and "at birth" saying the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 11:32 AM

Seaham Cemetry: "Most of what Guest from Sanity alludes to is discredited at every level. The New England Journal of Medicine doesnt publish papers that concur with such views but has published many that blow away some of the myths."

Interesting..because EVERYTHING I posted was a cut and paste from the studies that was posted by Dave the Gnome and Don Firth...which tends to discredit everything you just tried to lay out in your post. If you have something different, post it, instead of alleging your personal opinion based on what appears to be a political bias.
Fair enough??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 19 May 14 - 06:50 AM

I have been involved with many research projects as a medical doctor, and due to my military career I have been able to carry it out in many countries. Medics around the world refuse to agree with the search for fault. Curiosity about what may be genetic, hard wired or otherwise, but not in order to find defect. Similar work goes on to identify susceptibility to social traits of all types.

Most of what Guest from Sanity alludes to is discredited at every level. The New England Journal of Medicine doesnt publish papers that concur with such views but has published many that blow away some of the myths.

You will have to look at Christian group publications to find most of it, and that isnt evidence based, unless JC has popped up again and I never noticed?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 05:52 AM

Oh, so the mouth is a part of the reproductive system now is it? (Thinking on, getting laid begins with "Yeah, yeah, of course I love you and will respect you afterwards"...)

Why different though? I know some fairly effeminate men who are heterosexual and I know some big hairy rough buggers who prefer other men.

How are you defining it? by a sex act? What about gay for pay porn stars? You have far more of them in your country so perhaps can speak with more confidence than me, but most porn stars, especially women but some men too, have sex with people of both genders.

How does that fit in your ABC Guide to Eugenics?

Are you identifying purely through sex?

You have a seedy side that isn't exactly well hidden Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 04:07 AM

"Since when was choosing a life partner of the same sex "abnormal?"

I qualified 'abnormal' with including the words 'or different', in reference to Don's comment on the brains appearing similar to a lesbian's. Being as they are not 'physiologically' female, nor 'lesbians', but they are showing variations from 'normal' male brains, I think one could get away using the terminology of 'abnormal' or 'different' Note: When I first used it, and still do, I put it in quotation marks, for those who may find it questionable..Fair enough??

"Since when was choosing a life partner intrinsically linked to procreation?"

Well you might be able to figure that one out. Look up 'Reproductive System'...and then figure out how that is involved with the 'sex act'.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 03:29 AM

Since when was choosing a life partner of the same sex "abnormal?"

Since when was choosing a life partner intrinsically linked to procreation?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 03:09 AM

Firth: "I don't think brain scientists know yet whether these difference existed at birth or came later."

Wait a minute...you were emphatic about the actual, physical brain showing differences, I believe in the hypothalamus, and that was for that 'percentage' of those who were 'born that way'...so now were back to square one....though in the study that both you and Dave posted, they have this quote(or quotes....let me go pull them up....hold on.....>>>>>>........OK..)Here:

""While genes do CONTRIBUTE to sexual orientation, OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is NOT COMPLETELY DETERMINATIVE; there are certainly OTHER environmental factors involved."

"Last year, before the latest results were made public, one of Bailey's colleagues, Alan Sanders, said the findings could not and should not be used to develop a test for sexual orientation."

"When people say there's a gay gene, it's an oversimplification," Sanders said. "There's more than one gene, and genetics is NOT the whole story. Whatever gene CONTRIBUTES to sexual orientation, you can think of it as much as contributing to HETEROSEXUALITY as much as you can think of it contributing to homosexuality. It contributes to a variation in the trait."

So, it sounds as if the brain WAS 'abnormal' or 'different' in the womb, or before birth, it should be measurable, according to your post with three 'Clickies'...the first 'CLICKY' I believe..SOOOO....you may be correct, when you said:

"I don't think brain scientists know yet whether these difference existed at birth or came later."

So in light of THAT comment, which I could be in agreement with, how can it be said, and who is saying, that they were 'born that way'??

As far as 'genetics' go this is from the 'latest breakthrough study':


"..and then it says, (Now pay attention) "Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were NEITHER SUFFICIENT, Nor NECESSARY, to MAKE ANY of the men gay."

...and this, "That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up EVERY GENE LINKED to sexual orientation would still be LESS EFFECTIVE THAN FLIPPING A COIN."

Now I wasn't even going to go there, BUT here we are again....born that way 'PHYSIOLOGICALLY'??...or not??

....but we DO know that the hormones have an effect, which I've maintained all along, AND you also seem to be inclined to concur...am I correct??

So if you got something that verifies that they could be determined at birth, I'm listening.....

BTW, Respectfully...
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 11:21 PM

Both.

The point should be made that the "abnormalities" consisted of the brains of homosexuals having certain characteristics of the opposite sex. Which is to say, male homosexuals' brains had certain characteristics of the female brain, the brains of lesbians showed some characteristics typical of the male brains.

I don't think brain scientists know yet whether these difference existed at birth or came later.

And whether they should be characterized as "abnormalities" is, perhaps, questionable.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 May 14 - 10:29 PM

"Are you commenting about the ones from the study that showed 'abnormalities' in the brain, which was just a percentage, of those tested?...or all of the others who claim they were born that way from birth??" GfS

Whut?? "abnormalities of the brain?" "others born that way?"

Aren't you speaking of both? Or do you mean that the abnormalities occurred later?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:22 PM

But then, according to cigarette ads back about fifty years ago, "Nine out of ten doctors prefer Camels."

Don Firth

(P. S.   I shouldn't do that. It will only confuse, Goofus......)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:17 PM

Most members of the human race are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.

But a relatively small percentage of members of the human race are attracted to members of their own sex.

Indeed, when I said "some," I was referring to this relatively small percentage.

In ALL cased, one can act on the attraction or refrain from acting.

Clear now?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jeri
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:02 PM

You're telling him he should have said what he said? Or just explaining that "some" isn't the same as "everybody"?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:54 PM

Firth: "....but some are attracted to members of their own sex."

"Some" is not everybody...so clean that up to be precise.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:39 PM

By they way, when I say "everybody," I mean heterosexuals also.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:10 PM

Everybody. Not just those in the studies.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:50 PM

Firth: "Agreed. But the issue is that most people are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, but some are attracted to members of their own sex. There, too, one can act on the attraction or refrain from acting. Choice. BUT one has little control over the initial attraction."

"...BUT one has little control over the initial attraction."
Are you commenting about the ones from the study that showed 'abnormalities' in the brain, which was just a percentage, of those tested?...or all of the others who claim they were born that way from birth??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Nick
Date: 18 May 14 - 02:46 PM

A friend happened to post this today which I hadn't seen before.

Tillett Wright talks about sexuality and the Self Evident Truths Project

18 minutes well spent for me

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:47 PM

GfS:   "People are attracted to each other for a number of reasons..that's all, and in that, it is up to each individual whether to act upon that, wouldn't you say? Nobody is forcing them to act upon it, nobody is forcing a choice one way or the other...and sometimes, or often, those people have their inclinations."

Agreed. But the issue is that most people are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, but some are attracted to members of their own sex. There, too, one can act on the attraction or refrain from acting. Choice. BUT one has little control over the initial attraction.

THAT is the issue. Who one is attracted to is not a matter of choice. No point in arguing the matter. It's just a fact.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 14 - 11:56 AM

Ask Woody Woodpecker.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:58 AM

How do you compromise with Daffy Duck?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:31 AM

....guess it comes when one squanders an opportunity for compromises...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:09 AM

Which in some ways is a blessing.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:31 AM

D.F.: "Some people do, I suppose. Perhaps that's your way. Not mine."

OK..but 'some' ...

Sorry in answering this one late, but Mudcat was going through a 'slow loading period, again.


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:20 AM

Well, it wasn't a ploy...it was straightforward, as a response to your post. People are attracted to each other for a number of reasons..that's all, and in that, it is up to each individual whether to act upon that, wouldn't you say? Nobody is forcing them to act upon it, nobody is forcing a choice one way or the other...and sometimes, or often, those people have their inclinations.
Fair enough? (If I'm not, tell me where you're having reservations). I'm not 'luring' you into anything..I think we've moved into another level of dialogue...and based on what you've put out there, we got enough....now we just got to sift through it, and confirm the consistencies, and hopefully discard what is not needed. OK?...and, as long as we're at this juncture, we have enough history of bias vs facts vs consensus vs popular nonsense to be able to kick ass for everyone's benefit, wouldn't you say?

GfS

P.S....unless politics keeps everyone stuck in mid-air...which it tends to do, but that is another subject for another time....

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 11:34 PM

Goofus:   "……some people have sex, for sex sake, and not because they particularly 'love' that person...correct??"

Some people do, I suppose. Perhaps that's your way. Not mine.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 06:18 PM

"Inclinations of attraction." Alfred Kinsey covered that pretty thoroughly back in the mid-1950s. What, precisely, are you getting at, Goofus?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 14 - 05:29 PM

D.F.: "Whether one is heterosexual OR homosexual, and assuming a willing partner, one always has the choice of whether to have sex or not.
THAT is not the kind of choice we're talking about."

That is NOT a spin. To illustrate that further, some people have sex, for sex sake, and not because they particularly 'love' that person...correct??

Come on now, we're blowing the lid off some pretty huge misconceptions(no pun intended).

As far as choice, how about 'inclinations of attraction'??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 04:52 PM

Some years ago, Indonesia had become so overpopulated that the government launched a campaign to promote homosexuality in hopes of reducing the skyrocketing birth rate.

One cannot simply "choose" to change one's sexual orientation. The program was a dismal failure.

It did encourage homosexuals from other countries to immigrate there, where they would be honored instead of viewed with contempt, but that raised the population somewhat.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: frogprince
Date: 17 May 14 - 03:32 PM

Gfs is obviously right, as usual; there is nothing really wrong with having same-sex orientation, so long as you choose to marry a member of the opposite sex and reproduce anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 02:30 PM

Whether one is heterosexual OR homosexual, and assuming a willing partner, one always has the choice of whether to have sex or not.

THAT is not the kind of choice we're talking about.

YOU are the one who is spinning, Goofball.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 14 - 02:09 PM

You're the one who interpreted(spun) what I said, as being strictly 'choice'......and physiologically, rooted in behavior, from the womb..otherwise the hormones would not have been geared to cause the effect that they did/do....being as is/was not 'genetic', as some political exploiters would have us believe......correct??
The choice has always been in regard to who (or what) we decide to have sex with...correct??.....except for most victims of rape...correct??

..in your court...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:06 PM

Well, we seem to be making some progress. Now Goofus seems to be willing to admit that there are, indeed, physiological factors that determine sexual orientation.

That's a far cry from his claim on earlier threads that sexual orientation is strictly a matter of choice.

A guy wakes up one morning and says to himself, "I think I'll switch to being gay! That sounds like a lot of fun!!"

No . . . I don't think it happens that way. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:00 PM

musing...

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 14 - 03:30 AM

Not at all, Ebbie...this isn't about 'winning an argument'....it's about learning something accurately, and doing it by, not learning WHAT to think (about it), but HOW to think(about it)...and BTW, I was going to get to your post, after this part...you might even be pleasantly surprised, as well.

..but in the meantime.....which is it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 14 - 02:46 AM

I suspect that GfS will some fine day be entitled to a red face, whether or not he claims it.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:33 AM

.....so which is it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:18 AM

between the devil and the deep blue sea...
Motto of Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 14 - 12:41 AM

Oh! Not at all....matter of fact, now YOU have to answer something, at least to yourself.....As noted, 'other factors play a greater role'...so, being as hormonal influences, in the womb during the formation of the nervous system, where the receptors receive the chemical impulses, that programs the development of the nervous system, and being as the nervous system sends to and from the brain, which is also being formed, is it 'genetic'...or 'other factors'??

Don't be too surprised, I told you this for years, now.....so which is it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:49 PM

Between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Motto of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:10 PM

Exactly so, Ebbie!

And that should send Goofus and pdq running toward the horizon with their asses on fire.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 14 - 07:57 PM

I am bemused - NOT amused - by the reasoning of GfS, et al. If there is a hormonal effect that connotes gay-dom, in what way is that different from a gene that does the same? In either case, it leaves the gay person free of 'blame'.

No rational person would choose to be gay. As has been said many times: there are many, many downsides to the 'condition'. Among them there is the ubiquitous threat of violence, the 'stigma' of being thought effeminate, the common denial by authorities of parenthood, whether foster or adoptive no matter how good a parent you might be, the taunts of the uneducated, the suspicions of those who think that practically breathing the same air is a health hazard. There are many others.

By and large I have found my gay friends to be among the most sensitive, talented, loving, brainy people I know.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:48 PM

Pdq, Goofus, cast your eyes on this material:

Clicky #1.

Clicky #2.

Clicky #3

That's just for openers. There is plenty more where those came from.

Now, pdq, if I am a bigot, then a helluva lot of scientists are too. Do you define "bigot" as anyone who doesn't see things the way you do? Looks like it.

I await your retraction and your apology.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:03 PM

pdq, how do you justify that remark?

What I said is derived from several articles on the comparison of brain structure between heterosexual men and homosexual men.

Science!

In what way is that "bigoted?" Explain yourself!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: pdq
Date: 16 May 14 - 05:42 PM

...Propaganda Minister Firth sez:



"It has already been established that there is a difference between the brains of gay and straight men."



Is that about the most bigoted statement in the history of Mudcat, or what?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 05:25 PM

I take it you two are room mates?

The hypothetical gay gene, which, when found, will turn out to be a combination of genes.

It has already been established that there is a difference between the brains of gay and straight men.

There is one brain part, called the anterior commissure, that's bigger in gay men's brains than in those of heterosexual males. It connects two structures together. The amygdala on each side of the brain. And there is a whole potful of other differences in brain structure between gay and straight men.

Comprehensive article HERE.

(Fat lot of good it will do because it's obvious that you two will read into something what you WANT it to say, whether it does or not).

But the nub of the matter is that sexual orientation is not a matter of CHOICE. It is physiologically determined.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:57 PM

Thank you, PDQ, for helping to 'clarify' Firth's propaganda!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: pdq
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:32 PM

...from the same post by Propaganda Minister Firth:



"In short, geneticists looking for a "gay gene" may have been looking in the wrong place. The male homosexual may not carry the gay gene , the gay gene may have been carried by his mother."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 02:59 PM

..and I'll go you one further...If it is caused by the hormonal influences, while in the womb, hormones carry with them BEHAVIORAL influences. If those behavioral influences are present, while the child's nervous system is being formed in the womb, and the receptors are geared to respond to like impulses, then it is indeed behavioral, from the onset....and NOT 'genetic'!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 02:33 PM

D.F. "Goofus, I have said from the start that sexual orientation is genetically determined. I did NOT--get that, dipshit, did NOT--say that sexual orientation is determined by a single gene.

From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:49 PM

"Not to worry, GfS. Kids these days know what's going on (especially in matters such as this), and they will do what their genes dictate. You seem to be under the impression, as are a lot of people, that the gay lifestyle is a matter of choice rather than genetic predisposition. Scientific evidence in the form of brain research. I know you don't want to believe that, but it's a pretty solidly established fact."

...actually, Don, 'There are other factors that play a greater role'..got that?..GREATER ROLE!....maybe the 'genetic factor' is FAR less, than politically propagandized!...even miniscule??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 02:17 PM

By the way, pdq, where in all of that do I specifically say that sexual orientation is determined by a single gene, as contrasted with genes in combination?

It appears that Goofus is not the only one who flunked remedial reading.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:53 PM

All through that, the presupposition is on genes in combination. In any case, sexual orientation is genetic and not a matter of choice, as Goofus WANTS it to be.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: pdq
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:05 PM

...from Propaganda Minister Firth on 26 DEC 2009:


"As to the "causes" of same-sex orientation, although a "gay gene" per se has not yet been isolated, the evidence is certainly there that it is a hereditary characteristic has been pretty solidly established by the same methods that Gregor Mendel demonstrated in the mid-1800s. Same-sex orientation appears to run in families, same as eye-color or other hereditary characteristics, and in the case of male homosexuality, there are indications, as Ebbie points out, that the hereditary factor is transmitted by some members of the female side of an extended family.

Mendel establish what happens, and now, geneticists are establishing the mechanisms by which it happens.

Another connection with the female side is that the expectant mother does not release the necessary hormones to the fetus at the appropriate time in its development. Thus, although the Y chromosome determines the child's physical structure as a male, the mis-timed hormones determines the child's sexual orientation as female.

In short, geneticists looking for a "gay gene" may have been looking in the wrong place. The male homosexual may not carry the gay gene, the gay gene may have been carried by his mother."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 12:36 PM

Goofus, I read through the post above where you are quoting me copiously by way of claiming that I said that sexual orientation is determined by a single gene--

And NOWHERE do I say that.

Are you adding illiteracy to your growing list of inadequacies?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 12:23 PM

Cross posted.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 12:20 PM

And I'm sure Musket's dog has more important things to pee on than the likes of you!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 12:19 PM

Thats twice in as many days that Goofus has had to be told the good professor has no balls.

I suppose its like his argument in general. Say it often enough and it becomes true eh? I certainly hope so. The racing kennels have greyhounds snipped to prevent breeding when they retire them to sanctuaries. After all, the good professor sold for a lot of money when he was a pup.

If I could stud him, we could invite Goofus to a conference in a couple of years. See how their development is influenced by their upbringing. Anything genetic concerning the good professor? Well yes.. He is Irish, born in Kilkenny. He does have a habit of digging holes....




By the way, he does try to lick them. But that underlines my thoughts on religion.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:45 AM

Goofus, I have said from the start that sexual orientation is genetically determined. I did NOT--get that, dipshit, did NOT--say that sexual orientation is determined by a single gene.

You persist in misrepresenting what I've been saying all along.

That makes you a person with no honesty or integrity. Not worth the time and attention of honest folk.

Hang your head in shame!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 10:46 AM

His bark is louder than his bite...and he barks when he doesn't have ANYTHING of relevance to contribute....just a lap dog for phonies, yapping away, between moments of licking his balls.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 05:52 AM

I shall ask the good professor to field that one.

Ready boy?

Woof!

You tell old Goofus like it is!

Woof! Woof! Woof! Grrrrr...    Woof!

Steady on boy, we don't want to be censured Are you sure?

Woof!

Falsified them you say?

Grrr.... Woof!

Well, I'd have never had thought it. But, if you say so boy.

You have to admit Goofus, that is a bit damning, but I'm sure he found out from the correct sources, professional etiquette and all that...

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:04 AM

Who in hell do you think you're fooling?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:29 AM

The worm reckons it surfaced in the wrong thread. Too true.

It shouldn't really surface at all.

There is a difference between laughing at Goofus's weird logic and accommodating Akenaton's hatred as a contribution to debate.

It is obvious that Goofus has a problem that nobody here is qualified to deal with, hence I laugh off his stupidity by getting my dog to deal with him.

Akenaton however, I give him the benefit of assuming he is giving his considered opinion and possibly, though I can't be certain, has the mental capacity to be responsible for his output.

And it is rotten to the fetid carcass.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:07 AM

Don Firth: "Goofy, my original premise did not specify a single "gay gene."

Damn, Don, you've been saying it was a gene for a long time...and only on this thread did you decide to back-peddle....so I went back through a BUNCH of other threads, and there were so many of your posts that so emphatically stated that it was 'A gene' and it was all 'genetic' that I FILLED the reply page up, AND it was too big to load...so I'll just stick to some quotes from this thread alone.
It was only after you were choking on your spittle, AFTER I posted,

"So, in light of, "..OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLL.." perhaps you can scientifically and foolishly spin your way out of what the study says...after all, you posted it!!!

Care to comment on, "...OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLL.."?????..WITHOUT SPIN!!

What do you NOT understand about the words, "GREATER ROLE"??? "
..that you backed off a little from your preposterous blather about 'a gene'...and are mousing around with 'other factors'....however, the 'other factors play a 'GREATER ROLE', than the gene!!...but you just don't get that, and now are trying to embark on some bullshit tactic of yours to 'negotiate' so compromise, as the truth!!
WHAT BULLSHIT!!....AND then you try to bring up that stupid post from the Prop 8 thread as some sort of intimidation tactic...when you know that post was debunked LONG ago.

The 'genetic rap' as you and your political meat-heads have insisted on is pure crap...and you know what?....To base government policy that is predicated on a KNOWN FABRICATED LIE, puts all of you morons in the shit-can category.
Who can trust anything, party, ideology etc, etc, that promotes a fraud for a foundation????.....

So I just used some of your posts from THIS thread alone....


From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 14 - 03:10 PM

"And what could possibly cause the mother to release hormones at the wrong time if not genetics? Several possible things, but it is quite probable that genetics plays a part. Same sex orientation tends to run in extended families and it has been noted the it is the mother's side of the family. Why would more that one woman in an extended family tend to release hormones at the wrong time during pregnancy? Sounds very much like genetics."

From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 14 - 07:06 PM

"I'm not the one who's trying to ignore modern science.

It's pretty well established that sexual orientation is genetics based, although, like evolution early on, the mechanism hasn't been fully worked out yet. It appears so far that the Xq28 gene is involved, but there is still work to do yet.

It is unscientific—and pretty foolish—to claim that same-sex orientation is NOT genetic simply because YOU DON'T LIKE IT. For whatever your reason might be!"

From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 14 - 09:59 PM

Goofball, ACHTUNG!!

Xq28.

It's on the X chromosome."


From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 14 - 05:23 PM

"There is no proof, no matter how ironclad, that YOU would accept, Goofball.

I'm content to go along with the most authoritative data that geneticist come up with. THEY say that they're sure the gene--or genes--are there, even if positive identification hasn't been made yet."

From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 14 - 04:24 PM

"That geneticists haven't been universal in their agreement that a specific "gay gene" has been located and identified yet doesn't mean there isn't one."

From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 14 - 10:37 PM

"I'm saying that if it is biological, which it most certainly is, it is most probably genetic, and the gene or genes simply haven't been found--YET."

From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 14 - 06:07 PM

"I don't think you understand some things about basic biology. What do you think determines such things as the timely or untimely release of hormones if not genes?
You really should have stayed awake in high school biology class.
And the fact that a specific gene has not been located yet does not mean that it wont be. Most probably it is a number of genes working in combination. Many biological factors are exactly that."
P. S. Argue on if you want to. The matter is settled as most intelligent people accept. AND not every biologist or geneticist agrees that the gene has not been found."

Don Firth: "Goofy, my original premise did not specify a single "gay gene."

Liar!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 14 - 08:24 PM

Well then let me see....Is it really "vile hatred"   to type homosexual " marriage", rather than "gay marriage"?

I don't think so, I never use the word "gay", in respect of sexual orientation, as it is a rather good example of Orwellian newspeak and I am not prepared to be manipulated by a tiny section of society.

I put homosexual "marriage" in inverted commas, as I do not agree with the redefinition of the institution of marriage to accommodate a tiny sexual minority.

Well, normally I have little time or patience for your rabid homophobia, but I happen to have a minute or two.

Yes it is vile hatred. You can't accept the way the world has changed, you sad old bugger, and you can't respect the people who, after a bloody long fight and a load of repression, have finally managed to get just a little acceptance. Your Canute-like clinging on to "gay" is as quaint and as outmoded as it gets and represents yet another nail in your intolerant coffin. Gay is a super word that has found a super meaning after a long languish in the realms of rapidly-approaching obscurity. Anyone left on this planet who still gets indignant about the so-called "usurping" of a little word that was in terminal decline is just a prick. To suggest that the current use of gay, now universally acknowledged by just about everybody, including a good few homophobes, except you of course, is "Orwellian newspeak" is just tripe. The word has been cheerfully accepted into popular parlance in the whole of the English-speaking world (and beyond), without any manipulation by rulers. It's just another of those wonderful examples of the evolution and the flexibility of English. And you're not being manipulated by "a tiny minority". I'm as un-gay as it's possible to be (I think), but I'm in that "tiny minority" good and true, which is actually a majority in any case. You may not agree with the "redefinition" (which it isn't) of the "institution" of marriage, but tough shit, bro. There's no going back. Be a troglodytic backwoodsman or adapt. You are increasingly on your own, and please don't think that that will ever make you a hero or martyr. It just makes you a bit of a twat really.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:14 PM

Homosexual "marriage" is completely different in construct to traditional hetero marriage, in that very many homosexual "marriages" and unions are "open relationships" containing large numbers of sexual partners. Also, homosexual "marriage" does not fulfil the function of a secure base for the procreation, nurturing, raising of children and the construction of an extended family structure.

Wrong on both counts, Ake! I know of several same-sex marriages, and in NONE of them is the idea to have numerous sexual partners. The whole point of the marriage is to commit to the one partner—as is the case with heterosexual couples.

Otherwise, why do it? It doesn't make sense.

Second, I know of two same-sex married couples with children. One adopted two children from a Chinese orphanage. The kids are thriving, and they certainly have a much better life than they would have had if raised in the orphanage. As I say, the kids are doing very well, thank you, and they are normal, healthy kids. They're going to school, one of them is an acolyte in the church in which their adoptive parents were married, and they refer to their parents as "daddy" and "papa."


The other couple wanted children related to them, so they hired a surrogate mother. Fertilized by artificial insemination by one of the men, she bore him a healthy little boy. Then the other of the pair donate his sperm for artificial insemination of the same woman and she bore triplets!! Three boys!

All of the children are genetically related through the mother, three brothers and one half brother.

All these kids are doing well, thank you, and they have plenty of attention from women who attend the same church the families (yes, families) attend—the church in which the marriages were performed—and from sisters and women friends of the men.

I am married—to a woman—and have been for thirty-seven years, but my wife and I live in an area in which there seems to be a large population of same-sex oriented people(it just happened that way). A talented member of our monthly writers' group (we get together to read our magnum opuses to each other for mutual suggestions and criticism) is gay and was recently married to his long-term partner when Washington State made same-sex marriage legal.

Incidentally, among all of the same-sex oriented men we know, married or unmarried, we don't know anyone with HIV/Aids.

Ake, instead of burying your nose in statistics carefully select to reflect your own prejudices, you need to get out into the real world for a change, open your eyes (and mind), and look around.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:15 PM

Sorry, wrong thread.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:03 PM

Well then let me see....Is it really "vile hatred"   to type homosexual " marriage", rather than "gay marriage"?

I don't think so, I never use the word "gay", in respect of sexual orientation, as it is a rather good example of Orwellian newspeak and I am not prepared to be manipulated by a tiny section of society.

I put homosexual "marriage" in inverted commas, as I do not agree with the redefinition of the institution of marriage to accommodate a tiny sexual minority.
Homosexual "marriage" is completely different in construct to traditional hetero marriage, in that very many homosexual "marriages" and unions are "open relationships" containing large numbers of sexual partners. Also, homosexual "marriage" does not fulfil the function of a secure base for the procreation, nurturing, raising of children and the construction of an extended family structure.

I opposed the law on the criminalising of homosexuals and I reserve the right to oppose legislation regarding homosexual "marriage".

No hatred from me, just cool calm reason.

Dave, Ian and Steve are afraid of reason, preferring to depend on faith in the ethereal myth of equality under a cruel economic system based on greed and exploitation. For this reason, they dismiss all know data on homosexual health rates, male homosexual sexual behaviour patterns and any other facts which contradict their "raison d'etre".

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 01:57 PM

If my dog were a cat, he'd be purrfect.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 14 - 01:35 PM

Copacetic, Musket.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:38 AM

Err... Don.

I was saying my pet dog has Goofus sussed.

I haven't waded into your discussion with him as a) you are doing a grand job and b) if I hesitated on a technicality, Goofus might seize upon the idea of someone supporting his weird take on life.

You may recall I picked up on his stalking of you a long time ago.

Be good.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:52 PM

Are you addressing Goofus or me, Musket?

If you are addressing me, I think you've missed something important. Read carefully what I have been writing all along.

For a more complete picture of what's got Goofus's tail in a knot, read what is to be found in the Prop 8 thread, where Goofus revealed something about his own family. When I called him on it, he set out on the vendetta trail. That's why he stalks me on these threads.

Research before you accuse.

Don Firth

P. S. And I am not gratuitously insulting Goofus. I'm telling it like it is.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:26 PM

Do you have to insult the good professor Goofus? A bit insensitive given his balls are in a vet's incinerator.

I agree with his comments though. He's got you sussed.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:21 PM

Goofy, my original premise did not specify a single "gay gene." That's your misconception. I said that sexual orientation is most probably genetic—which does not mean a single gene. Most genetic traits are caused by a combination of genes. And the fact that same-sex orientation tends to run in families (not all members, obviously) further indicates a genetic base.

You have consistently misread, misinterpreted, and misstated what I have written, then tried to throw it back at me.

That's known in logic as "the straw man fallacy." Look it up.

Your obvious purpose here is not to find the truth, but to attempt to put me down.

I will not play that game with you any longer. The truth is not in you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 14 - 03:36 PM

Don, was that your answer to my question, "So, do you believe it is a 'gay gene' or not?"??

Answering the original question is progress,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 14 - 01:44 PM

Then, Goofy, you DO agree that sexual orientation is NOT a matter of choice, it is predetermined, whether by genes or by mistimed hormone infusion while in the womb.

That's progress.....

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 14 - 01:20 PM

Well, sometimes 'religion' brings feelings of guilt and expectations...which, in turn can cause fear, anxiety and resentment. Imagine that cocktail being mixed in with your body's chemistry, and carrying!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 14 - 12:13 PM

I imagine you are correct, GfS. She was quite religious.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 14 - 11:50 AM

Oh, go hump legs and lick your balls, again!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket's pet dog
Date: 14 May 14 - 09:14 AM

Woof! Woof!
Grrr.....

Woof!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 14 - 08:35 AM

Ebbie, That may have more to do with the mother's emotional disposition while carrying the children in the womb, as I've previously noted. It is at that time that the hormones would be at play, in setting up the receptors, and what and how they process the impulses that would shape how they perceive and process. There is a pretty good explanation of receptors and how they work, in the film, 'What the Bleep Do We Know?', and how they affect people's outlooks and perceptions, habits, etc. I've posted the link several times, and you may find it, not only informative, but personally helpful, as well. I found most of the film fascinating, and the section on receptors was one of the best explanations of how they work was done in a most easy to understand way...it would also shed light on your 'need' to smoke....as well as why we live in the moods about ourselves that we choose.

As for Don,..you have NOT presented one shred of anything to back up your position. The links you have posted, on the other hand, have blown your notions out of the water...but you refuse, for some stupid political persuasion to insist otherwise. As so far as 'dancing', I'm not in the slightest way on the defensive...you are, and your lone 'genetic' theory is VERY MUCH in question, with nothing to lead anyone to believe that there is an ounce of credibility to it...as your study emphatically said, "OTHER factors play a GREATER ROLE in determining sexual orientation"....and I agree, and have been telling you that for quite some time. I think you are mistaking 'dancing' for having the shit kicked out of your political posturing....but why shouldn't it?..politics IS about manipulating masses of people for a consensus, and uses quite a bit of deceptions to achieve it. History has CLEARLY shown that...and you're just in the throws of stubbornly clinging to one of several of those deceptive topics....otherwise you could back up your trip.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 14 - 12:38 AM

"dominant mother and compliant father"- I would imagine that the attributes are reversed for the two sexes? The dominant mother would create a homosexual son? Does that mean that a dominant father and a compliant mother would create a homosexual daughter?

It is so confusing. I have a friend in a family of three kids who is gay. His brother is straight. His sis is gay.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 14 - 11:20 PM

Doubtful that it's one single gene. It is most probably a combination of genes.

I know a guy named Gene, but he's married and has a couple of kids, so it's pretty certain that he's not gay.

Goofball, try to find something useful to do instead of pissing your pants at everything I post.

Ta ta.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 14 - 10:43 PM

D.F.: "Goofus, I never said it was genes rather than hormones. I have said all along that it was a combination of things, including genes and hormones."

So, do you believe it is a 'gay gene' or not?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 14 - 02:17 PM

Aw, stop trying to stir up an empty mixing bowl. Maybe we could move on.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:14 PM

Goofup, did you teach Michael Flatley how to dance?

You'd lie up a storm when the truth would fit much better, then immediately go into reverse if you thought it would suit you better. You spin so fast that you're in danger of disappearing up your own ass!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 14 - 02:11 AM

WHAT???!!!
You're even believing your own spin....Did you forget this very same 'debate' for the last three years??...BUT...at least you're coming along. Like I've said, for about that long, it has to do with the conditioning of the receptors, while in the womb...AND..that's only for the homosexuals who 'were born that way'...(about .02%)..the rest are just co-opting the rap!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:23 AM

Goofus, I never said it was genes rather than hormones. I have said all along that it was a combination of things, including genes and hormones.

DO try to pay attention!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:28 PM

Yeah...as compared to 'Felix the Cat'....You might be onto something, finally...so is the roll of hormones, as opposed to a lone or group of genes.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 14 - 09:02 PM

Hamlet is undoubtedly one of the greater roles.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 14 - 08:34 PM

D.F.: "Volcanoes are not intelligent..."

Probably the smartest thing up there in Washington!

GfS

P.S. Did you finally figure out what 'Greater Role' means yet?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 14 - 07:01 PM

That's Mount Saint Helens, and what does our local volcano have to do with it?

Volcanoes are not intelligent, they just blow off steam and such and generally make an ash of themselves. Kinda like you, Goofy.

You're crackin' up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:41 PM

D.F.: "Goofus, you throw the word "intelligence" around as if you actually know what it means. Didn't your mother ever tell you not to use words you don't understand?"

"OHH Don!!....What do you NOT understand about the words, "GREATER ROLE"???"

Jeez, even Mount Saint Helen 'got it'..maybe she'll show ya'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:35 PM

If Goofus and Akenaton have got it, the rest of us need inoculating against it.

Me? It would seem, if Goofus was anything but a sad joke, I would have to reassess what I mean by objectivity......

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:27 PM

Goofus, you throw the word "intelligence" around as if you actually know what it means. Didn't your mother ever tell you not to use words you don't understand?

(...ain't never had no proper fetchin' up.....)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:14 PM

Here, allow me to re-phrase for Akenaton:

"I don't think anyone is trying to write it off as a only choice Don.

It seems clear that childhood experience and general mental condition, set up by hormones, being carried by a stressed woman, can also have a bearing; and YES.. a dominant mother and compliant father can affect a child's sexual orientation, starting in the womb."

Hey, Akenaton 'got it', Don(and Steve)....and you've been boasting how intelligent you are! It's really not that hard....just get everything out of the way that could taint your objectivity....and call it what it is: Bullshit!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:05 PM

Mudcat may have speeded up, but an odour still lingers....

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:03 PM

it is widely believed...

Weasel words. if you don't know what weasel words means, look it up. This is a classic example, and merely the most recent of many from this source.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 14 - 05:01 PM

That may play a part, Ake, but there are those who insist that it's merely a chosen lifestyle. Which is, patently, not the case.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 14 - 04:48 PM

I don't think anyone is trying to write it off as a only choice Don.

It seems clear that childhood experience and general mental condition also have a bearing; it is widely believed that a dominant mother and compliant father can affect a childs sexual orientation

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 14 - 03:10 PM

And what could possibly cause the mother to release hormones at the wrong time if not genetics? Several possible things, but it is quite probable that genetics plays a part. Same sex orientation tends to run in extended families and it has been noted the it is the mother's side of the family. Why would more that one woman in an extended family tend to release hormones at the wrong time during pregnancy? Sounds very much like genetics.

The cold, hard fact for those such as you is that, genetics or not, decree of the gods or not, sexual orientation IS NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF CHOICE.

People do not DECIDE to become gay. And it is often something they have to contend with even when they would wish to be otherwise.

Sorry, Goofus, but you can't simply write it off as choice, no matter how uncomfortable the idea makes you feel.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 14 - 03:04 PM

(Cupping my hands around my mouth, shouting from the Rockies, westward)

"OHH Don!!....What do you NOT understand about the words, "GREATER ROLE"???"...."You remember...as in, '"...OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLL.."'

Spin it, baby, spin it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 14 - 12:02 PM

D.F.: "It's pretty well established that sexual orientation is genetics based, although, like evolution early on, the mechanism hasn't been fully worked out yet. It appears so far that the Xq28 gene is involved, but there is still work to do yet."

And the following sentence:

"It is unscientific—and pretty foolish—to claim that same-sex orientation is NOT genetic simply because YOU DON'T LIKE IT. For whatever your reason might be!"

It's pretty unscientific and foolish to say it is solely genetic when the study you posted says:

""While genes do CONTRIBUTE to sexual orientation, OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is NOT COMPLETELY DETERMINATIVE; there are certainly OTHER environmental factors involved."

"Last year, before the latest results were made public, one of Bailey's colleagues, Alan Sanders, said the findings could not and should not be used to develop a test for sexual orientation."

"When people say there's a gay gene, it's an oversimplification," Sanders said. "There's more than one gene, and genetics is NOT the whole story. Whatever gene CONTRIBUTES to sexual orientation, you can think of it as much as contributing to HETEROSEXUALITY as much as you can think of it contributing to homosexuality. It contributes to a variation in the trait."

So, in light of, "..OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLL.." perhaps you can scientifically and foolishly spin your way out of what the study says...after all, you posted it!!!

Care to comment on, "...OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLL.."?????..WITHOUT SPIN!!

What do you NOT understand about the words, "GREATER ROLE"???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 14 - 07:06 PM

I'm not the one who's trying to ignore modern science.

Goofballupagus, you remind me of those religious fundamentalists who dump all over Charles Darwin and evolution in general because, early on, Darwin made a few mistakes—which have long since been corrected, both by him and by later scientists.

It's pretty well established that sexual orientation is genetics based, although, like evolution early on, the mechanism hasn't been fully worked out yet. It appears so far that the Xq28 gene is involved, but there is still work to do yet.

It is unscientific—and pretty foolish—to claim that same-sex orientation is NOT genetic simply because YOU DON'T LIKE IT. For whatever your reason might be!

It is patently obvious that same-sex orientation is NOT a matter of choice.
        
I once asked a gay man of my acquaintance if there was a point at which he chose to be gay. He said definitely not, that even at an early age he knew he was different from other little boys. He went on to say, "Considering the fact that many people regard you with contempt, considering you lower than a garden slug, and that being gay can get you fired from your job, beat up repeatedly—and even killed!—who in the hell would ever chose to be gay?"

Goofball, read up on the Matthew Shepard murder. DO IT!!

Or are you too squeamish?

And stop contributing to the hatred and bigotry. And supplying "justification" for Matthew Shepard's brutalbmurderers!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:11 PM

D.F.: "Contrary to the demise of the boring thread, it's obvious from this thread that it's still very much alive.
'Round and 'round we go with the same old crappola.
Some folks seem to prefer the Dark Ages to the findings of modern science."

Do you mean you want to go around again, ignoring 'modern science'?..It seems like it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: pdq
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:56 PM

Boer-eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:42 PM

Contrary to the demise of the boring thread, it's obvious from this thread that it's still very much alive.

'Round and 'round we go with the same old crappola.

Some folks seem to prefer the Dark Ages to the findings of modern science.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:25 AM

Sounds like they were starting a multilevel marketing meeting! Keep the doors locked tight!

GfS

P.S. Multilevel marketing where you lose all your friends because you turn them into prospective clients!...(Sorta like politics!).

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:55 AM

This just in.

I had to lock my bedroom door when staying with friends in Inverary the other week, in case it's true that that they like unwilling multiple partners.

Sick puppy

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:37 AM

OK-A-A-AY..anything you say .... (rolls eyes).
Glad it's now a 'suspect'....BTW, 'a genetic component', is the part the hormones play a part in...if you don't believe me, check EVERY study you've endorsed, or even put up.
Do you think Xq28 is either the lone gene, or the one vulnerable to the chemical influences?....(Hint: Check your studies.)...scroll back, if you need to....and Boy, do you need to!
If not, you can refer to your favorite ideological politician..he/she knows!!....(rolls eyes, again.).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:47 PM

Goofus, the Xq28 gene on the X-chromosome is a suspect.

If every time a particular something happens, a guy named Charlie is on the scene, one tends to assume that Charlie may have something to do with it, even though you don't actually see him doing it.

The fact that there is a genetic component is not in doubt.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 14 - 11:38 PM

OK

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 14 - 11:13 PM

Fred Astaire is laughing hysterically.

Don Firth

P. S. I've got "issues?" Goofup, you've got NUTHIN'!!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 14 - 11:06 PM

The markers??
You must not have read the link you posted very well, it refutes your new post...jeez, and I'm the one who told him about Xq28 originally, and the influence on it by the hormones...
Don you are grasping at straws. If you have any questions, refer to:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 14 - 02:45 AM

Where quoting from YOUR posted link, it says, and I quote:

""The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a LIMITED and VARIABLE impact."

"NOT ALL of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were NEITHER SUFFICIENT, NOR NECESSARY, to make ANY of the men gay."

YOUR posted link, (once again), so I guess you just wanted to reconfirm to everyone, just how much you don't know diddly-squat- shit from Shinola about what your lie about....figures!

OK!!..Let's do it again...just to make sure, now...:

Don DF Firth: "Xq28.
It's on the X chromosome."

To.....

"The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a LIMITED and VARIABLE impact."

"NOT ALL of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were NEITHER SUFFICIENT, NOR NECESSARY, to make ANY of the men gay."

Want to try that again????

Don DF Firth: "Xq28.
It's on the X chromosome."

To.....

"The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a LIMITED and VARIABLE impact."

"NOT ALL of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were NEITHER SUFFICIENT, NOR NECESSARY, to make ANY of the men gay."

Again?????

"YOUR posted link, (once again), so I guess you just wanted to reconfirm to everyone, just how much you don't know diddly-squat- shit from Shinola about what your lie about....figures!"

Don DF Firth: "Xq28.
It's on the X chromosome."

To.....

"The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a LIMITED and VARIABLE impact."

"NOT ALL of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were NEITHER SUFFICIENT, NOR NECESSARY, to make ANY of the men gay."

Again?????

GfS

P.S. Dude, you got issues!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 14 - 09:59 PM

Goofball, ACHTUNG!!

Xq28.

It's on the X chromosome.

Don Firth

P. S. (Now watch him tap dance!)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:57 PM

The problems with male homosexuality are not restricted to anal sex...

What problems?

...though I am sure this practice is harmful to all who take part in it whether hetero or homo, willingly or unwillingly.

"To all"? You're "sure"? How are you sure? Harmful how? How many people have you discussed this with? Is there an underlying suggestion here that a lot of people partake in it "unwillingly", more, say, than who participate in other kinds of sexual activity? Hadn't you better apprise us of how you gained these insights?

I am sure few women willingly take part in anal sex.

And how many women have you asked? Quite a large number, one assumes, as you're so "sure"? Did any of them slap you, by any chance?

I am not "fascinated" by it, I find it completely disgusting and am sure it can have little to do with emotional attachment.

Not "fascinated" by it? Yet you set yourself up as a fount of knowledge about how many people partake unwillingly or who are "harmed"? That it has nothing to do with "emotional attachment"? Au contraire, you squirming little liar, you are totally obsessed with it in the most disgustingly unhealthy way imaginable. Sick in the head, I'd say, to put it rather too kindly.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:56 PM

'I am sure few women willingly take part in anal sex'

It does not seem like the of topic one would normally get reliable information on "at the work water fountain", BAW.
;)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:54 PM

From reading Don's post, I think he's trying to say he hasn't found it yet, and save face at the same time.
Keep trying.

Big Al: "'I am sure few women willingly take part in anal sex'
perhaps you're doing it wrong......just a suggestion."

TURN HER OVER!! TURN HER OVER!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:36 PM

I have never heard any woman speak positively about it Al.
I suspect there is a lot of sexual domination at work.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:19 PM

'I am sure few women willingly take part in anal sex'

perhaps you're doing it wrong......just a suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:00 PM

The problems with male homosexuality are not restricted to anal sex, though I am sure this practice is harmful to all who take part in it whether hetero or homo, willingly or unwillingly.
I am sure few women willingly take part in anal sex.
I am not "fascinated" by it, I find it completely disgusting and am sure it can have little to do with emotional attachment.

The real problem is the intrinsic extreme promiscuity, large numbers of sexual partners, "open marriages", unions and relationships.

These are well documented and have been linked to on other threads, but do NOT infer that monogamy among male homosexuals is impossible.
The elderly couples in my area appear to be monogamous, which could probably be put down to waning sexual drive.....something which affects us all regardless of "orientation"

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:39 PM

Venus & Mars.

Nice one Don. Far better than my shouting.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 14 - 04:29 PM

I will gladly scratch a dog behind the ears or let a cat sit on my lap and purr, I enjoy watching the antics of the squirrels who inhabit the nearby park, I'm quite interested in attempts to communicate with dolphins and other cetaceans who may turn out to be more intelligent than most people think, and I'm thoroughly fascinated at the prospect of trying to establish communications with the squid-like creatures who reside on the planet Procyon Six and who have exhibited a highly developed technology, but other than that, I've found that trying to have an intelligent conversation with creatures outside my own phylum, such as the Goofball, is pretty much a waste of time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:10 AM

It's far too fucking well concealed, idiot.

Because The Dept of Health can't find it, and other than misinterpretation, neither can you.

Have you noticed that those who see through you are also capable of looking at health statistics?

Homosexuality is a safe practice. Full stop. Even those who in the privacy of their bedrooms indulge in anal sex are as safe as heterosexuals who indulge in anal sex. If you go about it unprotected and multiple partners you are at risk. Gender doesn't come into it because a virus can't tell the fucking difference. The over representation in the demographic is a combination of responsible access to testing by gay men versus other risk groups and the potential is due to the stigma that is still attached because of homophobic bastards trying to influence hate, making some gay people a hard to reach group.

A bit like your last post.

Here's a health statistic for you. More women receive anal sex than men. Source- HES data 2012-13, through A&E and colo rectal referral for complications where sex was a factor.

Why do you still think homosexuality is the same as MSM? Why are you fascinated with anal sex? Do you think everybody who is gay participates in it? Don't you think heterosexual people do?

BWWWAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGgghhhhhh.   Oh God, I've been sick.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 14 - 04:56 AM

You're wasting your time Sanity my friend, you make salient points backed up by studies and facts and receive a shower of abuse in return.

These people are on a mission to make homosexuality appear to be a safe and healthy practice.....for political purposes.

Why would any one want to change?
Why would any one want to stop playing Russian Roulette? Male homosexuals are massively over represented in all sexually transmitted diseases, do you really think this should be ignored or concealed Al?    Do you think it is in the interests of homosexuals, to make this subject taboo?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 08 May 14 - 02:29 AM

Nationally speaking Don, he's your problem not ours.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 14 - 12:54 AM

Don, it doesn't look like you're very good at finding any kind of genes. You can leave that to the politicians!..Stick to chicks in clubs.

Big Al: "...in fact its abit scary. do you mean any harm to gay people ? if not , what is the point of all this pseudo science."

Harm to homosexuals?? Where do you get that??...as to, "...what is the point of all this pseudo science." Exactly! The interpretations of the studies has made it look like 'pseudo science', because, as you have just witnessed, right here, that though the researchers are CLEARLY saying one thing, the political spinners are trying to make it say something else completely opposite! The researchers say "Nope, haven't found the gene yet, gotta keep looking", and the politicos say, "See they found it!"
Is that the kind of political people you want to trust or believe?...about this or ANYTHING???...No matter how they wrap it, with whatever 'good' intentions, they are lying through their teeth...and even got UN-knowledgeable people doing it for them...and with such vitriol and divisive hatred and angst...doesn't THAT bother you?? ....To be on the side of liars?...Shit, I'd be pissed...AND, I'd tell them to knock it off, and give you STRAIGHT INFO, not some made-up bullshit. If you let them get away with that, what else have they deceived you with???...That they are for the 'little guy' and not the corporation/mega banksters???..That they represent you, and YOUR best interests??........You know what? MY best interests lay in being told the truth, and not be stirred up emotionally over such stupid lies and spinning of the truth....Can't they trust the people who believe in them??.. and their 'cause' by giving them the truth???..and furthermore, can we trust them when they are caught repeatedly lying to those who trusted them???
What is this?..Zombies on parade??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 14 - 09:50 PM

Hey! I have a great idea!

They haven't yet found the gene for "handedness" yet, so it's obviously a matter of choice, right?   A left handed lifestyle!

And considering the problems that left handed people cause, like at social occasions where a right handed person and a left handed person keep bumping elbows at a banquet table and things like that…….

Why don't a bunch of us persecute left handed people, look on them with contempt, deny them their civil rights, and insist they be rounded up and "cured" of their perversion?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 May 14 - 06:45 PM

where is this sanity place that you come from?

I think you are spending too long on your own. you are thinking too much about things in a way that does not reflect the generality of human experience. its not healthy.

in fact its abit scary. do you mean any harm to gay people ? if not , what is the point of all this pseudo science.

if you have a real interest in genetics - enrol on a college course. scanning the internet for people that support your point of view is no substitute for education. it does involve quite a lot of hard work.

if you get yourself educated and you're still of the same mind. find a regime to work for. Mengele managed it.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 May 14 - 05:13 PM

You don't say....

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 14 - 12:26 PM

Your misrepresenting what I said, and then trying to argue your misrepresentation, as if I said it, reminds me of another bridge Kennedy was on....but then, that's a whole other subject....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 07 May 14 - 11:42 AM

Yes, we caught on after your second ever post.

Ted Kennedy talking about misrepresenting sounds like a bridge too far....

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 14 - 11:27 AM

"...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 07 May 14 - 04:20 AM

Reproductively challenged.

So, everybody who can't have children has a disability then? Does that include those who don't want children?

Congratulations. You gave found a term of abuse to throw at gay people. Your bigotry blinkers causing you to cast your slur much wider. Out of interest, a gay man isn't reproductively challenged but like many heterosexual men, chooses not to have children. Although if course many adopt children anyway.


You also seem to have thrown anal sex into the equation. Notwithstanding more women receive anal sex than men, you keep perpetuating the myth that STDs are a gay issue.

You disgusting pervert.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 14 - 03:32 AM

Musket: "More specifically, what is the agenda behind offering to help people change?"

Agenda???....How about just being truthful and NOT turning 'bad science' into political nonsense?
If one subscribes to the political whims, that would mean that being tested for STD's of any sort, is being flaunted as being 'homophobic'.. AND that people who are 'reproductively challenged' (politically correct term for homosexuals) would not, could not seek counseling IF they would want it, because the political winds that are blowing don't believe that homosexuals have, or should have, or can decide not to be homosexual..therefore therapy is either denied or not available.... and those who may direct homosexuals to counseling are hated, called 'bigots', homophobes....when they are the ones who are actually helping them...IF THEY WANT IT!

Agenda??...What's yours?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 07 May 14 - 03:12 AM

I know I have skimmed rather than tried reading Goofus's diatribe (after all, there is some wet paint to watch dry and I can't do two things at once) but nowhere do I see any acknowledgment of someone's status.

Why would someone wish to be an ex gay? Other than being disturbed by the stigmatisation by nasty people, why would they see their choice of lover as a problem? Regardless of genetics versus conditioning versus choice and the rest of the smokescreen that can be used by either side of the non argument; why would someone wish to alter?

More specifically, what is the agenda behind offering to help people change?

I can see people dye their hair, I can see people lose weight and other changes, but their hair colour is changed, not cured. Losing weight may be a health benefit but isn't curative of anything.

I am married to a slim lady with dark hair. One of my ex girlfriends was a bubbly blonde. Do you think I prayed to be cured of bubbly blondes?

Sicko.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 14 - 02:45 AM

This one is informative:

..and one more thing, your 'gravity analogy' is off base. Gravity is measurable, to rate of pull, properties of speed, force and we know it to be there, and it can be demonstrated repeatedly. 'The Gene' hasn't even been found yet...however EVERY study, including the ones you posted, all say that there are 'other factors', AND the one that you and Dave both posted said, and I quote:

"While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLE, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

Greater than the genes??...Did it say that??...Didn't I tell you that over two years ago???

..and it goes on to say(same study), "The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a LIMITED and VARIABLE impact."

..and then it says, (Now pay attention) "Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were NEITHER SUFFICIENT, Nor NECESSARY, to MAKE ANY of the men gay."

...and this, "That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up EVERY GENE LINKED to sexual orientation would still be LESS EFFECTIVE THAN FLIPPING A COIN."

...and this one, "...we DON'T KNOW where these genetic factors are located in the genome. So we need to do 'gene finding' studies, like this one by Sanders, Bailey and others, to have a better idea where POTENTIAL genes for sexual orientation MAY lie."

..and this,"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it IS NOT COMPLETELY DETERMINATIVE; there are certainly OTHER environmental FACTORS INVOLVED."

...and I repeat my ACCURATE commentary to that:

"Other factors??? You mean the hormonal influences cause by the mother's stresses and/or resentments in the womb???
Does a mother who takes drugs (heroin, crack, cocaine, etc)during pregnancy set up the 'receptors' to cause the baby to be born with an addiction to those same substances??...The answer is a CLEAR, DEFINITIVE: YES!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that 'genetic'?: NO, it just makes it clear that the baby is born with a 'choice-less' craving to satisfy the 'receptors' with the drug that it got accustomed to in the womb. It is the same principle. The receptors, once they get fed, not particularly from a 'substance' but rather a 'conditioned' hormone, altered by the effects of resentment/stress WILL have a DIRECT result on the baby!.......and ALL the studies, including this one, point to that direction..."

Now I've said that to you REPEATEDLY for YEARS now....and the studies have borne that out to be true...they can't put their finger on 'The Gene', but they've already figured out that what I've been saying IS TRUE!!! How come you can't?....I'll tell you why,..because you are trying to fit it into your political spin, and your political spin is NOT TRUE, no matter how much you WANT it to be. It's really as simple as that....AND the study I just quoted you from is from the LATEST study...and you posted it yourself!!!

..and you have the audacity to call me clueless????
You've just been spinning so much that you're dizzy beyond your common sense!...so much that you are NOT comprehending what you say or post for a link!.....(and you accuse me of 'not reading the links'??)
I think that the posted link by Dave and yourself was pretty clear...so clear, that trying to spin it to mean something compatible with your 'mindset' is beyond belief!!

OK...You can go back on your vacation now....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 14 - 01:47 AM

Naw...just steering away from your spins.

Did you ever find the conclusive link yet?..you know, one that says 'Here it is'?...because the rest is just conjecture and assumptions...mixed with some of your favorite pastime...spinning!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 14 - 11:00 PM

Clueless.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 10:30 PM

No it doesn't..it just falls. That is an observable fact...and it doesn't 'speculate', either..it just falls.
Too bad about your 'theories'....but frankly, they just fall down too.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 May 14 - 08:44 PM

Christopher Isherwood said, eventually we're all queer....

I think he was right.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 14 - 07:48 PM

The fact that objects, when dropped, fall toward the ground TENDS to SUGGEST that there MAY be a force called gravity.

Nobody has tasted it or put it in a test tube, but rational people TEND to FEEL fairly certain that gravity exists.

No thanks, Goofy, I'll leave the bullshitting to you. That, you are quite expert at.

Don Firth

P. S. The word "expert" comes from two Latin words: "Ex" meaning "has been" and "spurt" meaning a little drip under pressure, which seems to describe you rather well.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 07:22 PM

OK..It's working again..

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 07:21 PM

Testing...

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 14 - 07:20 PM

I'm being blocked again...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 14 - 07:18 PM

OK..I humored you....NOTE the CAPS!!!

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene

"Researchers say it's the first time the entire human genetic makeup has been scanned in search of POSSIBLE genetic determinants of male sexual orientation. The results SUGGESTS that several genetic regions MAY influence homosexuality."
(Gosh, if it was all 'mapped out' you'd think someone would shout out 'Eureka!'....but they didn't...'POSSIBLE SUGGESTIONS that MAY..'...sounds more like speculative guessing, to me!..read it again).


http://www.livescience.com/7056-mom-genetics-produce-gay-sons.html

"Maybe everyone could use a gay uncle."(sounds already biased)

"A new study found that homosexual men MAY be predisposed to nurture their nieces and nephews as a way of helping to ensure their own genes get passed down to the next generation.
Research has confirmed that male homosexuality IS AT LEAST PARTLY hereditary – it TENDS to cluster in families,"
(This one starts off being silly!).


http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2006/02/gay-chromosome.html

"It wouldn't be right if we didn't mention this new research supporting the HYPOTHESES that sexual orientation has got a genetic component.
New research adds a TWIST to the debate on the origins of sexual orientation, SUGGESTING that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women."
(More suggestions..).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

"The 1993 study by Hamer examined 114 families of gay men in the United States and found increased rates of homosexuality among maternal uncles and cousins, but not among paternal relatives. This pattern of inheritance SUGGESTED that THERE MIGHT be linked genes on the x-chromosome, since males always inherit their copy of the x-chromosome from their mothers."
(SUGGESTED that there MIGHT????.....sounds pretty tentative, at best)

Don to himself: "Now go away and play with yourself and stop bothering the adults!"

A lot of 'MIGHTS' and 'MAYBES' and 'SUGGESTIONS'....Do you consider 'MIGHTS' and 'MAYBES' and 'SUGGESTIONS' to be definitive or conclusive????????

No wonder you guys live in a delusional fantasy world!

Give us a FACT, for a change!..ummm....like 'The gene is__________'(such and such, with the definitive number)....but there isn't one...

...only 'MIGHTS' and 'MAYBES' and 'SUGGESTIONS'!!!...(but maybe even an occasional 'seems to indicate'...SUGGESTING that they MIGHT be onto something that MAY lead to another SUGGESTION of an indication...which to you dunderheads turns it into a politicized 'fact', I MAY SUGGEST...that is, from all indications....)

GfS

OK..You can go back to your bullshitting!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 14 - 03:13 PM

Another lie.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 03:01 PM

We read it yesterday.
...but I'll humor you...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 14 - 02:57 PM

It is noted that you could not possibly have read the article and links that I posted because you simply didn't have enough time to read them or look them up before you posted you "rebuttal."

Little point in trying to argue with someone as blatantly dishonest as you!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 02:43 PM

Here, I'll help you out, since you don't REALLY read to COMPREHEND!
(Notice how many quotes from the link that are saying that they HAVEN'T found it....even from one of the guys who was in on the research!!!!). You got a short memory..this was posted yesterday....
.............................................................................
Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 14 - 02:14 PM

From a 'comment', below your article, on the same page:

"You clearly died pretty early on in the article as it repeatedly states that it is very clearly not all in the genes.
I believe there is a comprehension gene also that occasionally goes missing, no need for a genetic test in extreme cases...."

Here's some quotes from the same link of the study:

"Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear."

"Researchers have SPECULATED in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men MAY have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile"

"In follow-up work, he found that 33 out of 40 gay brothers inherited similar genetic markers on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome, SUGGESTING key genes resided there."

"The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact."

"Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay."

"The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother's DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin."

"While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is NOT COMPLETELY DETERMINATIVE; there are certainly OTHER environmental factors involved."

"Last year, before the latest results were made public, one of Bailey's colleagues, Alan Sanders, said the findings could not and should not be used to develop a test for sexual orientation."

"When people say there's a gay gene, it's an oversimplification," Sanders said. "There's more than one gene, and genetics is not the whole story. Whatever gene contributes to sexual orientation, you can think of it as much as contributing to heterosexuality as much as you can think of it contributing to homosexuality. It contributes to a variation in the trait."

"This is not controversial or surprising and is nothing people should worry about. All human psychological traits are heritable, that is, they have a genetic component," he said. "Genetic factors explain 30 to 40% of the variation between people's sexual orientation. However, we don't know where these genetic factors are located in the genome. So we need to do 'gene finding' studies, like this one by Sanders, Bailey and others, to have a better idea where potential genes for sexual orientation may lie."

"Steven Rose, of the Open University, said: "What worries me is not the extent, if at all, to which our genetic, epigenetic or neural constitution and development affect our sexual preferences, but the huge moral panic and RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL AGENDAS which surrounds the question."

.....AND THIS ONE, which at first looks to be Bailey's position, but he did NOT take it further, which is deceptive by omission:

"Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice," said Bailey. "We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved."

Other factors??? You mean the hormonal influences cause by the mother's stresses and/or resentments in the womb???
Does a mother who takes drugs (heroin, crack, cocaine, etc)during pregnancy set up the 'receptors' to cause the baby to be born with an addiction to those same substances??...The answer is a CLEAR, DEFINITIVE YES!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that 'genetic'? No, it just makes it clear that the baby is born with a 'choice-less' craving to satisfy the 'receptors' with the drug that it got accustomed to in the womb. It is the same principle. The receptors, once they get fed, not particularly from a 'substance' but rather a 'conditioned' hormone, altered by the effects of resentment/stress WILL have a DIRECT result on the baby!.......and ALL the studies, including this one, point to that direction...but, as the poster commented, on the page of the article:

"You clearly died pretty early on in the article as it repeatedly states that it is very clearly not all in the genes.
I believe there is a comprehension gene also that occasionally goes missing, no need for a genetic test in extreme cases...."

Sorry, NO definitive, conclusive findings in this study to hang one's hat on!


...Oh, and if one can NOT change their sexual preferences, what about:

Michael Glatze (born c. 1975)[1] was co-founder of Young Gay America and a former advocate for gay rights. Glatze received media coverage for publicly announcing that he no longer identified as a homosexual and denouncing homosexuality."

Somehow that keeps getting ignored....it must be that, "...comprehension gene also that occasionally goes missing,..."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 14 - 02:35 PM

Live on in abysmal ignorance, Goofball.

Like I keep saying, there is nothing, no matter how authoritative and well-documented and researched, that you would accept because you're scared spitless of what might be in your own chromosomes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 02:29 PM

This is a re-run....it's already been posted and found to be just another, 'we gotta' keep looking' study.
Scroll back down and re-read how that 'study' got torn apart!..even by the comments from the actual link itself.
Jeez, is that all you got?????????????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 14 - 02:24 PM

Goofus, you asked for it, you GOT it!

From an article in The Guardian, UK:

A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight.

A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.

Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear.
Researchers have speculated in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men may have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile. This may be the case for genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men exclusively from their mothers.

Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Illinois, set out the findings to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago on Thursday. "The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation," he said. The work has yet to be published, but confirms the findings of a smaller study that sparked widespread controversy in 1993, when Dean Hamer, a scientist at the US National Cancer Institute, investigated the family histories of more than 100 gay men and found homosexuality tended to be inherited. More than 10% of brothers of gay men were gay themselves, compared to around 3% of the general population. Uncles and male cousins on the mother's side had a greater than average chance of being gay, too.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2014

There is a lot more. Look them up yourself.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene

http://www.livescience.com/7056-mom-genetics-produce-gay-sons.html

http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2006/02/gay-chromosome.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

Now go away and play with yourself and stop bothering the adults!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 02:08 PM

Oh?..Is that a FACT??....Maybe you can provide a link to prove your position as well! There are BILLIONS out there, and surely one of you Bozos could find at least ONE!..Keep in mind it has to be definitive, conclusive and from a reliable source...because if you can't, then perhaps you should re-assess your position to include just a wee bit of reality!

GfS

P.S. Don put you up to it?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 May 14 - 01:54 PM

You know, I think I have been more than patient. I have been referred to as a mental midget, a mutant, incapable of comprehension, indoctrinated in political and probably more, but you get the point. I have called GfS goofus and suggested that his ideas are nonsense. I think it is about time it understood how I fee,l even if it does then accuse me of resorting to invective.

Goofus. You are a complete waste of everyone's time and energy. If it wasn't so funny to laugh at your feeble attempts to reason you would be ignored altogether. The world would be a much better place for your passing. Now, just fuck off and stop bothering decent people. Whinge away to your hearts content in the knowledge that this is my last post on this thread. Well done. Stay with the friends who support you (Pete? Ake? Any more?) and you will have done more to create a vile smell on Mudcat that everyone else combined.

Yours sincerely.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 01:44 PM

(It always pisses them off when they can't prove their bullshit and someone calls them on it!).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 01:35 PM

Again?????

And while you're vacationing, maybe you can find that 'scientific fact gene'!
..because the rest of your rap is just wishful thinking on speculation...is it not?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 14 - 01:30 PM

Where the hell do you get the idea that I AGREE with you?

You ARE totally crackers. Any communication with you is useless. You don't even understand plain English.

Goodbye!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 01:28 PM

Oh!!..You found 'The Gene'????...or is it just more speculation???
Glad you found it...now put up the link!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 01:26 PM

Glad you agree!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 14 - 01:25 PM

Cross posted.

My "Yes" refers to your inability (unwillingness) to acknowledge science in favor of propaganda that you find more comfortable.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 14 - 01:21 PM

Yes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 01:20 PM

Dave's link said NOTHING, except that they didn't find 'The Gene' and now they've decided to look in 'other places'............
Maybe you guys should stop trying to replace FACT with politicized speculation!!!...it's making you look like morons...AND making the thread BORING!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 12:20 PM

D.F.: "Poor Goofball. Can't tell the difference between science and propaganda...."

(In curious, pleasant tones)...Oh really-y-y-y???? .....Is that a fact?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 May 14 - 06:23 AM

The knack you are getting young Hillwalker...

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 06 May 14 - 05:26 AM

Incense infused fruitcake.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 May 14 - 02:55 AM

Ah, the sunnyglow and purimost.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 14 - 01:45 AM

Where's the definitive post, Don???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 May 14 - 05:56 PM

Poor Goofball. Can't tell the difference between science and propaganda (or doesn't want to) and grabs the wrong end of the stick yet again.

Attempts at cross-species communication can be iffy at best. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 14 - 05:09 PM

Hint to all who are occasionally inclined to believe what they read here.

Don't!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 14 - 05:03 PM

most of my post was 'cut and paste' quotes from your link.

The operative word being most. It was the bits around the C&P that were bollocks. If you just used C&P you may make sense.

Have I already said Yang F'tang, Kipperbang? If so, I add Yingtong tiddeleye po.

Gnave the dome

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from, Sanity
Date: 05 May 14 - 04:35 PM

I'm 'hopless'??...Naw, just not susceptible to propaganda over science...which leaves spreaders of propaganda, like you, with no other recourse than to call names...BTW, STILL no definitive link...only ones that 'may suggest'...suggest all you want, but it doesn't make a fact..only create a notion....or suggestion.

Dave the Gnome: "GfS. You talk so much nonsense that I doubt anyone could ever comprehend you."

Interesting, most of my post was 'cut and paste' quotes from your link.
Go figure.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 05 May 14 - 03:29 PM

Oops, my velcro statement was intended for the other abuse-like thread.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 14 - 03:27 PM

Ah - OK, Ed. That was not the link I was referring to. I posted a direct link to a Wiki page about Bailey. It is that one that disappeared.

GfS. You talk so much nonsense that I doubt anyone could ever comprehend you. There is no point in even trying to address your points. There aren't any. So I will just say

Gravy! No, it painted my bathroom.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 May 14 - 02:45 PM

It's been long known but little noted that the environment a man lives in can affect his sexual behavior, such as Ed notes above. Prisons, or in times gone by, long sea voyages with an all-male crew. But—given a choice, they resume heterosexual activity. In this kind of situation, the majority of men generally abstain, but not all. Some men seem to require an outlet—any outlet—for their libido

This does NOT mean that sexual orientation is merely a matter of choice.

II don't recall the exact figures right now and I don't have time to look them, but as I recall, Kinsey's 1950s study said that something like 15% of males surveyed had had homosexual relations. Some interpreted that as "15% of males are homosexual," but this was an error. Some 15% had experimented with homosexual behavior (In some cases, had been molested), but this was generally a one-time thing and in no way indicated that they had "chosen" to be homosexual.

Don Firth

P. S. As to Goofball, he's totally hopeless.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 14 - 02:14 PM

From a 'comment', below your article, on the same page:

"You clearly died pretty early on in the article as it repeatedly states that it is very clearly not all in the genes.
I believe there is a comprehension gene also that occasionally goes missing, no need for a genetic test in extreme cases...."

Here's some quotes from the same link of the study:

"Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear."

"Researchers have SPECULATED in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men MAY have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile"

"In follow-up work, he found that 33 out of 40 gay brothers inherited similar genetic markers on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome, SUGGESTING key genes resided there."

"The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact."

"Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay."

"The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother's DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin."

"While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is NOT COMPLETELY DETERMINATIVE; there are certainly OTHER environmental factors involved."

"Last year, before the latest results were made public, one of Bailey's colleagues, Alan Sanders, said the findings could not and should not be used to develop a test for sexual orientation."

"When people say there's a gay gene, it's an oversimplification," Sanders said. "There's more than one gene, and genetics is not the whole story. Whatever gene contributes to sexual orientation, you can think of it as much as contributing to heterosexuality as much as you can think of it contributing to homosexuality. It contributes to a variation in the trait."

"This is not controversial or surprising and is nothing people should worry about. All human psychological traits are heritable, that is, they have a genetic component," he said. "Genetic factors explain 30 to 40% of the variation between people's sexual orientation. However, we don't know where these genetic factors are located in the genome. So we need to do 'gene finding' studies, like this one by Sanders, Bailey and others, to have a better idea where potential genes for sexual orientation may lie."

"Steven Rose, of the Open University, said: "What worries me is not the extent, if at all, to which our genetic, epigenetic or neural constitution and development affect our sexual preferences, but the huge moral panic and RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL AGENDAS which surrounds the question."

.....AND THIS ONE, which at first looks to be Bailey's position, but he did NOT take it further, which is deceptive by omission:

"Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice," said Bailey. "We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved."

Other factors??? You mean the hormonal influences cause by the mother's stresses and/or resentments in the womb???
Does a mother who takes drugs (heroin, crack, cocaine, etc)during pregnancy set up the 'receptors' to cause the baby to be born with an addiction to those same substances??...The answer is a CLEAR, DEFINITIVE YES!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that 'genetic'? No, it just makes it clear that the baby is born with a 'choice-less' craving to satisfy the 'receptors' with the drug that it got accustomed to in the womb. It is the same principle. The receptors, once they get fed, not particularly from a 'substance' but rather a 'conditioned' hormone, altered by the effects of resentment/stress WILL have a DIRECT result on the baby!.......and ALL the studies, including this one, point to that direction...but, as the poster commented, on the page of the article:

"You clearly died pretty early on in the article as it repeatedly states that it is very clearly not all in the genes.
I believe there is a comprehension gene also that occasionally goes missing, no need for a genetic test in extreme cases...."

Sorry, NO definitive, conclusive findings in this study to hang ones hat on!

Oh, and if one can NOT change their sexual preferences, what about:

Michael Glatze (born c. 1975)[1] was co-founder of Young Gay America and a former advocate for gay rights. Glatze received media coverage for publicly announcing that he no longer identified as a homosexual and denouncing homosexuality."

Somehow that keeps getting ignored....it must be that, "...comprehension gene also that occasionally goes missing,..."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 05 May 14 - 01:27 PM

I suspect there are a few folks on mudcat who have no genune fear of being head-stuck to the ceiling on velcro, if they bounce on a hotel bed.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 05 May 14 - 01:22 PM

There is no doubt that, not given a free choice, (for example in prisons), some people participate in homosexual activity-but return to the opposite sex when back in a free-choice society.There are also bisexuals,anx bi-curious folks who swing on one side or another during various life periods. It is reasonable to expect there is a diversity of people who have a variety ic homosexual interests.

Stating that all homosexuals are the same does not even reflect common sense. Looking for a "silver bullet" that explains the entire orientation is also lacking in logic- as does using examples of people who have changed their sexual orientation interests to catagorize a large group of people from a broad global spectrum.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:59 PM

Mmm. A crock of bullshit about choice from Goofus and some religious cranks or the professional opinion by The Royal College of Psychiatrists, whose fellows practice evidence based medical expertise.

I think I shall stick with reality if it's all the same to you.

Can you cure someone of having a big dick or even being one?

Why would anyone want to be cured of being themselves anyway? Once religious cranks stop stigmatising people, most people would be happy with themselves.

It's only this insistence that a so called god of love hates you and the fools who believe in the fucking idea perpetuate the evil myth that gay people could ever feel inadequate in the first place.

Something you want to get off your chest Goofus?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: pdq
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:54 PM

question to Gandhi: "What do you think of Western civilization?"

Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:50 PM

Just to wrap up the dialog between the Goofball and me, there you have it Goofy.

Dave the Gnome posted the link. I have posted links with the same information for your enlightenment and edification for the last several years and you keep blowing them off in your usual manner. This is why I say there is no proof that you will accept. You've been offered this information time and time again by myself and others, but you STILL go back to your same old wheeze.

Your alleged mind is made up and it appears to be impossible for you to LEARN anything.

There is no point in me or anyone else wasting any more time on you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:45 PM

Dave, I already posted, on this thread, the search page for 'ex-gays' 'ex-homosexuals' and the personal testimony of Michael Glatze, which you among a few of the pack summarily dismissed because of 'politics'.

Here is the opening on his bio from Wikipedia:

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Michael Glatze
Born         Olympia, Washington, US
Alma mater         Dartmouth College

Michael Glatze (born c. 1975)[1] was co-founder of Young Gay America and a former advocate for gay rights. Glatze received media coverage for publicly announcing that he no longer identified as a homosexual and denouncing homosexuality."

Take it up with him. Either inquire directly or read more on him, because that way you can hear it from the 'horse's mouth'...who would you believe, 'an opposing political position', or someone who's been through it??

Are you going to keep asking the same question expecting a different answer?...and then saying "It can't be", because of what you were politically indoctrinated with?

Ed T, I know that I have referred several times to 'something I posted...' ...but as you can see, some people just refuse to accept the answers. This has been going on for years, usually from 'DF' Firth....and then they just keep haranguing. (see above)...

Proof is proof is proof....something I've put up. Stubborn political disbelief is Stubborn political disbelief is Stubborn political disbelief, which I don't have to put up with!!
(Nor does it make those employing it appear very bright, either!).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:42 PM

GfS gives one something to think about. "Homosexuals can change if they *want* to." That must mean that heterosexuals are able to do the same. Hmmmm. Personally I found it very difficult to stop *smoking*. This one may be beyond me.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:27 PM

Aye , once you yanks learn to read it.

Really. Tsk. You leave them alone after giving them a country to play with, a language to nurture and a British heritage to respect, not to mention a ship load of tea, and they come out with comments like that.

They'd be horsewhipped for impertinence in my day.

(If you left a bucket of yoghurt to it's own devices in 1776, do you think that could have successfully developed a culture too?)

Fucking cheese in a fucking spray can! Hah! Other than convincing people to buy greasy chicken by the bucket, literally, what right does Johnny Foreigner have to question Her Britannic Majesty's loyal subjects? (Hi Canada! How's it hanging?)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: pdq
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:09 PM

Is there a chance that some of these Brits could post in English?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:08 PM

Dtg

The link I rdfer to is still there at 04:49 AM.

True that alot of research material and science (and other) opinion is not peer reviewed. In those cases,IMO, the statements should be also seen as factual with caution. But, at a minimum, research information should be available to view, and assess unofficially by anyone, including other researchers.

In this case, it involves statements about research results (in the link) that does not seem to be published, or available to review ? It seems to be a statement by a researcher,   on the research results, at an annual science meeting.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:01 PM

Really Al. You just ain't cultured like what we are.

Yeah, I know quite a few from the folk circuit who used to get extras work. I reckon Bernard Wrigley at one point WAS the cast of Coronation St.

Still, we dirty rotten stinking capitalists wouldn't appear on such prole nonsense as soaps. Even the real me can claim to have never watched Knobenders in my life. (I watch Top Gear, Fifth Gear and Wheeler Dealers with a passion though. )

I'll have to tell my grand kids I once conversed on a website with a famous person. Granted, one who claims to be more skint than me, and unlike my granddaughter, Mansfield isn't posh enough for him....

Be good Al,

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 May 14 - 11:48 AM

most of us who were gigging used to do extra work. there were telly studios in Nottingham and kirkstall rd leeds. as well as brum.

lots of folkies - roy harris, jack Hudson, mick peat, doug porter. you'd meet them on the sets of Boon, Peak Practice etc

the worst company was the comedians- miserable sods the lot of them. quite merciless in their put downs of other comedians, plus they reckoned all us musos would have been comedians if we had the bottle.

'passing the port after the ladies' - some peculiar sexual practice, they got up to in pit head shower rooms....?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 14 - 11:44 AM

I don't think a lot of the stuff posted on here has been reviewed at all, let alone peer reviewed :-) Wonder where my post went then? If you saw the link it must have been there but it ain't now :-( Nothing controversial in it so I can't see it being deleted. Ah well, one of life's little enigmas.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 05 May 14 - 11:03 AM

I did see the link, as it worked dtg. I had checked out Bailey's backgroud earlier. I dont believe the linked research is published, though (peer reviewed).

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 14 - 10:01 AM

Hmmm - Thought I had posted a link, Ed. never mind, just put it down to gremlins. Look him up - Wiki is a good place but check out others too. Bailey certainly is controversial but, as you thought, not in this area.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 05 May 14 - 07:19 AM

I saw the last research you posted earlier on the web, dtg.

I will wait for if to be published, to see if it holds up to peer review.I a normally suspicious about news of research that is released before the research itself is published.

I believe Bailey was involved, to a degree, in some earlier related research. He also has been associated with some controversy, though it may not have had any impact on the quality if his research?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 14 - 06:54 AM

For the record I have never said that homosexuality is genetic. I have no idea what brings it about and do not have a scientific enough background to know. Like most people on here. What is unequivocal is, at the risk of repeating myself, sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice.

Some of your other statements do not bear up to close scrutiny either.

they CAN change their 'orientation' IF THEY WANT.

Why would they want to? If homosexuals can change, can heterosexuals? Have you ever heard the term bisexual? As to,

See, what you guys don't get, is that, yes, there are homosexuals who are homosexuals for whatever reason...and there is NO hate for them

What universe do you live in? I'll tell you what. Seeing as you believe sexual orientation can be changed, you become gay for a while, visit any right wing or fundamental religious organisation, tell them you are gay and then come back to tell us there is no hate. If you can still breathe that is.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 05 May 14 - 06:11 AM

GFS,
While you may have posted alot of stuff on a number of threads over thee past 3 to 4 years, how do you expect others to have seen it all, remember it all. That statement, plus a summation of a bunch of statistics posted over a period of time is IMO is not much help. I am not trying to bring your position down, just saying that IMO, an approach that seems to say "trust me, I posted proof over 3 to 4 years" does little to prove your point.

Additionally, while it is important to show (and update) all the sources (for others to determine the research and researchers quality, potential bias and if it holds up over time) it is especially important when you link many things together to make some fairly broad claims. Joining the dots together in such a manner, to make some pretty broad and encompassing claims, can be very problematic - it would require each element and proposed connections be subject some rather rigiourous investigation. My past observation has been most attempts at using multi-sourced research to "thatch" together such a conclusion are frought with problems and frequently with many errors.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 14 - 05:39 AM

Dave: "While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role...."

"...'.....other multiple factors play a greater role...."

A 'greater' roll than genes???

Gosh, where have I heard that before??....Ah yes, it was from me...for about the last 3-4 YEARS!...

....The gene in question is 'Xq28'...it has 3-5 markers(jeez, I've already said this twice within the last 75 posts...) and that gene seems to be affected by the mother's hormonal condition, (being as the mother's nervous system affects the fetus's nervous system, and 'conditions' the receptors.....but the gene itself, is not the main factor.....(I believe that is what your link is referencing....only said it about three years ago..to Don, when he was insisting that it was political issue, based on 'genetics'.

See, what you guys don't get, is that, yes, there are homosexuals who are homosexuals for whatever reason...and there is NO hate for them..they are not as fucked up as the political agendas which are using false and misleading propaganda, to make it a LOT bigger issue than it really is. The same political idiots are even arguing against informing the homosexual community to be checked...and denying that they CAN change their 'orientation' IF THEY WANT. By not recognizing that they can, they deny that they could get counseling, IF THEY DESIRE, because that shoots holes in the propaganda lie.....not to mention that a miniscule percent of homosexuals have shown any signs of 'being born that way'...and the rest, about 97% of the 2.2% of the total homosexuals, all jumped on the bandwagon....then the political idiots try to make believe is ALL of them, and a huge proportion of the general population!!...and those figures are all in the links already posted on this thread!

Almost...but not quite, Dave...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 05 May 14 - 05:25 AM

Sexual orientation around here is doggy fashion.

I sit up and beg whilst she rolls over and plays dead.






Ithankyouverymuch.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 14 - 04:49 AM

How about this one?

One paragraph I find very significant

While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb. "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice," said Bailey. "We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved."

To make it simple for those who need it, genetics are involved but there is a lot more to it. But please note Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guestfrom Sanity
Date: 05 May 14 - 04:12 AM

DF: There is no proof, no matter how ironclad, that YOU would accept, Goofball "

Try me...ya' gotta link?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 05 May 14 - 02:44 AM

That CV might not get you a Tesco Extra but you might just get to cut the tape at a Tesco Local. I'll see if I have any Tory friends who could find you a new agent. Your old one doesn't seem to recognise your potential.

Never had you down for a luvvie Al. All that hand wringing and supporting causes whilst enjoying yer stash. Makes a wannabe capitalist like me green to the gills with envy. If you could support my membership application for The Garrick, I'd be much obliged.



Here's something. I'm not 100% certain I have any Tory friends. Or at least admitting to party membership. In an ideal world, they'd come out and be proud of the fact. After all, passing the port at a black tie do after the ladies have retired is no problem.

Between consenting adults.

In private.




I know a few armchair socialists though, if that helps?

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 May 14 - 10:17 PM

so you reckon you can get me a gig opening a Tesco's. doesn't really surprise me. we all know you capitalists and your tory/Tesco tearaway mates are corrupt buggers.

who are you going to tell them that I am? I was once a star on Crossroads. I played 'man in bar1'. I had to walk across in the background where Amy Turtle was having it out with Benny.

I am willing to sign autographs.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 May 14 - 06:24 PM

obviously never heard of the Black Watch

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 14 - 06:22 PM

Presumably the moderators don't see any reason to delete his odious bile, and if I speak for decency, I get mine deleted...

Me too. The moderators here are clearly on the side of the bigots, the homophobes and the fundamentalists. It's their gig, of course, but they clearly don't mind that we thinking people shall tell the world that by their stinking moderating fruits shall we all know them.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 04 May 14 - 05:36 PM

Notice the snide comment about minority rights? Just before inferring he suffered for supporting black emancipation. Akenaton, the thinking man's Bernard Manning.

Mind you, I wasn't aware black emancipation had been an issue in Scotland within living memory?

More bollocks eh? Never mind. Nurse will be with you shortly.

Anyone got a bucket handy?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 May 14 - 05:31 PM

Mmmmmmmm. I can see there is still more nonsense that I can invent being talked here. Though numerous arses. I must try harder.

Pink? Oh yes m'lady. The feet prove that it grew 4 years in the last 2 inches.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 14 - 05:23 PM

There is no proof, no matter how ironclad, that YOU would accept, Goofball.

I'm content to go along with the most authoritative data that geneticist come up with. THEY say that they're sure the gene--or genes--are there, even if positive identification hasn't been made yet.

Some geneticists, however, maintain it has been found. But there is not yet universal acceptance of this, so I'm content to wait until they arrive at some conclusion.

That's the intelligent thing to do.

I'm not sweating it. So why are YOU all lathered up?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 May 14 - 05:03 PM

Al. Lesson 1 in how to be rich.

Don't offer to clean the windows of someone whose views dirty them in the first place. And being Scottish, will Welsh when it comes to paying you. (Two for the pride of one there. )

In any event, I didn't get where I am today by cleaning the windows of those whom eyes can't see through the dirt. (CJ )

As to HMRC, there is no profit after you allow for new shammys and there's always a hole in my bucket.

Any road, I notice Tesco are building a new supermarket near us. I'll happily put you up for the night when you come to cut the tape. Cash only mind, tell your agents no receipt. Know what I mean?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 May 14 - 05:00 PM

DF: "That geneticists haven't been universal in their agreement that a specific "gay gene" has been located and identified yet doesn't mean there isn't one."

...and just because you haven't found and Easter egg under your mouse pad, doesn't mean there isn't any Easter Bunny either!

DF: "That, along with the probability that sexual orientation is most likely an interaction composed of several genes, which compounds the problem."

Prove it!

Link, Don, link!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 May 14 - 04:43 PM

Was that in lieu of a credible link??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 May 14 - 04:34 PM

Ake - who gives a shit why they fancy blokes, physiological or psychological - they do. they do -always will do - always have done.

I have conducted peace talks with the Provisional Wing of the left wing Homo's.

They have agreed to leave you unmolested as long as you undertake not to climb a ladder wearing a kilt.

as for Musket, I have reported your plans to clean windows to the tax people. they have promised to investigate the unearned income from your Scottish investments.

if you clean Ake's windows - make sure to knock first. if he sees your face at the window unexpectedly - when he's playing with his bagpipes - he might come out swinging his claymoor.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 14 - 04:24 PM

Thanks, Musket. Two weeks in the hospital and a little less than a month in a nursing home and I survived! Sudden unexplained weakness in my arms and shoulders. Not a stroke, thank God! I had polio when I was little, and I have a suspicion that it's what they call "post polio syndrome," when presumably unaffected muscles and neurons start acting up a bit. Bummer!!

The Bible tells us that Samson slew a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. Whenever the Goofball opens his mouth—or sits down at the keyboard—he seems to have a habit of attempting to commit suicide with the same weapon that Samson used. The best I can do is to leave him to it. The intelligent folks around here have no problem spotting congenital cluelessness when they see it.   

That geneticists haven't been universal in their agreement that a specific "gay gene" has been located and identified yet doesn't mean there isn't one. Considering the complexity of the DNA molecule and the number of DNA molecules per human cell, it's like trying to find a single tree in all the forests of North America. That, along with the probability that sexual orientation is most likely an interaction composed of several genes, which compounds the problem.

But—choice? Out of the question!

Blunder on, Goofball. The more you post, the more obvious your ignorance and prejudice become.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,The Hooter
Date: 04 May 14 - 04:14 PM

All you potheads hide your faces.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 May 14 - 04:00 PM

Musket: "You know, as this was becoming the Don & Goofus Show,..."

This is NOT going to be another 'DF and Goofus Show'...instead I'm going to offer a proposal, which hopefully will be a 'win-win-win' for all sides.
As some of you know, Don comes on with his spin on things and changes the topic to finally talking about himself and how bright and accomplished he is(I covered that progression on another thread)..SO, here's what I propose....Don, until you find a credible* link to a study that confirms your 'political persuasion', that homosexuality is from a 'homosexual gene', and you post that link saying, yes they have indeed found the gene and it is________(such and such, with the number), do yourself and the rest of us a favor, by not broaching the subject again on the forum. I'm pretty sure that even the mods would appreciate it.
As you may have noticed, Ed T and I, among others, have been able to have intelligent exchanges of ideas regarding it, and the thread was interesting and enlightening. Reiterating the same old political talking points and policies only leads to a spectator sport of watching us duke it out again and again and again.
All you have to do is provide a FACTUAL basis for your position and bias....other than you have a couple of homosexual friends who you have over for dinner.
I think people would want to have confirmed that yet another political persuasion is not predicated on another false premise(lie).
Fair enough??

* credible link: Not politically affiliated, not 'big pharma' affiliated, Not funded by anyone who's outcome was to prove a false premise.

That should keep you busy while you recover...and give a respite from argumentative speculation to the forum..and we can proceed with less bickering, and/or embarrassing yourself even further, ...and keep the thread from being boring(in accordance with the thread topic)

.....and might even end the topic!

Hopefully you'd accept(?).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 14 - 07:02 AM

Pease stick to the issues, you cannot possibly think any worse of me personally, than I do of your cruel ideological stance, so what is the point of continually lying and making a fool of yourself?

Gradually the hysteria over minority rights is beginning to subside, independently minded people are weighing up the issues, not the slogans.

Most of idiocy which has been foisted on society over the last couple of decades, in the guise of human rights, is an insult to the people, including myself, who marched, were injured, and even incarcerated in the cause of black emancipation.

Try to develop a sense of proportion.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 14 - 04:12 AM

It is becoming clear, that the original definition of homosexual behaviour was correct, it appears in most cases to have psychological causes. Factors occurring during childhood have possibly a bearing on which types of behaviour are adopted by adolescents and adults.

The "transgender" thread illustrates this quite well.

There are many types of human behaviour, many have to be quite rightly tolerated, but also regulated, to prevent damage to those who participate or to society.
In parts of Scotland where we suffer a lost generation of young people, drug addiction is the behavioural problem for many of our kids.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 May 14 - 12:02 AM

Firth(DF): "I'm saying that IF it is biological, which it most certainly is, it is most PROBABLY genetic,..."

IF????......PROBABLY???????????????
They've already ruled it out, oh intelligent one.
You just have a bad habit of bullshitting your way through life...and on here.

Either start getting some straight responses, or don't mind me if I think you're a raving lunatic!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 14 - 10:37 PM

I'm saying that if it is biological, which it most certainly is, it is most probably genetic, and the gene or genes simply haven't been found--YET. Do you have the foggiest notion of how many genes are on a single strand of DNA? I thought not.

And as to my intelligence, I'm quite happy with my Stanford-Binet I.Q. score and the percentile level on my college entrance exams.

Once again, Goofball, you're whistling out your--ear.

Don Firth

P.S. Blab on if you've a mind to, Goofy. This thread is too boring for me to spend more time on. Important things to do.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 May 14 - 09:21 PM

Firth: "I'm on to more intelligent discussions."

You wouldn't qualify.

OK.. Are you now saying it it doesn't matter if it is 'genetic' or not??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 14 - 06:07 PM

I don't think you understand some things about basic biology. What do you think determines such things as the timely or untimely release of hormones if not genes?

You really should have stayed awake in high school biology class.

And the fact that a specific gene has not been located yet does not mean that it wont be. Most probably it is a number of genes working in combination. Many biological factors are exactly that.

No, I don't have a problem with sexual orientation not being genetic. But it most certainly has a physiological cause. It is not simply a matter of choice as some self-appointed "moralists" and religious demagogues would have people believe.

Don Firth

P. S. Argue on if you want to. The matter is settled as most intelligent people accept. AND not every biologist or geneticist agrees that the gene has not been found.

I'm on to more intelligent discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:37 PM

..only going by what the link you so much agreed with..and there IS a difference..I suggest YOU read a book! So far NO study has found a direct 'genetic' link, as I've told you now for a couple of years....but there HAS been hormonal influences....only this particular link, in keeping up its bias, mentioned only the study with rats...they completely FAILED to mention that they found that in humans as well...which I already repeatedly told you...for years...
Hey, are you back home?

So far, Don, everything that I've told you about it NOT being genetic, (for years) is still holding up. You don't have a problem with that, do you?...I mean it not being 'genetic'....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:17 PM

It's going to be a little hard to distinguish between "biological" and "genetic."

The two are not distinctly different, they are inextricably intertwined.

Don Firth

P. S. I'm not making that up. Read a book.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 May 14 - 04:52 PM

I don't think so....perhaps you mistook 'bigots' as meaning someone who the close minded people don't agree with....but then you are not a very reliable gauge of that...because you tend to call a lot of people 'bigots' who are making a lot more sense the you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 May 14 - 04:12 PM

This thread is being censored by moderators in favour of bigots. Just thought I'd mention it. I wonder, as ever, what that says about the predilections of said moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 03 May 14 - 09:21 AM

I'd never be as skint as you Al. I'd do a bit of window cleaning on the side.

Anyway, my interest in the referendum isn't about the health inequalities, the low expectation and reliance on public sector jobs to support the economy up here, bugger that.

I have two flats in Edinburgh and a few holiday rental cottages up here. How the flying fuck can I plan my champagne purchases if my Scottish tenants want to pay in Groats or want to pay in kind? There is only so much shortbread I can eat.

I don't make millions out of albums, concerts and opening supermarkets like you do. I have to rely on non celebrity means. I thought having celebrity associations such your good self, my Weymouth flats would have top whack holiday income but no. Unless you start flashing yer cash and building up the local economy, I'll have to rely on DSS income.

Any road, less of "the rest of us." Teacher friends bought me beer in 1984. Therefore they must be loaded eh?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 May 14 - 06:02 AM

just think. if the SNP seized power while you were up the mountain, musket. they sealed the border and they weren't allowed to use the pound.

you'd be skint, like the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:32 AM

The post was not anonymous.
He made a second post to establish it as his, with a correction.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:10 AM

There is one glimmer of hope though.

Akenaton may still be pushing out the same awful disgraceful criminal slurs but at least he is now too ashamed of himself to put his name to it.

I have faith in human nature, always been a failing of mine. We may not ever see him embracing the idea of equal stakeholders in society but at least he may be less inclined to denigrate people in public.

(Still. A rather disturbing post, full of the same lying health scares to justify hate. Posting anonymously wasn't really needed. He lacks the intelligence to paraphrase the soundbites he picks up from far right websites.)

Weather nice here in The Cairngorms. About to do a hike up, back hopefully before tonight's rain sets in. Then a meal in The Winking Owl tonight. Life is good.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 May 14 - 01:34 AM

Sorry, been tied up for a few days...

Well, judging from the article and everyone's re-action to it, as to it being 'biological' it seems like a step in the right direction..... because the 'biological' root seems an alternative to it being 'genetic'.....which according to the article, was the reason for continuing to look to find the source...other than 'genetic'. Well, it's about time!
That puts in a whole different light....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 01 May 14 - 08:01 AM

Interesting article Mick
My take on things is that humanity is a rainbow which contains all the known colours and if you get to the end of the rainbow you get a " Crock of gold" for solving the meaning of the universe then life gets boring..........until then we have the Mudcat BS section :-)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 01 May 14 - 07:28 AM

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" -Ernest Gaines

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 May 14 - 07:17 AM

'could have been left to homosexuals to deal with'

however now we need to call on the SS, the Spanish Inquisition, the CID, the IRA, the FBI, the CIA and Ghostbusters!

and the Loch Ness monster!

better off with the clap really....

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 14 - 04:05 AM

"after the overturning of the criminal offence"

Last post was by Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 14 - 03:37 AM

"
Gay is biological, in the genes and here to stay. Us "straights" have to get over it.

Nobody's talking about J. Edgar Hoover or Cary Grant, though.

Probably because..........who cares? "


Well, a few uncharacteristically poorly chosen words Frank.
A huge number of people "care", for a huge number of reasons, especially how MSM STD infection rates are being concealed in the interests of a political agenda.......Not male homosexuals.

This was an issue which, after the overturning to the criminal offence, and before the appearance of HIV/AIDS. could have been left to homosexuals to deal with....They could have continued as private individuals living the lifestyle they chose, but the political activists and their accompanying legislation, have made the issue relevant to all of society.


"WHO cares"......is too crass for you Frank, think on.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 08:38 PM

".........who cares?"

Quentin Crisp, the well-known openly gay English writer and raconteur ("I am one of the stately homos of England.") was being interviewed on television some years ago by Charlie Rose, if I remember right, and the interviewer commented on the way Crisp was dressed and appeared generally. Androgynous. It was a bit difficult to tell by looking at him if he was a man or a woman.

"Do people often ask you if you are a man or a woman? And how do you respond to a question like that?"

"Oh, yes," Crisp responded, "it happens all the time. I generally answer by saying, 'Does it really matter? What do you have in mind?'"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 07:37 PM

Good article Mick. So the jury's out but the wind is blowing in one direction.

Homosexuality has a tradition that predates Christianity. Doesn't the fact that it's been around a while tell us something about it, not contingent on any particular culture or environment?

Socrates, Michealangelo, DaVinci, and Tschaikovsky all contributed to the betterment of society, so what's the problem?

Gay is biological, in the genes and here to stay. Us "straights" have to get over it.

Nobody's talking about J. Edgar Hoover or Cary Grant, though.

Probably because..........who cares?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 05:20 PM

Ouch! Hard luck, Don. Hope you are better now.

It is indeed a good link. Will almost certainly be disputed by some.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 05:18 PM

Thank you, Big Mick, for posting that link.

That about says it.

Don Firth

P. S. I've been out of this discussion for awhile.
I've just spent over a month between the hospital and a nursing home, then back to the hospital again. Bummer!!!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 10:30 AM

I almost hate to post this:

Seattle Times article on choice/biology homosexuality debate

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 09:12 AM

"You must not be paying attention....it does NOT have genetic roots. "

I suspect the term "biological" is not limited to genes, gfs. In addition, if a genetic cause has not been found, that does not rule out other biological causes, whatever they may be, that defines, what one is later in life. I see nothing to either strengthen nor deminish the potential impact of "choice" (in one direction or another) in not finding a genetic cause.IMO, it remains reasonable to consider the liklihood of some variation in cases.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 08:50 AM

Did I mention you Keith?

You said, "that at least one member of Mudcat uses the term "we" when mentioning UKIP"

That was a specific accusation you made against me a few months ago.

Also, you just stated that I have been a member, when I have never even supported them.

All made up lies just like Jim's on the Radical thread.
Even the same use of words.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 08:34 AM

Did I mention you Keith? Why do you assume the world spins round you?

If you must know, I doubt you are still a member of UKIP. Their more outspoken members are being invited to resign till after the election. Too embarrassing even for Col Blimp and his dangerous fools.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 08:11 AM

Don't try to be clever GfS, you are not up to it. Stick to what you are good at. Nonsense.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 03:46 AM

Dave the Gnome: "Well, no-one can say I didn't try."

Yes Dave, sometimes you are very trying.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 02:47 AM

Well, no-one can say I didn't try. Back to the original plan.

If it takes two men a month to work a fortnight, how many banana in a bunch of grapes?

Gated Hen Move

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 02:40 AM

Stringsinger: "At present, homosexuality has been shown to be biological rather than environmental.
The role of environment might play some role but not significant enough to alter
the sexual predisposition that seems to have genetic roots."

You must not be paying attention....it does NOT have genetic roots. The lie is that it does. This is borne out by virtually every study. Though it was suspected for a time that it MIGHT have been genetic, they have have abandoned that suspicion AND have acknowledged that homosexuals CAN change....if they want to.

A side note: I have a most interesting story in regards to this subject...but I'm waiting for permission to use it. The women should get a kick out of it....or at least understand it better than most the men.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 02:24 AM

that at least one member of Mudcat uses the term "we" when mentioning UKIP

Must you keep telling this lie?

The question arose what UKIP's view was on something.
I provided a quote from their website.
Their spokesperson said "we."

Only a complete moron would assume I was that spokesperson, and only a complete moron did.

I have actually showed you that the quote was still on their website, but you still persist.
You are so desperate to discredit me, but there is nothing real you can use against me.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 05:01 PM

The original post was a plea for tolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 12:04 PM

Ed T, I agree with you and the distinguished Heinlein. This is why I never label myself and refuse to be pigeonholed or diced and sorted into a specific group.

A party line is often boring because it allows for no variation in ideas.

Science in my estimation remains humble and open to new ideas and interpretations
that confound those with an ideological or religious axe to grind.

At present, homosexuality has been shown to be biological rather than environmental.
The role of environment might play some role but not significant enough to alter
the sexual predisposition that seems to have genetic roots.

I support GfS's emotional appeal as a totally humanitarian response to the intolerance shown to gays or any other minority that means no harm to society.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 11:38 AM

A UKIP MEP said that he found it strange that you can have gender reassignment but a psychiatrist can't change you from gay to straight.

Putting to one side his agenda and asking it as a straight forward question, the relevant Royal College answered by saying such matters aren't in the gift of psychiatrists.

Quite




The same MEP also wonders why you are chastised for saying you hate gay people. Rather frightening that what with him and the other one wanting Lenny Henry to go to a Black Country, that at least one member of Mudcat uses the term "we" when mentioning UKIP. For the benefit of our cousins, they are a right wing hate group that is fielding candidates in elections.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 08:55 AM

I do hope this is true. If so I think we could take a leaf out of Russell's book.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 03:33 AM

OK, credit where it is due - I understood most of that GfS so I am happy to reply. You are championing the concept of choice and, yes, everyone should be given a choice. But let me ask you this. Do you believe that being either gay or hetero is a conscious choice? One that "requires that an intelligent decision must be made about something based on factual material." If so, when did you choose to be straight?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 07:13 PM

Ed, If you really like Heinlein, check out "The Sayings of Lazarus Long'..you'd LOVE it!

OK..I've thought about it, and considered Stringsinger's comments as well.....and somethings in the post from Ed T, ..wait....this one:
"Does choice not also include the acceptance that, while some may choose to move back and forth, many gays are happy loving individuals, that should be free to live their life as they choose - without being judged or discriminated against, just as other people in society. That is not being liberal, nor conservative-it is just being accepting and showing compassion for others."

..and I agreed...but here's something to consider, as well, and incorporating thoughts expressed by Stingsinger.... Especially his premise:
"I have thought about this quite a bit and have come to conclusion that choice is a matter of education, not necessarily academic, but investigative pursuing of a topic. Choice requires that an intelligent decision must be made about something based on factual material."

Moreover, his last sentence.."Choice requires that an intelligent decision must be made about something based on factual material."

YES!..YES!!..YES!!!..that is, IF you, are making an INTELLIGENT decision, rather than an emotional re-action, based on other people's re-actions, or perceived re-actions, to FALSE information, and/or deception!
I've posted this before, on another political subject....
People who are deceived, are not particularly 'evil' people..they have just been deceived..that's all....because people, in general, will make the best decisions for their well being, given whatever information they have received, on which to make that decision..and that is not 'evil'.... The 'evil', is in the ones who knowingly pass false information to another to gain a result in THEIR best interests, and if the other person takes his advice, and in being deceived, but making the best decision he could, ends up in some way, suffering an injury to their well being...Fair enough?...
Now I could go on about 'political agendas' that do, and will do, that very thing and have, all through history........but I think we could all fill in the blanks, and maybe even argue ourselves to 'death by boredom', so let's NOT go there.....
..Instead, let's go to the positive side...
In the people you have met through the years, usually there is 'something' about that individual that there is a unique quality...something of substance...something worth holding up and defending...something of special value....most all of us have that, and recognizes it's near, when someone else has it...right?

OK, in the list of life's priorities, that which is special to you, and in the order of their importance...some even being regarded as 'sacred'(not to be confused with religious)in their inner importance, and you meet someone in whose priorities is sex, either hetero or homo,..and because of their priorities, sex, recreational or otherwise, becomes a higher priority than the 'specialness of you are', that it causes you to not regard your 'being' enough to guard/defend it...AND not find it a priority to pass down the special uniqueness to the next generation, with loving nurturing...because you do not have that priority....who am I to argue?...You can do what you want...AS LONG as it doesn't bring danger or harm to another....problem is, sex, whether hetero or homo, CAN and DOES endanger other people to not only STD's(HIV/AIDS), but also hurt and heartache, should one of the people get emotionally involved...and then there is the following break-up, or cheating..or whatever(you fill in the blanks)....also, multiple sexual encounters with multiple people has a negative effect on our 'pair bonding mechanisms'....(no deception there!)
Now, when people, in need to fulfill their sexual priority, so much that they are more concerned with their next 'romantic encounter', than making sure they are not infecting someone else, then those people, hetero or homo, should, at least, be informed to regard others, ...and even themselves, shouldn't they?.....Some other people may not even desire to associate with those kind of people....and that's OK, too....
But, if someone does not think that what is in themselves is not WORTH enough to safeguard, and pass on...that's THEIR prerogative!!
I do NOT have to believe their rationale..I do NOT have to agree with their rationale.....but when other people LIE and deceive about it, then it becomes a greater issue. When a political group issues and promotes FALSE information regarding that, then there IS something 'EVIL' about that!!.....and in our 'concern' and 'compassion', don't you think that WE SHOULD be telling people the truth about it???....and let the people make their INTELLIGENT choice, based on the truth.....instead 'agreeing with them', about regarding something within them of not having 'enough worth'?????

Are we still allowed to 'wonder'???

Stringsinger: "Choice requires that an intelligent decision must be made about something based on factual material."



GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 05:28 PM

""The term "liberal" with a different meaning in the US rather than GB is ambiguous and a precise definition of the term is required.""

Sorry, I was last guest (message sent before completed).

A good observation Stringsinger.( I would also add a few other countries, as Mudcat membership is broader than GB and USA).

It is indeed "kind of odd" that some folks throw terms about with (what seems to be) little concern that there is most likely no common definition of those terms, as they have different meaning to different folks, and in different countries.

""Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.""
― Robert A. Heinlein

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 05:24 PM

Choice requires that an intelligent decision must be made about something based on factual material.

So, Stringsinger, once again I ask, when did you chose to be straight?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 05:16 PM

A good observation Stringsinger.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 03:29 PM

"Ever wondered how people discovering that there is a political group of people out there who are actually opposed to informing you that you have a choice, even about anything, will view that political group???"

I have thought about this quite a bit and have come to conclusion that choice is a matter of education, not necessarily academic, but investigative pursuing of a topic. Choice requires that an intelligent decision must be made about something based on factual material.

The term "liberal" with a different meaning in the US rather than GB is ambiguous and a precise definition of the term is required. I like George Lakoff's view that a liberal in inclined toward a nurturing path modeled by a nurturing parent, with a concern about humanity whereas the opposite is true of those who are not so inclined who actually model and suggest a "strict parent" approach, enabling "authoritarianism", dictatorship and anti-social behavior, such as in the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

The critics of this nurturant idea are generally in the category of "authoritarianism" and are given to ideologies that run the extreme from punitive to fascist.

For further information read Lakoff's "Moral Politics" and "Don't Think of an Elephant".

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 09:49 AM

I am oft reminded of the famed Reverend Dodgson when I visit these pages. One of my favourite quotes is the line " `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' " Usually quite apt on here.

I am now getting more fond of

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here."

Seems very appropriate somehow.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 01:24 AM

SRS: "Once GfS (and others) start attacking the character of others instead of the facts of the discussion, it is indeed boring."

Gosh..and I thought I was doing pretty good staving off the harassment of the idiots!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 12:36 AM

this is madness.....300 plus posts, I just wanted you all to say ....yeh we're all mates.

now its all weird stuff

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 12:26 AM

Ed T: "Personally gfs, I dont like the idea of much that is mandatory."

It's part of the 'transgender' process. I can see why....but I didn't write the rules, nor the protocols. There IS a difference in the 'consciousness' of a man as opposed to a woman. I would think that it 'helpful' to have that lined out, being as the difference would have to be dealt with, both in the incoming and outgoing perceptions of one's 'new identity' That counseling is also accompanied with hormone treatments.....fair enough?

I have my thoughts on your link, and I'm doing some homework, because I'm not entirely familiar with the methods of EI....and if they approach their 'ministry' as a 'crusade'..using fundamentalist concepts, I could see why they could be doing damage....but one thing to note, SOME of their 'targets' came to them...as opposed to drumming up 'targeted sinners'(from their perspective). The ones who would have come to them, did so, I assume, because they were looking to facilitate a 'change'.......whatever process was used, I can't speak to..being as I'd have to look into it. If they circumnavigated certain 'inner needs', and just laid guilt and fear on them, I could easily see why it might not work so well....but as I said, I don't know their working methods.

Steve, Yeah, 'Affix'...as to 'add' things(hormone treatments, will grow things, too)....or maybe you were just relating to cutting off things....
...but then you're a harmonica player....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 10:24 PM

Skipping to the bottom I see Guest from Sanity is weighing in a great deal. Has it reached the point yet where those arguing won't accept the facts as presented and have shifted over to ad hominem attacks? Once GfS (and others) start attacking the character of others instead of the facts of the discussion, it is indeed boring.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 07:58 PM

Personally gfs, I dont like the idea of much that is mandatory. In many cases, the goal is often to limit your choices - though I suspect some folks request it on the advice of lawyers.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 07:51 PM

which DOES include mandatory counseling BEFORE the operations to affix different sexual organs to one's body

Christ on a bloody bike, "affix..." Well done, old son, you've finally demonstrated once and for all that you know bugger all about anything. Why don't you just sod off.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 07:16 PM

In the first sentence of my last post-it relates to Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 07:15 PM

I am not sure whers MSM stands in relationship to HIV transmission, gfs. I seem to recall it is less significant than in western countries-but, I stand to be corrected.

I am not up on gay groups views towards counseling related to your statement gfs. But, I suspect, if it is so, if may relate to professional advice, and events related to the situation in the attached link.

I believe many of the related initiatives are sponsorsd by religious groups, opposed to homosexuality, versus credible professional organizations-which may be a major related issue.

I seem to recall that the RC church also attempted some type of similar conversion initiatives (with religious and professional help) with it s clergy, which was dropped as it seemed ineffective (though, I realize that the priests were sick folks, targeting young folks).

curing gays 

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 06:46 PM

Well, in Russia it is 'illegal'...and in Africa the HIV/AIDS epidemic is rampant....in America, it is widely misunderstood, but that's only because of the political agendas exploiting them.
All that being said, I AM NOT in favor of permissive promiscuity...but that goes for heteros as well.
Don't you think it rather ironic, to say the least, that the homosexual community, LGBT, for instance, will support a transgender operation, which DOES include mandatory counseling BEFORE the operations to affix different sexual organs to one's body....but does not support counseling, in fact hates it, and openly opposes it, if a person seeks counseling to change their mind???

A bit on the hypocritical side of things, wouldn't you say?

Well, that's politics!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 06:25 PM

I have seen no reason to see why they would not have such freedom of choice, gfs.

However, I confess, I have limited knowledge of what limits occurs in some countries -such as Russia and in some areas of Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 05:54 PM

Ed T: "Does choice not also include the acceptance that, while some may choose to move back and forth, many gays are happy loving individuals, that should be free to live their life as they choose - without being judged or discriminated against, just as other people in society. That is not being liberal, nor conservative-it is just being accepting and showing compassion for others."

Ah!..a rational thought!

I agree.
(I'll have to say one thing about Ed and that he is capable of having a decent exchange of ideas, without the usual juvenile tactical drivel of some of the other idiotic ideologues!..or is that idiot-logues??)

That being said, don't you think that IF a homosexual, would want to consider not being homosexual, that he/she should be free to make that choice, rather than being locked into the confines of, "Homosexuals CAN'T change"..brought to you by a ridiculous political doctrine or dogma???..and should be allowed to seek either therapeutic counseling or even spiritual counseling, if they so desire?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 05:07 PM

What! The herring have risen?

I can't. I lost my shoes in the lake.

Genie the Dame

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 04:07 PM

Jeri: "I suspect some of you are confusing "genetic" with "congenital". I also think you may actually be assuming GfS is a real person, and who believes anything he says. I don't think any of it has ever been true."

Jeri, who are you talking to?...."I also think you may actually be assuming GfS is a real person...."

Do you find yourself normally talking to, or about imaginary people?

..."and who believes anything he says...."

Do you normally discuss things with people who don't believe what they are saying?...or are you speaking for yourself?

...."I don't think any of it has ever been true."

Having problems with delusional fantasies or just 'other people's confusions'?

.."I also think..."

Do you always identify with those who tell you what to think, instead of HOW to think???


Hmmm...How long have you had these symptoms?..Before or after you decided to be a political ideologue? and identify with those who tell you WHAT to think, instead of HOW to think???

From what you've indicated, perhaps you should seek professional help!


Don, hiding behind anonymous 'Guest': "Nor do they believe that a gay or lesbian person should be forced or coerced into reparative or aversion therapy just because people like GfS (parenthetical personal attack deleted - moderator) don't like the way they live their lives."

Gosh, another case of...." "...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington

I never said, "that a gay or lesbian person should be forced or coerced into reparative or aversion therapy..."

You said it...not me....but you've ALWAYS had that problem!!!

Having problems with not being able to distinguish reality form fantasy??...Jeri might be able to recommend a shrink, once she finds one.

Dave the Gnome: "I did once, Jeri, but gave it up. See earlier posts for details. I now believe he is surreal. Whether it is a person or not is up for debate as well."

Another guy in search of reality....Jeez, do all ideologues have this problem....maybe Jeri can tell you if it is 'genetic' or 'congenital', but keep in mind that she has confusion issues!

GfS

P.S...Dave, a whelk??....are you saying that you want to eat me?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:28 PM

I've just had a post removed.

TCism seems to be contagious.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:27 PM

Does choice not also include the acceptance that, while some may choose to move back and forth, many gays are happy loving individuals, that should be free to live their life as they choose - without being judged or discriminated against, just as other people in society. That is not being liberal, nor conservative-it is just being accepting and showing compassion for others.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:26 PM

I wouldn't say liberals. I 'd say decent normal people.

I fully 100% support what you put though guest.

Say liberal and it sets hares running. A bit like the UK obsession over the last few says with Christian values. Values are values. You don't need what Atlee called mumbo jumbo to justify being nice, although plenty invoke it when they wish to be wicked.

I notice the previous Archbishop of Canterbury has weighed in with a pleasing slap in the face for the electioneering David Cameron. He said we aren't a Christian society. We are a post Christian society.

Quite.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 02:52 PM

Liberals, so-called and otherwise, believe in assuming full personhood for all people, no matter what their genetic heritage might be, racially, ethnically, whether they have curly hair, are left handed—or happen to be gay or lesbian—and no matter what the blue nosed moralists and bigots say.

Nor do they believe that a gay or lesbian person should be forced or coerced into reparative or aversion therapy just because people like GfS (parenthetical personal attack deleted - moderator) don't like the way they live their lives.

Cthulhu

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 01:51 PM

I also think you may actually be assuming GfS is a real person

I did once, Jeri, but gave it up. See earlier posts for details. I now believe he is surreal. Whether it is a person or not is up for debate as well.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 01:49 PM

Why certainly. I'll have your whelk.

How do we do it?

Volume!

Dive the Name

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 12:14 PM

Ever wondered why people discovering that they had a choice, just pisses off the 'so-called' liberals'????

Ever wondered why people discovering that they weren't limited, and to being stereotyped pisses off the 'so-called' liberals'????

Ever wondered how people discovering that there is a political group of people out there who are actually opposed to informing you that you have a choice, even about anything, will view that political group???

Ever wondered how people re-act discovering that the people who say they supported you, are actually bigoted against you by not allowing you to think for yourself...and tell you what you can and cannot be??

Ever wondered how a political group, can decide that you were born a certain way and base that on politics and disregard science?

Just wondering...................if that's Okay with you....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 12:01 PM

I suspect some of you are confusing "genetic" with "congenital". I also think you may actually be assuming GfS is a real person, and who believes anything he says. I don't think any of it has ever been true.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 07:44 AM

"Over 90 percent of ugly clothing is bought by heterosexual men."
Anon quote

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 04:07 AM

When did you chose to be straight?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 02:17 AM

Speaking of bullshitting, remember this??? ..They're singing your song!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 02:09 AM

Actually, I'm quite calm.
I've done my homework.....you just keep broadcasting bullshit that someone wrote for you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 02:04 AM

You're raving, GfS.

Cthulhu

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 01:57 AM

False...you just tried a FALSE accusation!..It won't hold. The studies are not biased, at all...AND you could have read one of them. You should be happy....homosexuals, those who want options, can change their minds..and the best part is..we already know it!!!
the bummer is, there are people like you who want to keep them from getting free!
Why do you suppose that is??
Don't you want them to know they have a choice??
What's wrong with having a choice??..if for years you had it drummed into your head that you couldn't??...or shouldn't??
think they MIGHT just want to have their own children, someday, but just lacked the confidence??
Ask your two buddies!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 01:29 AM

The studies YOU cling to desperately (usually from religious organizations or quack shrinks) say there is no gene. But they're not the only ones. Rational psychiatrists are still open-minded, and as such, still looking.

Nighty night, GfS. Lock your closet door. There might be scary things in there.

Cthulhu

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 01:26 AM

...IF they want.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 01:11 AM

You keep insisting...when the studies have said that there is NO gene...and homosexuals can stop being homosexuals.
Get over it.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 12:18 AM

No. It just demonstrates how desperate YOU are. Having found no gene doesn't mean that there IS no gene. It just means they haven't found it yet. They're still looking.

Spooks in the closet, GfS?

Cthulhu

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 11:45 PM

WHAT???!!
The FACT is, and the studies show it, that there is NO gene....and it pisses me off that people have been deceived about it, and have gotten so hostile about anyone's resistance to believing their lies...and it's being used to divide people!

Doesn't that piss you off?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 11:28 PM

The TRUTH is that the matter is far from settled yet.

GfS, you seem to have quite a strong emotional investment in your insistence, without authoritative evidence, that same sex orientation is NOT genetic.

One does tend to wonder why......

Cthulhu

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 11:02 PM

Well they found THAT one!

Look folks, It's not as if I killed and ate the Easter Bunny.....nor did I round up Leprechauns to rip off their gold and had them exterminated.....nor did I order a drone attack on Santa's sleigh, and had him killed...after water-boarding him....nor did I fatally stab the tooth fairy...........nor did I exterminate the 'gay gene'.
What they all have in common, is they don't exist..except to make people 'feel good'.
Now, when the first time you heard that 'there was no Santa Claus'...did you hate the person who told you? Did you call him/her a bunch of hateful names? Did you think that person was 'bigoted' against fat guys in red suits?
....And finally, when you got over the 'disappointment' of learning that the 'tooth fairy' was really Mom or Dad were you resolved to resent the person who clued you in???
I'm not suggesting that anyone treat a homosexual one way or another..come to think of it, I can't recall a time in my life when I asked a person, for the sake of inclusion or exclusion, if they were homosexual or not....nor have I ever considered asking a musician what his sexual preferences were, before we could jam together.
Normally, I don't give a flying fuck. Matter of fact, it has only been since the Mudcat forum's incessant bickering that I even think about it much!
So here's the rub.....all these people are all pissed off because some ideological motivated consensus got them believing that homosexuality was 'genetic', and therefore they had claim to the same championing of Civil Rights as did the blacks emerging from segregation, especially in the south....SO THEY LIED TO YOU....Yes, they LIED!!!...They flat out made it up, and even funded certain 'studies' to 'SUGGEST' that it 'COULD BE' a gene.....and then the 'experts' came out from the woodwork, blathering nonsense to get, what I believe to be, well intentioned people to be their trumpeters and foot soldiers....(sorta like Santa's elves).....and the IRONY of it all, is that you get pissed off at the ones telling you the truth.....AND ARE NOT AT ALL SUSPICIOUS OF THE PEOPLE OR THE MOTIVES OF THOSE WHO ARE LYING TO YOU!!!!
Now anbody reading this has a computer, and anyone can go look for the 'gene'.....and the only one there is a gene, with only 3-5 markers, 'Xq28'....but EVERY study regarding this gene, says that it is NOT the gene....only has some markers....but there is no gene', Santa Claus, tooth fairy, Leprechauns, or Easter Bunny.
I guess I could apologize for telling you the truth, and it got you 'upset'.......but instead, we have to sit through your 'terrible temper tantrums'......did you act this way, when you found out that the 'Monkees' weren't even playing their instruments...but some weren't even musicians!!!?????????

...and you're not at all indignant of the phonies who keep spouting this shit, to build public policies, re-define centuries of the marital institution on outright lies????...Talk about a 'corruptible foundation'...how long do you think THAT would last???
Makes one wonder, what else did they tell you to fuck with your head.......and why???!!!???!!!

just tell the truth...and let the chips fall where they may..and for God's sakes, don't give us lies to lay a foundation for laws and public policies............!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 09:05 PM

Here you go!

Cthulhu

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 01:47 PM

Here, in the spirit of fairness.....

Here's the CLOSEST search, with the CLOSEST conclusive results!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:43 PM

Mmmm - OK Keith. I understand what you are saying but I think you over reacted. If anyone other than Musket had made a similar joke I think you would have ignored it. If Musket or Jim Carroll make any points at all you seem to need to argue against it. Apologies if I am wrong but remember that it does take two people to argue.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:29 PM

The quote you attributed to me was actually a quote posted by 'Guest', from his link, on the study that he posted.
You should read it...especially before you use it to slur someone else!

AND..for all you supporters of things that you DON'T know much about...instead of trying to stir up bias, why don't you find the study, that concludes otherwise.....keeping in mind that the words, 'may suggest' or 'seems to indicate' and other non-conclusive innuendos, is NOT a definite.

Jeez, you'd think that BEFORE you go hog wild on a notion, you should at least find out if there is ANY merit to your 'persuasions'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:20 PM

Thanks for the background Dave.
If the personal comments were not malicious, they still came across as ridicule and were made instead of any consideration of the issue Brian wanted discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:10 PM

In case anyone wondered, Muskets first post on the thread that Keith is referring to, where Brian May linked a speech Tony Blair had made about radicalisation was -

I thought you were into home made guitars, star gazing and saving badgers?

Not all badgers, just the radicalised bastard ones eh?

Again, in case anyone is not in the know, these are things that Brian May, ex Queen lead guitarist, is into.

Our Brian May on Mudcat replied

Ho ho ho, you are a wag . . .

Which is, I guess, because Brian on here gets Queen jokes all the time. Now, I could be wrong, but I would guess that Brian did not see that as personal abuse. Nor do I. Others may see it differently. Make up your own mind.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:08 PM

"We now know that it is not scientifically accurate to refer to a "gay gene" as the causative agent in homosexuality. The available evidence clearly establishes that no such gene has been identified.".... (Goofus)

YEAH?............AND?

Like to explain how that comment has any relevance to the argument?

NO?

Well, my incoherent friend, you forget just one important point. The fact that such a gene hasn't been discovered YET, doesn't mean it won't be discovered tomorrow or next year.

In 1900 you wouldn't have found many who believed men would ever fly, and predicting spaceflight would have earned you a season ticket to the "Funny Farm".

So your certainty is at best misguided, and any conclusions derived from it are frankly nonsense. Do you have any idea how large the human genome is, and how complex?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 11:35 AM

Naw, he said 'love', not 'fuck'...there IS a difference...and that goes for heteros as well.


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 10:37 AM

That'll open the door to another homosexuality argument I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 06:47 AM

and the second commandment is like unto it
Thou shalt love thy fellow man.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 05:27 AM

Me: 25 Apr 14 - 02:53 AM (To GfS)
It is very rare that I resort to a personal attack as it is right that one should argue against the ideas rather than people. But you do not have ideas. If you have, they are lost in the incoherent ramblings that you try to pass off as sanity.

Keith: 25 Apr 14 - 06:19 PM

Musket defended personal attack on other members earlier.
How about you Dave?
Do you agree it is "cathartic?"

I think I had pre-answered you, Keith, but as I said before I do not read all the nonsense in these threads so I forgive you for not doing so either.

I have also subsequently changed my opinion. I will no longer attack the GfS persona but try to match the level of nonsense instead. It may be difficult but I will do my best.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 05:18 AM

"Do the pack make the rules now?"
No Keith - you are on your own, as usual
The rest of "the pack" seem to have deserted you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 04:28 AM

I do not make personal attacks Musket.
Decent folk here don't.

It is sad to see the likes of you advocating personal attacks on members and encouraging people on the fringe of your pack to join in.
"Come on in Dave, the water's lovely."
Its "cathartic."

Just two days ago you followed an op without commenting on the subject, just personal attack.
You and the pack turned the thread into just another boring rant against religion.
"Fuck 'em. All of 'em."
As if we had not heard it all a hundred times before.

This discussion was about why the forum is now boring and why so many decent, interesting folk have gone.
It is you and your ilk.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 02:52 AM

Still at it???
The more you feed it the more it grows.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 01:38 AM

What of you get out of it then Keith? Are attacks cathartic for you too?

TC

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 06:19 PM

Musket defended personal attack on other members earlier.
How about you Dave?
Do you agree it is "cathartic?"
Do the moderators have an opinion?
It used not to be allowed.
Do the pack make the rules now?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 06:18 PM

Sounds more like you're talking to yourself, and sharing your thoughts.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 02:33 PM

Back in yer hole.

Who flushed your chain ? Talking about you, not to you.

Anyway, not that I give a shit but I give even less of one right now. Tomorrow I shall be eating the best soufflés in Inveraray.

(A bit deep for the decency challenged. )

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 01:56 PM

Obble, gobble, pobble?

Yes! The trout is lovely.

Name the Dove.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 01:43 PM

Dave, I thought you said you were NOT a member of the pack?

You're beginning to sound identical to the other three.

The wit and humour in your last post is well up to the high standards required for membership.

Even down to miscalling GfS in a childish manner.

Get a grip and grow up, it seems that you are not only disingenuous, but infantile as well.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 01:03 PM

Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, and you're a dirty rascal.....

ZZZZZZZZZZ

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 12:05 PM

Don't go away mad....just go away!
If you think you've actually been 'controversial', you're flattering yourself beyond 'your curtain call' that never happened.
If you are pretending to be a 'so-called liberal', you've don't a great job revealing just how stupid and shallow they are. If you are a 'conservative', you've done more damage to being a 'liberal', showing the 'depth' of their 'position'.
If you were trying to be funny, you've only shown what happens to witless clowns with nothing to say...except how flagrantly pathetic idiots can be.
None of you have put forth ONE salient 'argument'...other than trying to stir up hate and discontent...which, from any readers point of view, has just been boringly obnoxious!
Try doing something that you can't, don't or won't do...and that is to back up your position with something 'less than stupid'.
You have displayed nothing but baseless contempt for the people on Mudcat who do have a verifiable point of view.
THAT is NOT 'controversy'..it's being a fucking pest....and you finally got called on it....!

GfS

P.S....and got your asses kicked!!..what are you? Suicidal and proud of it??????

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 09:53 AM

I keep laughing at Goofus and taking the piss but now and again, he doesn't warrant fun. His assertions that you can be cured of being different to those wishing to cure you. Now that's the product of one sick mind. I notice he and someone else I have referred to as a sick puppy seem to play together quite nicely. Ok, the toys get put away in segregated boxes but Barbie's clothes never quite fit Ken.

Goofus is also rather quick to point out how much he enjoys a "normal" heterosexual life. Good for him.

zzz

Any road up, it's pissing it down. Must mean I am about to go to Scotland on holiday.

Toodle pip

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 08:00 AM

No - I have actually solved the riddle Musket. Or is it Watson? Anyroads, goofus is either a mod or Max himself with a cunning plan to stop the controversial threads by posting so much gibberish that no-one can be bothered visiting them any more. I think we can get round it by out-gibbering him but I am afraid that I am not up to the job. I'll make a start anyway.

This is a lovely party. I wish I was here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 07:38 AM

Come on in Dave, the water's lovely.

Personal attacks never win arguments I agree but when fools don't put what could be called an argument in the first place....

Well, it's cathartic when you think about it. For example...


Who do I work for Goofus? I WORK FOR THE FUNNY FARM, and they have issued me with a white van to come and round up the likes of you up.

Menu. Do you want mashed banana or mashed bananas?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 04:04 AM

Such CONVINCING positions, you have provided such undeniable evidence of your knowledge of the matter!!!.......It speaks to the integrity of your cause and character!!
(But then, what can one expect?..they are inseparable!).

Who do you work for?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 03:36 AM

Where is The Isle of White Goofus?

The tour dates on the back of the T shirt don't seem to mention it.

Anyway, stop barking at me. It is the good professor who claims to understand you, not me. And as he is a greyhound rather than a trick cyclist, I doubt I'd put his diagnosis on your medical records without a second opinion.

Perhaps the view of a Dalmatian?



Remember that poem I once wrote for you? You should be grateful because I only used to write them as knicker looseners. Rare that I write them for someone who is fucked rather than about to be.

Unlike other Musket based doggerel, I can remember it.

Roses are red
I am just larking
Around on my keyboard
And Goofus is barking

Keep banging the rocks together.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 02:53 AM

To true, Steve. It is insane posts like the one at 6:26PM that, to my mind, are the real problem. More suited to a 1960s psychedelia forum I think. Maybe with a bit of acid rock in the background.

Tell you what, Goofus, you carry on sitting in the corner, gibbering to yourself and the rest of us will choose to ignore you. Luckily, as no-one has the vaguest idea what you are on about, you will not be doing any real harm. It is very rare that I resort to a personal attack as it is right that one should argue against the ideas rather than people. But you do not have ideas. If you have, they are lost in the incoherent ramblings that you try to pass off as sanity.

Thank the stars that I am not that sane.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 12:13 AM

He's got his hands full...ignoring the truth and believing what he WANTS to........but we love him, anyway.........

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:37 PM

Jaysus, just ignore the silly bastard, Dave! He's a useless, worthless git, he knows I know it and I know he bloody knows I know it! Life is so short...

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:26 PM

Mystery Guest # I-812: "Since you know so much about it, GfS, is licking your own balls a life-style choice, or is it genetic?"

Can't you read??..Ask Muskrat!
Gfs response:("Was it by choice?...or was he just 'born that way', and couldn't help himself??")


Dave the Gnome: ""More to the point...WHY do you support an ideology which dictates that humans do NOT have the right to fuck who they want!!???...AND would deny counseling or therapy to those who want that FREEDOM?????????????""

I don't."

I can't believe that anyone can be so thick!...Against the post that you, yourself posted, you insist that homosexuals have no choice...let me paraphrase....Your ideology says that homosexuals do NOT have the FREEDOM to choose....Your 'divine state' ordered edicts have decided that in the womb at birth...contrary to scientific studies, that CANNOT find the 'magic gene', on which your propaganda, has indoctrinated you that there is.

Dave the Mental Midget: "You posted the conclusion of the study posted by Ed T, as proof that you agreed with it

I didn't."

Read it and weep!

From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 02:24 AM

"Keith, there are examples of bigotry here. Lets look at the conclusion of GfS's link, which he believed is a fair and balanced view.

"Additionally, evidence exists which documents that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, homosexuals should reflect this knowledge.""

But you cut the paragraph in half and excluded the rest...here is the WHOLE post, of which you edited: (My Response at the time, oncluded!!!)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 11:18 PM

Dave, in your post you cut and pasted the 'Conclusion'...but seem to FAIL at reading the WHOLE thing you posted...so I'll put it up for you...READ IT!! You posted it!!!:

"....We now know that it is not scientifically accurate to refer to a "gay gene" as the causative agent in homosexuality. The available evidence clearly establishes that no such gene has been identified. Additionally, evidence exists which documents that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, homosexuals should reflect this knowledge."


Got it?..Get it?...Good!""

Now are you going to pretend to go 'brain-dead'?

Dave the Mutant Gnome: "then say that the link was from a Conservative religious outfit....and it WAS NOT at all.

Yes it is."

Pray-tell where did you get that nonsensical ASS-umption????

"Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:14 PM


Before you read the article, note the sites name.

http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

""...and that is all I've said about it for YEARS now..no gene!!""


...and then this 'gem'

Dave Poet Extraordinaire: "As you said

THESE IS a difference between liberals

Which makes about as much sense as anything else you write I suppose."


Next time you throw a picnic, try not to throw up all over your sandwiches!

(It's hard to eat, when you see Muskrat over by the tree licking his balls!)

Maybe you should stop trying to follow his example, and THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!!

GfS

P.S....Here''s some 'picnic music'.... just for you!!!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 04:49 PM

More to the point...WHY do you support an ideology which dictates that humans do NOT have the right to fuck who they want!!???...AND would deny counseling or therapy to those who want that FREEDOM?????????????

I don't.

You posted the conclusion of the study posted by Ed T, as proof that you agreed with it

I didn't.

then say that the link was from a Conservative religious outfit....and it WAS NOT at all.

Yes it is.

But there isn't really any point in this. There comes a time when, as other people have stated, one really needs to decide whether it is worth continuing a conversation with someone is barking mad. And the answer is no. I am sure you feel the same about me so shall we mutually agree that we are both two sandwiches short of a picnic and call it a day eh?

As you said

THESE IS a difference between liberals

Which makes about as much sense as anything else you write I suppose.

TTFN

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 04:24 PM

Since you know so much about it, GfS, is licking your own balls a life-style choice, or is it genetic?

Cthulhu

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:17 PM

Come Boy, come!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:13 PM

Oh well..can't teach an old dog new tricks.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:12 PM

Was it by choice?...or was he just 'born that way', and couldn't help himself??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:09 PM

Muskrat: "Woof Woof!! Grrrr Woof!...Woof, Woof Woof!! Grrrr Woof!"

Once during a folk festival, on the Isle of White, Muskrat got into a debate on politics...it got rather heated, so he started stuffing his snout into people's crotches, and trying to hump their legs. Embarrassed, the folks with him shooed him away...where he got quiet for a longer period of time than usual. They looked for him, and finally found him......


.....licking his balls.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 02:56 PM

I see the issue. I think of sub humans to describe those who don't see others as equal in every single way to them. Something is missing in their makeup, hence sub human.

Of course , liberal means different things in different countries. It also means different things in the minds of different people.

Akenaton uses it as a term of contempt. Which is typical of contempable bigots. Goofus picks up on words and tries stringing them into sentences.

Good innit?


Hey worm! Any chance of posting on the abuse thread? I can remind myself of my low opinion of you on that. I have to pretend with my fingers crossed that I respect your right to breathe on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 02:51 PM

Young people have taken over our words, and turned them upside down. For example awesome, is now just a so-so, meaning word. What used to be "cool", is now often said to be "hot" :)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 02:32 PM

Given Ed's posting of the word 'radical'....the difference between 'so-called liberals' and liberals, is that 'so-called liberals' are radically short-sighted and hypocritical..whereas a 'regular liberal' is sincere...even when he is sincerely wrong!

How's that Ake?....'original' enough for ya'?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 02:04 PM

I checked on what the word radical means to some young folks in the USA:

Radical:two definitions from the Urban Dictionary:

1) A radical is a person subscribing to a political ideology supporting massive, unmeasured, and rapid change. Radicalism is contrasted with conservatism that advocate minimum change, reactionary action advocating counter-change, as well as progressivismA radical would want to chang, for example, a feudal system into a completely capitalist system, or a completely capitalist system into a communist one. Another exaple of radicalism would be a person who wanted to change an Islamic Theocracy into an Atheist state.

2)A word used by people over the age of 30 in an attempt to sound cool, usually resulting in the opposite.
Useage:
Jim: (to friend) Hey check it out I got a new snowboard. 

Jim's mom: (overhearing conversation) Yeah its totally radical. 

Jim: OK you can go away now.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 02:03 PM

Yeah....agree with Akenaton.
THESE IS a difference between liberals, and 'so-called liberals'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 01:40 PM

"I think you are on a winner here, Musket. Ake says you are liberal."


Sorry, you're not often right, but wrong again Dave. :0)

What I actually term Mr Mather as, is "liberal", which as most people know is the antithesis of real tolerant liberalism.

People like Mr Mcgrath or Stringsinger, could be safely called liberals.
I am radical, but tolerate most people.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 01:24 PM

Dave the Gnome: "You have no idea what is in my head. I have no idea what you believe is in my head and I expect that no one at all has the slightest inkling what is in yours. You just do not make sense."

Not only do I have 'no idea' what is in your head, it is becoming obvious that you don't either!
You posted the conclusion of the study posted by Ed T, as proof that you agreed with it...but did NOT post the rest of the very paragraph of that study, which stated that homosexuals CAN change their 'orientation'...and then say that the link was from a Conservative religious outfit....and it WAS NOT at all.
So take some time and get your shit together....you might even flash that the orientation of a 6-14 year old boy, during his 'experimentation period' MAY just NOT be the same as he is when he is 32!.....but if your ideology serves you right, he CAN'T change his mind...even if it is a normal stage of growing up!!!
Imagine being stuck with the shit you thought was 'so hip' when you were 10!....
..just ask Musket, he still barks like a dog, but doesn't see himself as a son of a bitch.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 11:56 AM

You're the one who says he believes in magic, not me....

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 11:53 AM

It's obvious that Musket has run out of tricks.

Think he was 'born that way' or has he ingested some toxic propaganda?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 11:46 AM

You forgot the bit about my dear friend Bridge calling me a dirty rotten stinking capitalist whist the worm calls me a bleeding heart socialist...

I'm Musket, if anyone asks. And if they do ask, question their motives.



Keith. Try to avoid threads where people lighten up the debate, you only get confused and make yourself look foolish.

Goofus. Keep bang....   oh, hang on, I think the good professor wants to articulate it in a more meaningful way.

Ready boy? "Woof!" Ok, you tell old Goofus!

Woof Woof!! Grrrr Woof!

I can't say I agree with every last word of that boy, because there are some things about him that aren't really too nice, but I suspect he will learn from your appraisal.   No, you can't charge him trick cyclist rates, he can give you a gravy bone.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 11:39 AM

Dave: "I did read it, GfS and have read it again. It is a conclusion drawn by a site that is very biased toward religious fundamentalism."

FALSE!!

It was a link provided by ED, that presented both sides of the 'debate', very fairly...and was done by the latest studies refuting arguments from both sides!!!

More to the point...WHY do you support an ideology which dictates that humans do NOT have the right to fuck who they want!!???...AND would deny counseling or therapy to those who want that FREEDOM?????????????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 10:54 AM

I did read it, GfS and have read it again. It is a conclusion drawn by a site that is very biased toward religious fundamentalism. Not one that has any credence at all with me. The final statement suggests that there are policies for and about the 'treatment of homosexuals'. Which I find quite alarming.

You have no idea what is in my head. I have no idea what you believe is in my head and I expect that no one at all has the slightest inkling what is in yours. You just do not make sense.

No answers to the three questions I posed yet? They only require a simple yes or no.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guestr from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 10:49 AM

The last post got messed up...
.......................................................................
Dave the Gnome: "GfS - As I said, I am quite happy to accept that you do not believe homosexuality can be cured. As to

"HOWEVER, YOU posted that, and didn't even read what you posted...so I don't think your observations are too reliable, either!"

Well, this is why people, including me, cannot take you seriously. Apart from the fact it is impossible not to read what you actually posting, your conclusion that my observations are not reliable then moves on to

"if you seriously consider my observation!!! Because you don't!"

Sorry, but that does not even make sense to me. I am more than happy to take anyone seriously if I can understand what they are saying. I realise that it is my fault that I cannot understand what the hell you are on about but maybe if you would give us your arguments in plain English, without the embellishments and with some sort of structure, then we may be able to consider your views."

Here is what I said: "Well Dave, that just shows how unenlightened you are....I have never made that claim..but your cohorts have. That's what you get for listening to political airheads...you start to believe their crap, they use to bolster their looney bullshit.........HOWEVER, YOU posted >THAT<, and didn't even read what you posted...so I don't think your observations are too reliable, either!...nor your ability to research a given topic that you are so adamant about.....in other words, you don't know what you're talking about........so....I'll accept your apology, if you seriously consider my observation!!!
Because you don't!"

>THAT<:

OK, Let's try this again, Speedy....regarding YOUR POST:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 11:18 PM

Dave, in your post you cut and pasted the 'Conclusion'...but seem to FAIL at reading the WHOLE thing you posted...so I'll put it up for you...READ IT!! You posted it!!!:

""....We now know that it is not scientifically accurate to refer to a "gay gene" as the causative agent in homosexuality. The available evidence clearly establishes that no such gene has been identified. Additionally, evidence exists which documents that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, homosexuals should reflect this knowledge.""

Got it?..Get it?...Good!"

So, you ask, 'cured'?....are you saying it is a disease?

The rest is all in YOUR head.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 10:35 AM

GfS - As I said, I am quite happy to accept that you do not believe homosexuality can be cured. As to

Dave the Gnome: "HOWEVER, YOU posted that, and didn't even read what you posted...so I don't think your observations are too reliable, either!

Well, this is why people, including me, cannot take you seriously. Apart from the fact it is impossible not to read what you actually posting, your conclusion that my observations are not reliable then moves on to

if you seriously consider my observation!!! Because you don't!

Sorry, but that does not even make sense to me. I am more than happy to take anyone seriously if I can understand what they are saying. I realise that it is my fault that I cannot understand what the hell you are on about but maybe if you would give us your arguments in plain English, without the embellishments and with some sort of structure, then we may be able to consider your views."

OK, Let's try this again, Speedy....regarding YOUR POST:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 11:18 PM

Dave, in your post you cut and pasted the 'Conclusion'...but seem to FAIL at reading the WHOLE thing you posted...so I'll put it up for you...READ IT!! You posted it!!!:

""....We now know that it is not scientifically accurate to refer to a "gay gene" as the causative agent in homosexuality. The available evidence clearly establishes that no such gene has been identified. Additionally, evidence exists which documents that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, homosexuals should reflect this knowledge.""

Got it?..Get it?...Good!"

So, you ask, 'cured'?....are you saying it is a disease?

The rest is all in YOUR head.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 08:02 AM

their looney bullshit

Posted by Goofus, without, hilariously, a trace of irony.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 07:47 AM

I think you are on a winner here, Musket. Ake says you are liberal. Keith says you are Stalinist. GfS says you are a political airhead. Or is that me? I forget these things. Anyway. You have achieved the impossible. An Airheaded, liberal Stalinist. Well done!

BTW - I think Brian found your comment funny. I guess he has never been likened to Queen's lead guitarist before :-P Good job he isn't called Freddie Mercury. Everyone know he was a homosexual.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 07:06 AM

Musket,
The OP was about Brian May's opinion of Tony Blair's speech

Correct, so why resort at once to ridicule and vilification instead of discussing the speech?

Why say,
"Nobody started a thread on Islamism Keith. Someone started a thread saying Mudlms this Muslims that."

And,
" since when was it possible to answer stupidity and irrationality with counter argument ?"

The pack will not allow us to discuss certain subjects.
The pack decrees that any such thread will become another thread attacking faith, and above all Christians.

The dear old Mudcat is allowing itself to be made boring by tolerating intolerance.
The lovely, liberal and tolerant Mudcat has become a host for Stalinism.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:31 AM

No.. The OP was about Brian May's opinion of Tony Blair's speech.

Do learn to read. Not everybody is stupid enough to take your crap at face value. Stop insulting their intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:10 AM

Mad world 

It depends which band you are playing with gfs:)

Hopefully, not the one above.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:07 AM

""You're a bigot Mike""
Will you stop this Keith
You are deliberately attempting to provoke an argument here by using a thread that you are not involved in
You are a bloody disgrace to this forum and it's about time something was done to stop your nasty gallop.
You want to take part in that discussion - feel free.
Do not carry out of comments from thread to thread when prople are not involved in - this is no less than a dirty-tricks campaign to provoke argument
Stop it now - haw dare you behave like this?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 04:24 AM

The thread and OP were about a speech by the UN Middle East Envoy, which said that radical Islamism was such a threat that the West should co-operate with Russia and China on it despite differences.

A taboo subject for the pack so we get,
"Xtian fundagelical right-wing loonies and megalomaniacs are on the march in the UK."

"You're a bigot Mike"

"Also note the Anglican Church in Uganda supporting death sentence for being gay.
Voltaire yet again. Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
There are over 65 million people in The UK. Less than a million go to church , yet our Prime Minister wants to piss off non Christians even more. Rational people can and will ignore the cynical political posturing but other people with a different imaginary friend will feel isolated and threatened.
Well done Cameron. You and your tambourine rattling idiots show the ugly side of religion, regardless of flavour. Make no mistake, Bliar's intervention was planned to pounce on Cameron's Jesus kick. Party politics are nothing when it comes to trying to drag us back to a superstitious dark age.
Fuck 'em. All of 'em."

Anyone spot the drift?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 04:22 AM

Wasn't there?

So the bit about "not all Muslims"? The taunting end of the thread inviting liberals to do their worst?

An ex soldier was convicted of rape and murder last week. Of course, I'm not saying all ex soldiers are capable of rape and murder. The vast majority etc etc.

Not nice is it? The slur, the unnecessary comparison. The vast majority of Christians don't murder doctors and nurses outside termination of pregnancy clinics for that matter.

If you think an opportunity to drag the word Muslim into a debate about radical Islamic hate is interesting debate, it says a lot about you. Most of which is evident by your posting history. They are no more Muslim than a paedophile with a cross and chain is a Christian. The Islamic fundamentalists debase a religion, not promote it.

When you are quite finished having a pop at people who see through religion, you might take note that it is those promoting it wrongly you need to tackle, not those who smile indulgently and ask how your imaginary friend is getting on.

Go and polish your fucking medals.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 04:09 AM

since when was it possible to answer stupidity and irrationality with counter argument ?

You make my point.
There was none of that in that OP.
You could have explained why you think militant Islamism is not a threat to peace and stability, but discussion is NOT what the pack wants.
Greg and Jim also put down their markers in the very first posts.
People with views know what they would be in for if they dared post.

So what would have once been an interesting debate is strangled at birth.
Mudcat is allowing itself to be destroyed by tolerating intolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:36 AM

Sorry - "anything apart from" should be "everything apart from". Mea Culpa.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:34 AM

GfS - As I said, I am quite happy to accept that you do not believe homosexuality can be cured. As to

HOWEVER, YOU posted that, and didn't even read what you posted...so I don't think your observations are too reliable, either!

Well, this is why people, including me, cannot take you seriously. Apart from the fact it is impossible not to read what you actually posting, your conclusion that my observations are not reliable then moves on to

if you seriously consider my observation!!! Because you don't!

Sorry, but that does not even make sense to me. I am more than happy to take anyone seriously if I can understand what they are saying. I realise that it is my fault that I cannot understand what the hell you are on about but maybe if you would give us your arguments in plain English, without the embellishments and with some sort of structure, then we may be able to consider your views. Tell you what, to save any confusion, how about answering some simple questions.

Do you believe homosexuality is a natural condition?
Do you believe that homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals?
Do you think that homosexuals are the same as you in anything apart from their sexuality?

If the answer is yes to all then I don't understand what your argument is. If it is no to any then please explain why.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:07 AM

Well Dave, that just shows how unenlightened you are....I have never made that claim..but your cohorts have. That's what you get for listening to political airheads...you start to believe their crap, they use to bolster their looney bullshit.........HOWEVER, YOU posted that, and didn't even read what you posted...so I don't think your observations are too reliable, either!...nor your ability to research a given topic that you are so adamant about.....in other words, you don't know what you're talking about........so....I'll accept your apology, if you seriously consider my observation!!!
Because you don't!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 02:58 AM

Ed T: "Gfs,right on...But, from an objective perspective, a neutral observer would likely see this occuringon either side of a hotly debated mudcat issue....."

Objective??.....I'm not with the party...I'm with the band.

How much more objective can you get??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 02:51 AM

"And now Jim is in there shouting "bigot.""
Leave it out Keith
I've acknowledged my thoughtless performance on this forum and have apologised for it.
You have refused to acknowledge your. are pretending it never happened and now appear to be attempting to start it all over again.
If you don't have the decency to apologise for your appalling behaviour and the nouse to recognise that mess that we've made with our pointless arguments, at least have the decency and respect for others not to try to prod them back into life again.
Sniping at arguments from other threads seems to be one of your more unpleasant traits.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 02:51 AM

A 'cure'???....Hmm..elaborate.

Happy to oblige. I believe that you said at some point that homosexuality can be cured. If you did not, I apologise. If you did, that is what I was referring to. It cannot be cured because it is not an illness.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 01:59 AM

Figures!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 01:17 AM

Ridicule and vilification. Yep, that'll be me then.

Out if interest, since when was it possible to answer stupidity and irrationality with counter argument ? I'd have thought ridicule and vilification is about the most appropriate response there is. After sniggering and ignoring you, you pompous .... Hang on, wrong thread.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 07:58 PM

DtG: "You mean the real truth like a cure for homosexuality?"

A 'cure'???....Hmm..elaborate.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 06:02 PM

Since this is Mudcat, and if relates to a recent topic, I felt compelled to post an insightful article by USA southern politician Dave "Mudcat" Saunders. It it titled Opposition to gay marriage falls away (even in Dixie). 
Here it is:

Dave Mudcat Saunders and changes in Dixie 

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:47 PM

Musket, you did not challenge anything he said.
I doubt that you could, so instead you resort to ridicule and vilification.
That is what is spoiling this once fun forum.
People like you.

And now Jim is in there shouting "bigot."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:29 PM

Nobody started a thread on Islamism Keith. Someone started a thread saying Mudlms this Muslims that. It included the fucking hilarious "not all Muslims , just the bad ones " that just dug him deeper in it.

If you start a post, start it objectively. If you don't, how can normal people engage in it?

I thought you had written it at first Keith. It was like something you wrote, just more coherent.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:20 PM

rather than getting to the real truth

You mean the real truth like a cure for homosexuality? I would rather believe that the tooth fairy is real and it never rains in southern California thanks.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 04:40 PM

Find the "time".....sincerely.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 04:32 PM

The 'debates' get heated, when political airheads wish to replace hard facts with the 'talking points' of their particular ideology...and then just keep stubbornly pushing their adopted bullshit. When their 'talking point' reality, starts to implode on them, they, and their other like-minded mental midgets resort to hostile name calling and wild accusations, hoping to impress and sway the lesser informed audience..in hopes that a politically biased consensus will be seen as the 'winning argument'...and replace reality.
In other words, they would be 'happy' with a mob of deceived zealots, rather than getting to the real truth, that doesn't suit them. It is sheer idiocy..........but then that's 'politics'.....which is just a fraud perpetrated onto humans to control masses of people....until another crock of shit arises to replace the old crock!

GfS

Yebbut you just sound drug-crazed, which you might not be one supposes, in which case the scenario is even worse, so you don't count. Bugger off.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 04:29 PM

""when .... wish to replace hard facts with the 'talking points' of their particular ideology...and then just keep stubbornly pushing...""

Gfs,right on...But, from an objective perspective, a neutral observer would likely see this occuringon either side of a hotly debated mudcat issue, like this obe. Additionally, my observation is that both sides have attempted to define some fairly "soft stuff" (IMO, with little objective research) as "hard facts". Each side seems to be fairly convinced that "their ideology" is the basis of the "truth", and seek sources to prop it up.

Unfortunately, those with less connection with either ideology, are either ignored, minimized, or treated with suspucian, and seen as a supporter of "the other side" of the issue.

Would that not be the source of the discord, and the nasty stuff, from normally nice people?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 04:28 PM

With all due respect ( ok mods, you can look away now.)

What are you waffling on about Akenaton?

You have rightly back pedalled about your desire to round up gay men. All we need is the rest, especially the criminal aspects, the world starts to be a better place. May I suggest you think, if at all possible about your random rambling? If anybody has a clue what you are going on about, they know more about psychiatry than I do.

Good job you aren't representative of where you live. I'm counting the hours before I spend a few days with nice people in your neck of the woods.

Al is too nice. I actually don't have time for your comments.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 03:57 PM

The 'debates' get heated, when political airheads wish to replace hard facts with the 'talking points' of their particular ideology...and then just keep stubbornly pushing their adopted bullshit. When their 'talking point' reality, starts to implode on them, they, and their other like-minded mental midgets resort to hostile name calling and wild accusations, hoping to impress and sway the lesser informed audience..in hopes that a politically biased consensus will be seen as the 'winning argument'...and replace reality.
In other words, they would be 'happy' with a mob of deceived zealots, rather than getting to the real truth, that doesn't suit them. It is sheer idiocy..........but then that's 'politics'.....which is just a fraud perpetrated onto humans to control masses of people....until another crock of shit arises to replace the old crock!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 03:24 PM

"Better to keep quiet or go elsewhere."
Do that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 03:16 PM

Many people have suggested that aggressive and abusive people are stifling interesting debate.
I am sure that gentle or timid people, who may have interesting contributions to make, are inhibited by the nastiness.

Someone started a thread today about Islamism, following a high profile speech.
Musket turned up ridiculing him in only the second post.
Who wants to be subjected to that?
Better to keep quiet or go elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 02:07 PM

"The responsibility for keeping threads from becoming boring relies on the kind of participation given by its posters."

True, but again the term boring is subjective.

I recall a person who put up animal pictures and invited people to add captions to them. Some people found if humourous, while others found if trivial and boring. The latter folks had the option to not open the thread and pass if by. But, some of them felt it necessary to go intk the site, to make rude comments. Theh eventually had their way, and bullied the woman from continuing. Now, what was thd gain in doing that, beyond imposing their subjective views on others and taking a small bit oc joy away from others.

You may see this as trivial, as others may find your interests the same. These judgements are subjective. Getting along means being respectful of a variety of perspectives- not just in the religious, political, and sexual orientation threads.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 01:56 PM

I am amazed at the arrogance of people who genuinely believe that there is some kind of plot against them but it does indicate the sort of deep rooted paranoia that results in this type of disagreement.

Anyway, to put the record straight. I am sure that the moderators will confirm that people can and have been banned before. The Shambles, Martin Gibson and Clinton Hammond to name but three. They have either not found a way back in or have changed so dramatically that they were re-admitted under a different handle. The fact that no-one that has been involved in this type of thread has been banned or has even been threatened with a ban is indicative of the moderation teams view of what is going on. Boring? Maybe. Annoying? To some, yes. A concerted plot to destroy Mudcat threads? Hardly. But feel free to decide for yourselves.

Or simply don't read the bits that annoy you. They are quite easy to spot. I am reminded of the old Mary Whitehouse days. Those films are disgusting. I had to watch them 17 times to make sure...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 01:35 PM

Ian,
"Please acknowledge I vehemently disagreed with what he put here and also on the Greyhound Action website under a different pseudonym."

I do not believe a word you say, you used the libel as a weapon.
You have a serious track record of lying on this forum...you have even admitted as much.

This is a very grave assertion by your friend, and you have given credence to it by stating that you may have to revise your judgement on its truthfulness.....your friends "wife" will be found and an apology will be forthcoming......be certain of that.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 01:27 PM

Frank....these people are doing this intentionally, it has nothing to do with humour, or even anger.

They are trying to sabotage every thread that they can, simply because the moderators are at present protecting the principle of free speech.

Even in the UK, there is no law against anything which I or any other member has said regarding immigration, homosexuality, race, or any other subject.

It is simply an attempt at intimidation by a group of wreckers.

Surely the tactics should be obvious to all who follow the BS threads?

I realise that to moderate this forum properly against this sort of attack is difficult to say the least, ban someone and he will return under some other guest handle to make a load of work for the moderators.

At least these people can be recognised for what they are....

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 12:24 PM

I wonder how they could be written into a pantomime.

They couldn't, Jeri.

Oh yes they could!

Oh no they couldn't!

He's behind you!

200. Unless I missed it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 12:18 PM

Mudcat has become an outlet for anger that takes its form in attacking others personally, which is boring. I don't think we should support the notion of a "Jim and Keith" show and I don't see this as a valid observation which plays into the very thing that so many here complain about.

Al, I agree we have to wait until an intelligent conversation emerges but I am always hopeful.

The responsibility for keeping threads from becoming boring relies on the kind of participation given by its posters. "Threads don't bore people; people do". Sorry to paraphrase such an egregious line for such a noxious issue.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 10:21 AM

Keith. Can you just read back to yourself what you just typed?

Then go onto the other thread to read my response?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 09:51 AM

"Jim, it was me who persuaded you to stay remember."
Your behavior was exactly as described, and that is all I have responded to
"Don't go"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 09:44 AM

Musket, Dave did not say it in abstract.
He said "It was about was no-one. I said it was about no-one. I am surprised that you did not notice."

I am surprised that you did not notice.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 09:41 AM

Jim, it was me who persuaded you to stay remember.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 09:25 AM

"The Keith & Jim show is alive an well."
No it bloody well isn't Jeri
I intervened when Keith began to interfere with my and other members rights by attempting to question our rights and status because of the length of time of our holding membership or my recent resignation.
He has suggested on four occasions that one of us go away and that I should honour my resignation and stop posting.
Your willingness to accept this behaviour without comment really doesn't say too much for your take on democracy, but it says volumes about which side you take on Keith's arguments.   
Keith's dishonesty appears to have become pandemic.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 09:14 AM

SRS, I dangled it in here to see if anyone got it.

The Keith & Jim show is alive and well. It has adopted the sitcom device in which the married couple aren't talking to one another, and instead, talk through the kids. "Tell your father I said ..."

At this stage, I'm assuming people here are actually trying to be humorous, because the English have such a finely-honed sense of humor, and nobody could be oblivious enough to miss the silliness of it all.

Theater of the absurd. I wonder how they could be written into a pantomime.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 08:53 AM

That's alright then.

Perhaps your words were twisted by by knaves to make a trap for fools eh?

Dave said it in abstract. Dave never mentioned anyone.

I however am making the required mental leaps.

Fancy a banana?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 08:45 AM

It wasn't about anyone Musket.
Dave said so.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 07:24 AM

Yes, of course.

Just because it is about the organ grinder doesn't mean I can't take the piss out of his monkey.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 06:43 AM

I thought it was about Akenaton again, because it actually has been claimed he called people perverts.
No-one has ever accused me of doing that, so no, I did not think it was about me.

Nice singing though Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 06:39 AM

Bloody HTML Dave. I stopped the red text and it just turned green. It meant I couldn't pretend the moderators were in collusion with me when I took the piss out of Keith for knowi... Err.. thinking... your xyz script had his name in lights as the star billing.




You're so vain,
you probably think this thread is about you.......

You're SO VAIN!!!!!!!!!



Sorry, got a bit carried away there.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 06:33 AM

NB - In my last post, imagine there is a 'stop italics' after the word 'fine'. And yes, I know there is not really. It is an imaginary scenario :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 06:25 AM

Dave, you were throwing mud at whoever you had in mind when you composed your piece.
If it was no-one, fine.

It about was no-one. I said it was about no-one. I am surprised that you did not notice.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:58 AM

Are you? Are you full of self doubt?

It comes over in the same way your humility and social skills do.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:43 AM

You should give lessons in self confidence Keith.

I am full of self doubt Musket, but quite certain I have seen no "criminal hate," "homophobic lies" etc. on here.

You are very confident it is on here, and you keep referring to it, but you can't actually find any.
I suggest it is your self confidence that is misplaced.

Dave, you were throwing mud at whoever you had in mind when you composed your piece.
If it was no-one, fine.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:06 AM

I get confused. Is this the thread where I can call him names or is that the other one?

I think here, I am limited to nipple, orifice, dense, smug and gimp mask whereas in the other thread the sky's the limit.

Is that right?

. Good lad Musket. You get there eventually.

Ok, I'll pop over to the other thread and rip the piss.




Hang on. Is that green font giving the chuffing game away?   Oh bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 04:36 AM

You were slinging mud there Dave.

Errr, Keith, I said quite clearly "Any similarity to persons real or imagined is strictly coincidental". Have you assumed that I lied when I said that? If not, exactly who am I slinging mud at?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 04:30 AM

You should give lessons in self confidence Keith. Lots of opportunities for someone with as much sanctimonious self belief as you. (Sorry, that should read, as you.."are articulating." Can't upset the mods.)

Is "nobody" Keith code for Akenaton? It would answer a hell of a lot.

Nice to see you instantly recognise yourself in Dave's imaginary scenario. Do you have a cap that fits? Possibly a beret?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 04:11 AM

You were slinging mud there Dave.
No-one has labelled anyone "a bunch of perverts"
No-one has claimed studies that show that XYZites are perverts and you can't argue with statistics.

From my perspective, the debate you refer to was about how great is the health risk to XYZites and what can reasonably be done to protect them.

Musket, Nice to see Keith hasn't been wrong in weeks.
Thanks.
All those confident predictions were that no example could ever be produced of "criminal hatred" "homophobic lying" etc. in anyone's posts because it is not there.

Strong evidence that we do not need you to save us from it.
That it is just a tactic to silence anyone who dares to challenge your orthodoxy when you can't actually answer the criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 04:05 AM

More to the point, how do you know person X is being witty in the first place? I am someone else according to those who cant win their arguments with lies and distortions.

Akenaton is wrong. Doctors are required to "provide curative or palliative intervention" in emergencies, but not by cold choice.

In a nutshell, I would be able to decide what constitutes an emergnecy, and I could decide not to treat you every bit as much as you could decide not to be treated by me. I am used to every level of bigot and loud mouthed rant about people who dont look or act as they do. I strugggle to think of one who tries to lay down evidence to suggest we should discriminate on sexual orrientation. My wife's view of her fellow greyhound trainer may yet have merit.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 03:38 AM

I would certainly agree that boring is subjective. I am interested in folk music and dance. If I start to talk about it in any depth to some others I can see their eyes glaze over. So, Stringsinger, in the spirit of "a position of logic persuasiveness", how do you propose we ensure that boring people are not allowed on Mudcat?

I disagree that logic persuasiveness is always the way. Take the following example. (Any similarity to persons real or imagined is strictly coincidental.)

Person A. "Group XYX are a bunch of perverts"
Person B. "No, I think you will find that you cannot categorise group XYZ just by the colour of their religion and that there are many in that group who lead good and perfectly normal lives"
Person A. "You are just being brainwashed by a communist plot to give XYZites more rights than us."
Person B. "There is no evidence of such a plot. You may feel that XYZites are getting a good deal but that is simply because they have been subjected to abuse in the past and we are now just giving them the same rights as the rest of us."
Person A. "There are studies that show that XYZites are perverts and you can't argue with statistics"
Person B. "Yes you can. Statistics on their own can be very misleading. There are often factors that are not taken into consideration and they are often commissioned by people who have a vested interest."
Person A. "If you are for XYZites you are supporting perverts."
Person B. "Good grief. Sorry, but there is no reasoning with you. You are just an XYZophobe."
Person A. "All you can do is resort to calling me names. I just presented the facts and you turned on me!"

Just who is slinging mud and who is trying to clean up the place here?

Sorry for the lengthy post.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 01:16 AM

Err.....


Get fucked?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 01:09 AM

sounds good stringsinger......

who's going to be the first one to say something interesting that elicits a civilised response?

(waits with baited breath.......)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 08:57 PM

Stringsinger, well said. Amen to that!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 06:54 PM

Stringsinger, I am happy to be in agreement with you here.
Rare enough.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 06:33 PM

Well I agree with much of what you say, Stringsinger.

However, the definition of what is "boring" , is a very subjective matter. I would wager that what you may see as "interesting" would seem as "boring" by some, possibly many, others. On the positive side, it does not take much physical effort to pass over what makes you "yawn", as others frequently do. Limiting free speech related to humour, and not respscting differing tastes, would be an odd concept, indeed.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 06:01 PM

Mudcat, aptly named because a lot of mud is slung about here, still offers an alternative to a lack of voice found elsewhere on the net. If you can wade through the silly mud clods hurled about, a space for intelligent sharing of information is possible.

I agree with Jim Carroll that censorship does nothing to aid free speech and the silencing of ideas that you don't agree with has a negative effect on a democratic free-for-all and that democratic opinion is healthy. I don't see that these threads are totally boring, but they could be if people restrict their option to express their views.

Maybe what we're looking at is hoping for the demise of boring people who present their views in a personal attack mode rather than from a position of logic persuasiveness.

It's such a cop-out to call names rather than answer with intelligence and logic and dismiss those who offend you with their ideas by denigrating them personally or being lazy and by not taking the time to understand what is valuable in the statements being presented.

Also, a feeble attempt at humor directed toward ridicule is absolutely boring, the humor that is really not funny but adolescent or sophomoric.

Say something worthwhile and it won't be boring, eliciting an interesting conversation.

I think that this is the real purpose behind a BS section in the Mudcat site.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:56 PM

Ladf = last in Ed T land:)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:48 PM

Note: my ladf post was a dream. I am now awake, and realize that if was "not to be"

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:12 PM

I had a dream last night:

There have been trolls, now there are a special order of Guest trolls, immune to the posting rules.

Soon coming:, "abusive, infallible, ninja, guest troll mods", who are free to abusively post on threads, as regular posters- and with access to information, to freely share) and with hidden immunity from the normal 'cat rules'.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:00 PM

Get CB DeMille on that sequel, Q. It'll be dramatically significant when the dam breaks. (Ready whenever you are, CB!)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 03:59 PM

And now, Coming Attractions, the thrilling thread sequel, "The Demise of the demise of the boring thread."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 03:43 PM

Sorry, MtheGM, I realise I should have explained. I am pretty sure that Guest is non other that Guest 'concerened' (yes, with that spelling) and Guest 'the troll formally known as conc'. If it is a member then they are pretty good at role play because the role play persona has particularly obnoxious streak matched only by his stupidity. I could be wrong of course and this one really is a member in disguise. Who is also particularly obnoxious and stupid. Only the moderators can tell!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 03:34 PM

Akenaton.

Please acknowledge I vehemently disagreed with what he put here and also on the Greyhound Action website under a different pseudonym.

No real doctor would support your scare blame on gay men for that matter. Real doctors are real people, with the possible exception that they see more of the results of bigotry and hate than your average Scottish building site labourer.

The only persona with an issue is the one called Akenaton. It leads the person behind it into thinking gay people are different so you can make pronouncements about them. That you can confuse them with people at risk of HIV. That their marriage isn't as legal, deep and meaningful as any other.

Don't accuse others of sharing a person or whatever you are trying to say when you are the one exhibiting personality disorder.

I think your posts resemble the words, sometimes to the letter of right wing extremist websites. I get daily briefing emails from DoH comms of what they are saying on health issues and your words keep cropping up.

Glass houses.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 02:19 PM

Sorry, the above post should have the header Seaham Cemetery.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 02:14 PM

No real doctor would publish the libellous stuff about me and cruelty to animals, just because I am a trainer of greyhounds.
There are absolutely no grounds for this disgusting allegation, so he/SHE must be evil, or an extremely stupid individual.
Certainly not the sort of person who most of us would chose to take care of our health

I agree with Jack, there are similarities in the nonsense posted, but I feel it is slightly more convoluted than the simple faking of personas.

The input of our bell ringing friend Jack Blandiver is also interesting.
The plot thickens.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 02:04 PM

So, Guest # 6 remains an anon.

Even though jeri (with a j), had an opportunity last night "to be proud", and identify the he-she.

Oh well, I suspect the temptation-lyre for argument is too great, and he-she will return, maybe with their real "mudfolky" name as a back-up.

:).

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 02:00 PM

You can try to "do" me, but I doubt you have the balls to make my eyeballs swivel.



Nice to see Keith hasn't been wrong in weeks. Your family must be so proud.

Mind you, admitting he was wrong before then is a start I suppose....

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 02:00 PM

I thought so - Have you actually learned a bit of English, Conc? Your new postings are nowhere near as funny as your earlier ones.

:D tG
(Stupid little grin, just for you)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 01:53 PM

And that, folks, is exactly why nobody wants to know you. Must be off now, something more serious to do than you bunch of wasters.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 01:48 PM

I once tried to get interest in a Guest only site. But,the high and mighty anon. Guests preferred to post-argue on the very sites they (with a tight upper pisting lip), claim they detest (versus ignoring them), giving these same posts (with some very bad blokes, that they dislike) a greater life and strange-but-true, add to the site discord (with the blind eye-assistance of some mods).

"Strange things happen under the site's discussion- forum midnight sun".

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 01:44 PM

Glad you find him amusing, Dave. I, personally, can make neither heads nor tails of what on earth he thinks he is on about.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 01:16 PM

and we might offer you some respect in the future.

Respect? From a self confessed member who is too cowardly to let us know who he is? Do you think that respect from you is anything that anyone would want? Do you really think you are helping the moderators by pretending to be someone else?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Thanks for the laugh

DtG.

Oh, and one more thing...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 12:58 PM

absurd bullshit promoted here to vilify people

Another claim I confidently predict will never be illustrated with a single example.

I have made about a dozen confident predictions in recent weeks, and never yet been wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 12:51 PM

Funnily enough, I love that this mysterious "Dr Graveyard" says nice things about me. There again, unlike the fictitious Jack the Sailor, I have met him, and for that matter been involved with his professional life. He sees fit to mention it, so I suppose there is no harm in admitting it. He found me through Mudcat as I was in a band with his father.

His use of Seaham Cemetry isn't something I agree with, as the inference behind it is rather serious. That said, my defence of Akenaton, or at least my hope Seaham Cemetry is mistaken is on record yet doesn't get acknowledged. His disagreement with me further up this page doesn't get recognition either...

I'll leave it at that. Moderators know what I want to type at this point and we can't upset those who set out to upset whole sections of society eh? Wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of Keith. Akenaton is too fragile and Goofus won't be able to cure people if he is upset.

Like I said, some people love to speculate on discrediting him because he knows more than they do about sexual health. I get discredited for knowing more too. The mental leap is that it is spooky that we do! Add a few hundred thousand health care professionals, research scientists, strategic planners etc in healthcare and we must be the same people because we say the same things!

On health matters, I know what we are dealing with which is why the absurd bullshit promoted here to vilify people is so so sick.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 12:45 PM

"As Gerry with a G once said, "They never went away.""
Can I clear one thing up Keith
I have no intention in allowing any of our spiralling out-of control arguments, but this doesn't man I intend to ignore your illegal, undemocratic and revolting behaviour - even if you have a big brother to protect you.
Mess around with my right to speak my mind unsmeared and I'll do my best to ascertain that your feet don't tou
I've undertaken to stop our arguing - I suggest you do the same
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 12:31 PM

You folks still don't get it, do you? You're so stuck up with past performance you can't see how what you've done has nose-dived into the depths where nobody in their right minds really wants to know you to the point where we want to identify ourselves to you.
Max and his colleagues deserve far better than you, and the Guests here - and there are a number of us, and we are not colluding in any shape or form, despite Ed's rather transparent attempt to take the piss last night - respect them. We respect them when they kill a thread because it has become so remorselessly negative as not to have any point on this earth. But we do not respect you, because you do not respect each other and in that contempt have lowered yourselves to the level of your opponents.
Stop the rubbishing and build something again and we might offer you some respect in the future. I doubt if anyone writing with the vitriol used here can communicate anything useful when performing, so perhaps we should make it a rule: play a verse of whatever you're working on before posting. It'll raise the level of performance, at any rate.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 12:12 PM

I wonder who cured Michael Portillo.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 12:04 PM

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

I'm old enough to have read Pogo, Jeri. Be careful, you're introducing interesting stuff into this thread.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 11:46 AM

Apologies Sanitary - misread somebody else's posting
I, of course, withdraw my accusation - though the analogy of curing homosexuality remains valid
Sorry
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 11:39 AM

Ok, since there seems to be a "spot the guest" game in the making:

What us the best guess on the identity of anon. Guest on 22 Apr 14 - 11:06 AM ?

My guess is either a current or former Canadian. A Longershot would be an American, or a formerly living in the USA gent?

My observation is having a discussion with "an anon. guest" on a so-called "discussion forum" is kinda like paying money to have sex with a blow-up doll at a brothel.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 11:26 AM

Jim, you are out of your mind!

GfS

P.S. Converting Jews??..where???..or STFU!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 11:19 AM

"He has a writing style strangely similar to that of the one person..."
A bit innuendo-ish, doncha think?
Only one poster to this thread has a record of posting fake messages in support of himself.
I find his points on the rather self-obsessed named 'Guest for Sanity's 'curing homosexuality' spooky, to say the least - and his 'converting Jews' - well - they takes you back, doesn't it.
Wouldn't it be better to address his points rather tan infer his is pretending to be someone he isn't - or is 'smear' the in-word of the day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 11:06 AM

SOUND FAMILIAR?????????????

Corporate shills, forum disruptors, trolls and fanboys?
3 months ago

Maybe they work for your government, or your camera maker/distributor?

Federal government routinely hires internet trolls, shills to monitor chat rooms, disrupt article comment sections

Tuesday, September 17, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Tags: internet trolls, chat rooms, federal government

(NaturalNews) You've probably run into them before -- those seemingly random antagonizers who always end up diverting the conversation in an online chat room or article comment section away from the issue at hand, and towards a much different agenda. Hot-button issues like illegal immigration, the two-party political system, the "war on terror" and even alternative medicine are among the most common targets of such attackers, known as internet "trolls" or "shills," who in many cases are nothing more than paid lackeys hired by the federal government and other international organizations to sway and ultimately control public opinion.

Several years ago, Canada's CTV News aired a short segment about how its own government had been exposed for hiring secret agents to monitor social media and track online conversations, as well as the activities of certain dissenting individuals. This report, which in obvious whitewashing language referred to such activities as the government simply "weighing in and correcting" allegedly false information posted online, basically admitted that the Canadian government had assumed the role of secret online police. At the time, this was a great unknown to the general Canadian public.

You can view this CTV News segment here:
http://youtube.com

Of course, the same type of online patrolling by the government is also happening in the U.S., particularly from the CIA and its infamous In-Q-Tel program. At a 2012 summit, former CIA director David Petraeus essentially admitted that the CIA has a covert online presence that it uses not only for data mining purposes but also to infiltrate online conversations for the purpose of protecting "national security" interests. Such interests, it turns out, include disrupting conversations that discuss topics like 9/11 truth, for instance, or U.S. involvement in giving weapons to Syrian rebels.

According to Occupy Corporatism, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), which was recently exposed by American hero and whistleblower Edward Snowden for its illegal surveillance programs, has devised a training program that literally scouts out hackers from American colleges and universities and recruits them to work for the government. Among the many duties sought from those enrolled in the National Centers of Academic Excellence in the Cyber Operations Program are "collection, exploitation, and response" activities to take place in the online environment.

"These 'cyber operators' are trained to become an elite team of 'computer geniuses' that are experts in computer hacking, digital communications, cyber intelligence -- for the purpose of spying on Americans, as well as conducting interactive digital psy-ops with users of the internet," explains Occupy Corporatism about the program.

...continued at:

http://www.naturalnews.com/042093_internet_trolls_chat_rooms_federal_government.html

You can view the actual NSA announcement admitting this here:
http://www.nsa.gov

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 11:05 AM

I have no intention of staring up The KEITH AND JIM show again - I do think that if parents can't control children, somebody else should though.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 10:58 AM

"We have enough to laugh about, starting with how you're not arguing with Jim."
Maaybe you'd like to tell him he has no right to interfere with other's freedom to post Jeri -
No?
Thought not!
Stay safe - like Mike
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 10:57 AM

As Gerry with a G once said, "They never went away."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 10:54 AM

From White's to The Reform to The Athenæum to The Groucho to The Pitt Club to The Bullingdon the cry goes up ~~~~


BRING BACK THE KEITH & CARROLL SHOW !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 10:24 AM

Everybody is like Hitler is some way. Even it is Aunt Bessie and her ability to grow a mustache.

Some people on this forum seem to like to rant like Hitler when they post here. I wonder do these people play the newsreels of the demonstrations and Hitler speeches as they write here mentally editing themselves onto the stage?

Dr. Graveyard makes some interesting points. Shame that he has to weave insults among them. He has a writing style strangely similar to that of the one person on the Mudcat he seems to worship and he seems to be one of two people (he and Musket) on this forum who actually give a crap what Musket posts.

I am not saying they are the same person, but you know Occam's razor and all. It seems pretty odd that a real Dr. would come here only to choose a name which is designed to provoke Akenaton and to support Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 09:58 AM

Fair cop.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 09:34 AM

We have enough to laugh about, starting with how you're not arguing with Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 09:32 AM

Just make it a formal complaint Jim.
Those poor mods don't get much to laugh about.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 09:25 AM

A little background music please maestro.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 09:25 AM

"You mean question what others say."
No - questioning the right of others to say it - because of where they come from or how long they've been around.
You are now making a common practice of this
Whether I resign or not is none of your business.
I wonder if some kind passing forum-fairy might have a word in the right ear before someone makes this complaint formal.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 09:18 AM

Jim,
"How is that long and tedious resignation process going?"
As long as you attempt to breach the rights of others to have their say without your unauthorised interference

You mean question what others say.
That is what we all do here and we do not need authorisation.

Have I got it right that you resigned because of my posting, but you won't actually leave because of my posting?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 08:52 AM

Not that I've read all of this since last night, but The Sixth Guest sounds like a crime novel. Perhaps it would make a good Mudcat Fiction thread.

I notice people who go back and forth between member names and anon, because there are hardly any people who do that. Most of them are reacting to people they THINK are doing it.

It reminds me of an old "Get Smart" episode. The good-guy spy (from CONTROL) was sent to infiltrate the bad-guy organization (KAOS) to find out who the head bad guys were. At some point, he revealed himself, and learned that all the top KAOS guys were CONTROL agents.

A great philosopher once said "We have met the enemy, and he is us." It's what happened in that episode of "Get Smart", and it happens here when someone decides to teach people a lesson by showing them how easy it is for anyone to go darkside.

Yeah, it's easy. The point is people generally don't do it.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 08:09 AM

The quotation mark 

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 07:53 AM

I'm a commissioned officer if you don't mind.

Do I look like a pleb?





Ok. Bad example.

Do I drive around in my posh car sticking two fingers up at the plebs? Yes. Ergo I must be privileged.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 07:45 AM

"How is that long and tedious resignation process going?"
As long as you attempt to breach the rights of others to have their say without your unauthorised interference
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 07:42 AM

they've annexed gay marriage by blitzkrieg with inverted commas...!.they say its their last territorial ambition.

don't panic Mr Mainwaring! or you Corporal Musket!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 07:39 AM

Seaham. I hear what you are saying, but I also think Steve is right. Many people give threads with bigotry plumes of feathers displayed a wide berth.

My concern is that the last thing they may have read is lies and hate parcelled up with a ribbon.

My approach is turning people off too, but I cannot see what the alternative is. I would never stoop so low as to debate the merits of bigotry. I couldn't and wouldn't entertain any debate that singles out a section of society and discusses whether they need to be singled out or have this same rights and opportunities as people who don't fall into their particular demographic. I couldn't keep quiet whilst they are getting away with it either. Someone quoted the rather draconian law in The UK a few posts up. I am dismayed, not by the law but by the continued need for the law in the first place.

In the meantime, our Prime Minister has made a speech which invited the debate on bigotry and hypocrisy to be re examined. I'm not sure that was his intention. I am more than sure that he slipped in a "doing God" speech as fodder for gullible people who see rational secular law as a threat to their brainwashed paranoia. They may be delusioned but they also have a vote. Usually on the right of of the swingometer.

Still, nice to see him wriggle when someone mentioned the opt out clause in gay marriage when he said we should be proud of some Christian heritage or other...

In the meantime, two old songs have re entered my usual set, Bruce's Song and Curtains of Old Joe's House. These debates just serve to remind us that you can't legislate against hate, you can just show it for what it is. Then dismiss it.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 07:24 AM

nor have I ever been told by anyone other than you that I have no right to an opinion on Britain because I no longer live there

Not by me either, unless you mean about how common a notice is here.
Otherwise it is all in your pretty little head.

How is that long and tedious resignation process going?
This is like talking to someone from beyond the grave.

(I detect another report brewing)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 06:51 AM

I would suggest that Musket, (who I know well and found his lectures informative as well as entertaining at the post grad medical school) and Steve Shaw take a deep look and see if there is any point harping on?

Harping on? This is my second post to this thread. I never start threads like this one, never. I quietly drop away from many a thread. You probably wouldn't have noticed.

Steve Shaw, do you think the silence of many may be taken as agreement to nasty comments by contemptable people?

I think that the silence of many is almost certainly testament to the fact that most haven't read the bloody thread.

You're just like these mods. You seem to want to silence the people who are really trying to expose the true nastiness on this site whilst seeking to protect the real perpetrators of the nastiness. At least, as yet, you don't appear to be threatening us with jail :-). If all the fair-minded people here shouted at Keith, Ake, Goofus, pete and the rest, that lot and their ilk would crawl away and hide in their holes. But, as I say, a lot of people (fair-minded or not) probably don't read the threads. Now you tell me what you think the silence is all about, preferably with evidence for your conjectures.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 06:42 AM

"I fear Jim will now be reporting me again"
Quite possibly, if you continue your behaviour
No other member, in my experience, has ever told another to leave this forum - nor have I ever been told by anyone other than you that I have no right to an opinion on Britain because I no longer live there - get a grip - who the hell do you think you are?
And never forget - of the people who have been singled out as misbehaving on this forum - your and my names are at the top of the list
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 06:06 AM

Gfs, the link below provides some information on bjsexuality, which could explain some oc tge folks who claim they have changed their orientation from one to the other. Life is not always as simple that we can put all folks in a couple of catagories.


bisexuality 

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 06:00 AM

Dave, it is debatable if that site is bigoted.
I certainly would not defend it, but it is not clear cut.

I would like to see a quote from someone's post that shows this "criminal hatred" that Musket sees everywhere but I do not believe exists on Mudcat.

I believe this crusade against imagined criminal hatred is destroying our once pleasant forum, and I wish it would stop.
The actions of the pack are far more damaging than their imagined foe.

I fear Jim will now be reporting me again.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:51 AM

Al. Calling people second class and stigmatising them, promoting denial of rights afforded to others.

That's insanity.

The only time I would go near that park bench is to let my dog cock his leg on it.

Perhaps my time spent in health and social care has allowed me to see too much? I have, as a regulator looking for a rule 43, attended, I think, seven coroner courts where suicides included people not being adequately protected by those responsible for their care with regard to stigmatisation of their race, disability or sexual orientation. (One transsexual, one gay person who "came out" whilst in care.) I have attended many more on people not caring for others.

Many people haven't had the release of suicide or murder for that matter. They still live with it, and look in vain for the assurances from politicians that it cannot flourish any more. Ironically, some of the poor buggers seek solace in a church....

Hearing the root of such discrimination being explained away as normal makes my blood boil. It really does.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:50 AM

Keith A of Hertford and Akenaton claimed homophoibic lies werent homophobic lies.

Perhaps we were right.
Please post an example of one.

I say that you can't because there are none.
Confident prediction, you won't.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:49 AM

Dave, that quote came from a religious fundamentalist site for promoting creationism!

It did indeed, Keith, and was endorsed as a fair view by GfS. Does this not indicate some amount of bigotry is in play here?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:42 AM

"Jim, quite a few folks have said that Mudcat is now being spoiled by a few people."
Yes they have and in my opinion, you are the main culprit - and have been reported for it.
You have no right whatever to decide on behalf on anybody who should or should not contribute to this forum - so far, you have done so four times in the last few days
I have become sickened by your long-term bullying and manipulative behaviour on this forum and you have now been warned about it - stop it - it is nothing less than cyber-bullying.
Anybody who objects to people posting here and wished them to be disciplined, should go to the channels, as I have done.
You have no authority here - stop it before somebody else does the same ting I have done
"keith and ake are not hitler."
No they are not, but one of them seems to believe he has Hitler's authority.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:39 AM

Thanks Janie.

Not all attempts work, even if well intended, especially on some topics. But, at least I took a chance that that approach may work, since not much else seems to- especially berating folks, whether you are a mod or not).

Considering the unproductive stuff that goes on in here, at times, and considering that I have attempted- through various approaches to reach out to those interested, to get logical discussion going (I had some success in the transmission thread), I find it it odd that Jeri ( who may be another unnamed guest) chose to target me, versus those mostly throwing repetative insults back and forth.

I have earlier stated that in my opinion, having a multitude of unnamed guests adds nothing to the site. It just adds to confusion, and possibly discord. If posters want to remain anon, they are free to pick a distinctive name, or pick many of them if they wish. Having many folks post under one name is just daft. It seems odd to me that I may be alone in that view, but that may remain one of the puzzles of life.:)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:38 AM

It is sad to see the debate over equality that ended in Parliament months ago and got Royal assent more recently still seems to be fair game to some here. (UK of course, not USA.)

I would suggest that Musket, (who I know well and found his lectures informative as well as entertaining at the post grad medical school) and Steve Shaw take a deep look and see if there is any point harping on?

Reasonable stances were met with contempt, including questioning whether I was a doctor at all, because I couldnt agree with Akenaton's take on life. When examples of what makes such views disagreeable were reiterated, Keith A of Hertford and Akenaton claimed homophoibic lies werent homophobic lies. Doesn't that say something to you Musket? Steve Shaw, do you think the silence of many may be taken as agreement to nasty comments by contemptable people?

Guys, you yourselves have used the term "educating pork." Why are you trying to carry on trying to teach? Bigotry isnt known for listening to views and forming opinions based upon them. They prefer to find something to blame for the ills of society, preferbaly people different to themselves.

Guest from Sanity seems to be promoting something that had a psychiatrist struck off for over here. You cannot cure what is normal behaviour. If you could, we would start with personality disorder rather than innocent lifestyle.

I find it disturbing that a handful of people with no respect for others and a discredited agenda see not only the need for the oxygen of publicity but the need to silence those who see it for what it truly is.

How many people on Mudcat, both sides of the Atlantic can equate their silence on this with Woody Guthrie's "This machine kills fascists?"

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:22 AM

musket - a sense of proportion.... keith and ake are not hitler.

comparing what two old chaps say, who in another age would be chatting on a park bench to hitler is nonsense.

mudcat is their park bench. you are not stemming the flow of Nazism - you are sounding bloody daft.

I know you're not daft. I respect you. but bloody hell mate - this is insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:08 AM

Dave, that quote came from a religious fundamentalist site for promoting creationism!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 05:06 AM

Disagreeing with the law might not be an offence. Correct. I have an article to be published this week pointing out that a future government may look to repealing sections of The health and Social Care Act 2012. I lay down the drawbacks and issues around the law. I also question the relevance of sections of the 2008 act of the same name, different content.

Disagreeing with the law is one thing. Disagreeing with equality based on sexual orientation is bigotry, homophobia and we have laws to protect people from the hurt , anguish and above all discrimination it feeds.

In the last thread on this, some kind person mentioned free speech in regard of shouting Fire! In a crowded theatre. I actually like the common law approach developed over here that requires the responsibility of free speech.

No. If you disagree with the law, fine.   If you disagree with equality of opportunity, you receive the contempt normally reserved for those for whom pogroms are a solution to the false blame given for society's ills.

Akenaton's "liberal plot" speech can be found on BNP websites. Diluted versions are available on the UKIP poster presently being discussed in the news.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 04:59 AM

Please put up an actual posted example of this hate you say there is and that you need to fight.

Keith, will the example of bigotry that I just posted not do?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 04:58 AM

You folks are certainly in breach of that Law

Pray tell, anonymous sage, which laws am I in breach of? I suspect, that like lots of others on here, you are good at implying and suggesting but pretty poor on supplying evidence.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 04:51 AM

I am assassinating nobody: if you look up the recent postings, it was you in particular who started back in after the previous calm it admonition. It takes two to make an argument, and you were the second, after Keith. Now you start in on me for naming names. It is one thing to be opinionated, we all are, and another to be rabid, which this has become.

The relevant article in UK Law reads:

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

You folks are certainly in breach of that Law, and it could have serious repercussions on the site. Some communications have been of a menacing nature, and others for the purpose of causing annoyance - which your latest posting after being told to cool it falls into - and it must stop. Other communications may breach racial hatred laws as well, but this one covers the lot of you. This is the Law, not a fabulation of my own creation, and however much you may disagree, while you post to a blog which is overall predicated on a British cultural artefact, you are bound to respect it.

As at this point, I identify myself to people I respect. You have lost my respect and so I see no reason why I should pander to your grossly over-inflated ego. Come off your high horse and get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 04:42 AM

Musket, disagreeing with a change in a law is not an expression of hate against anybody.
Please put up an actual posted example of this hate you say there is and that you need to fight.

Jim, quite a few folks have said that Mudcat is now being spoiled by a few people.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 04:39 AM

I and others should be at liberty to state our opposition, just as we were all at liberty to oppose criminalisation.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 04:35 AM

I do not agree with the law on the matter of same sex "marriage", any more than I agreed with the law which criminalised homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 04:28 AM

Anonymous Guest who is really a member but does not have the courage to tell us who you are. Why do you say "So KoH and DtG in particular, stop trying to revive your case after the last "calm it""? Am I going to end up behind bars? For what? You don't want to get involved in the "personality assassination game" but you are happy to assassinate the name of others from the safety of an anonymous posting? If there is anyone who is causing Mudcat to be a poorer place, it is the cowardly anonymous Guest with his sly snipes and digs.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 04:04 AM

I say! Jolly good wheeze and all that but steady on chaps! Someone might get hurt what!

It's all very well to make sly remarks about people who are different to us, after all that's why and how we keep the plebs down, don'tcha know? But some of these bum bandits have rights now! And it was one of ours that gave them it. Still, he comes from good stock.



No. Sorry Mick. Finding affinity and empathy with homophobia just isn't going to happen. Nice try.

Ok. Without the f'ing and blinding, (enough awful comments without my additions)

Keith. Marriage is a legal contract under law. It is no more, no less and religions joined in the act as it suited them. God didn't say anything about marriage, Parliament did. For Akenaton to use the word in parentheses is to hold the law in contempt. Marriage was between man and woman, now it isn't. God didn't decree that. Parliament did. And god answers to parliament if he exists, and is irrelevant if he doesn't.

Churches have the legal right to conduct marriages, as do hotels and at least two branches of McDonalds. Churches have no right or influence on marriage as I am married and not a member of any fantasy club. My marriage, as per anybody who didn't go for the hypocrisy sermon, is as valid as anybody else's, including the gay people, who have married in recent weeks. We are guests at three gay weddings over the next year, and two heterosexual ones.

Nobody needs testing on account of being gay. People need to come forward for testing as a result of unprotected sex. If gay people need to be tested, you include the huge number of celibates and those for whom their private time does not include penetrative sex. If you have unprotected sex, please report for testing.

I Liked Mudcat before you came along for that matter. You devalue Mudcat by supporting hate, making excuses for the inexcusable and mistaking silence for approval. Delusion takes many forms.

Sorry Mick. You can't attack the issues without questioning the motives of the individuals behind them. This is a forum for opinions of people. (As you can guess, moderation has spoken. I can attack issues but I can't call Keith names he must recognise. Probably gets them shouted at him in the street if he behaves in real life like he does here...)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 03:49 AM

I'm Guest 05:42 and 06:46 and I'm not a named poster sailing anonymously, I chose to do so because I don't want to get sucked into your little personality assassination game. Firstly, in the UK it breaches a criminal law, Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Secondly, it has destroyed the site.
I won't abuse morons by comparing you with them. You don't even have that much nous. You get told, and you come back to it again without delay. It's become irrelevant who was right and who was wrong and the merits of the arguments in and of themselves, if you want to debate sexual or race politics or whatever go find a site concerned with the subject and do it there. In the meantime stop shitting on this one.
When ordinary folks get shot at by you in your firefight as they have been only too often, then you've got right out of order. When they depart never to return, then you have gone permanently too far.

I'm told I'm like Chamberlain declaring "peace in our time". I'm not, I was actually part of a team of diplomats which sorted out that bit of folly in the real world, winning the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize in the process. The first step in such activities is to stop the fighting, separate the combatants, regardless of how disgusting their cause, and then find some kind of reconciliation established by wiser heads. Max, I know, has recently checked me out in my real identity, presumably for trying to step in and slow you down: I'm simply damping what they had already shown to be unacceptable.
If I am like Chamberlain, on the other hand, then if I fail, you're going to end up with the Police involved and people not so much barred as behind bars. That is in no way the objective of this site.

We're at the stage where you have to be separated and sent to you corners for a time out. Then I think it does behove the Mods to make some decisions on the future of certain posters here, but that is not yet, and it is their privilege.

So KoH and DtG in particular, stop trying to revive your case after the last "calm it". The level of debate was puerile, and the vitriol has left permanent damage. There is a norm in the folk tradition, somewhat imposed from the US in the wobbly heritage, and there was also a heritage in places like the Blaxhall Ship of sorting matters out bare-knuckled. Perhaps that might be the appropriate venue for this thread if you wish to continue in this vein (or spleen).

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 03:39 AM

"We actually quite liked Mudcat as it was before"
By the way - you speak only for yourself - nobody else is telling people to "go away"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 03:34 AM

"We actually quite liked Mudcat as it was before you came along, so please go and save someone else instead."
Is this really goint to continue Keith?
You have no right to continue telling people that they should "go away" - you have no authority on this forum - you never have had and, hopefully you never shall.
You have persisted in asserting some sort of imagined authority on people far far too long - please pack it in - it's one of the things that is fouling up this forum.
If you have no intention of apologising (sorry "grovelling"), at least try to put a brake on your arrogant behaviour.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 02:24 AM

Keith, there are examples of bigotry here. Lets look at the conclusion of GfS's link, which he believed is a fair and balanced view.

Additionally, evidence exists which documents that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, homosexuals should reflect this knowledge.

The substitute a couple of words.

Additionally, evidence exists which documents that Jews can change their religion. Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, Jews should reflect this knowledge.

Do you not find that scary? And I still like Mudcat.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 02:11 AM

Musket, that was all your version of things said.
Not one quote.
I have been complaining that you misrepresent what people say, and then rail against what has never been said.
You just did it again!

I did recognise two things.
Putting marriage in quotes is not hatred silly.
It is recognising that ss marriage is against the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years and still stands in almost every country in the world.

Ake's wish to force testing was to save the lives of undiagnosed.
I would force testing if I could on my sons if they were gay, not because I hate them but because I love them.
He has since accepted our argument that it would not be acceptable anyway.

So Musket, where is this hate you are saving us from?
We actually quite liked Mudcat as it was before you came along, so please go and save someone else instead.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 01:38 AM

I know the meaning of "appeasement" very well, Musket....and it is NOT the antonym of "combat." One can stand firm and even make forward progress, without waging war.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 01:22 AM

Joe - Look up appeasement.

Jack - Look back in threads and see who makes homophobic remarks.

It would be quite funny if some of us reacted before hate was published. I watched the biopic on Tommy Cooper last night. If you want to see conjuring tricks, I suggest watching something similar.

Keith. Ask me to supply, read them and claim I didn't supply. Near trick, if you treat everybody reading with contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Janie
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 12:49 AM

Hi Ed. Now that you have said what it was you were attempting, in hindsight, it is clear. However, you were the only one who knew what you were attempting. I understand, as the result of Jeri's disclosure, that the series of Guest posts were all you and your subsequent replies, what you were attempting to accomplish, with good intent for this community. Your admirable effort fell flat. My own reaction as I read through that series was "Oh shit, more shit in camp." I am grateful to know it was you making that series of posts, and what your intent in doing so was. Relieved.

Not your fault. You were trying. Not Jeri's fault either for not being able to intuit your intent, especially given the current climate.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 11:19 PM

..and 100

gfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 11:18 PM

Dave, in your post you cut and pasted the 'Conclusion'...but seem to FAIL at reading the WHOLE thing you posted...so I'll put it up for you...READ IT!! You posted it!!!:

"....We now know that it is not scientifically accurate to refer to a "gay gene" as the causative agent in homosexuality. The available evidence clearly establishes that no such gene has been identified. Additionally, evidence exists which documents that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, homosexuals should reflect this knowledge."

Got it?..Get it?...Good!

...and that is all I've said about it for YEARS now..no gene!!
I have not made a 'moral' statement about homosexuals, other than in regarding promiscuity...but I included heteros in that as well....and for that, the political airheads interpret that as being 'homophobic'!
As I've said before, most people accusing other people of that, don't even know what it means!

"Lies make us angry with the truth!"

Enough said about this....or the, 'the demise of the boring thread', will just reach a greater level of boring!

GfS

P.S. The post,
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 04:54 PM

Was me...but if you look at the bottom, I put my customary 'GfS'.. AND I posted a duplicate right after WITH my name, 'Guest from Sanity' at the top....all the other 'Guests' were not me.

P.P.S....any more on the homosexual topic, you should take to another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 09:55 PM

These guys can say they are fighting bigotry until the cows come home. There is a pretty simple test as to whether they are or not. Who brings it up? Who starts the conversation about the so called bigotry on thread after thread. Who starts the fights?

There are five or six jerks on this forum who just get their jollies from name calling and abuse. Some of them have even talked about it being a release. A half dozen well placed punching bags in the UK would cut 90% of the acrimony from this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: bobad
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 09:14 PM

Thanks Greg, I'm honoured to see that you are still stalking and entertaining us with your erudition.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 09:10 PM

Steve Shaw says ( 21 Apr 14 - 08:47 PM) Accommodation with bigots is not just useless, it's a bloody sight worse than that.

So, Steve, I take it that you see combat as the only way to achieve justice. I side with Gandhi and Martin Luther King, who saw true strength only in peaceable approaches. It seems to me that real progress is achieved only when one works with the other side, not attempting to denigrate or destroy the other.

You believe in combat.
I believe in peace - without "accommodation" or backing down.
Violence took over after the deaths of Gandhi and King. What did it accomplish?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 09:04 PM

Get what, BooBad - your persistent line of bullshit?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 09:00 PM

People are back to abusing each other, after my temporary attempt at guest humour. Are you proud of that, Jeri?

:)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: bobad
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:53 PM

He still doesn't get it - how fuckin' thick can one be?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:47 PM

Eliza says: "In my view (not worth a lot I realise) bitter and frenzied argument can take place, and be stimulating and interesting, IF people hold tightly to an underlying civility and goodwill, agree to differ, 'shake hands' and be friendly in spite of their opposing standpoints. That, by the way Joe, is a traditional British way of behaving, even if somewhat diluted nowadays."

And Musket, not to be undone, says (21 Apr 14 - 04:43 AM): "No, sorry Eliza. On this one, niceties don't work. Both our countries have a proud past of confronting bigotry and slowly but surely killing sections of it off. We have people on this website who are free to propagate hatred towards others, question the right of some people to exist and then call those who question them the fascists."

Eliza, I like your approach far better - and in the long run, I think it's far more effective.

-Joe

Cor, I haven't even posted to this thread yet and I've been named in it twice. Nice!

Joe, we have a record of some of us trying to confront some bigotry and failing abysmally, at times, because we vacillate and we refuse to properly take it on. You live in a country which is supposed to have espoused "civil rights" decades ago, yet your schools in the South are getting more and more segregated and your social inequality gets worse and worse by the year. Never think that letting people mix on buses is the answer to anything. White supremacy rules as it always did in your country as it does in mine as it does in South Africa as it does (par excellence, defended here by more than one very nasty man) in Israel. When I see some of you lot being rather nice to pete, Keith, Ake, Goofus, bobad and one or two others, and telling us good guys off for having a bloody good bash at them because you think we're being not quite nice, I think of that bloke in 1938 waving that piece of paper at us Brits as he got off that plane from Germany. Accommodation with bigots is not just useless, it's a bloody sight worse than that. In effect, the mods here have sided with some serious bigots. Maybe they didn't mean to (but who knows - by their fruits...)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:24 PM

My purpose is to shkw that anyone can be an anon guest and say anything.I had no plans to keep my posts as anon, or to disguise my frequent typos or posting style.

But, why would they. I chose humour, versus the 6th Guests approach. Care to tell us who that guest is Jeri, as you seem to havs access to that info?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:18 PM

Whats your actual purpose in saying that Jeri?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: bobad
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:16 PM

Is Ed talking to himself? Jeeze, no wonder I can't figure out what's going on around here anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:10 PM

Ed, with 6 out of the last 7 no-name posts, are you proud of this?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:51 PM

Nay

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:50 PM

Ye?
Could you be Keats?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:46 PM

Ye shall know them by their words.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:11 PM

Too many guests, too little time.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:08 PM

Be off with you. You ard not even a proper Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:07 PM

If I told you that you have a beautiful link, would you hold it against me?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:02 PM

Trying to start an argument, Guest? Why not find a tread your liking to post and argue on?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 06:46 PM

Decency from you crowd? That has to be the biggest belly-laugh of the thread! You wouldn't know decency if it came up and introduced itself politely. It doesn't matter who or what I am, what I had to say is self-evident and has nothing to do with me, it has everything to do with how you've been carrying on. If you can't see how you have destroyed this site, then you must be morally, spiritually and ethically blind, and utterly unfit to do anything more in the world of folk.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 06:42 PM

As an aside, I find it very strange that other people's sexuality is of such concern to so many.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 06:28 PM

As I said with the link, look at the site on which the article appears.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 06:25 PM

I did some minor editing, that I suspect a valid researcher would make, on one concluding statement in the Guest link:


... evidence exists which documents that "some claiming to be homosexual, or possibly bisexual, have stated that they have changed their sexual orientation...  additional research is warranted to investigate and qualify these claims. Until this is done, and focused peer reviewed research occurs, one should exercise caution before drawing conclusions and making over-reaching generalizations and interpretations"

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:54 PM

Unnamed Guest of 21 Apr 14 - 05:42 PM. Please note my earlier point about veiled hints and allegations. We know you have not had the decency to let us know who you are but then you go on to make accusations against unnamed people. Why is that?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:51 PM

Thanks for the link. It presents BOTH sides...

No it doesn't. Here is the conclusion -

Consider the obvious problem of survival for individuals who allegedly possess a gay gene: individuals who have partners of the same sex are biologically unable to reproduce (without resorting to artificial means). Therefore, if an alleged "gay gene" did exist, the homosexual population eventually would disappear altogether. We now know that it is not scientifically accurate to refer to a "gay gene" as the causative agent in homosexuality. The available evidence clearly establishes that no such gene has been identified. Additionally, evidence exists which documents that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, homosexuals should reflect this knowledge.

Anyone with a grain of humanity should take particular notice of the last line and shudder. Sorry to inflict it on decent folk. The name should have warned me and thanks for that, Guest, but I didn't think that anything could really be that bad. If you think that is an honest portrayal of 'both sides', GfS, you and I differ so greatly that there is little point in continuing the discussion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:46 PM

Kinda funny that the last post was from an anon guest.- not that the post message itself was not appropriate, just that it was anon.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:42 PM

Look, the rest of us can dream on about you lot growing up and becoming positive for once, but you gang of six or so have got some serious mind problems and it's not going to happen. The fact you don't get the message when the mods cut it short and kick off yet again must surely tell you - all of you - that none of you should be posting here or anywhere else for a very long time, while you get a life. When a gang of utter egocentrics takes over a site, destroying what they claim to care for and getting most people pissed off to the back teeth, to the point of destroying the site's once considerable reputation, then there's something seriously wrong with each and every one of you.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:38 PM

Whoever the last "guest" is, that was a "wonky" link on my android computer. I cant read it, as it flashes and wont hold in place long enough to read.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:35 PM

Are you the last two Guests gtf?

I am having a hard time making heads or tails of the last few posts, and who is stating what to whom - A most confounding discussion to follow or make any headway forward(it seems to taks two steps forward based on knowledge and logic and two steps back to earlier discussion/discord that had none to little potential of making progress forwardnon any topic aspect.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:28 PM

DtG: "Anyone can believe what they like as long as they don't expect me to go along with it. My opinion is neither worth a penny not biased. It is my opinion. That is all. It is founded in research, live experience and instinct."

Read the link, provided by 'Guest'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:28 PM

Musket, you failed to produce one single quote.
There are no "criminals propagating their hatred" here.
If there was I would be with you exposing them and arguing them down.

But there are not.
You are not saving Mudcat from bigots, you are making false accusations to try to silence and smear your critics.
You are a dishonest person.

I would have to grovel and retract if you could produce hate quotes, but you can't because there are none.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:25 PM

Thanks for the link. It presents BOTH sides...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:21 PM

You apparently want to disregard what he says about himself, and want us all to believe YOUR opinion, which is founded on a bias.

You still don't get it do you GfS? I stated quite categorically that I do not believe Glatze is being honest. I also said that I do not really care what you believe. Let me expand on that. I do not want anyone to regard or disregard what he says. I don't want anyone to believe me, you, the Pope or the flying spaghetti monster. That is what I have said all along in the threads on religion and a number of other things. Anyone can believe what they like as long as they don't expect me to go along with it. My opinion is neither worth a penny not biased. It is my opinion. That is all. It is founded in research, live experience and instinct. I don't expect anyone to take any notice of it let alone believe it. Isn't about time you realised your opinion is just the same? Even if you voice it twice? :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:16 PM

I prefer my own.

It leaves people with disturbing views under no illusion as to how outdated and hurtful their views are. Having read The Archbishop of Canterbury confusing dilemma this Easter, my approach is free from institutional hypocrisy too.

The bastards being the worst out in me. So what? Reality brings out the worst in them too.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:14 PM

http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

Before you read the article, note the sites name.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:08 PM

Eliza says: In my view (not worth a lot I realise) bitter and frenzied argument can take place, and be stimulating and interesting, IF people hold tightly to an underlying civility and goodwill, agree to differ, 'shake hands' and be friendly in spite of their opposing standpoints. That, by the way Joe, is a traditional British way of behaving, even if somewhat diluted nowadays.

And Musket, not to be undone, says (21 Apr 14 - 04:43 AM): No, sorry Eliza. On this one, niceties don't work. Both our countries have a proud past of confronting bigotry and slowly but surely killing sections of it off. We have people on this website who are free to propagate hatred towards others, question the right of some people to exist and then call those who question them the fascists.

Eliza, I like your approach far better - and in the long run, I think it's far more effective.

-Joe

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 04:54 PM

DtG: "I do not believe for one minute that some homosexuals decided to change their minds."

DtG: "GfS. I never said I "had NEVER heard of an 'Ex-Homosexual'". I said there is no such thing. I believe Michael Glatze to be a fraud with an a fundamental religious agenda."

""I do not believe for one minute that..."

Hey, I'm not responsible for what you CHOOSE to believe, any more than what people CHOOSE to deny...You can even CHOOSE to believe in the 'genetic' nonsense.

"Lies make us angry with the truth!"

How you view Michael Glatze doesn't take the 'ring out of the bell'. He said he was a homosexual...even was a VERY active promoter of the homosexual lifestyle, even with two prominent publications.....but then he said he changes, and is no longer a homosexual....what am I supposed to believe, YOUR interpretation, based on faulty science(genetic rubbish) or his testimony, as to where he's been and what he used to be, and his change??

Michael Gatze's personal statement:

"Michael Glatze made the following testimony about his experience with homosexual lifestyle and behavior:

    Lust takes us out of our bodies, "attaching" our psyche onto someone else's physical form. That's why homosexual sex – and all other lust-based sex – is never satisfactory: It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one. Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason. Abnormal means "that which hurts us, hurts normal." Homosexuality takes us out of our normal state, of being perfectly united in all things, and divides us, causing us to forever pine for an outside physical object that we can never possess. Homosexual people – like all people – yearn for the mythical true love, which does actually exist. The problem with homosexuality is that true love only comes when we have nothing preventing us from letting it shine forth from within. We cannot fully be ourselves when our minds are trapped in a cycle and group-mentality of sanctioned, protected and celebrated lust. God came to me when I was confused and lost, alone, afraid and upset. He told me – through prayer – that I had nothing at all to be afraid of, and that I was home; I just needed to do a little house cleaning in my mind. I believe that all people, intrinsically, know the truth. I believe that is why Christianity scares people so much. It reminds them of their conscience, which we all possess. Conscience tells us right from wrong and is a guide by which we can grow and become stronger and freer human beings. Healing from sin and ignorance is always possible, but the first thing anyone must do is get out of the mentalities that divide and conquer humanity. Sexual truth can be found, provided we're all willing and driven to accept that our culture sanctions behaviors that harm life. Guilt should be no reason to avoid the difficult questions. Homosexuality took almost 16 years of my life and compromised them with one lie or another, perpetuated through national media targeted at children. ... As a leader in the "gay rights" movement, I was given the opportunity to address the public many times. If I could take back some of the things I said, I would. Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography wrapped into one. I'll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise, no matter how slick their tongues or how sad their story. I have seen it. I know the truth."

..and HIS account:

Nevertheless, after a decade in which his leadership role in the homosexual activist world grew, he experienced simultaneously a mysterious inner conflict, even in the darkest days of late-night parties, substance abuse and all kinds of things, – at the end of which he finally was "liberated": "'coming out' from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I've ever experienced in my entire life." Consequently, in 2007 he has given up activism, cut himself off from the homosexual community and stepped down as co-founder of XY Magazine where he walked out by leaving a note on his computer with bottom line: "Homosexuality is death, and I choose life." The radical change and transformation in his life, Glatze recalls, began after he started to question his homosexual lifestyle following a health scare and with inner "promptings" that he now attributes to God. He calls homosexual sex purely "lust-based," meaning it can never fully satisfy.[1] He also made a decision to break up with his ex-partner of 10 years and in 2013 married a woman, Rebekah.[3] Glatze attributed much help "in the process of healing from the profound influences of evil in our current society" to reading the book "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian and he expressed a deep respect also for his Christian aunt who disapproved his former homosexual lifestyle and whom he portrays now as "never judgmental, but always firm."

Now whether you believe him or not, is up to you, and your conditioning. You apparently want to disregard what he says about himself, and want us all to believe YOUR opinion, which is founded on a bias.

Good luck!(rolls eyes)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 04:54 PM

DtG: "I do not believe for one minute that some homosexuals decided to change their minds."

DtG: "GfS. I never said I "had NEVER heard of an 'Ex-Homosexual'". I said there is no such thing. I believe Michael Glatze to be a fraud with an a fundamental religious agenda."

""I do not believe for one minute that..."

Hey, I'm not responsible for what you CHOOSE to believe, any more than what people CHOOSE to deny...You can even CHOOSE to believe in the 'genetic' nonsense.

"Lies make us angry with the truth!"

How you view Michael Glatze doesn't take the 'ring out of the bell'. He said he was a homosexual...even was a VERY active promoter of the homosexual lifestyle, even with two prominent publications.....but then he said he changes, and is no longer a homosexual....what am I supposed to believe, YOUR interpretation, based on faulty science(genetic rubbish) or his testimony, as to where he's been and what he used to be, and his change??

Michael Gatze's personal statement:

"Michael Glatze made the following testimony about his experience with homosexual lifestyle and behavior:

    Lust takes us out of our bodies, "attaching" our psyche onto someone else's physical form. That's why homosexual sex – and all other lust-based sex – is never satisfactory: It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one. Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason. Abnormal means "that which hurts us, hurts normal." Homosexuality takes us out of our normal state, of being perfectly united in all things, and divides us, causing us to forever pine for an outside physical object that we can never possess. Homosexual people – like all people – yearn for the mythical true love, which does actually exist. The problem with homosexuality is that true love only comes when we have nothing preventing us from letting it shine forth from within. We cannot fully be ourselves when our minds are trapped in a cycle and group-mentality of sanctioned, protected and celebrated lust. God came to me when I was confused and lost, alone, afraid and upset. He told me – through prayer – that I had nothing at all to be afraid of, and that I was home; I just needed to do a little house cleaning in my mind. I believe that all people, intrinsically, know the truth. I believe that is why Christianity scares people so much. It reminds them of their conscience, which we all possess. Conscience tells us right from wrong and is a guide by which we can grow and become stronger and freer human beings. Healing from sin and ignorance is always possible, but the first thing anyone must do is get out of the mentalities that divide and conquer humanity. Sexual truth can be found, provided we're all willing and driven to accept that our culture sanctions behaviors that harm life. Guilt should be no reason to avoid the difficult questions. Homosexuality took almost 16 years of my life and compromised them with one lie or another, perpetuated through national media targeted at children. ... As a leader in the "gay rights" movement, I was given the opportunity to address the public many times. If I could take back some of the things I said, I would. Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography wrapped into one. I'll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise, no matter how slick their tongues or how sad their story. I have seen it. I know the truth."

..and HIS account:

Nevertheless, after a decade in which his leadership role in the homosexual activist world grew, he experienced simultaneously a mysterious inner conflict, even in the darkest days of late-night parties, substance abuse and all kinds of things, – at the end of which he finally was "liberated": "'coming out' from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I've ever experienced in my entire life." Consequently, in 2007 he has given up activism, cut himself off from the homosexual community and stepped down as co-founder of XY Magazine where he walked out by leaving a note on his computer with bottom line: "Homosexuality is death, and I choose life." The radical change and transformation in his life, Glatze recalls, began after he started to question his homosexual lifestyle following a health scare and with inner "promptings" that he now attributes to God. He calls homosexual sex purely "lust-based," meaning it can never fully satisfy.[1] He also made a decision to break up with his ex-partner of 10 years and in 2013 married a woman, Rebekah.[3] Glatze attributed much help "in the process of healing from the profound influences of evil in our current society" to reading the book "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian and he expressed a deep respect also for his Christian aunt who disapproved his former homosexual lifestyle and whom he portrays now as "never judgmental, but always firm."

Now whether you believe him or not, is up to you, and your conditioning. You apparently want to disregard what he says about himself, and want us all to believe YOUR opinion, which is founded on a bias.

Good luck!(rolls eyes)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 04:11 PM

I believe that link is from a 1995 study, which was later debunked. Check it out by using the term "gay gene research debunked" in your search.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 04:04 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/male-homosexuality-influenced-by-genes-us-study-finds-9127683.html

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:59 PM

Fair enough, Keith. I missed that. I must admit I only read half the tripe in these threads even though I may even contribute to it occasionally :-) I still don't know who the rest of Musket's mates are as I have not met them. I do think it unfair to tar them all with the same brush.

GfS. I never said I "had NEVER heard of an 'Ex-Homosexual'". I said there is no such thing. I believe Michael Glatze to be a fraud with an a fundamental religious agenda. You may believe I am. Quite frankly, I don't really care. We can agree over a few things and have done so in the past but on this I trust my own instincts.

Jim, well said. I also apologise for any offence I have caused to anyone and can assure whoever took the offence, it was not malicious. I still stand by my beliefs though. I think everyone knows them by now.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:40 PM

I believe we are discussing different topics gfs.

I dont recall making any claim that homosexuality was or is genetic, and I don t know who here did? I dont believe that any genetic signature has ever been located from research.

Regardless, that does not rule out that it is just as "embedded", by some other biological, chemical or brain-functioning reason. It also does not rule out various differences among those who do, or did at one time, consider themselves homosexual. (For example, cross dressers, and metro-sexuals are often confused as being homosexual, while it is often more complex than that, and many are not in fact, homosexual in their sexual orientation).

My question was related to those who moved back and forth "between teams" and where they do, what can wb determined from that- from reliable and non biased sources, preferably properly conducted and unbiased research.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:23 PM

WTF!!!

I just felt like saying that, because it seems appropriate to express in such quiet, reflective periods.

Don't know who said it, but it goes something like: "every breakdown, is followed by an opportunity. Sometimes, the opportunity is grasped to make change. Most often, it is not."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:17 PM

Ed, Attitudes and a consensus do NOT constitute a fact, when permissiveness is 'alleged' to be based on 'genetics'....and that theoretical notion has been clearly debunked.
There will always be those who are motivated and driven, by a political agenda, who will insist, that there is not changing course, as long as it fulfills their political agenda's 'needs'....no matter how factually incorrect they are.
Dave the Gnome said he had NEVER heard of an 'Ex-Homosexual'...and I provided quite a few instances that should have enlightened him. If those who still don't believe it, just plain don't believe it, that's THEIR problem...not mine.
Delusion, of itself can be at least 'entertaining' to those who insist that their favored delusion is reality!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:17 PM

And all playing clarsachs...Bonnie's going to be busy keeping order over you lot!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:14 PM

Look fellers
Lets face it; we've behaved like arses for far too long - all of us.
That behaviour has buggered up thread after thread and deprived others of their say on subjects that interest them.
As far as I'm concerned, it's over and I apologise for having behaved the way I have for far too long - I suggest that those of us who don't consider apologising "grovelling" do the same and leave it at that.   
Everything we have ever said is up for public scrutiny for people to make their own minds about without our having to reiterate it - to deny it seems an exercise in the absurd, unless we can persuade the graffiti artist who went to Balshazzar's dinner party to re-edit it for us.
I made my complaint and am happy that it has been considered and responded to fairly and without bias.
That reply has assured me that the concerns I raised have been noted and, hopefully, will be kept an eye on in future.
I'm not particularly ashamed of my views. I stand by them; I am ashamed of the way I have expressed them sometimes.
In general, I go along with what Musket, Greg, Steve, and many, many others (who tend to get overlooked because our behaviour has driven them off in anger, disgust, and all to often, in boredom and despair)   have to say on matters we have argued on, but I think we all need a reminder that a scalpel if far more efficient than a cleaver where complicated subjects are concerned.
It must be a pretty grungy job trying to control a bunch of out-of hand-kids, so I think we all owe S.R.S our thanks, and those of us who have gods maybe go thank them that we didn't get kicked out on our arseums.
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 02:58 PM

I think we have established beyond peradventure that we are all completely faultless.

god will be really pleased with you all.

so when you get to heaven - there will be Keith, jim, ake, musket - all on the same white fluffy cloud. spreading joy and peace and understanding and enlightenment.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 01:25 PM

Jim, on the closed thread I made 15 posts to your 41 posts.

None of my posts contained any invective, but were mostly in response to lies or misrepresentation from others.   I do not normally respond to you as I think you are among a group of disingenuous people here.

My posts were not the cause of the "melee", but the idiotic reaction to my posts may well have had that effect.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 01:19 PM

Dave, I named them a few posts up.
I named Musket, Jim, Steve and Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 01:17 PM

Then why are you totally incapable of producing an example of this hatred from an actual post?
Answer, because there are none and you are talking bollocks again.

If you produced one now I would have to grovel and retract.
Confident prediction-you can't and you will be left looking a fool yet again.

You should grovel and retract Musket, unless you can produce something.
Can you Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 01:12 PM

I was going to keep out of this but I must say that, as I like to think I am friendly with both Musket and yourself, Keith, I need to clarify a point. I dislike it immensely when people having a go at others and will not name them. Phrases like 'Musket and his mates', 'the gang of 3' and 'politically motivated clowns' are, to my mind, a cowards way of making personal attacks. If you are going to attack someone, attack them for heavens sake. Don't cloak it in a phrase that could mean anybody or anything. The moderators, who I believe generally do a good job, will delete the attack if they believe it has gone too far. If it acceptable it will stand. If you want to include me, include me. If you don't, then don't. I am happy to accept that I can agree with anyone on some things and disagree strongly on others. Make it about issues, not people.

Thanks in advance

Boringly...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 01:08 PM

Nothing decent about bigotry Keith.

Better men than you and I fought to keep the bastards where they belong. My Dad's generation were given medals for stamping out decent people who disagreed with them.

You can have views all day. In your case you are welcome to them. Crossing the line to hate? Now that isn't disagreement, however disagreeable. You keep saying nobody does that yet Goofus tells us that you can be cured from being yourself and that it is choice (ie wrong choice?) to be gay whilst your pet worm thinks being born how you are is a liberal plot and then tells us how he hates liberal plots.

Then you keep cropping up saying "nobody hates and Musket wants to save the world I a dalek isn't it confusing did I mention I am proud to be a Christian historians know more than candlestick makers ......." And whatever other nonsense.



SRS. Life's a bitch.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 12:47 PM

There are no "criminals from propagating their hatred" here.
Musket and mates like to pretend they are saving the world from evil bigots.
It is just decent people who happen to disagree with Musket and mates.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 12:16 PM

Most websites use moderation to recognise and pull it in. By not doing so, shallow people wrongly think their extreme views are acceptable in decent society.

None of us are perfect, I'm less perfect than most. But reading some contributions here just proves you cannot engage with Mudcat if you are offended by hatred towards your very existence. Because nobody is stopping the criminals from propagating their hatred.

Musket, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't around here. There's always someone ready and willing to jump down your throat if, as a mod, one steps in to break up a fight by deleting posts or by closing a thread. What astounds me is how many of you came back here to argue when the last one was a hot mess of bickering.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 11:52 AM

"there are times when you want a shag and only a bumble bee will do..."
Bee a good fellow and buzz off Al

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 10:57 AM

More importantly, multi cultural, engaging society won't worry too much about the loch, nor the monster attitudes.

Although, I shall be drinking in The George in Inverary next week, with our friends who live there. By a loch for that matter. They say they were initially concerned by small mind small town reaction, having lived in Edinburgh for a while, but haven't seen any of curtain twitching they expected. Mind you, one is a English, which might be a wee bit difficult...... His husband defends him nicely though when the independence chestnut is raised.

Still, a nice set of bells there, which will keep Mrs Musket happy on Sunday morning.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 10:50 AM

The reports of the death of the demise is greatly exaggerated. It's not so much the boring thread as the boring missives of the people delivering to it.

There are always important topics in every thread but it only holds as long as there is intelligent discussion to guide it without rancor, accusations and personal diatribes.

If someone is bored by what is being said, the option is to ignore it, not to belabor the point by introducing a smart-assed comment.

Also, remember that being bored is a characteristic of a boring person.

Meanwhile, what is boring to some may be intriguing to others.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 09:36 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHooSqfVD6w

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 09:28 AM

there are times when you want a shag and only a bumble bee will do...

well you may be right, ake. some people may not be nice. but I like to stay with illusion that all the ones that I know are pretty swell.

when they push shit through my letterbox - I will say.....ah! just what I needed for the compost . thanks awfully old bean!

anyway what if western civilisation is in ruins - you won't really notice it up there by the loch.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 09:10 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdNAuDtf7vI bit like mudcat,i feel sorry for the moderators

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:59 AM

Was that your personal study/observation Bobad?

One can possibly avoid some of the associated potential bee-danger by zipping up:)
:)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: bobad
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:52 AM

A study suggests that the three most painful places to get stung by a bee are, in descending order: the nostril, the upper lip, and the penis.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:37 AM

"Tough titty, Jimmy Jolly Jandy..."
No wondr it took me so long to get into Dickens
"Ah the rattling of pots and kettles"
Not helping Megan
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Megan L
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:33 AM

Ah the rattling of pots and kettles

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:23 AM

Tough titty, Jimmy Jolly Jandy...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:59 AM

"Do today's children actually still read them? "
Children - were they for children - damn!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:53 AM

"I don't like to see them being taken advantage of by politically motivated clowns."
Any chance of you stopping this Ake?
It was your input turned it into a melee in the first place; isn't it about time you gave it a rest?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:24 AM

Al... The fact you are a nice guy does not necessarily mean that all who post here are also nice guys.

Serious discussion does not always have to be between nice guys or girls, I don't expect everyone to be nice, or even friendly, just that they cut out personal abuse, tell the truth, and don't misquote and misrepresent what others say.

People who do these things are not interested in debate, only in destroying debate....they are easy to spot and should be condemned by everyone, regardless of whether they agree with the member being attacked or not.

I have come to see the moderators here as fair, not perfect, but even handed and decent people.....I don't like to see them being taken advantage of by politically motivated clowns.

Sorry about the metaphor BTW.....but you do seem to have some weird ideas about what "motivates me"?
I am mainly "motivated" by the idiocies of "liberalism" as practiced in the UK, and its destructive affect on society at large and one section in particular.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:22 AM

Study: Science Can Change the Sexual Orientations of Mice


Maybe in the future anyone will be able to "dial up" their sexual orientation for a change in experience?attitudes.
:)

Of Mice and men (and, women)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:14 AM

Ah, sancta simplicitas: my favourite Milly Molly Mandy story really was called, so help me, "Milly Molly Mandy spends a penny".

The ambiguity involved in this title will be lost on anyone not old enough to recall Joyce Lankester Brisley's 1920s onwards tales of the little girl called Millicent Margaret Amanda whose name was abbreviated for convenience as shown in the titles. Tho they appear, I find wiki-ing them, to be still in print. Do today's children actually still read them? And there must presumably be a new author, as the original one died getting on for 40 years ago?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:09 AM

Ed. Over here last year, a documentary called Stepping Out had Stephen Fry interviewing many of the people Goofus refers to. The fascination for the British audience wasn't the merit or otherwise but the rather shocking idea that this is done in the first place, or that superstition thinks it has an answer to normal behaviour that doesn't accord with its own irrational nonsense.

With catastrophic results for some people and their families. Not that this stops the ever caring Goofus and his homophobic crusade eh?

The changing attitude links you give are encouraging, although you'd be surprised how people who could do so who moved from The UK to California to live in a more tolerant place over the years!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:03 AM

Musket ~~ Yes, I did notice the diff colour. But usually a mod's note is in reduced size coloured format; so I took the colouring to be your own addition. Sorry about that.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 06:57 AM

milly molly mandy - my first love - always been a sucker for girls in short skirts!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 06:47 AM

"Melee Torme...."
Or Melee Molly Mandy - probably a bit before your time and out of your comfort zone Al
All the best to you too
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 06:43 AM

GFS, I put in the general information on ex gays in Google and did see quite a few people who claim they were homosexual and changed over to being Herterosexual.

However, I could not locate any credible research on the topic. The closest I got on the topic related to a much reported homosexual religious re-education program. A researcher who once claimed to have evidence that that this worked, but seemed to recant this later,as his research results were flawed. Generally, as there are many confounding aspects related to personal accounts on the internet (or those promoted by interest groups) that have not been researched. As I indicated earlier, one would expect that bisexuals change one way or the other in their lives.

However, in my search I located the survey below, that indicates USA attitudes to gay marriage and gays have changed greatly - contrary to commonly held views that those who are opposed are in the majority, the opposite seems to be the case. What is noted is the change in attitudes by younger people, which may show where the future may be moving.


Survey - Changing USA attitudes

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 06:43 AM

yeh okay - close this down too. like Jim says -it a shameful melee....

like George melee , or Melee Torme....

all the best
al (unashamed)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 06:11 AM

Michael. Do you buy it from Aldi or Lidle? Whatever it is, it seems to do the trick?

Where have I said anything about the closed thread? A moderator put comments just after my post. The clue being the different colour font.

For someone who likes to show us his HTML tricks, you can be a bit weird sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:39 AM

Can I disassociate myself from this insanity.
I believe it was unwise for Al to have opened this thread so closs on the heels of the last fiasco.
I thought it was sheer vindictiveness on the part of the guilty individual to reopen hostilities within less than ten postings of it being opened
I believe it was utter crassness to rise to his bait.
Now, in less than 20 postings, it has been turned into a shameful melee.
Stop it, for ***** sake.
If this goes on we will not have a BS section to post to.
Is somebody putting something in your morning tea?
Grow up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:26 AM

I think, indeed, that this cooking sherry you are on about so much of the time must be located in your kitchen, & you are practising some form of Freudian Displacement...

"In Freudian psychology, displacement (German Verschiebung "shift, move") is an unconscious defence mechanism"
Wikipedia - emphasis added

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:12 AM

Musket -- What are you on about, above 0400? The 'boring place' thread IS closed. It was when I posted reply to Padre above; and I have just checked again; & it is still closed.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 04:56 AM

ps Ake, there is no firing line! no guns here thankfully! remember that....take the violence out of the metaphors, that might be a start.

I think its important to feel passionately about subjects and express ourselves. we need to eschew violence -even in language.

I've got this long playing record made by the beeb in 1966 celebrating fifty years since the 1916 revolution in Dublin. theres this sentence where it says something to the effect, James Connolly And Patrick Pearse's genius was the reintrodution of violence into Irish politics. given the history of the last fifty years - does it look like such a great act of genius now?

I suspect people will argue about that last point. but I think violence of language towards each other lies at the root of some of the bitterness on mudcat between very nice people.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 04:43 AM

A bit like the England football team forced to do a seig heil to Hitler in the '30s. Sir Stanley Matthews said the image haunted him in later years.

No, sorry Eliza. On this one, niceties don't work. Both our countries have a proud past of confronting bigotry and slowly but surely killing sections of it off. We have people on this website who are free to propagate hatred towards others, question the right of some people to exist and then call those who question them the fascists.

Most websites use moderation to recognise and pull it in. By not doing so, shallow people wrongly think their extreme views are acceptable in decent society.

None of us are perfect, I'm less perfect than most. But reading some contributions here just proves you cannot engage with Mudcat if you are offended by hatred towards your very existence. Because nobody is stopping the criminals from propagating their hatred. (Incidentally, those saying The US protect freedom of bad speech may wish to look at the federal courts case list. They include Abu Hamzir, who was extradited from The UK for amongst other things, publishing incitement to hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 04:38 AM

Akenaton: "....."faith" is next in the firing line. In the UK there is pressure building up to stop the nation being classified as a "Christian country", the same faces who latch on to all the "rights" issues are right there.
The overthrow of Christianity is their long term aim....the bastion of conservatism in their eyes. Before long, society, now badly damaged, will be non existent."

You noticed that..cool...why do you think that?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 04:38 AM

Al, no "racist right wing bollocks" from me.
Ever.
Do not believe the propaganda!
They could not actually produce any remember.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 04:12 AM

Having studiously ploughed through the whole boring Boring thread, and marvelled at the escalating bile therein without daring to post, I must comment today on Al's new thread. How big-hearted and mature of him, I think it's very touching. If only similar sentiments from all the protagonists had been expressed before about post 50 or so, the thread itself may have wound its way to a more congenial and pleasant conclusion.
In my view (not worth a lot I realise) bitter and frenzied argument can take place, and be stimulating and interesting, IF people hold tightly to an underlying civility and goodwill, agree to differ, 'shake hands' and be friendly in spite of their opposing standpoints. That, by the way Joe, is a traditional British way of behaving, even if somewhat diluted nowadays.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 04:00 AM

Oh I don't know Akenaton. The overthrow of hate would be nice. In the meantime, reading your contributions reminds us that debate amongst peers is not a level playing field.

You should thank me for taking your diatribe seriously.

Or at least pretending to.....





As you seem to love all things American, I suggest you protect yourself from poufs by wearing a tin foil hat. You know it makes sense.
(They work best if you don't articulate your opinions whilst wearing by the way.)

I've just checked on the thread and it isn't closed. Jeri just said she couldn't get on it properly but from here it seems to be working fine. There could be a glitch in the system or an Easter Sunday gremlin telling you all to be nice, of course (OK I'M JOKING!!)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:57 AM

Didn't suggest you were Al - just though it might have been better to wait till the stretcher-bearers had had time to carry off the wounded.
Hope this one doesn't go the way of all the others - good luck with it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:51 AM

I didn't think I was ranting. I was just saying that even though the thread ended on a note of discord. I have immense affection for all concerned - even people like Lizzie, who seems to think my loins are stirring at the mere cyber presence of a female.

its sort of sad when you have to agree never to talk to someone again. or all walk off in different directions.

it feels a bit like the campfires gone out. the last bottle drained. oh I've got to get up in the morning and drive a long way. all that shit.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:33 AM

It seems sheer vindictiveness for someone to bring the bitterness of a closed thread onto this one - as has just happened.
I wasn't sure of the wisdom of opening a thread to comment on a rightfully closed one Al - I think my misgivings have just been vindicated
Good luck to all who sail in her.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:24 AM

The thread was going nowhere, with the exception of the musical interlude, it had become just people arguing about who said what.

That IS boring.
No, if this section of the forum is to survive as a platform to debate all current and controversial issues, action will have to be taken to clean the place up.
If that means no controversial subjects, so be it, I will abide by the mods decision, but when I or any other member who wants to discuss grown up subjects is gone, the "pack", having tasted blood, will turn on others....."faith" is next in the firing line. In the UK there is pressure building up to stop the nation being classified as a "Christian country", the same faces who latch on to all the "rights" issues are right there.
The overthrow of Christianity is their long term aim....the bastion of conservatism in their eyes. Before long, society, now badly damaged, will be non existent.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 12:42 AM

Padre ~~ You'll find a thread called 'A boring place' on the Mudcat menu, which the mods have just closed.

That's what.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 12:28 AM

gnu: "And then there's the suckups. I feel your pain."

Suck lighter.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 12:08 AM

When you coming to the Ax Inn Open Mic, then, Al?.....I've got a horrible feeling I might quite get on with you. Which is worrying.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Padre
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 12:00 AM

What the hell was Big Al's rant about?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: gnu
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 09:57 PM

And then there's the suckups. I feel your pain.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 09:52 PM

Just when it was about to get REAL good.........
Looking for Ed T's feedback!

GfS

Subject: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 09:23 PM

I was a bit sorry to see this one go. I had apologised to Lizzie - good to know she hasn't changed in the time we've been apart. although i'm sure we're better off apart.my rather bumptious sense humour seems to piss her off - sometimes it pisses me off - but I am stuck with it.

also I had real hopes of jim keith and ake becoming mates - slapping each other the on backs, and becoming firm pals. pals who didn't agree about anything.

I've got to admit - I think of poor old ake -up there by the loch - worrying about hordes of marauding muslims and homosexuals.

jim who never goes to English folk clubs and doesn't live in England commenting glumly on the state of folk clubs that he's not going to.

dear old keith - keeps going - you expect me to be slandered! well yes! stop reading the daily mail. its just a pile of right wing racist bollocks. and if you come out with that stuff -you really will offend people. the people who write that shit don't believe it themselves. and it does affect your judgement - I know from members of my own family and circle of friends who read the mail.

you gotta admit - it a bit like the last of the summer wine.

I do have affection for all of you. you're my gang. try not to hurt each other!