A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #331  
Old November 18th 04, 03:20 AM
Geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


Ads
  #332  
Old November 18th 04, 03:20 AM
Geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #333  
Old November 18th 04, 04:06 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

linda wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> linda wrote:


>>>>>>> Is that the same APA that published a "scientific" study that
>>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>> it was found that pediphilia did not harm children who
>>>>>>> experienced it
>>>>>>> Bill Putney
>>>
>>>>>> Honestly, i did not know that.
>>>
>>>>> You still don't. You have Bill's assertion that it happened; let's
>>>>> see if he can back up his claim by producing the study.
>>>
>>>> Yet it's documented. But that won't be acknowledged.

>>
>> And you just proved me right.
>>
>>> Well, certainly it won't be acknowledged until you show us where you
>>> found
>>> that documentation. The assertion wasn't documented in your post, so for
>>> now it's just your assertion.

>>
>> So I give you the information where you could easily find it. Face it
>> - you aren't intersted in seeing it. You just want to attack me. Go
>> right ahead. So the diversionary issue becomes whether I can document
>> it (which I did) - not whether what I claimed is true or not.
>>

>
> NOW YOU KNOW WHAT I HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH THE PAST THOUSAND
> POSTINGS!!!!!!! How does it feel?


Well, there is a difference. I bring credible info. Criticism is easy
to slough off when you are honest. It's when you are FOS that it is so
hard to take. I am at peace.

Speaking of which, here is the documentation that Daniel "demanded" but
really didn't want to see (from some really long threads):

(from:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...t%26rnum %3D2)

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/...TOKEN=75269690


(from:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=NA...nez.net&rnum=3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ay_Association

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

Here's another eye-opener:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...489651-0635108
On that Amazon.com page, the publisher of a pro-pedophilia book cites
the "scientific" study published by the APA, using it to support their
assertion that man-boy love is a thing worthy of praise.

An excerpt from that page: "Many researchers in the fields of Psychology
and Human Sexuality have been taking a fresh look at the 'conventional'
wisdom which has been the basis for evaluation of intergenerational
male/male sexual activities. The long assumed "harm" of such activities
has failed to be supported by research, and the sociocultural
'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is therefore left without any rational
basis. An extremely thorough and exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic
Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College
Samples' was published in the July, 1998 Psychological Bulletin, the
journal of the American Psychological Association. It brought forth
howls of protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and
including the United States House of Representatives, but after the
furor subsided, the paper, having been subjected to intensive
examination at every level, has been judged to be true, accurate and
objective science."

Just a little light reading for your enjoyment. That documentation
enough? You'll have to research the Congressional Record yourself (they
don't make it easy), but the Wikipedia article pretty much establishes
it. I've done all the heavy lifting.

Let me guess: Now that I have presented the documentation, I will be
criticized for having done so by the very people demanding it. But
that's how liberals are.

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 =---
  #334  
Old November 18th 04, 04:06 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

linda wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> linda wrote:


>>>>>>> Is that the same APA that published a "scientific" study that
>>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>> it was found that pediphilia did not harm children who
>>>>>>> experienced it
>>>>>>> Bill Putney
>>>
>>>>>> Honestly, i did not know that.
>>>
>>>>> You still don't. You have Bill's assertion that it happened; let's
>>>>> see if he can back up his claim by producing the study.
>>>
>>>> Yet it's documented. But that won't be acknowledged.

>>
>> And you just proved me right.
>>
>>> Well, certainly it won't be acknowledged until you show us where you
>>> found
>>> that documentation. The assertion wasn't documented in your post, so for
>>> now it's just your assertion.

>>
>> So I give you the information where you could easily find it. Face it
>> - you aren't intersted in seeing it. You just want to attack me. Go
>> right ahead. So the diversionary issue becomes whether I can document
>> it (which I did) - not whether what I claimed is true or not.
>>

>
> NOW YOU KNOW WHAT I HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH THE PAST THOUSAND
> POSTINGS!!!!!!! How does it feel?


Well, there is a difference. I bring credible info. Criticism is easy
to slough off when you are honest. It's when you are FOS that it is so
hard to take. I am at peace.

Speaking of which, here is the documentation that Daniel "demanded" but
really didn't want to see (from some really long threads):

(from:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...t%26rnum %3D2)

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/...TOKEN=75269690


(from:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=NA...nez.net&rnum=3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ay_Association

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

Here's another eye-opener:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...489651-0635108
On that Amazon.com page, the publisher of a pro-pedophilia book cites
the "scientific" study published by the APA, using it to support their
assertion that man-boy love is a thing worthy of praise.

An excerpt from that page: "Many researchers in the fields of Psychology
and Human Sexuality have been taking a fresh look at the 'conventional'
wisdom which has been the basis for evaluation of intergenerational
male/male sexual activities. The long assumed "harm" of such activities
has failed to be supported by research, and the sociocultural
'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is therefore left without any rational
basis. An extremely thorough and exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic
Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College
Samples' was published in the July, 1998 Psychological Bulletin, the
journal of the American Psychological Association. It brought forth
howls of protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and
including the United States House of Representatives, but after the
furor subsided, the paper, having been subjected to intensive
examination at every level, has been judged to be true, accurate and
objective science."

Just a little light reading for your enjoyment. That documentation
enough? You'll have to research the Congressional Record yourself (they
don't make it easy), but the Wikipedia article pretty much establishes
it. I've done all the heavy lifting.

Let me guess: Now that I have presented the documentation, I will be
criticized for having done so by the very people demanding it. But
that's how liberals are.

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 =---
  #335  
Old November 18th 04, 04:15 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> > Riiiight. They've purged it. And the APA and the UN endorse NAMBLA.
> > Uh-huh.

>
> I said they *may* have purged it - not sure - don't really care


You cared enough to bring it up, so bring it on: Show me your source.

> Like I said, UN endorsing NAMBLA and pedophilia is
> documented - not only here, but in the Congressional Record.


Fine. Post a URL.

> All you need to do is check out Wikipedia on NAMBLA - look at the whole
> blog on that - you can see where it went back and forth on including and
> deleting the UN debacle


Gee, Bill, I went to www.wikipedia.com, which redirects to
http://en.wikipedia.org , and searched on NAMBLA. I read the entire
article, the entire discussion page, and the entire history page, and
there was not a single, solitary mention of anything about the UN
endorsing NAMBLA or pedophilia. The only mention of the UN is this one:

"In the early 1990s, the International Lesbian and Gay Association had its
United Nations Economic and Social Council non-governmental organization
status withdrawn after it was revealed it had links to NAMBLA. ILGA then
expelled NAMBLA from the organization, but still has not been able to get
back consultative status."

Now, that certainly doesn't look like the UN "endorsing NAMBLA". Quite the
opposite, in fact. How do you explain that, Bill? Maybe I was looking at
the wrong URL, or perhaps the wrong Wikipedia. How 'bout if you supply a
URL or two? Here, I'll show you mine if you show me yours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...ve_Association

> somebody didn't want it known, but you can't erase the Congressional
> Record


Good, then you should have no trouble showing me the relevant part of the
Congressional Record.

DS
  #336  
Old November 18th 04, 04:15 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> > Riiiight. They've purged it. And the APA and the UN endorse NAMBLA.
> > Uh-huh.

>
> I said they *may* have purged it - not sure - don't really care


You cared enough to bring it up, so bring it on: Show me your source.

> Like I said, UN endorsing NAMBLA and pedophilia is
> documented - not only here, but in the Congressional Record.


Fine. Post a URL.

> All you need to do is check out Wikipedia on NAMBLA - look at the whole
> blog on that - you can see where it went back and forth on including and
> deleting the UN debacle


Gee, Bill, I went to www.wikipedia.com, which redirects to
http://en.wikipedia.org , and searched on NAMBLA. I read the entire
article, the entire discussion page, and the entire history page, and
there was not a single, solitary mention of anything about the UN
endorsing NAMBLA or pedophilia. The only mention of the UN is this one:

"In the early 1990s, the International Lesbian and Gay Association had its
United Nations Economic and Social Council non-governmental organization
status withdrawn after it was revealed it had links to NAMBLA. ILGA then
expelled NAMBLA from the organization, but still has not been able to get
back consultative status."

Now, that certainly doesn't look like the UN "endorsing NAMBLA". Quite the
opposite, in fact. How do you explain that, Bill? Maybe I was looking at
the wrong URL, or perhaps the wrong Wikipedia. How 'bout if you supply a
URL or two? Here, I'll show you mine if you show me yours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...ve_Association

> somebody didn't want it known, but you can't erase the Congressional
> Record


Good, then you should have no trouble showing me the relevant part of the
Congressional Record.

DS
  #337  
Old November 18th 04, 04:17 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

>>>>>> APA published a "scientific" study that said that it was found that
>>>>>> pediphilia did not harm children


>>>>> Honestly, i did not know that.


>>>> You still don't. You have Bill's assertion that it happened; let's
>>>> see if he can back up his claim by producing the study.


>>>Yet it's documented. But that won't be acknowledged.


> And you just proved me right.


Bill, saying "It's documented!" isn't the same as providing documentation
for your assertion. Not even if you say "It's documented!" more than once.

> > Well, certainly it won't be acknowledged until you show us where you
> > found that documentation. The assertion wasn't documented in your
> > post, so for now it's just your assertion.


> So I give you the information where you could easily find it.


Good! I'm waiting! Go right ahead and do so!

> you aren't intersted in seeing it.


Which must explain why I've asked to see it so many times, right?

  #338  
Old November 18th 04, 04:17 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

>>>>>> APA published a "scientific" study that said that it was found that
>>>>>> pediphilia did not harm children


>>>>> Honestly, i did not know that.


>>>> You still don't. You have Bill's assertion that it happened; let's
>>>> see if he can back up his claim by producing the study.


>>>Yet it's documented. But that won't be acknowledged.


> And you just proved me right.


Bill, saying "It's documented!" isn't the same as providing documentation
for your assertion. Not even if you say "It's documented!" more than once.

> > Well, certainly it won't be acknowledged until you show us where you
> > found that documentation. The assertion wasn't documented in your
> > post, so for now it's just your assertion.


> So I give you the information where you could easily find it.


Good! I'm waiting! Go right ahead and do so!

> you aren't intersted in seeing it.


Which must explain why I've asked to see it so many times, right?

  #339  
Old November 18th 04, 04:42 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>Riiiight. They've purged it. And the APA and the UN endorse NAMBLA.
>>>Uh-huh.

>>
>>I said they *may* have purged it - not sure - don't really care

>
>
> You cared enough to bring it up, so bring it on: Show me your source.
>
>
>>Like I said, UN endorsing NAMBLA and pedophilia is
>>documented - not only here, but in the Congressional Record.

>
>
> Fine. Post a URL.


Unfortunate timing on your part. I posted it just a few minutes before
you posted the above - crossed in the mail. I'll let you take care of
the Cong. Record thing. The Wikipedia article references the
Congressional activity on the incident - suffice it to say that it is
indisputable that it happened and is documented in the Cong. Record.

I remember hearing a few cryptic news stories in the 90's for a week or
two about the U.S. being behind in their U.N. dues, but the news media
apparently simply "forgot" to report the *WHY* of our being behind
leaving the false impression with the public that we were refusing to
pay our dues just because we could - you know - American arrogance being
what it is and all that rot. I hate when that happens. 8^)

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 =---
  #340  
Old November 18th 04, 04:42 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>Riiiight. They've purged it. And the APA and the UN endorse NAMBLA.
>>>Uh-huh.

>>
>>I said they *may* have purged it - not sure - don't really care

>
>
> You cared enough to bring it up, so bring it on: Show me your source.
>
>
>>Like I said, UN endorsing NAMBLA and pedophilia is
>>documented - not only here, but in the Congressional Record.

>
>
> Fine. Post a URL.


Unfortunate timing on your part. I posted it just a few minutes before
you posted the above - crossed in the mail. I'll let you take care of
the Cong. Record thing. The Wikipedia article references the
Congressional activity on the incident - suffice it to say that it is
indisputable that it happened and is documented in the Cong. Record.

I remember hearing a few cryptic news stories in the 90's for a week or
two about the U.S. being behind in their U.N. dues, but the news media
apparently simply "forgot" to report the *WHY* of our being behind
leaving the false impression with the public that we were refusing to
pay our dues just because we could - you know - American arrogance being
what it is and all that rot. I hate when that happens. 8^)

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 =---
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy Michael Barnes Driving 4 January 4th 05 07:47 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec [email protected] Chrysler 37 November 18th 04 05:18 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy Paul Antique cars 3 November 9th 04 07:54 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec indago Chrysler 7 November 8th 04 06:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.