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


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
>
>

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
>
>

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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