If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#351
|
|||
|
|||
Your posting only backs up my statements...
i stand by this: i still think IT is cute that you are still defending our national hero (a man who married ONLY latino women)... i have also stated that i cannot find any internet cites to back up my claim.. i don't think i could ever presume that one statement (to which i have repeatedly stated, YOU ARE RIGHT!, i cannot find a site to back up my assumption) would ever RE-WRITE the history of someone who is so revered. as for saying i am not smart, well... apparently i was smart enough to invoke some reaction out of a guy who has better things to read.... as for you being a *******, well, i can't respond, i only have your postings to back up that claim....and if i can't find sites or proper documentation, then i can't prove it..... as for you and i ever meeting, you would undoubtedly never find me appealing, thank God........ Chaos, panic and disorder. My work here is done Geoff wrote: > "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 > > |
Ads |
#352
|
|||
|
|||
Your posting only backs up my statements...
i stand by this: i still think IT is cute that you are still defending our national hero (a man who married ONLY latino women)... i have also stated that i cannot find any internet cites to back up my claim.. i don't think i could ever presume that one statement (to which i have repeatedly stated, YOU ARE RIGHT!, i cannot find a site to back up my assumption) would ever RE-WRITE the history of someone who is so revered. as for saying i am not smart, well... apparently i was smart enough to invoke some reaction out of a guy who has better things to read.... as for you being a *******, well, i can't respond, i only have your postings to back up that claim....and if i can't find sites or proper documentation, then i can't prove it..... as for you and i ever meeting, you would undoubtedly never find me appealing, thank God........ Chaos, panic and disorder. My work here is done Geoff wrote: > "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 > > |
#353
|
|||
|
|||
Bob, You wrote:
> refrain from responding to every email with which you don't agree. (Your > "argument gene" you cited previously is going to get you into a whole lot of > trouble - and AGAIN, I ask, What kind of trouble are you talking about? when you start talking about dribbling words like "trouble", please define what kind of trouble. I would appreciate knowing what you meant. linda |
#354
|
|||
|
|||
Bob, You wrote:
> refrain from responding to every email with which you don't agree. (Your > "argument gene" you cited previously is going to get you into a whole lot of > trouble - and AGAIN, I ask, What kind of trouble are you talking about? when you start talking about dribbling words like "trouble", please define what kind of trouble. I would appreciate knowing what you meant. linda |
#355
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:19:45 GMT, linda > > wrote: > > >>>How about YOU supply a cite for the John Wayne assertion? NOWHERE >>>can I find ANY reference to his being other than heterosexual, and >>>none of the readily-available Internet biographies, official or non-official, >>>make any such claim. >>> >>>What I can find is that he was married three times, and had seven >>>children, was a strident anti-communist, an ardent supporter of the U.S. >>>forces in Vietnam, and in general lived the larger-than-life image >>>frequently associated with him. None of these things preclude him from >>>possibly being bisexual, I suppose. But if you can't produce >>>incontrovertable evidence, I will be forced to conclude this is either >>>a.) a smear job, b.) a delusion, or c.) a misunderstanding. >>> >>>John Wayne Gacy is widely reputed to be gay, perhaps that is the source of your >>>confusion. >>> >>>--Geoff >> >>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. " > > > If that's really what you "here", then you have a problem. That's not > anywhere near what was written. > What was written was a request for some sort of evidence to support > your claim. > and i think i have repeatedly stated, I CANNOT FIND ANY SITE. I cannot find any evidence.. hell, how much clearer do i have to be? |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:19:45 GMT, linda > > wrote: > > >>>How about YOU supply a cite for the John Wayne assertion? NOWHERE >>>can I find ANY reference to his being other than heterosexual, and >>>none of the readily-available Internet biographies, official or non-official, >>>make any such claim. >>> >>>What I can find is that he was married three times, and had seven >>>children, was a strident anti-communist, an ardent supporter of the U.S. >>>forces in Vietnam, and in general lived the larger-than-life image >>>frequently associated with him. None of these things preclude him from >>>possibly being bisexual, I suppose. But if you can't produce >>>incontrovertable evidence, I will be forced to conclude this is either >>>a.) a smear job, b.) a delusion, or c.) a misunderstanding. >>> >>>John Wayne Gacy is widely reputed to be gay, perhaps that is the source of your >>>confusion. >>> >>>--Geoff >> >>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. " > > > If that's really what you "here", then you have a problem. That's not > anywhere near what was written. > What was written was a request for some sort of evidence to support > your claim. > and i think i have repeatedly stated, I CANNOT FIND ANY SITE. I cannot find any evidence.. hell, how much clearer do i have to be? |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
Words to live by. I'm not telling other people what to believe. As long
as you respect other people and their individual rights and needs. |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
Words to live by. I'm not telling other people what to believe. As long
as you respect other people and their individual rights and needs. |
#359
|
|||
|
|||
next you will be calling me a gay man in a woman's body!!!!!
my self esteem is just fine, thank you... as for your self esteem, i think it is overblown (inflated)..... Geoff wrote: > > linda wrote: > > >>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:03:12 GMT >>From: linda > >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler >>Subject: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! >> ___________ mixqec >> >>Your posting only backs up my statements... >> >>i stand by this: i still think IT is cute that you are still defending >>our national hero (a man who married ONLY latino women)... i have also >>stated that i cannot find any internet cites to back up my claim.. i >>don't think i could ever presume that one statement (to which i have >>repeatedly stated, YOU ARE RIGHT!, i cannot find a site to back up my >>assumption) would ever RE-WRITE the history of someone who is so revered. >> >>as for saying i am not smart, well... apparently i was smart enough to >>invoke some reaction out of a guy who has better things to read.... >> >>as for you being a *******, well, i can't respond, i only have your >>postings to back up that claim....and if i can't find sites or proper >>documentation, then i can't prove it..... >> >>as for you and i ever meeting, you would undoubtedly never find me >>appealing, thank God........ >> >>Chaos, panic and disorder. My work here is done >> > > > The only panic I note in this thread is in your retreat amid your > "stand(ing) by" something not essential to your original claim. Perhaps > you're trying to save some last remaining vestige of your dignity. > > As to your apparent certainty that I wouldn't find you appealing: I'm > sorry to see you have such a poor self-image. What a shame. These > things can be addressed by a good psychotherapist, perhaps you ought to > consider seeing one. > > Regards, > --Geoff |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
next you will be calling me a gay man in a woman's body!!!!!
my self esteem is just fine, thank you... as for your self esteem, i think it is overblown (inflated)..... Geoff wrote: > > linda wrote: > > >>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:03:12 GMT >>From: linda > >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler >>Subject: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! >> ___________ mixqec >> >>Your posting only backs up my statements... >> >>i stand by this: i still think IT is cute that you are still defending >>our national hero (a man who married ONLY latino women)... i have also >>stated that i cannot find any internet cites to back up my claim.. i >>don't think i could ever presume that one statement (to which i have >>repeatedly stated, YOU ARE RIGHT!, i cannot find a site to back up my >>assumption) would ever RE-WRITE the history of someone who is so revered. >> >>as for saying i am not smart, well... apparently i was smart enough to >>invoke some reaction out of a guy who has better things to read.... >> >>as for you being a *******, well, i can't respond, i only have your >>postings to back up that claim....and if i can't find sites or proper >>documentation, then i can't prove it..... >> >>as for you and i ever meeting, you would undoubtedly never find me >>appealing, thank God........ >> >>Chaos, panic and disorder. My work here is done >> > > > The only panic I note in this thread is in your retreat amid your > "stand(ing) by" something not essential to your original claim. Perhaps > you're trying to save some last remaining vestige of your dignity. > > As to your apparent certainty that I wouldn't find you appealing: I'm > sorry to see you have such a poor self-image. What a shame. These > things can be addressed by a good psychotherapist, perhaps you ought to > consider seeing one. > > Regards, > --Geoff |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy | Michael Barnes | Driving | 4 | January 4th 05 06:47 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec | [email protected] | Chrysler | 37 | November 18th 04 04:18 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy | Paul | Antique cars | 3 | November 9th 04 06:54 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec | indago | Chrysler | 7 | November 8th 04 05:05 PM |