Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

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!

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???

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

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.....

You really should not run yourself down so much. People will get the
opinion you lack certain qualities common to nice people. IMHO. And,
if some people throughout history had not gotten down in the trenches
and worked on the same level as those they seek to influence, a lot of
things would never have come to be... like equal rights, sufferage,
the vote, etc. It takes a hell of a lot of strength and courage to
swim upstream.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:01:40 GMT, "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!
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

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"

"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?

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 =---

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

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 =---

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....