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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:50:34 GMT, linda >
wrote: >Big Bill wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:43:55 GMT, linda > >> wrote: >> >> >>>>>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? >> >> >> Then why did you post what you knew would be a post that would >> generate requests for some evidence??? >> >Honestly, I did not realize that there were so many duke fans, and again >as stated, I admitted, i did not find any site to support a claim that >our beloved duke was *OMG* gay..... Are you *really* that naive? Or just that young? Sure, you posted that thinking, "No one here knows who The Duke is, so I can say whatever I want, and no one will even think twice about it." This is Usenet. if you don't understand it, lurk for a while. Primary rule: never post without some idea of how to defend what you say. Especially when you malign an ICON. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Big Bill" > wrote in message news >>Honestly, I did not realize that there were so many duke fans, and again >>as stated, I admitted, i did not find any site to support a claim that >>our beloved duke was *OMG* gay..... > > Are you *really* that naive? Or just that young? > Sure, you posted that thinking, "No one here knows who The Duke is, so > I can say whatever I want, and no one will even think twice about it." > This is Usenet. if you don't understand it, lurk for a while. > Primary rule: never post without some idea of how to defend what you > say. Especially when you malign an ICON. Malign? How? Is being gay still a big deal in the US? |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote: > > >>>Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is noted. >> >>Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest. > > > Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together; you > are. > > >>You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point that the >>criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two *humans*, both >>parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than the criteria that a >>marriage must be between one man and one woman. > > > It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but > that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and dogs are > not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees, rocks and dogs do > not write laws. Religious and political beliefs are held by humans, not by > trees, rocks or dogs. So, once again, you are applying arbitrary criteria. Your limiting it with your word "society". Someone else could arbitrarily say "I think your criteria that both parties have to belong to 'society' as you deifne it is much to narrow. I choose to say that it is limited only to anything on the planet earth". Remember - your standard is that you have no standard but someone's opinion. Not my choice, but yours - simply holding you to it and not allowing you to step on someone elses rights who wants to arbitrarily boundary things by some other criteria than what you arbitrarily decide on. >>I claim, although, tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose your >>very narrow and chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call them your own >>religious beliefs) on others. > > > I call your bluff: How? You can't be this lacking of mental capacity. Just one example is all I'm gonna waste time on for you: Cirteria of it has to be between two humans. As arbitrary as any other criteria. >>Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no >>other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view on >>others? > > > No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for you > about the concept of "consenting adults"? Not a thing. What you pretend not to understand is that that is an arbitrary criteria. >>One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for medical >>reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So why not >>brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister - no medical >>problem there since no children can be produced by that "relationship" >>(we'll overlook for the moment one of the main purposes of true >>marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would be "sexually" >>discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro and bro but not bro >>and sis - clearly a case of sexual discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think. >> So by liberal/ACLU-think, you'd then have to allow sis and sis >>"marriage". > > > Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your tortured > hypotheticals. Nope - just trying to think like an ACLU/liberal, but, you're right - it is tortured and painful, but that's the way they are - don't shoot the messenger. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Linda wrote:
<snip> Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD". Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text. TIA |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Putney wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote: >> >> >>>> Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is >>>> noted. >>> >>> Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest. >> >> >> Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together; >> you are. >> >> >>> You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point >>> that the criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two >>> *humans*, both parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than >>> the criteria that a marriage must be between one man and one woman. >> >> >> It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but >> that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and >> dogs are not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees, >> rocks and dogs do not write laws. Religious and political beliefs >> are held by humans, not by trees, rocks or dogs. > > So, once again, you are applying arbitrary criteria. Your limiting > it > with your word "society". Someone else could arbitrarily say "I think > your criteria that both parties have to belong to 'society' as you > deifne it is much to narrow. I choose to say that it is limited only > to > anything on the planet earth". Remember - your standard is that you > have no standard but someone's opinion. Not my choice, but yours - > simply holding you to it and not allowing you to step on someone elses > rights who wants to arbitrarily boundary things by some other criteria > than what you arbitrarily decide on. > >>> I claim, although, tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose >>> your very narrow and chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call >>> them your own religious beliefs) on others. >> >> >> I call your bluff: How? > > You can't be this lacking of mental capacity. Just one example is all > I'm gonna waste time on for you: Cirteria of it has to be between two > humans. As arbitrary as any other criteria. > >>> Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no >>> other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view >>> on others? >> >> >> No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for >> you about the concept of "consenting adults"? > > Not a thing. What you pretend not to understand is that that is an > arbitrary criteria. > >>> One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for >>> medical reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So >>> why not brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister - >>> no medical problem there since no children can be produced by that >>> "relationship" (we'll overlook for the moment one of the main >>> purposes of true marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would >>> be "sexually" discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro >>> and bro but not bro and sis - clearly a case of sexual >>> discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think. So by liberal/ACLU-think, >>> you'd then have to allow sis and sis "marriage". >> >> >> Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your >> tortured hypotheticals. > > Nope - just trying to think like an ACLU/liberal, but, you're right - > it > is tortured and painful, but that's the way they are - don't shoot the > messenger. > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') > > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet > News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the > World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total > Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Sparky wrote:
> Linda wrote: > > <snip> > > Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD". > Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text. > > TIA |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Sparky wrote:
> Linda wrote: > > <snip> > > Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD". > Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text. > > TIA Sparkmeister - according to the attributions my browser shows, you did post "KNOTHEAD". I had even commented to you that it was a nice pun. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:50:34 GMT, linda > > wrote: > > >>Big Bill wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:43:55 GMT, linda > >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>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? >>> >>> >>>Then why did you post what you knew would be a post that would >>>generate requests for some evidence??? >>> >> >>Honestly, I did not realize that there were so many duke fans, and again >>as stated, I admitted, i did not find any site to support a claim that >>our beloved duke was *OMG* gay..... > > > Are you *really* that naive? Or just that young? > Sure, you posted that thinking, "No one here knows who The Duke is, so > I can say whatever I want, and no one will even think twice about it." > This is Usenet. if you don't understand it, lurk for a while. > Primary rule: never post without some idea of how to defend what you > say. Especially when you malign an ICON. > i wish i really were that naive... to be that young again! thank you for thinking both.... Actually, I was NOT the original poster that the DUKE was gay. Re-Read your original posts.... |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Bigelow wrote:
> "Big Bill" > wrote in message > news > >>>Honestly, I did not realize that there were so many duke fans, and again >>>as stated, I admitted, i did not find any site to support a claim that >>>our beloved duke was *OMG* gay..... >> >>Are you *really* that naive? Or just that young? >>Sure, you posted that thinking, "No one here knows who The Duke is, so >>I can say whatever I want, and no one will even think twice about it." >>This is Usenet. if you don't understand it, lurk for a while. >>Primary rule: never post without some idea of how to defend what you >>say. Especially when you malign an ICON. > > > Malign? > How? Is being gay still a big deal in the US? > also, i would like to interject: is it against the *rules* to be Gay and an ICON? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro | Tim Klopfenstein | VW air cooled | 43 | November 30th 04 05:10 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro | Napalm Heart | Mazda | 20 | November 30th 04 05:10 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro | David Gravereaux | VW air cooled | 63 | November 29th 04 08:00 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ityzn | Nate Nagel | VW water cooled | 0 | November 8th 04 12:29 AM |