![]() |
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 |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Geoff wrote:
> > linda wrote: > > >>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:22:34 GMT >>From: linda > >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler >>Subject: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! >> ___________ mixqec >> >>next you will be calling me a gay man in a woman's body!!!!! > > > An interesting non-sequiter. What, pray tell, gave you this idea? > > >>my self esteem is just fine, thank you... as for your self esteem, i >>think it is overblown (inflated)..... >> > > > Just calling it like I see it, ma'am. By the way, I wasn't referring to > your self-esteem (which is also apparently low) but rather your > self-image, quite a different thing entirely. Perhaps you ought to learn the difference > between the two before you rather hamfistedly go about making > accusations of egotism. Might I suggest http://www.dictionary.com? > Fortunately, no capitalization skills are required to use that site. > i stand corrected only on my mistake "esteem vs image"... but i still say it was cute the way you and many others came to THE DUKE's defense. ;-) however, i only have my opinion and not website to refer to ... > Fondly, > --Geoff > > >>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 >> |
Ads |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Geoff wrote:
> > linda wrote: > > >>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:22:34 GMT >>From: linda > >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler >>Subject: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! >> ___________ mixqec >> >>next you will be calling me a gay man in a woman's body!!!!! > > > An interesting non-sequiter. What, pray tell, gave you this idea? > > >>my self esteem is just fine, thank you... as for your self esteem, i >>think it is overblown (inflated)..... >> > > > Just calling it like I see it, ma'am. By the way, I wasn't referring to > your self-esteem (which is also apparently low) but rather your > self-image, quite a different thing entirely. Perhaps you ought to learn the difference > between the two before you rather hamfistedly go about making > accusations of egotism. Might I suggest http://www.dictionary.com? > Fortunately, no capitalization skills are required to use that site. > i stand corrected only on my mistake "esteem vs image"... but i still say it was cute the way you and many others came to THE DUKE's defense. ;-) however, i only have my opinion and not website to refer to ... > Fondly, > --Geoff > > >>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 >> |
#373
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Can you people PLEASE stop cross posting this off topic political crap in
these automotive news groups. Linda wrote: > I really hate that you guys have brought me down to your level... i > am a nice person, really a very nice person.... regardless of all the > thoughtless comments about my intelligence, regardless of all the > comments about my lack of ability to communicate like *real men*. > regardless of my refusing to conform to the norm and Capitalize every > DAMN THING!!!!!!! if you ask me, you all try to out pompous each > other... and at whose expense?... (Daniel and a few others are > exceptions.. Ted is trying to teach me how to communicate > effectively; Daniel is a wealth of knowledge and can see through my > supposed lack of intelligence and see that my heart is good and he > has an innate ability to INTERPRET to you *men* out there, what I, as > a stupid female, am trying to say....) Do all you men treat your > mothers, wives, sweethearts, significant others with such disdain and > disrespect?.... i pity the poor women in your lives it you do. > > > And i am still waiting on a response about the "TROUBLE" i am going > to get into.. veiled threats? > > since you all have gotten rid of me one way, i will respond > another.... thanks guys!!! just proves my point... > > > "Sparky" > wrote in message > . net... >> Bill Putney wrote: >> >>> Abeness wrote: >>> >>>> vince garcia wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed >>>>> that give people the right to forbid his going into their places >>>>> of business because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels >>>>> he's being discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the >>>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their >>>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal >>>> details. I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people >>>> were sucking on each other, for example. That's not the >>>> environment I'd want in my business. But the line is a difficult >>>> one to navigate: some might argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals >>>> would be offensive to their customers, just as white folks in >>>> times past argued that blacks in their establishments would be >>>> offensive. Times change, thankfully, and justice must prevail. >>>> >>>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of >>>>> choice". "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal >>>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more >>>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality >>>> for many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case >>>> legislating against homosexuality is akin to legislating against >>>> people based on their skin color--it's just the way they were >>>> born, and how could they possibly choose otherwise. >>> >>> >>> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow >>> me to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges. >>> >>>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', >>>>> what right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! >>>>> They're not hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to >>>>> each other even if >>>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to >>>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You have a point here. ;-) >>>> >>>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and >>>> will not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic >>>> impact would be a significant guiding factor in such >>>> considerations. Just think of the health insurance lobby's >>>> reaction when confronted by your hypothesis! >>>> >>>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds >>>>> from driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. >>>>> Only people who don't understand the law and the constitution >>>>> believe discrimination >>>>> is always unconstitutional. >>>> >>>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of >>>> public safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, >>>> the issue is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're >>>> trying to prevent abuse of power with these laws. >>>> >>>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the >>>>> system works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do >>>>> whatever the hell >>>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is >>>>> and IS NOT acceptable behavior and practice. >>>> >>>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, >>>> is (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want >>>> to see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in >>>> public. I don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at >>>> the bus stop. And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in >>>> cartoons on TV (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We >>>> don't allow public "fornication" by anyone. >>> >>> >>> Although that is being pushed for by some also. >>> >>>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means >>>> to consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do >>>> so. >>> >>> >>> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government >>> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree - >>> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove >>> otherwise. >> >> KNOTHEAD! |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Can you people PLEASE stop cross posting this off topic political crap in
these automotive news groups. Linda wrote: > I really hate that you guys have brought me down to your level... i > am a nice person, really a very nice person.... regardless of all the > thoughtless comments about my intelligence, regardless of all the > comments about my lack of ability to communicate like *real men*. > regardless of my refusing to conform to the norm and Capitalize every > DAMN THING!!!!!!! if you ask me, you all try to out pompous each > other... and at whose expense?... (Daniel and a few others are > exceptions.. Ted is trying to teach me how to communicate > effectively; Daniel is a wealth of knowledge and can see through my > supposed lack of intelligence and see that my heart is good and he > has an innate ability to INTERPRET to you *men* out there, what I, as > a stupid female, am trying to say....) Do all you men treat your > mothers, wives, sweethearts, significant others with such disdain and > disrespect?.... i pity the poor women in your lives it you do. > > > And i am still waiting on a response about the "TROUBLE" i am going > to get into.. veiled threats? > > since you all have gotten rid of me one way, i will respond > another.... thanks guys!!! just proves my point... > > > "Sparky" > wrote in message > . net... >> Bill Putney wrote: >> >>> Abeness wrote: >>> >>>> vince garcia wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed >>>>> that give people the right to forbid his going into their places >>>>> of business because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels >>>>> he's being discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the >>>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their >>>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal >>>> details. I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people >>>> were sucking on each other, for example. That's not the >>>> environment I'd want in my business. But the line is a difficult >>>> one to navigate: some might argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals >>>> would be offensive to their customers, just as white folks in >>>> times past argued that blacks in their establishments would be >>>> offensive. Times change, thankfully, and justice must prevail. >>>> >>>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of >>>>> choice". "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal >>>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more >>>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality >>>> for many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case >>>> legislating against homosexuality is akin to legislating against >>>> people based on their skin color--it's just the way they were >>>> born, and how could they possibly choose otherwise. >>> >>> >>> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow >>> me to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges. >>> >>>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', >>>>> what right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! >>>>> They're not hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to >>>>> each other even if >>>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to >>>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You have a point here. ;-) >>>> >>>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and >>>> will not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic >>>> impact would be a significant guiding factor in such >>>> considerations. Just think of the health insurance lobby's >>>> reaction when confronted by your hypothesis! >>>> >>>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds >>>>> from driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. >>>>> Only people who don't understand the law and the constitution >>>>> believe discrimination >>>>> is always unconstitutional. >>>> >>>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of >>>> public safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, >>>> the issue is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're >>>> trying to prevent abuse of power with these laws. >>>> >>>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the >>>>> system works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do >>>>> whatever the hell >>>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is >>>>> and IS NOT acceptable behavior and practice. >>>> >>>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, >>>> is (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want >>>> to see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in >>>> public. I don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at >>>> the bus stop. And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in >>>> cartoons on TV (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We >>>> don't allow public "fornication" by anyone. >>> >>> >>> Although that is being pushed for by some also. >>> >>>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means >>>> to consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do >>>> so. >>> >>> >>> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government >>> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree - >>> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove >>> otherwise. >> >> KNOTHEAD! |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bill Putney wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote: > >>>> Fine. Post a URL. >> You made the assertion, you back it up -- if you can. >> >> >>> The Wikipedia article references the >>> Congressional activity on the incident OK so, Daniel - you do see that the following paragraph (that was in the previous post from the Wikipedia article) was attributed by Wikipedia to the VSG (a major German gay/pedophile organization. I would think that would be credible documentation to you. Or perhaps you think that they are bold enough to totally make it all up. > ******"In January 1994, the AMERICAN SENATE, on the motion of the > right-wing senator Jesse Helms, UNANIMOUSLY decided that the USA had to > WITHHOLD FUNDS of more than 118 million dollars due to the UN and its > sub-organizations unless the President of the USA could certify to the > CONGRESS by 30 September 1994 that no agency of the UNITED NATIONS > 'grants any official status, accreditation or recognition to any > organization which promotes, condones or seeks the legalization of > pedophilia or which includes as a subsidiary or member any such > organization'. (From the VSG release)"****** (emphasis added so you > don't miss it) Below is your documentation from, among other places, the U.S. Senate's official web site, the U.S. Gov't's Library of Congress's using "Thomas", which is the Library of Congress's official tool for archiving and searching the activities of Congress, including the Congressional Record, for government and public access,. AFAIK, it is the closest thing to on-line public availability of the Congressional Record. You'll have to accept that - I can't (or at least won't) obtain and mail you a hard copy of the actual Congressional Record, though that will probably be your next demand before you accept the obvious. If this isn't an acceptable source, then you probably would argue with someone who stated that they dropped a wrench and it hit the floor, because they would first have to prove gravity to you from a source of your approval. 1) On this one, hit the "CR S66 link" and then item 3 ("HELMS AMENDMENTS NOS. 1248-1249") for the official on-line Congressional Record of the actual bill/amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:SP1248: 2) A couple of pages establishing what "Thomas" is, and that it is part of the Library of Congress for documentation of Federal legislation, the Congressional record, etc., etc., etc.: http://thomas.loc.gov/tfaqs/homepage.html http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html?40,10 3) Documentation of the bill on the Senate's web site: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...2&vote =00002 4) The Google search that turned up some of this schtuff: http://www.google.com/search?q=Helms...start=0&s a=N 5) From Dianne Feinstein's web site (simply because it showed up in the Google search - threw it in because it was there): http://feinstein.senate.gov/105/1032.html Now Linda - if you are reading this (and just in case you are, I'm typing really slowly), in the above links, when you see the words "annals" and "query", don't be confused - they have nothing to do with anyone being gay, per-se (though there certainly could be things like "annals of gay history", or doing a "query" on a web site about "gay rights". Didn't want you to be confused by that. 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 =--- |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bill Putney wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote: > >>>> Fine. Post a URL. >> You made the assertion, you back it up -- if you can. >> >> >>> The Wikipedia article references the >>> Congressional activity on the incident OK so, Daniel - you do see that the following paragraph (that was in the previous post from the Wikipedia article) was attributed by Wikipedia to the VSG (a major German gay/pedophile organization. I would think that would be credible documentation to you. Or perhaps you think that they are bold enough to totally make it all up. > ******"In January 1994, the AMERICAN SENATE, on the motion of the > right-wing senator Jesse Helms, UNANIMOUSLY decided that the USA had to > WITHHOLD FUNDS of more than 118 million dollars due to the UN and its > sub-organizations unless the President of the USA could certify to the > CONGRESS by 30 September 1994 that no agency of the UNITED NATIONS > 'grants any official status, accreditation or recognition to any > organization which promotes, condones or seeks the legalization of > pedophilia or which includes as a subsidiary or member any such > organization'. (From the VSG release)"****** (emphasis added so you > don't miss it) Below is your documentation from, among other places, the U.S. Senate's official web site, the U.S. Gov't's Library of Congress's using "Thomas", which is the Library of Congress's official tool for archiving and searching the activities of Congress, including the Congressional Record, for government and public access,. AFAIK, it is the closest thing to on-line public availability of the Congressional Record. You'll have to accept that - I can't (or at least won't) obtain and mail you a hard copy of the actual Congressional Record, though that will probably be your next demand before you accept the obvious. If this isn't an acceptable source, then you probably would argue with someone who stated that they dropped a wrench and it hit the floor, because they would first have to prove gravity to you from a source of your approval. 1) On this one, hit the "CR S66 link" and then item 3 ("HELMS AMENDMENTS NOS. 1248-1249") for the official on-line Congressional Record of the actual bill/amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:SP1248: 2) A couple of pages establishing what "Thomas" is, and that it is part of the Library of Congress for documentation of Federal legislation, the Congressional record, etc., etc., etc.: http://thomas.loc.gov/tfaqs/homepage.html http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html?40,10 3) Documentation of the bill on the Senate's web site: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...2&vote =00002 4) The Google search that turned up some of this schtuff: http://www.google.com/search?q=Helms...start=0&s a=N 5) From Dianne Feinstein's web site (simply because it showed up in the Google search - threw it in because it was there): http://feinstein.senate.gov/105/1032.html Now Linda - if you are reading this (and just in case you are, I'm typing really slowly), in the above links, when you see the words "annals" and "query", don't be confused - they have nothing to do with anyone being gay, per-se (though there certainly could be things like "annals of gay history", or doing a "query" on a web site about "gay rights". Didn't want you to be confused by that. 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 =--- |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
#378
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
#379
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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? |
#380
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |