OT Mikey = not guilty

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:37:03 -0700, Kevin Holzer >
wrote:

>Shag wrote:
>> So you think someone could be influenced to be gay or something? Are
>> you trying to say that you believe you could be taught to enjoy having
>> sex with men or something along those lines? Think about it. Nobody
>> "chooses" to be gay any more than they choose to be straight. Could
>> you "choose" to start getting turned on when you look at men and
>> "choose" to DESIRE to "do things" with them in a sexual way? Really?
>> I think most people realize how silly that whole notion is once they
>> think about it. Or maybe you personally just are able to make that
>> choice? I doubt it.
>>
>
>Do you think pedophiles are born that way then and should be accepted
>for who they are and what they desire? I dont have a problem with gay
>people because it is consentual, but pedophiles desire what they desire.
> Society must bend to all of our desires, no?
>-Kevin

Hmm... Looking back again, I don't see myself use the word
"pedophile" a single time. You must not be smoking your usual brand
of crack. :-) I think that gay people *miust* be born gay. I would
guess pedophiles are also born with something "tweaked" to make them
the way they are. My decision for myself concerning gay people is to
not judge them since I don't see their "gayness" doing any real harm.
On the other hand, since you asked, in my opinion it would not be a
waste of a bullet to put it in a pedophile's head. I do not agree
with you when you say that society must bed to all of our desires.
You must be some kind of weirdo to believe that. :-)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:25:20 GMT, Shag >
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:37:03 -0700, Kevin Holzer >
>wrote:
>
>>Shag wrote:
>>> So you think someone could be influenced to be gay or something? Are
>>> you trying to say that you believe you could be taught to enjoy having
>>> sex with men or something along those lines? Think about it. Nobody
>>> "chooses" to be gay any more than they choose to be straight. Could
>>> you "choose" to start getting turned on when you look at men and
>>> "choose" to DESIRE to "do things" with them in a sexual way? Really?
>>> I think most people realize how silly that whole notion is once they
>>> think about it. Or maybe you personally just are able to make that
>>> choice? I doubt it.
>>>
>>
>>Do you think pedophiles are born that way then and should be accepted
>>for who they are and what they desire? I dont have a problem with gay
>>people because it is consentual, but pedophiles desire what they desire.
>> Society must bend to all of our desires, no?
>>-Kevin
>
>Hmm... Looking back again, I don't see myself use the word
>"pedophile" a single time. You must not be smoking your usual brand
>of crack. :-) I think that gay people *miust* be born gay. I would
>guess pedophiles are also born with something "tweaked" to make them
>the way they are. My decision for myself concerning gay people is to
>not judge them since I don't see their "gayness" doing any real harm.
>On the other hand, since you asked, in my opinion it would not be a
>waste of a bullet to put it in a pedophile's head. I do not agree
>with you when you say that society must bed to all of our desires.
>You must be some kind of weirdo to believe that. :-)

*miust* = *must* and "bed" = "bend" Both are old alternate spellings
that aristocratic society used long ago that you peasants wouldn't
know anything about. *cough cough* *grumble grumble need coffee
grumble grumble*

"Kidd Andersson" > wrote in message
...
>
> And you didn't. I'm impressed. But I still like you whether you want me
> to or not. I like Chris whether he wants me to or not but I still think
> he's a prick. Actually I think most of you here are pricks. Jan can
> be a prick on occassion too. I must have a thing for pricks then, huh?
> Wonder how many more times I can say prick in one post before it gets
> redundant. Oops! Too late!
>
>

..............So there we have it. You like pricks and you love to be
redundant.

btw.........I like you too except for the tatoos and mustang.

:-)

"Shag" > wrote in message
...
>
> *miust* = *must* and "bed" = "bend" Both are old alternate spellings
> that aristocratic society used long ago that you peasants wouldn't
> know anything about. *cough cough* *grumble grumble need coffee
> grumble grumble*
>
>


must......bend.........coffee...........enema?

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:29:22 -0400, Kidd Andersson
> scribbled this interesting note:

>Tim Rogers wrote:
>
>> ...............If I wasn't so sensitive and afraid of your she-devil powers
>> of nastiness, I'd be able to say something really mean and insulting as you
>> might expect from a fat mouthed dip****.
>>
>>
>> timmy
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>
>
>And you didn't. I'm impressed. But I still like you whether you want me
>to or not. I like Chris whether he wants me to or not but I still think
>he's a prick. Actually I think most of you here are pricks. Jan can
>be a prick on occassion too. I must have a thing for pricks then, huh?
>Wonder how many more times I can say prick in one post before it gets
>redundant. Oops! Too late!
>
>K.

Does this mean you aren't a lesbian???


--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:54:03 +0200, "P.J. Berg" >
scribbled this interesting note:

>Who actually gives a ****e what becomes of the 46 year old American of
>African origin, who prefers to share his bed with very young males of
>non African origin??
>
>And no, I am not a racist, merely observing his preferences.

America is a great land. The only place I know of where one can be
born a poor black boy and grow up to be a rich white woman!:~)


--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

"Kidd Andersson" > wrote in message

> Did you not see where I repeatedly said he was entitled to his opinion?

yep...you commonly say one thing then contradict it in the next
statement...nothing new


. And you want
> to talk about maturity?

sure...who am i going to talk to? you sure aren't qualified...

I think the last time I heard anyone say crybaby
> was when that kid in 3rd grade punched the nerd in the face for taking his
> kickball.

well what is your excuse for it then? did someone punch you or take your
ball? maybe you would be happier if i called it "whining"? you say potato i
say tater....

> You can't take the fact that people don't like you being a dickhead. You
> act like an ass, someone doesn't appreciate it, and you go on the exact
> same tangent for everyone. "**** you, you're stupid".

yeah thats it....how bout working on those comprehension skills there
bubba...

Get over it or
> stop being an asshole. It's simple.

well if that is a order i guess you will be upset with me, if its a
suggestion, then no thanks...so yeah, it *is* simple...


I'm not nearly as upset as you
> apparently. Now who's got their panties in a wad?

God damn...read woman....YOU do....comprehension is your friend...


You're right, it's
> usenet. You can think whatever you want about me because in reality you
> don't know a damn thing about what I'm like for the person sitting next to
> me.

holy ****...you finally got something....and its a two way street....

> So make your threat real. Killfile me and make my day brighter.

was not a *threat* i don't make threats.....it was a statement(in a series
that were directly related, and apparently you missed most of them...again,
not surprising) that if you can't comprehend words in their correct context
it is much easier to just avoid all the ****ing bull**** bitching you
do.....you have a chip on your shoulder and a bad attitude....you seem to
feel you are *whatever* and you have something to prove...that mindset
didn't work for the last vw chick that had it....try a new angle that one is
tired....

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2672935?htv=12&htv=12
Check out the Triumph the insult dog video...

Shag wrote:
> Hmm... Looking back again, I don't see myself use the word
> "pedophile" a single time.

Never said you did. I was talking about desire and society bending to
it, making an analogy. About sexual desire in particular. If gay
people are born gay, then are pedophiles born 'lovers of children? You
seemed to agree. I'm just asking where the line is drawn for cultural
integration. Average = straight, oddity = gay, obscure = pedophile,
beastiality, on and on and on. I am cool with anything so long as it is
consentual, and tend to stay out of people's sex lives in general. I DO
think that anyone that is gay is more likely to be sexually deviant in
other ways (not nessecarily pedophilic, more than likely into groupsex
or beastiality) than a straight person simply because they have put
themselves into a more 'sexually deviant' position. Lets say one in
five people are gay or something (to keep numbers neat). One in ten
know they are gay. The every other gay person that doesnt realize it
doesnt explore avenues of their sexuality (more than likey) and will
still be worried about societies taboos.

> I do not agree
> with you when you say that society must bed to all of our desires.
> You must be some kind of weirdo to believe that. :-)

I was trying to be funny there and make fun of a lot of the more
'sexually free' than myself. Just poking fun, I'm more of a whatever
goes is cool by me, so long as you dont **** with me, kinda guy in reality.

-Kevin

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:07:01 -0700, Kevin Holzer >
wrote:

>Shag wrote:
>> Hmm... Looking back again, I don't see myself use the word
>> "pedophile" a single time.
>
>Never said you did. I was talking about desire and society bending to
>it, making an analogy. About sexual desire in particular. If gay
>people are born gay, then are pedophiles born 'lovers of children? You
>seemed to agree.

I do agree.

> I'm just asking where the line is drawn for cultural
>integration. Average = straight, oddity = gay, obscure = pedophile,
>beastiality, on and on and on.

I let you know where I draw the line. Search my last post for
"bullet." ;-)

> I am cool with anything so long as it is
>consentual,

Me too, with the added stipulation that I don't have to be exposed to
it.

> and tend to stay out of people's sex lives in general. I DO
>think that anyone that is gay is more likely to be sexually deviant in
>other ways (not nessecarily pedophilic, more than likely into groupsex
>or beastiality) than a straight person simply because they have put
>themselves into a more 'sexually deviant' position.

I agreed with you up until your last sentence and that's where you and
I are going to have to agree to totally disagree. You think that just
because someone is gay that they're more likely to have sex with
animals, even? HAHAHA! I'm sorry, but I just think that is
absolutely ridiculous.

> Lets say one in
>five people are gay or something (to keep numbers neat). One in ten
>know they are gay. The every other gay person that doesnt realize it
>doesnt explore avenues of their sexuality (more than likey) and will
>still be worried about societies taboos.

OK... Let's say that. Where are you going with that? I don't see a
point. Seriously.

>
> > I do not agree
>> with you when you say that society must bed to all of our desires.
>> You must be some kind of weirdo to believe that. :-)
>
>I was trying to be funny there and make fun of a lot of the more
>'sexually free' than myself. Just poking fun

I picked on the humor and was also trying to be funny when I said you
must be some kind of weirdo to believe that.

> I'm more of a whatever
>goes is cool by me, so long as you dont **** with me, kinda guy in reality.

I'm like that myself but I also don't "condone" behavior by someone
where that behavior is "****ing with" anyone.

>
>-Kevin