"linda" > wrote in message
...
>I think that Geoff can speak for himself...

You betcha, but I don't mind what Bob had to say.

>
> Bob Shuman wrote:
>> Linda,
>>
>> What you "heard" Geoff say in his post reveals more about you than Geoff.
>> I
>> say this since I personally took his posting as simply calling on you to
>> back up your statement.
>

Quite.

> Please RE-READ my posting....
> I say again, PLEASE RE-READ my posting....

Why? A quick read is all that it takes to ascertain that you're trying to
paint me with a rather broad brush. It isn't like what you had to say was
terribly sophisticated or difficult to interpret.

> As such, until
>> you can prove otherwise it is simply one person's opinion. I don't
>> believe
>> that Geoff deserved your pointed response

> what is so pointed about what i said?????

What Bob is pointing out is you put a lot of words in my mouth, none of them
exactly complementary or even indicative of the possibility that I might, in
fact, be quite tolerant of homosexuality.

<snip-a-dee-doo-dah>

>>>
>>>Geoff, i can here you saying this: "if anyone says The Duke was gay,
>>>I'll beat the snot out of you. Same with Errol Flynn. They were Men's
>>>Men, and yer a Commie Pinko if you think otherwise. "
>>>

Although I've favored the use of the term 'Commie Pinko' in certain
circumstances, this isn't one of them. John Wayne might have been gay...or
he might not. According to my read of the readily available information, he
most likely was not.

I read what you and Dan posted, and spent perhaps a half hour trying to
research it, since it piqued my curiosity. I couldn't find anything to
substantiate your claim. I thought I was being particularly fair by giving
the idea some honest research and then calling you on it when I couldn't
validate your information. You replied with vacuous innuendo.

Since the purported reason for labeling John Wayne as gay is for 'shock
value', I feel perfectly justified in calling you and Dan out on this. John
Wayne was a figure much revered by folks in my parents' generation. To call
him "gay" for "shock value" is quite revealing of your and Dan's characters.
To do so inaccurately is blatantly dishonest and potentially self-serving.
I'd like to know the source, be it the biography of a gay lover of Mr.
Wayne's, a death-bed admission, a published news report in a respectable
journal, etc. In short, I want to see something credible that can be
investigated and weighed on the merits of the "evidence". This is, after
all, John Wayne we're talking about here, not some pop-culture sleazeball.
I think his memory is deserving of a minimal amount of respect in not
tarnishing his image by rewriting the story of his life after his passing
with innuendo and supposition. Many revered figures have been outed as
homosexuals post-mortem, and the evidence was widespread and well
publicized. I may have missed this with John Wayne, he died when I was
relatively young. However, I doubt it.

(Incidently, many of those outed individuals have remained near and dear to
the hearts of their true fans. I suspect the same would be true of John
Wayne's fans, who after all, are by and large American, the most tolerant
people on the face of the earth. But I digress.)

>>>however, i do recall reading a book about the biography of hollywood
>>>that the duke had bisexual relations with some of the "men's men". and
>>>if i could get in to my attic to find it, i would mail it to you..

Sorry, not good enough. A memory of something written in a book you claim
to be unable or unwilling to find, let alone name, doesn't hold water.
Quite honestly you can save yourself the postage, because I wouldn't want it
anyway. The author, title and publisher will suffice. I've got quite a bit
of rather more serious reading on my plate right now, and I can't be
bothered with reading more than a paragraph or two on the sexual
proclivities of the glitterati. It's a shame you can be, IMHO.

>>>however, you are right, i cannot find anything on the internet that
>>>supports my claim.. but i just thought it was so cute that of all the
>>>people listed as gay, you came to The Duke's defense... how sweet..
>>>protect our image of the man who people regard as "our national
>>>treasure

Frankly, I couldn't give a **** if the history of the papacy was filled with
a disproportionate share of gays, nor if any of other folks you mention were
gay, for that matter. I don't actually care if anyone is gay, to be honest,
as long as they're open and honest about it. But to name somebody famous,
who is held in reverence by an entire generation of Americans, whose name is
a proverbial household word, and associate them with being "gay" for "shock
value" strikes me as particularly malicious and childish when it is not a
proven fact. And I'm calling you out on the carpet for doing so. If the
above is the best you can do, then consider yourself refuted.

Incidently, your comment about my being 'sweet' is entirely misplaced, lady.
If you and I were ever to meet, you would find me far from sweet, kind, or
any other adjective of that nature. I've got a decided dislike for and
disinterest in folks who trade in gossip, innuendo, half-truths, smear jobs,
emotional outbursts, or other misbehaviors, not to mention poor punctuation
and spelling. If you assign some sort of 'cuteness' to my objection to your
blithely rewriting the life story of an American icon such as John Wayne, I
suggest you wake up. You won't find anything 'cute' about me, In fact,
I'll take pleasure in being a complete ******* about it.

In closing, and to use a phrase you seem to place great value upon, I don't
know if you're a typical stupid ****, but from what I can see, you sure
aren't a smart one.

--Geoff