Discussion:
The Queer Game
(too old to reply)
Wilson Woods
2009-08-10 22:40:53 UTC
Permalink
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
of Queers immediately and reflexively try to play a hand of The Queer
Game. The Queer Game is calling someone who criticizes queers and the
queer agenda a closet queer. It's an obvious and laughable rhetorical
game, but the practitioners of it are not deterred by the transparency
of their shabby effort. They all cite exactly the same bullshit
pseudo-scientific and thoroughly discredited "study", too. I've seen it
cited literally a dozen times in the last month. Of course, *none* of
the would-be players of The Queer Game has actually /read/ the so-called
"study", and none seems to appreciate that no one, not even the authors,
has ever attempted to replicate the so-called "study's" results. In
fact, the study was the most laughably politically motivated crapola
going in a field that is dominated by politically motivated crapola.
Psychology is widely acknowledged as the second least rigorous social
science, and barely a baby step above the least rigorous (sociology).
Psychology is nothing more than poetry: if you like it, it's good; and
if you don't, it's not good. There is no scientific or academic rigor
to it at all. The Great Defenders of Queers will howl in retort that
this "study" appeared in a "peer-reviewed journal", but they neglect to
note that the "studies" claiming to have conducted cold fusion in
tabletop jars *also* were published in "peer-reviewed" journals, and
that doesn't change the fact that they were *FRAUDULENT*.

The author of that *one* study that all players of The Queer Game cite
undermined his own conclusion:

Adams notes that there are at least two competing explanations for
the fact that homophobic men would be aroused by "male homosexual
erotic stimuli." One is the Freudian explanation in terms of latent
homosexuality. Despite their protests, these heterosexual homophobes
are secret homosexuals. Another explanation, however, is that

viewing homosexual stimuli causes negative emotions such as
anxiety in homophobic men but not in non-homophobic men. Because
anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection, this
theory would predict increases in erection in homophobic men.
Furthermore, it would indicate that a response to homosexual
stimuli is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual
arousal per se.

http://www.skepdic.com/penilep.html


But that won't stop dedicated players of The Queer Game. They'll keep
citing that "study" - a "study" they haven't read, and are incompetent
to read - as if it "proves" their point. It doesn't, of course -
they're just playing a political game: The Queer Game. They have to
insult and demean queers in order to play it, too.
W.T.S.
2009-08-10 23:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer! There's no other explaination. You don't need a study to know that.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-10 23:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
Galen Hekhuis
2009-08-10 23:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such? So
what is the "other" explanation?
Wilson Woods
2009-08-10 23:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
Galen Hekhuis
2009-08-10 23:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them? If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
A heterosexual male should make every effort to encourage male
homosexual behavior: Less competition, it's obvious.

Who hates gays? Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else
would be so worried about it?
Wilson Woods
2009-08-10 23:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them?
Seemingly, quite a few.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
You're really stretching. Queers are a tiny minority - barely enough to
change the odds. You don't really even believe this yourself.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
A heterosexual male should make every effort to encourage male
homosexual behavior: Less competition, it's obvious.
Junk speculation.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Who hates gays? Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else
would be so worried about it?
You're merely repeating your propaganda. Your conclusion simply does
not follow logically - nor do you even think it might. You're just
playing the game - The Queer Game. You don't even play it very well,
either.
Galen Hekhuis
2009-08-11 00:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them?
Seemingly, quite a few.
Yeah, and after awhile, they turn out to be gay. As evidenced by that
preacher and that senator. It just seems that those who scream the
loudest about being anti-gay turn out to be the gayest.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
You're really stretching. Queers are a tiny minority - barely enough to
change the odds. You don't really even believe this yourself.
I know I've been at parties where I wished even a teeny, tiny per cent
of the guys were gay. Or dead. Or not there. More women for me.
Guess you've never been there
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
A heterosexual male should make every effort to encourage male
homosexual behavior: Less competition, it's obvious.
Junk speculation.
Too close, huh?
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Who hates gays? Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else
would be so worried about it?
You're merely repeating your propaganda. Your conclusion simply does
not follow logically - nor do you even think it might. You're just
playing the game - The Queer Game. You don't even play it very well,
either.
OK
Wilson Woods
2009-08-11 00:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them?
Seemingly, quite a few.
Yeah, and after awhile, they turn out to be gay.
No, that's just your indoctrination talking, and your silly glee at
playing The Queer Game. You have no evidence to support your
*political* belief that critics of queers are themselves queer.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
You're really stretching. Queers are a tiny minority - barely enough to
change the odds. You don't really even believe this yourself.
I know I've been at parties where I wished even a teeny, tiny per cent
of the guys were gay. Or dead. Or not there. More women for me.
Guess you've never been there
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
A heterosexual male should make every effort to encourage male
homosexual behavior: Less competition, it's obvious.
Junk speculation.
Too close, huh?
No. That was just another weak feint in the game, wasn't it?
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Who hates gays? Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else
would be so worried about it?
You're merely repeating your propaganda. Your conclusion simply does
not follow logically - nor do you even think it might. You're just
playing the game - The Queer Game. You don't even play it very well,
either.
OK
But it won't stop you. You'll keep right on playing it, for purely
political reasons.
anonymous
2009-08-12 05:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them?
Seemingly, quite a few.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
You're really stretching. Queers are a tiny minority - barely enough to
change the odds. You don't really even believe this yourself.
Actually, men who hate homosexuals usually have trouble dealing with
authority or people in general. Women know this.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
A heterosexual male should make every effort to encourage male
homosexual behavior: Less competition, it's obvious.
Junk speculation.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Who hates gays? Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else
would be so worried about it?
You're merely repeating your propaganda. Your conclusion simply does
not follow logically - nor do you even think it might. You're just
playing the game - The Queer Game. You don't even play it very well,
either.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 13:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them?
Seemingly, quite a few.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
You're really stretching. Queers are a tiny minority - barely enough to
change the odds. You don't really even believe this yourself.
Actually, men who hate homosexuals usually have trouble dealing with
authority or people in general. Women know this.
Actually, you just made that up. It's just another "play" attempt in
The Queer Game.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
A heterosexual male should make every effort to encourage male
homosexual behavior: Less competition, it's obvious.
Junk speculation.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Who hates gays? Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else
would be so worried about it?
You're merely repeating your propaganda. Your conclusion simply does
not follow logically - nor do you even think it might. You're just
playing the game - The Queer Game. You don't even play it very well,
either.
anonymous
2009-08-12 19:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them?
Seemingly, quite a few.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
You're really stretching. Queers are a tiny minority - barely enough to
change the odds. You don't really even believe this yourself.
Actually, men who hate homosexuals usually have trouble dealing with
authority or people in general. Women know this.
Actually, you just made that up. It's just another "play" attempt in
The Queer Game.
No, Wilson, not at all made up. It is evident daily.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
A heterosexual male should make every effort to encourage male
homosexual behavior: Less competition, it's obvious.
Junk speculation.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Who hates gays? Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else
would be so worried about it?
You're merely repeating your propaganda. Your conclusion simply does
not follow logically - nor do you even think it might. You're just
playing the game - The Queer Game. You don't even play it very well,
either.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 19:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them?
Seemingly, quite a few.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
You're really stretching. Queers are a tiny minority - barely enough to
change the odds. You don't really even believe this yourself.
Actually, men who hate homosexuals usually have trouble dealing with
authority or people in general. Women know this.
Actually, you just made that up. It's just another "play" attempt in
The Queer Game.
No, Wilson, not at all made up. It is evident daily.
It is made up. You have no expertise in so-called "homophobia", nor are
you endowed with any special powers of observation. Your comments about
"men who hate homosexuals" are outright fabrications.
anonymous
2009-08-12 05:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them? If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
A heterosexual male should make every effort to encourage male
homosexual behavior: Less competition, it's obvious.
Who hates gays? Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else
would be so worried about it?
Well written.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 05:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them? If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
A heterosexual male should make every effort to encourage male
homosexual behavior: Less competition, it's obvious.
Who hates gays? Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else
would be so worried about it?
Well written.
It was crap.
anonymous
2009-08-12 19:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them? If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
A heterosexual male should make every effort to encourage male
homosexual behavior: Less competition, it's obvious.
Who hates gays? Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else
would be so worried about it?
Well written.
It was crap.
Wilson, you see someone comments on another person's post and you feel
the urge to comment with camp "It was crap." You see why you such an
interesting person. There was nothing in the post about the queer game
as you put it.

You wear an anger that homosexuals don't wear. It is a good life, a
great life and there is no reasson to be frustrated or angry at
anyone.

Heterosexual guys on the other hand sometimes have trouble with women
bosses, but other than that heterosexual guys are pretty happy, albeit
very busy keeping the wife or girlfriend happy.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 19:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
What straight person doesn't like them? If you do the math, it's less
competition. You've got to be a tad irrational to turn that down.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow. You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
A heterosexual male should make every effort to encourage male
homosexual behavior: Less competition, it's obvious.
Who hates gays? Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else
would be so worried about it?
Well written.
It was crap.
Wilson, you see someone comments on another person's post and you feel
the urge to comment with camp "It was crap." You see why you such an
interesting person. There was nothing in the post about the queer game
as you put it.
The thread is "The Queer Game", and you're wrong about the post. "Galen
Hekhuis" (yeah, sure) played the game when he wrote, "Who hates gays?
Guys afraid to admit that they're gay. Who else would be so worried
about it?" *YOU* played the game when you responded "Well written."
So, there are two of you playing the *very* game I'm writing about, and
I merely pointed out that you're playing it.

How can you sit there and lie like that? "...nothing in the post about
the queer game" - that's simply a lie, and you know it.
anonymous
2009-08-12 05:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow.
Cool. So what does follow?
Post by Wilson Woods
You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
Heterosexuals and regular homosexuals don't use phrases like "you were
propgandized into believing it."
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 05:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
A straight person who just doesn't like queers?
Post by Galen Hekhuis
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such?
That simply doesn't follow.
Cool. So what does follow?
Something else.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
You didn't even originate that thought
yourself; you were propagandized into believing it.
Heterosexuals and regular homosexuals don't use phrases like "you were
propgandized into believing it."
They do.
unknown
2009-08-10 23:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such? So
what is the "other" explanation?
You stupid fucking douchebag: I suppose you think rabidly anti-white
blacks are afraid of being identified as white?
Diogenes
2009-08-10 23:40:54 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such? So
what is the "other" explanation?
---
Any normal person who has been acosted by a queer would tend to develop an
anti-queer point of view. While not all queers try to force themselves on
normal people, those who do leave an everlasting hatred of all queers by
their actions.

If you have never been annoyed by a queer, then you probably assume that
they are all just poor, unfortunate victims of bigotry.

And if you ARE a queer, then, obviously, you think you are the victim of an
unrealistic object of bigotry.
anonymous
2009-08-12 05:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diogenes
.
Post by Galen Hekhuis
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such? So
what is the "other" explanation?
---
Any normal person who has been acosted by a queer would tend to develop an
anti-queer point of view.
Dio, awesome sentence. Homosexuals acosting heterosexuals. What is
that supposed to mean?

You know, women pray that if they acost some heterosexual guy who is a
complete jerk, that he would tend to develop an anti-woman point of
view, but sadly no matter how badly women treat guys who are nice or
guys who are jerks, these men keep coming back for more abuse.
Post by Diogenes
While not all queers try to force themselves on
normal people, those who do leave an everlasting hatred of all queers by
their actions.
You see that is why women are such loers in this world. From the first
signs of breasts, guys start harassing and forcing themselves on these
women either drunk or sober, and hopefully these guys will leave an
everlasting hatred of all men by their actions.
Post by Diogenes
If you have never been annoyed by a queer, then you probably assume that
they are all just poor, unfortunate victims of bigotry.
Actually, most heterosexual men and women have probably been very
annoyed by a homosexual because homosexuals have been picked on all
their life and take zero crap from anyone. Heterosexuals men are the
first to say you have to be nice to women because women are potential
partners. Women say the same thing about heterosexual men because they
are looking for a spouse. Homosexuals don't have those worries so are
nice to everyone until someone gives them grief.
Post by Diogenes
And if you ARE a queer, then, obviously, you think you are the victim of an
unrealistic object of bigotry.
Homosexuals don't play the victim card. The live outside the
heterosexual world in the sense they don't have babies, teenagers. They
don't have honey-do lists. They don't have rolls under which they
live. Homosexuals have freedom, freedom to be who they are, some have
the freedom to marry, freedom to travel, buy a house and live a good
life.
Galen Hekhuis
2009-08-10 23:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such? So
what is the "other" explanation?
You stupid fucking douchebag: I suppose you think rabidly anti-white
blacks are afraid of being identified as white?
Well, no. I think most people know the difference between
pigmentation and sexual orientation.
unknown
2009-08-10 23:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by unknown
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such? So
what is the "other" explanation?
You stupid fucking douchebag: I suppose you think rabidly anti-white
blacks are afraid of being identified as white?
Well, no. I think most people know the difference between
pigmentation and sexual orientation.
There is as much logic to the one as to the other. Your conclusion does
not follow from logic or evidence; it's merely something you find
politically pleasing to believe.
anonymous
2009-08-12 05:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by unknown
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such? So
what is the "other" explanation?
You stupid fucking douchebag: I suppose you think rabidly anti-white
blacks are afraid of being identified as white?
Well, no. I think most people know the difference between
pigmentation and sexual orientation.
There is as much logic to the one as to the other. Your conclusion does
not follow from logic or evidence; it's merely something you find
politically pleasing to believe.
If it wasn't so funny I would say you are missing a pronoun!
anonymous
2009-08-12 05:20:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Galen Hekhuis
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
It's always kinda puzzled me. Who else would be rabidly anti-gay
except a gay who would be terrified as being identified as such? So
what is the "other" explanation?
You stupid fucking douchebag: I suppose you think rabidly anti-white
blacks are afraid of being identified as white?
Blacks are a minority in some countries. Whites are a minority in other
countries.
Neither white nor blacks are the most hated people on the planet like
homosexuals are.
anonymous
2009-08-12 01:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
Wilson, do you know of any heterosexual of the many that you know that
talk about homosexuality? Do you as a heterosexual talk about
homosexuality to any of your buddies when you go for a beer or during a
golf game? I don't mean for you to answer the question, but the logic
problem is that homosexuals know lots of heterosexual men and women and
no heterosexual man I know of even those that are very religous talk
about homosexuality. Christians I know talk about praying and doing
mission work, and talk about their 5 children, the pastor of the church,
but none talk about homosexuality.

Guys at work phone each other from their work station about a chick that
just entered the bulding or what this chick is doing or that chick is
doing. They aren't interested in homosexuality. The guys talk to each
other during the week but usually that is about what bar they will meet
at on Friday night after work and what chicks are coming out for beers.

There can always be exceptions, but guys who talk about being against
homosexuals in this newsgroup are abnormal in the sense they never refer
to women. Most guys will only talk so long and then they bring in the
fact like my girlfriend or wife says this or hates that or believes this
or believes that. But these guys never mention women. They mention
God, sinning, what the Bible says, by they never talk about they life
they live on a daily basis. So there is something defintely out of
place. Nobody wants it to be that way that is just they way these guys
are. They are abnormal from a homosexuals perspective and knowlege
about every heterosexual he has ever met. Sure you get the odd kid who
posts I hate homos and they should die or go to hell but you can tell by
the writing just a kid and they won't be hanging out in a homosexual
newsgroup.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 03:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
Wilson, do you know of any heterosexual of the many that you know that
talk about homosexuality?
Socially? No. In forums like Usenet, where I don't know of their
participation? How the fuck would I know?
Post by anonymous
Do you as a heterosexual talk about
homosexuality to any of your buddies when you go for a beer or during a
golf game? I don't mean for you to answer the question, but the logic
problem is that homosexuals know lots of heterosexual men and women and
no heterosexual man I know of even those that are very religous talk
about homosexuality. Christians I know talk about praying and doing
mission work, and talk about their 5 children, the pastor of the church,
but none talk about homosexuality.
I'm not talking about homosexuality in this thread, either. Pay
attention: I'm talking about The Queer Game.
Post by anonymous
Guys at work phone each other from their work station about a chick that
just entered the bulding or what this chick is doing or that chick is
doing. They aren't interested in homosexuality. The guys talk to each
other during the week but usually that is about what bar they will meet
at on Friday night after work and what chicks are coming out for beers.
This and most other Usenet forums aren't the least bit like office
chit-chat. There is an overtly political dimension to this and many
other Usenet newsgroups. The conversation /would/ be different here,
don't you think?

Political issues involving queers do come up in politically oriented
newsgroups like this one. When they do, and if a straight person
criticizes the queer position - and yes, there usually is *a* queer
position - then that person is invariably called a closet queer by those
who are allies and partisans of queers in a political sense. And that,
pal, is The Queer Game. The Queer Game is what I'm writing about in
this thread.
Post by anonymous
There can always be exceptions, but guys who talk about being against
homosexuals in this newsgroup are abnormal in the sense they never refer
to women.
The context here *is* queers, and their political goals. So no, when
the topic is queers, I'm not talking about chicks - I'm talking about
queers.
Post by anonymous
Most guys will only talk so long and then they bring in the
fact like my girlfriend or wife says this or hates that or believes this
or believes that.
I've heard a lot of political people in a lot of contexts talking about
this or that, and not once have I ever heard anyone suddenly start
talking about their wives or girlfriends, or suddenly say "Hey, how
'bout them Yankees".
Post by anonymous
But these guys never mention women. They mention
God, sinning, what the Bible says, by they never talk about they life
they live on a daily basis. So there is something defintely out of
place.
No, that simply does not follow. They're compartmentalizing, and it
seems appropriate to me. If the topic is about motorcycles or baseball
or the federal deficit, I wouldn't expect queers suddenly to crop up on
the discussion - and vice-versa if the topic starts out about queers.
Post by anonymous
Nobody wants it to be that way that is just they way these guys
are. They are abnormal from a homosexuals perspective and knowlege
about every heterosexual he has ever met. Sure you get the odd kid who
posts I hate homos and they should die or go to hell but you can tell by
the writing just a kid and they won't be hanging out in a homosexual
newsgroup.
I'm not "hanging out" in a homosexual newsgroup, either. In case you
hadn't noticed, this thread is running in several cross-posted groups.
anonymous
2009-08-12 19:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
Wilson, do you know of any heterosexual of the many that you know that
talk about homosexuality?
Socially? No. In forums like Usenet, where I don't know of their
participation? How the fuck would I know?
Thanks. I agree.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Do you as a heterosexual talk about
homosexuality to any of your buddies when you go for a beer or during a
golf game? I don't mean for you to answer the question, but the logic
problem is that homosexuals know lots of heterosexual men and women and
no heterosexual man I know of even those that are very religous talk
about homosexuality. Christians I know talk about praying and doing
mission work, and talk about their 5 children, the pastor of the church,
but none talk about homosexuality.
I'm not talking about homosexuality in this thread, either. Pay
attention: I'm talking about The Queer Game.
The point is: Who cares if millions of homosexuals think people who
trash homosexuals are clost cases.

Homosexuals don't think all people who trash homosexuals are clost
cases. It is only those males who spend an inordinate amount of time
referencing any aspect of homosexuality that makes it abnormal
regardless of what newsgroup they are posting from.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Guys at work phone each other from their work station about a chick that
just entered the bulding or what this chick is doing or that chick is
doing. They aren't interested in homosexuality. The guys talk to each
other during the week but usually that is about what bar they will meet
at on Friday night after work and what chicks are coming out for beers.
This and most other Usenet forums aren't the least bit like office
chit-chat. There is an overtly political dimension to this and many
other Usenet newsgroups. The conversation /would/ be different here,
don't you think?
Political issues involving queers do come up in politically oriented
newsgroups like this one. When they do, and if a straight person
criticizes the queer position - and yes, there usually is *a* queer
position - then that person is invariably called a closet queer by those
who are allies and partisans of queers in a political sense. And that,
pal, is The Queer Game. The Queer Game is what I'm writing about in
this thread.
Well, Wilson, you are free to label your thought as you wish, but most people would not reference homosexuals by the term "Queer". There is a hostility to the word the way you use it. It is not a word used by straights even when they are trashing homosexuals.
Post by anonymous
There can always be exceptions, but guys who talk about being against
homosexuals in this newsgroup are abnormal in the sense they never refer
to women.
The context here *is* queers, and their political goals. So no, when
the topic is queers, I'm not talking about chicks - I'm talking about
queers.
Post by anonymous
Most guys will only talk so long and then they bring in the
fact like my girlfriend or wife says this or hates that or believes this
or believes that.
I've heard a lot of political people in a lot of contexts talking about
this or that, and not once have I ever heard anyone suddenly start
talking about their wives or girlfriends, or suddenly say "Hey, how
'bout them Yankees".
Post by anonymous
But these guys never mention women. They mention
God, sinning, what the Bible says, by they never talk about they life
they live on a daily basis. So there is something defintely out of
place.
No, that simply does not follow. They're compartmentalizing, and it
seems appropriate to me. If the topic is about motorcycles or baseball
or the federal deficit, I wouldn't expect queers suddenly to crop up on
the discussion - and vice-versa if the topic starts out about queers.
Post by anonymous
Nobody wants it to be that way that is just they way these guys
are. They are abnormal from a homosexuals perspective and knowlege
about every heterosexual he has ever met. Sure you get the odd kid who
posts I hate homos and they should die or go to hell but you can tell by
the writing just a kid and they won't be hanging out in a homosexual
newsgroup.
I'm not "hanging out" in a homosexual newsgroup, either. In case you
hadn't noticed, this thread is running in several cross-posted groups.
It is unimportant which newsgroup you are posting from. But as I look
at them, it is impossible to believe that any of the newsgroups would be
worth commenting in on the subject you raise other than the homosexual
one.

athesism? not relevant to homosexuality.
abortion? not relevant to homosexuality.
survivalism? not relevant to homosexuality.
california? not relevant to homosexuality.
gossip. celebrities? not relevant to homosexuality.
fan.state.iowa? not relevant to homosexuality.
politics.homosexuality? - relevant.

Why you are in any of the above newsgroups is not understood because
none of your posts talk about abortion, or politics in California, or
survivalism or even athesism. The only referece is to the finger
pointing some homosexuals do to people they beleive are closet cases.

No straight guy cares if any guy is closeted or not. A straight guys
focus is always on which women put out or give the guy the time of day.
As a straight guy you car about how wrong it is or any homosxual to
thing somebody is a clost case. In fact you care enough to never miss a
response to a post regarding the subject.

Your writing suggest an impatience and it begs the question why even
waste your time in such newsgroups posting the errors homosexuals are
making by their assumptions?
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 19:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
Wilson, do you know of any heterosexual of the many that you know that
talk about homosexuality?
Socially? No. In forums like Usenet, where I don't know of their
participation? How the fuck would I know?
Thanks. I agree.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Do you as a heterosexual talk about
homosexuality to any of your buddies when you go for a beer or during a
golf game? I don't mean for you to answer the question, but the logic
problem is that homosexuals know lots of heterosexual men and women and
no heterosexual man I know of even those that are very religous talk
about homosexuality. Christians I know talk about praying and doing
mission work, and talk about their 5 children, the pastor of the church,
but none talk about homosexuality.
I'm not talking about homosexuality in this thread, either. Pay
attention: I'm talking about The Queer Game.
The point is: Who cares if millions of homosexuals think people who
trash homosexuals are clost cases.
Special rights for queers are a continuing political goal. People are
going to criticize the movement, and when that criticism causes
self-styled defenders of queers, as well as queers themselves, to call
the critics closet queers, then that becomes a phenomenon worthy of
comment. That phenomenon is The Queer Game, and I'm commenting on it.
Post by anonymous
Homosexuals don't think all people who trash homosexuals are clost
cases. It is only those males who spend an inordinate amount of time
referencing any aspect of homosexuality that makes it abnormal
regardless of what newsgroup they are posting from.
When the topic is queers and the queer agenda, it is not abnormal to
comment on it.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Guys at work phone each other from their work station about a chick that
just entered the bulding or what this chick is doing or that chick is
doing. They aren't interested in homosexuality. The guys talk to each
other during the week but usually that is about what bar they will meet
at on Friday night after work and what chicks are coming out for beers.
This and most other Usenet forums aren't the least bit like office
chit-chat. There is an overtly political dimension to this and many
other Usenet newsgroups. The conversation /would/ be different here,
don't you think?
Political issues involving queers do come up in politically oriented
newsgroups like this one. When they do, and if a straight person
criticizes the queer position - and yes, there usually is *a* queer
position - then that person is invariably called a closet queer by those
who are allies and partisans of queers in a political sense. And that,
pal, is The Queer Game. The Queer Game is what I'm writing about in
this thread.
Well, Wilson, you are free to label your thought as you wish, but most people would not reference homosexuals by the term "Queer". There is a hostility to the word the way you use it. It is not a word used by straights even when they are trashing homosexuals.
I do it to be provocative. It works, too: any time Craig Chilton, the
self-styled Bowdler, responds to one of my posts where I've used the
word "queer", he huffily replaces it with "[gay]". I like to provoke
people like Chilton - he's a pompous ass, and he deserves to be provoked
and ridiculed.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
There can always be exceptions, but guys who talk about being against
homosexuals in this newsgroup are abnormal in the sense they never refer
to women.
The context here *is* queers, and their political goals. So no, when
the topic is queers, I'm not talking about chicks - I'm talking about
queers.
Post by anonymous
Most guys will only talk so long and then they bring in the
fact like my girlfriend or wife says this or hates that or believes this
or believes that.
I've heard a lot of political people in a lot of contexts talking about
this or that, and not once have I ever heard anyone suddenly start
talking about their wives or girlfriends, or suddenly say "Hey, how
'bout them Yankees".
Post by anonymous
But these guys never mention women. They mention
God, sinning, what the Bible says, by they never talk about they life
they live on a daily basis. So there is something defintely out of
place.
No, that simply does not follow. They're compartmentalizing, and it
seems appropriate to me. If the topic is about motorcycles or baseball
or the federal deficit, I wouldn't expect queers suddenly to crop up on
the discussion - and vice-versa if the topic starts out about queers.
Post by anonymous
Nobody wants it to be that way that is just they way these guys
are. They are abnormal from a homosexuals perspective and knowlege
about every heterosexual he has ever met. Sure you get the odd kid who
posts I hate homos and they should die or go to hell but you can tell by
the writing just a kid and they won't be hanging out in a homosexual
newsgroup.
I'm not "hanging out" in a homosexual newsgroup, either. In case you
hadn't noticed, this thread is running in several cross-posted groups.
It is unimportant which newsgroup you are posting from.
You suggested that I was "hanging out" in a queer newsgroup. That
suggestion, of course, was just another attempt at a play in The Queer
Game. You're trying to be a bit more subtle about it than most, but
it's still laughably obvious.
Post by anonymous
But as I look
at them, it is impossible to believe that any of the newsgroups would be
worth commenting in on the subject you raise other than the homosexual
one.
Queers make themselves political targets. Any group that is focused on
politics can at some point have a thread that talks about some aspect of
the queer agenda.
Post by anonymous
athesism? not relevant to homosexuality.
abortion? not relevant to homosexuality.
survivalism? not relevant to homosexuality.
california? not relevant to homosexuality.
gossip. celebrities? not relevant to homosexuality.
fan.state.iowa? not relevant to homosexuality.
politics.homosexuality? - relevant.
Why you are in any of the above newsgroups is not understood because
none of your posts talk about abortion, or politics in California, or
survivalism or even athesism. The only referece is to the finger
pointing some homosexuals do to people they beleive are closet cases.
Once again, most of the players of The Queer Game do not appear to be
"out" queers themselves; rather, they are allegedly straight people whom
I call the Great Defenders of Queers.
Post by anonymous
No straight guy cares if any guy is closeted or not. A straight guys
focus is always on which women put out or give the guy the time of day.
As a straight guy you car about how wrong it is or any homosxual to
thing somebody is a clost case. In fact you care enough to never miss a
response to a post regarding the subject.
I started the thread, so it's quite reasonable that I would respond to
posts that a) argue with my contention, and b) are themselves examples
of people playing The Queer Game.

I'm a little puzzled by the authoritative tone you attempt to project on
what straight guys do and don't care about. Why do you think you should
be seen as authoritative on that?
Post by anonymous
Your writing suggest an impatience and it begs the question why even
waste your time in such newsgroups posting the errors homosexuals are
making by their assumptions?
See above about who plays The Queer Game.

As far as why I do it - I like fighting over politics. I don't think
there is an inherent delineation of people into "good guys" and "bad
guys", but I think based on positions people hold, I know which are
which, and I like savaging the bad guys. I don't have to defend liking
this particular sport, any more than aficionados of judo or golf have to
defend their choice of sport. It's legal, it's entertaining, and it's
good exercise.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 19:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
Wilson, do you know of any heterosexual of the many that you know that
talk about homosexuality?
Socially? No. In forums like Usenet, where I don't know of their
participation? How the fuck would I know?
Thanks. I agree.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Do you as a heterosexual talk about
homosexuality to any of your buddies when you go for a beer or during a
golf game? I don't mean for you to answer the question, but the logic
problem is that homosexuals know lots of heterosexual men and women and
no heterosexual man I know of even those that are very religous talk
about homosexuality. Christians I know talk about praying and doing
mission work, and talk about their 5 children, the pastor of the church,
but none talk about homosexuality.
I'm not talking about homosexuality in this thread, either. Pay
attention: I'm talking about The Queer Game.
The point is: Who cares if millions of homosexuals think people who
trash homosexuals are clost cases.
Special rights for queers are a continuing political goal. People are
going to criticize the movement, and when that criticism causes
self-styled defenders of queers, as well as queers themselves, to call
the critics closet queers, then that becomes a phenomenon worthy of
comment. That phenomenon is The Queer Game, and I'm commenting on it.
Post by anonymous
Homosexuals don't think all people who trash homosexuals are clost
cases. It is only those males who spend an inordinate amount of time
referencing any aspect of homosexuality that makes it abnormal
regardless of what newsgroup they are posting from.
When the topic is queers and the queer agenda, it is not abnormal to
comment on it.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Guys at work phone each other from their work station about a chick that
just entered the bulding or what this chick is doing or that chick is
doing. They aren't interested in homosexuality. The guys talk to each
other during the week but usually that is about what bar they will meet
at on Friday night after work and what chicks are coming out for beers.
This and most other Usenet forums aren't the least bit like office
chit-chat. There is an overtly political dimension to this and many
other Usenet newsgroups. The conversation /would/ be different here,
don't you think?
Political issues involving queers do come up in politically oriented
newsgroups like this one. When they do, and if a straight person
criticizes the queer position - and yes, there usually is *a* queer
position - then that person is invariably called a closet queer by those
who are allies and partisans of queers in a political sense. And that,
pal, is The Queer Game. The Queer Game is what I'm writing about in
this thread.
Well, Wilson, you are free to label your thought as you wish, but most people would not reference homosexuals by the term "Queer". There is a hostility to the word the way you use it. It is not a word used by straights even when they are trashing homosexuals.
I do it to be provocative. It works, too: any time Craig Chilton, the
self-styled Bowdler, responds to one of my posts where I've used the
word "queer", he huffily replaces it with "[gay]". I like to provoke
people like Chilton - he's a pompous ass, and he deserves to be provoked
and ridiculed.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
There can always be exceptions, but guys who talk about being against
homosexuals in this newsgroup are abnormal in the sense they never refer
to women.
The context here *is* queers, and their political goals. So no, when
the topic is queers, I'm not talking about chicks - I'm talking about
queers.
Post by anonymous
Most guys will only talk so long and then they bring in the
fact like my girlfriend or wife says this or hates that or believes this
or believes that.
I've heard a lot of political people in a lot of contexts talking about
this or that, and not once have I ever heard anyone suddenly start
talking about their wives or girlfriends, or suddenly say "Hey, how
'bout them Yankees".
Post by anonymous
But these guys never mention women. They mention
God, sinning, what the Bible says, by they never talk about they life
they live on a daily basis. So there is something defintely out of
place.
No, that simply does not follow. They're compartmentalizing, and it
seems appropriate to me. If the topic is about motorcycles or baseball
or the federal deficit, I wouldn't expect queers suddenly to crop up on
the discussion - and vice-versa if the topic starts out about queers.
Post by anonymous
Nobody wants it to be that way that is just they way these guys
are. They are abnormal from a homosexuals perspective and knowlege
about every heterosexual he has ever met. Sure you get the odd kid who
posts I hate homos and they should die or go to hell but you can tell by
the writing just a kid and they won't be hanging out in a homosexual
newsgroup.
I'm not "hanging out" in a homosexual newsgroup, either. In case you
hadn't noticed, this thread is running in several cross-posted groups.
It is unimportant which newsgroup you are posting from.
You suggested that I was "hanging out" in a queer newsgroup. That
suggestion, of course, was just another attempt at a play in The Queer
Game. You're trying to be a bit more subtle about it



But as I look
Post by anonymous
at them, it is impossible to believe that any of the newsgroups would be
worth commenting in on the subject you raise other than the homosexual
one.
athesism? not relevant to homosexuality.
abortion? not relevant to homosexuality.
survivalism? not relevant to homosexuality.
california? not relevant to homosexuality.
gossip. celebrities? not relevant to homosexuality.
fan.state.iowa? not relevant to homosexuality.
politics.homosexuality? - relevant.
Why you are in any of the above newsgroups is not understood because
none of your posts talk about abortion, or politics in California, or
survivalism or even athesism. The only referece is to the finger
pointing some homosexuals do to people they beleive are closet cases.
No straight guy cares if any guy is closeted or not. A straight guys
focus is always on which women put out or give the guy the time of day.
As a straight guy you car about how wrong it is or any homosxual to
thing somebody is a clost case. In fact you care enough to never miss a
response to a post regarding the subject.
Your writing suggest an impatience and it begs the question why even
waste your time in such newsgroups posting the errors homosexuals are
making by their assumptions?
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 19:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
Wilson, do you know of any heterosexual of the many that you know that
talk about homosexuality?
Socially? No. In forums like Usenet, where I don't know of their
participation? How the fuck would I know?
Thanks. I agree.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Do you as a heterosexual talk about
homosexuality to any of your buddies when you go for a beer or during a
golf game? I don't mean for you to answer the question, but the logic
problem is that homosexuals know lots of heterosexual men and women and
no heterosexual man I know of even those that are very religous talk
about homosexuality. Christians I know talk about praying and doing
mission work, and talk about their 5 children, the pastor of the church,
but none talk about homosexuality.
I'm not talking about homosexuality in this thread, either. Pay
attention: I'm talking about The Queer Game.
The point is: Who cares if millions of homosexuals think people who
trash homosexuals are clost cases.
Special rights for queers are a continuing political goal. People are
going to criticize the movement, and when that criticism causes
self-styled defenders of queers, as well as queers themselves, to call
the critics closet queers, then that becomes a phenomenon worthy of
comment. That phenomenon is The Queer Game, and I'm commenting on it.
Post by anonymous
Homosexuals don't think all people who trash homosexuals are clost
cases. It is only those males who spend an inordinate amount of time
referencing any aspect of homosexuality that makes it abnormal
regardless of what newsgroup they are posting from.
When the topic is queers and the queer agenda, it is not abnormal to
comment on it.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Guys at work phone each other from their work station about a chick that
just entered the bulding or what this chick is doing or that chick is
doing. They aren't interested in homosexuality. The guys talk to each
other during the week but usually that is about what bar they will meet
at on Friday night after work and what chicks are coming out for beers.
This and most other Usenet forums aren't the least bit like office
chit-chat. There is an overtly political dimension to this and many
other Usenet newsgroups. The conversation /would/ be different here,
don't you think?
Political issues involving queers do come up in politically oriented
newsgroups like this one. When they do, and if a straight person
criticizes the queer position - and yes, there usually is *a* queer
position - then that person is invariably called a closet queer by those
who are allies and partisans of queers in a political sense. And that,
pal, is The Queer Game. The Queer Game is what I'm writing about in
this thread.
Well, Wilson, you are free to label your thought as you wish, but most people would not reference homosexuals by the term "Queer". There is a hostility to the word the way you use it. It is not a word used by straights even when they are trashing homosexuals.
I do it to be provocative. It works, too: any time Craig Chilton, the
self-styled Bowdler, responds to one of my posts where I've used the
word "queer", he huffily replaces it with "[gay]". I like to provoke
people like Chilton - he's a pompous ass, and he deserves to be provoked
and ridiculed.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
There can always be exceptions, but guys who talk about being against
homosexuals in this newsgroup are abnormal in the sense they never refer
to women.
The context here *is* queers, and their political goals. So no, when
the topic is queers, I'm not talking about chicks - I'm talking about
queers.
Post by anonymous
Most guys will only talk so long and then they bring in the
fact like my girlfriend or wife says this or hates that or believes this
or believes that.
I've heard a lot of political people in a lot of contexts talking about
this or that, and not once have I ever heard anyone suddenly start
talking about their wives or girlfriends, or suddenly say "Hey, how
'bout them Yankees".
Post by anonymous
But these guys never mention women. They mention
God, sinning, what the Bible says, by they never talk about they life
they live on a daily basis. So there is something defintely out of
place.
No, that simply does not follow. They're compartmentalizing, and it
seems appropriate to me. If the topic is about motorcycles or baseball
or the federal deficit, I wouldn't expect queers suddenly to crop up on
the discussion - and vice-versa if the topic starts out about queers.
Post by anonymous
Nobody wants it to be that way that is just they way these guys
are. They are abnormal from a homosexuals perspective and knowlege
about every heterosexual he has ever met. Sure you get the odd kid who
posts I hate homos and they should die or go to hell but you can tell by
the writing just a kid and they won't be hanging out in a homosexual
newsgroup.
I'm not "hanging out" in a homosexual newsgroup, either. In case you
hadn't noticed, this thread is running in several cross-posted groups.
It is unimportant which newsgroup you are posting from.
You suggested that I was "hanging out" in a queer newsgroup. That
suggestion, of course, was just another attempt at a play in The Queer
Game. You're trying to be a bit more subtle about it than most, but
it's still laughably obvious.
Post by anonymous
But as I look
at them, it is impossible to believe that any of the newsgroups would be
worth commenting in on the subject you raise other than the homosexual
one.
Queers make themselves political targets. Any group that is focused on
politics can at some point have a thread that talks about some aspect of
the queer agenda.
Post by anonymous
athesism? not relevant to homosexuality.
abortion? not relevant to homosexuality.
survivalism? not relevant to homosexuality.
california? not relevant to homosexuality.
gossip. celebrities? not relevant to homosexuality.
fan.state.iowa? not relevant to homosexuality.
politics.homosexuality? - relevant.
Why you are in any of the above newsgroups is not understood because
none of your posts talk about abortion, or politics in California, or
survivalism or even athesism. The only referece is to the finger
pointing some homosexuals do to people they beleive are closet cases.
Once again, most of the players of The Queer Game do not appear to be
"out" queers themselves; rather, they are allegedly straight people whom
I call the Great Defenders of Queers.
Post by anonymous
No straight guy cares if any guy is closeted or not. A straight guys
focus is always on which women put out or give the guy the time of day.
As a straight guy you car about how wrong it is or any homosxual to
thing somebody is a clost case. In fact you care enough to never miss a
response to a post regarding the subject.
I started the thread, so it's quite reasonable that I would respond to
posts that a) argue with my contention, and b) are themselves examples
of people playing The Queer Game.

I'm a little puzzled by the authoritative tone you attempt to project on
what straight guys do and don't care about. Why do you think you should
be seen as authoritative on that?
Post by anonymous
Your writing suggest an impatience and it begs the question why even
waste your time in such newsgroups posting the errors homosexuals are
making by their assumptions?
See above about who plays The Queer Game.

As far as why I do it - I like fighting over politics. I don't think
there is an inherent delineation of people into "good guys" and "bad
guys", but I think based on positions people hold, I know which are
which, and I like savaging the bad guys. I don't have to defend likein
anonymous
2009-08-13 01:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
Wilson, do you know of any heterosexual of the many that you know that
talk about homosexuality?
Socially? No. In forums like Usenet, where I don't know of their
participation? How the fuck would I know?
Thanks. I agree.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Do you as a heterosexual talk about
homosexuality to any of your buddies when you go for a beer or during a
golf game? I don't mean for you to answer the question, but the logic
problem is that homosexuals know lots of heterosexual men and women and
no heterosexual man I know of even those that are very religous talk
about homosexuality. Christians I know talk about praying and doing
mission work, and talk about their 5 children, the pastor of the church,
but none talk about homosexuality.
I'm not talking about homosexuality in this thread, either. Pay
attention: I'm talking about The Queer Game.
The point is: Who cares if millions of homosexuals think people who
trash homosexuals are clost cases.
Special rights for queers are a continuing political goal. People are
going to criticize the movement, and when that criticism causes
self-styled defenders of queers, as well as queers themselves, to call
the critics closet queers, then that becomes a phenomenon worthy of
comment. That phenomenon is The Queer Game, and I'm commenting on it.
Post by anonymous
Homosexuals don't think all people who trash homosexuals are clost
cases. It is only those males who spend an inordinate amount of time
referencing any aspect of homosexuality that makes it abnormal
regardless of what newsgroup they are posting from.
When the topic is queers and the queer agenda, it is not abnormal to
comment on it.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Guys at work phone each other from their work station about a chick that
just entered the bulding or what this chick is doing or that chick is
doing. They aren't interested in homosexuality. The guys talk to each
other during the week but usually that is about what bar they will meet
at on Friday night after work and what chicks are coming out for beers.
This and most other Usenet forums aren't the least bit like office
chit-chat. There is an overtly political dimension to this and many
other Usenet newsgroups. The conversation /would/ be different here,
don't you think?
Political issues involving queers do come up in politically oriented
newsgroups like this one. When they do, and if a straight person
criticizes the queer position - and yes, there usually is *a* queer
position - then that person is invariably called a closet queer by those
who are allies and partisans of queers in a political sense. And that,
pal, is The Queer Game. The Queer Game is what I'm writing about in
this thread.
Well, Wilson, you are free to label your thought as you wish, but most people would not reference homosexuals by the term "Queer". There is a hostility to the word the way you use it. It is not a word used by straights even when they are trashing homosexuals.
I do it to be provocative. It works, too: any time Craig Chilton, the
self-styled Bowdler, responds to one of my posts where I've used the
word "queer", he huffily replaces it with "[gay]". I like to provoke
people like Chilton - he's a pompous ass, and he deserves to be provoked
and ridiculed.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
There can always be exceptions, but guys who talk about being against
homosexuals in this newsgroup are abnormal in the sense they never refer
to women.
The context here *is* queers, and their political goals. So no, when
the topic is queers, I'm not talking about chicks - I'm talking about
queers.
Post by anonymous
Most guys will only talk so long and then they bring in the
fact like my girlfriend or wife says this or hates that or believes this
or believes that.
I've heard a lot of political people in a lot of contexts talking about
this or that, and not once have I ever heard anyone suddenly start
talking about their wives or girlfriends, or suddenly say "Hey, how
'bout them Yankees".
Post by anonymous
But these guys never mention women. They mention
God, sinning, what the Bible says, by they never talk about they life
they live on a daily basis. So there is something defintely out of
place.
No, that simply does not follow. They're compartmentalizing, and it
seems appropriate to me. If the topic is about motorcycles or baseball
or the federal deficit, I wouldn't expect queers suddenly to crop up on
the discussion - and vice-versa if the topic starts out about queers.
Post by anonymous
Nobody wants it to be that way that is just they way these guys
are. They are abnormal from a homosexuals perspective and knowlege
about every heterosexual he has ever met. Sure you get the odd kid who
posts I hate homos and they should die or go to hell but you can tell by
the writing just a kid and they won't be hanging out in a homosexual
newsgroup.
I'm not "hanging out" in a homosexual newsgroup, either. In case you
hadn't noticed, this thread is running in several cross-posted groups.
It is unimportant which newsgroup you are posting from.
You suggested that I was "hanging out" in a queer newsgroup. That
suggestion, of course, was just another attempt at a play in The Queer
Game. You're trying to be a bit more subtle about it than most, but
it's still laughably obvious.
Post by anonymous
But as I look
at them, it is impossible to believe that any of the newsgroups would be
worth commenting in on the subject you raise other than the homosexual
one.
Queers make themselves political targets. Any group that is focused on
politics can at some point have a thread that talks about some aspect of
the queer agenda.
Post by anonymous
athesism? not relevant to homosexuality.
abortion? not relevant to homosexuality.
survivalism? not relevant to homosexuality.
california? not relevant to homosexuality.
gossip. celebrities? not relevant to homosexuality.
fan.state.iowa? not relevant to homosexuality.
politics.homosexuality? - relevant.
Why you are in any of the above newsgroups is not understood because
none of your posts talk about abortion, or politics in California, or
survivalism or even athesism. The only referece is to the finger
pointing some homosexuals do to people they beleive are closet cases.
Once again, most of the players of The Queer Game do not appear to be
"out" queers themselves; rather, they are allegedly straight people whom
I call the Great Defenders of Queers.
Post by anonymous
No straight guy cares if any guy is closeted or not. A straight guys
focus is always on which women put out or give the guy the time of day.
As a straight guy you car about how wrong it is or any homosxual to
thing somebody is a clost case. In fact you care enough to never miss a
response to a post regarding the subject.
I started the thread, so it's quite reasonable that I would respond to
posts that a) argue with my contention, and b) are themselves examples
of people playing The Queer Game.
I'm a little puzzled by the authoritative tone you attempt to project on
what straight guys do and don't care about. Why do you think you should
be seen as authoritative on that?
The only time straight guys seem to have a problem is if the homosexual
is very effeminate, then most of them get spooked, upset. Camp can be
okay. But when a guy is effemiate, even if they are not talking to the
person but only observing from a distance, their faces contort and they
are emotionally bothered by what they observe.
Otherwise straight guys just focus on their own life. It is
understandable that you may not have such experiences of observation
because from the way you write, it appears you observe from a unique
perspective most other people haven't had or don't have.

Your explanations have been good because it explains some of the reasons
of why you what what you do and how you write it.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Your writing suggest an impatience and it begs the question why even
waste your time in such newsgroups posting the errors homosexuals are
making by their assumptions?
See above about who plays The Queer Game.
As far as why I do it - I like fighting over politics. I don't think
there is an inherent delineation of people into "good guys" and "bad
guys", but I think based on positions people hold, I know which are
which, and I like savaging the bad guys. I don't have to defend likein
anonymous
2009-08-13 01:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
Wilson, do you know of any heterosexual of the many that you know that
talk about homosexuality?
Socially? No. In forums like Usenet, where I don't know of their
participation? How the fuck would I know?
Thanks. I agree.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Do you as a heterosexual talk about
homosexuality to any of your buddies when you go for a beer or during a
golf game? I don't mean for you to answer the question, but the logic
problem is that homosexuals know lots of heterosexual men and women and
no heterosexual man I know of even those that are very religous talk
about homosexuality. Christians I know talk about praying and doing
mission work, and talk about their 5 children, the pastor of the church,
but none talk about homosexuality.
I'm not talking about homosexuality in this thread, either. Pay
attention: I'm talking about The Queer Game.
The point is: Who cares if millions of homosexuals think people who
trash homosexuals are clost cases.
Special rights for queers are a continuing political goal.
Wilson, you do sound like a pastor. I can't speak for America, but in
Canada the Charter gave all citizens the same rights so the right of
marriage, divorce, pension benefts, estate benefits in the context of
homosexual marriage. In other respects, Islamic women can cover their
face as they do in daily life whereas in law the accused has the right
to see his accuser. But the Charter preserved the religous right over
the right of the accused. In terms of hats, religions that require men
to wear headgear and some East Indians, too, are permited to do so and
not wear a construction helmet, a military helmet or a motorcycle helmet
to name a few. These aren't special rights in Canada, they are the
rigts that every Canadian has.
Post by Wilson Woods
People are
going to criticize the movement, and when that criticism causes
self-styled defenders of queers, as well as queers themselves, to call
the critics closet queers, then that becomes a phenomenon worthy of
comment.
Well, you see I don't know of any famous or obscure person that has been
called a closet case because they are against homosexuals getting
married. I do acknowlede that religous people and politicians who trash
homosexuals and then are found in compromising postions of heterosexual
adultery or homosexual activity are called on the carpet by the so
called homosexual community. When pastors who have condemned
homosexuality and then
are compromised as in the famous case and say it was the devil or
whatever, it is pretty embarrassing but his actions speak louder than
works whether the guy has a wife or not.



That phenomenon is The Queer Game, and I'm commenting on it.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Homosexuals don't think all people who trash homosexuals are clost
cases. It is only those males who spend an inordinate amount of time
referencing any aspect of homosexuality that makes it abnormal
regardless of what newsgroup they are posting from.
When the topic is queers and the queer agenda, it is not abnormal to
comment on it.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Guys at work phone each other from their work station about a chick that
just entered the bulding or what this chick is doing or that chick is
doing. They aren't interested in homosexuality. The guys talk to each
other during the week but usually that is about what bar they will meet
at on Friday night after work and what chicks are coming out for beers.
This and most other Usenet forums aren't the least bit like office
chit-chat. There is an overtly political dimension to this and many
other Usenet newsgroups. The conversation /would/ be different here,
don't you think?
Political issues involving queers do come up in politically oriented
newsgroups like this one. When they do, and if a straight person
criticizes the queer position - and yes, there usually is *a* queer
position - then that person is invariably called a closet queer by those
who are allies and partisans of queers in a political sense. And that,
pal, is The Queer Game. The Queer Game is what I'm writing about in
this thread.
Well, Wilson, you are free to label your thought as you wish, but most people would not reference homosexuals by the term "Queer". There is a hostility to the word the way you use it. It is not a word used by straights even when they are trashing homosexuals.
I do it to be provocative. It works, too: any time Craig Chilton, the
self-styled Bowdler, responds to one of my posts where I've used the
word "queer", he huffily replaces it with "[gay]". I like to provoke
people like Chilton - he's a pompous ass, and he deserves to be provoked
and ridiculed.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
There can always be exceptions, but guys who talk about being against
homosexuals in this newsgroup are abnormal in the sense they never refer
to women.
The context here *is* queers, and their political goals. So no, when
the topic is queers, I'm not talking about chicks - I'm talking about
queers.
Post by anonymous
Most guys will only talk so long and then they bring in the
fact like my girlfriend or wife says this or hates that or believes this
or believes that.
I've heard a lot of political people in a lot of contexts talking about
this or that, and not once have I ever heard anyone suddenly start
talking about their wives or girlfriends, or suddenly say "Hey, how
'bout them Yankees".
Post by anonymous
But these guys never mention women. They mention
God, sinning, what the Bible says, by they never talk about they life
they live on a daily basis. So there is something defintely out of
place.
No, that simply does not follow. They're compartmentalizing, and it
seems appropriate to me. If the topic is about motorcycles or baseball
or the federal deficit, I wouldn't expect queers suddenly to crop up on
the discussion - and vice-versa if the topic starts out about queers.
Post by anonymous
Nobody wants it to be that way that is just they way these guys
are. They are abnormal from a homosexuals perspective and knowlege
about every heterosexual he has ever met. Sure you get the odd kid who
posts I hate homos and they should die or go to hell but you can tell by
the writing just a kid and they won't be hanging out in a homosexual
newsgroup.
I'm not "hanging out" in a homosexual newsgroup, either. In case you
hadn't noticed, this thread is running in several cross-posted groups.
It is unimportant which newsgroup you are posting from.
You suggested that I was "hanging out" in a queer newsgroup. That
suggestion, of course, was just another attempt at a play in The Queer
Game. You're trying to be a bit more subtle about it than most, but
it's still laughably obvious.
Post by anonymous
But as I look
at them, it is impossible to believe that any of the newsgroups would be
worth commenting in on the subject you raise other than the homosexual
one.
Queers make themselves political targets. Any group that is focused on
politics can at some point have a thread that talks about some aspect of
the queer agenda.
Post by anonymous
athesism? not relevant to homosexuality.
abortion? not relevant to homosexuality.
survivalism? not relevant to homosexuality.
california? not relevant to homosexuality.
gossip. celebrities? not relevant to homosexuality.
fan.state.iowa? not relevant to homosexuality.
politics.homosexuality? - relevant.
Why you are in any of the above newsgroups is not understood because
none of your posts talk about abortion, or politics in California, or
survivalism or even athesism. The only referece is to the finger
pointing some homosexuals do to people they beleive are closet cases.
Once again, most of the players of The Queer Game do not appear to be
"out" queers themselves; rather, they are allegedly straight people whom
I call the Great Defenders of Queers.
Post by anonymous
No straight guy cares if any guy is closeted or not. A straight guys
focus is always on which women put out or give the guy the time of day.
As a straight guy you car about how wrong it is or any homosxual to
thing somebody is a clost case. In fact you care enough to never miss a
response to a post regarding the subject.
I started the thread, so it's quite reasonable that I would respond to
posts that a) argue with my contention, and b) are themselves examples
of people playing The Queer Game.
I'm a little puzzled by the authoritative tone you attempt to project on
what straight guys do and don't care about. Why do you think you should
be seen as authoritative on that?
Post by anonymous
Your writing suggest an impatience and it begs the question why even
waste your time in such newsgroups posting the errors homosexuals are
making by their assumptions?
See above about who plays The Queer Game.
As far as why I do it - I like fighting over politics. I don't think
there is an inherent delineation of people into "good guys" and "bad
guys", but I think based on positions people hold, I know which are
which, and I like savaging the bad guys. I don't have to defend likein
Wilson Woods
2009-08-13 06:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No.
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there is. There is no logic to your phony explanation.
Wilson, do you know of any heterosexual of the many that you know that
talk about homosexuality?
Socially? No. In forums like Usenet, where I don't know of their
participation? How the fuck would I know?
Thanks. I agree.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Do you as a heterosexual talk about
homosexuality to any of your buddies when you go for a beer or during a
golf game? I don't mean for you to answer the question, but the logic
problem is that homosexuals know lots of heterosexual men and women and
no heterosexual man I know of even those that are very religous talk
about homosexuality. Christians I know talk about praying and doing
mission work, and talk about their 5 children, the pastor of the church,
but none talk about homosexuality.
I'm not talking about homosexuality in this thread, either. Pay
attention: I'm talking about The Queer Game.
The point is: Who cares if millions of homosexuals think people who
trash homosexuals are clost cases.
Special rights for queers are a continuing political goal.
Wilson, you do sound like a pastor.
Not even close. I was brought up in a mainline Protestant religion that
is theologically sophisticated and socially liberal (although my
childhood church was in a locale that was politically conservative), and
it was easy to let it all drop several decades ago. I think of myself
as a "weak atheist", meaning I don't believe in any notion of God, but I
don't say "there is no God" (I do tend to think there isn't any, but I'm
not willing to state something unprovable.)
Post by anonymous
I can't speak for America, but in
Canada the Charter gave all citizens the same rights so the right of
marriage, divorce, pension benefts, estate benefits in the context of
homosexual marriage. In other respects, Islamic women can cover their
face as they do in daily life whereas in law the accused has the right
to see his accuser. But the Charter preserved the religous right over
the right of the accused. In terms of hats, religions that require men
to wear headgear and some East Indians, too, are permited to do so and
not wear a construction helmet, a military helmet or a motorcycle helmet
to name a few. These aren't special rights in Canada, they are the
rigts that every Canadian has.
But those *are* special rights. If what you're saying about those
exemptions for religious minorities is accurate, that's outrageous. I
don't like to bash Canada - there's much about the place I admire, and I
love visiting - but one thing I don't like about Canada is its tendency
to be oh-so-fucking politically correct about things like that. It
seems to exhibit a lack of self confidence or self assurance. A country
that enacts some ostensible public safety law ought to have the courage
to say that it applies to everyone, no exceptions.

As far as Canada and modification of its laws regarding marriage for
queers, that, too, seems like another case of namby-pamby Canadian
political correctness. Canadians first and foremost don't want to give
offense ('offence' in your spelling), and if any group can present a
plausible case that they're offended, Canada will always back off. That
is woosiness, plain and simple.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
People are
going to criticize the movement, and when that criticism causes
self-styled defenders of queers, as well as queers themselves, to call
the critics closet queers, then that becomes a phenomenon worthy of
comment.
Well, you see I don't know of any famous or obscure person that has been
called a closet case because they are against homosexuals getting
married. I do acknowlede that religous people and politicians who trash
homosexuals and then are found in compromising postions of heterosexual
adultery or homosexual activity are called on the carpet by the so
called homosexual community. When pastors who have condemned
homosexuality and then
are compromised as in the famous case and say it was the devil or
whatever, it is pretty embarrassing but his actions speak louder than
works whether the guy has a wife or not.
Post by Wilson Woods
That phenomenon is The Queer Game, and I'm commenting on it.
Post by anonymous
Homosexuals don't think all people who trash homosexuals are clost
cases. It is only those males who spend an inordinate amount of time
referencing any aspect of homosexuality that makes it abnormal
regardless of what newsgroup they are posting from.
When the topic is queers and the queer agenda, it is not abnormal to
comment on it.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Guys at work phone each other from their work station about a chick that
just entered the bulding or what this chick is doing or that chick is
doing. They aren't interested in homosexuality. The guys talk to each
other during the week but usually that is about what bar they will meet
at on Friday night after work and what chicks are coming out for beers.
This and most other Usenet forums aren't the least bit like office
chit-chat. There is an overtly political dimension to this and many
other Usenet newsgroups. The conversation /would/ be different here,
don't you think?
Political issues involving queers do come up in politically oriented
newsgroups like this one. When they do, and if a straight person
criticizes the queer position - and yes, there usually is *a* queer
position - then that person is invariably called a closet queer by those
who are allies and partisans of queers in a political sense. And that,
pal, is The Queer Game. The Queer Game is what I'm writing about in
this thread.
Well, Wilson, you are free to label your thought as you wish, but most people would not reference homosexuals by the term "Queer". There is a hostility to the word the way you use it. It is not a word used by straights even when they are trashing homosexuals.
I do it to be provocative. It works, too: any time Craig Chilton, the
self-styled Bowdler, responds to one of my posts where I've used the
word "queer", he huffily replaces it with "[gay]". I like to provoke
people like Chilton - he's a pompous ass, and he deserves to be provoked
and ridiculed.
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
There can always be exceptions, but guys who talk about being against
homosexuals in this newsgroup are abnormal in the sense they never refer
to women.
The context here *is* queers, and their political goals. So no, when
the topic is queers, I'm not talking about chicks - I'm talking about
queers.
Post by anonymous
Most guys will only talk so long and then they bring in the
fact like my girlfriend or wife says this or hates that or believes this
or believes that.
I've heard a lot of political people in a lot of contexts talking about
this or that, and not once have I ever heard anyone suddenly start
talking about their wives or girlfriends, or suddenly say "Hey, how
'bout them Yankees".
Post by anonymous
But these guys never mention women. They mention
God, sinning, what the Bible says, by they never talk about they life
they live on a daily basis. So there is something defintely out of
place.
No, that simply does not follow. They're compartmentalizing, and it
seems appropriate to me. If the topic is about motorcycles or baseball
or the federal deficit, I wouldn't expect queers suddenly to crop up on
the discussion - and vice-versa if the topic starts out about queers.
Post by anonymous
Nobody wants it to be that way that is just they way these guys
are. They are abnormal from a homosexuals perspective and knowlege
about every heterosexual he has ever met. Sure you get the odd kid who
posts I hate homos and they should die or go to hell but you can tell by
the writing just a kid and they won't be hanging out in a homosexual
newsgroup.
I'm not "hanging out" in a homosexual newsgroup, either. In case you
hadn't noticed, this thread is running in several cross-posted groups.
It is unimportant which newsgroup you are posting from.
You suggested that I was "hanging out" in a queer newsgroup. That
suggestion, of course, was just another attempt at a play in The Queer
Game. You're trying to be a bit more subtle about it than most, but
it's still laughably obvious.
Post by anonymous
But as I look
at them, it is impossible to believe that any of the newsgroups would be
worth commenting in on the subject you raise other than the homosexual
one.
Queers make themselves political targets. Any group that is focused on
politics can at some point have a thread that talks about some aspect of
the queer agenda.
Post by anonymous
athesism? not relevant to homosexuality.
abortion? not relevant to homosexuality.
survivalism? not relevant to homosexuality.
california? not relevant to homosexuality.
gossip. celebrities? not relevant to homosexuality.
fan.state.iowa? not relevant to homosexuality.
politics.homosexuality? - relevant.
Why you are in any of the above newsgroups is not understood because
none of your posts talk about abortion, or politics in California, or
survivalism or even athesism. The only referece is to the finger
pointing some homosexuals do to people they beleive are closet cases.
Once again, most of the players of The Queer Game do not appear to be
"out" queers themselves; rather, they are allegedly straight people whom
I call the Great Defenders of Queers.
Post by anonymous
No straight guy cares if any guy is closeted or not. A straight guys
focus is always on which women put out or give the guy the time of day.
As a straight guy you car about how wrong it is or any homosxual to
thing somebody is a clost case. In fact you care enough to never miss a
response to a post regarding the subject.
I started the thread, so it's quite reasonable that I would respond to
posts that a) argue with my contention, and b) are themselves examples
of people playing The Queer Game.
I'm a little puzzled by the authoritative tone you attempt to project on
what straight guys do and don't care about. Why do you think you should
be seen as authoritative on that?
Post by anonymous
Your writing suggest an impatience and it begs the question why even
waste your time in such newsgroups posting the errors homosexuals are
making by their assumptions?
See above about who plays The Queer Game.
As far as why I do it - I like fighting over politics. I don't think
there is an inherent delineation of people into "good guys" and "bad
guys", but I think based on positions people hold, I know which are
which, and I like savaging the bad guys. I don't have to defend likein
anonymous
2009-08-12 01:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer! There's no other explaination. You don't need a study to know that.
Most heterosexuals simply don't care, have no interest in anything
remotely homosexual. But these people who spend their life posting
hate about homosexuals just doesn't add up. All the heterosexual are
either faithful to their wife or are chasing women in any free time they
have.
lighting tech at Mega Amusement
2014-02-11 14:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by W.T.S.
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda, the self-styled Great Defenders
But, it's common sense, if you're openly anti-gay, you _must_ be a closet
queer!
No, that doesn't follow at all. It's not <scoff> "common sense"
Post by W.T.S.
There's no other explaination.
Of course there are other "explainations" [sic].
Post by W.T.S.
You don't need a study to know that.
There isn't any valid study that shows it.
--
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-harrison/46/709/b9b
martin
2009-08-10 23:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps posting
about their bedroom habits. Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by
your fantasies about what they are doing.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-10 23:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps posting
about their bedroom habits.
But I don't post about their bedroom habits at all. You just fabricated
that.
Post by martin
Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by
your fantasies about what they are doing.
No, they aren't, and you don't even believe that. You're just playing
the game - badly.
martin
2009-08-11 00:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps
posting about their bedroom habits.
But I don't post about their bedroom habits at all.
So what makes a homosexual a homosexual if it's not the prefered bedroom
habit?
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by your fantasies about what
they are doing.
No, they aren't, and you don't even believe that.
You're the one posting about gays all the time, you must think about it
all the time. Don't be shy if it turns you on, you can go out to the
airport and pull.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-11 00:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps
posting about their bedroom habits.
But I don't post about their bedroom habits at all.
So what makes a homosexual a homosexual if it's not the prefered bedroom
habit?
Regardless of what they do in the bedroom, that's not what I'm posting
about. You know it, too, but because you're politically motivated to
play The Queer Game, you had to lie.
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by your fantasies about
what they are doing.
No, they aren't, and you don't even believe that.
You're the one posting about gays all the time, you must think about it
all the time.
No, that does not follow at all. Once again, you're just playing the
game - predictably, and badly.

It's pretty funny: I write about politically motivated pro-queer people
playing The Queer Game, and you simply can't help but play.
Post by martin
Don't be shy if it turns you on, you can go out to the
airport and pull.
You're just playing the game again...
martin
2009-08-11 09:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Don't be shy if it turns you on, you can go out to the airport and pull.
You're just playing the game again...
You're just fantasizing about gay sex again. You think a lot more about
gays and what they're up to than I do about women and what they're up to
and I'm straight. You post about gays all the time while I don't feel
the need to post about women all the time. Maybe because I'm straight
and getting laid occasionally.

Go on, it's ok for you to give a guy a blowjob.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-11 14:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Don't be shy if it turns you on, you can go out to the airport and pull.
You're just playing the game again...
You're just fantasizing about gay sex again.
No, not "again", not even a first time.

You're just playing the queer game again - badly again, too.
martin
2009-08-11 15:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Don't be shy if it turns you on, you can go out to the airport and pull.
You're just playing the game again...
You're just fantasizing about gay sex again.
No, not "again", not even a first time.
You think about it constantly, just look how many posts you've been
making in this one thread about gays over the past couple of days. You
are obsessed.
Post by Wilson Woods
You're just playing the queer game again - badly again, too.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-11 16:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Don't be shy if it turns you on, you can go out to the airport and pull.
You're just playing the game again...
You're just fantasizing about gay sex again.
No, not "again", not even a first time.
You think about it constantly,
I don't. Your statement that I do is *just* another lame attempt at The
Queer Game. In fact, every word you write about this is merely a weak,
lame play in The Queer Game.
Post by martin
just look how many posts you've been
making in this one thread about gays over the past couple of days.
I'm not writing about queers in this thread, of course, and you know it.
I'm writing about The Queer Game in this thread.
Post by martin
You are obsessed.
Yet again: a weak play.
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
You're just playing the queer game again - badly again, too.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yep.
anonymous
2009-08-12 05:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps
posting about their bedroom habits.
But I don't post about their bedroom habits at all.
So what makes a homosexual a homosexual if it's not the prefered bedroom
habit?
Well, homosexuals are homosexuals because they were raised by
heteroseuxals in a special way and treated by society in a special way
so homoseuals see the world way differently than heterosexuals.
Specificially, homosexuals like men for their appearance, charm, the way
they walk, talk, move, speak, hold a glass, so while it is indirectly
sexual it is far removed from nudity or the bedroom.
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by your fantasies about what
they are doing.
No, they aren't, and you don't even believe that.
You're the one posting about gays all the time, you must think about it
all the time. Don't be shy if it turns you on, you can go out to the
airport and pull.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 13:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps
posting about their bedroom habits.
But I don't post about their bedroom habits at all.
So what makes a homosexual a homosexual if it's not the prefered bedroom
habit?
Well, homosexuals are homosexuals because they were raised by
heteroseuxals in a special way and treated by society in a special way
so homoseuals see the world way differently than heterosexuals.
That's not what the queers themselves say.
Post by anonymous
Specificially, homosexuals like men for their appearance, charm, the way
they walk, talk, move, speak, hold a glass, so while it is indirectly
sexual it is far removed from nudity or the bedroom.
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by your fantasies about what
they are doing.
No, they aren't, and you don't even believe that.
You're the one posting about gays all the time, you must think about it
all the time. Don't be shy if it turns you on, you can go out to the
airport and pull.
anonymous
2009-08-12 19:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps
posting about their bedroom habits.
But I don't post about their bedroom habits at all.
So what makes a homosexual a homosexual if it's not the prefered bedroom
habit?
Well, homosexuals are homosexuals because they were raised by
heteroseuxals in a special way and treated by society in a special way
so homoseuals see the world way differently than heterosexuals.
That's not what the queers themselves say.
True that some homosexuals believe homosexuality is totally genetic and
maybe it is but that aside they are produced by heterosexuals.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Specificially, homosexuals like men for their appearance, charm, the way
they walk, talk, move, speak, hold a glass, so while it is indirectly
sexual it is far removed from nudity or the bedroom.
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by your fantasies about what
they are doing.
No, they aren't, and you don't even believe that.
You're the one posting about gays all the time, you must think about it
all the time. Don't be shy if it turns you on, you can go out to the
airport and pull.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 19:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps
posting about their bedroom habits.
But I don't post about their bedroom habits at all.
So what makes a homosexual a homosexual if it's not the prefered bedroom
habit?
Well, homosexuals are homosexuals because they were raised by
heteroseuxals in a special way and treated by society in a special way
so homoseuals see the world way differently than heterosexuals.
That's not what the queers themselves say.
True that some homosexuals believe homosexuality is totally genetic and
maybe it is but that aside they are produced by heterosexuals.
Oh, give me a break. You're trying to equivocate between basic human
reproduction and child rearing. It is true - trivially - that every
queer is "produced" by some form of heterosexual union; biology demands
it, at least until someone clones a human who "just happens to be"
queer. But it is not true at all that queers are queer "...because they
were raised by heteroseuxals in a special way and treated by society in
a special way". That's nonsense.
Gunner Asch
2009-08-15 10:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by martin
So what makes a homosexual a homosexual if it's not the prefered bedroom
habit?
Well, homosexuals are homosexuals because they were raised by
heteroseuxals in a special way and treated by society in a special way
Actually...the vast majority of homosexuals were simply born that way.

Shrug..they didnt have a lot to say about it.


'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907
pyotr filipivich
2009-08-15 22:40:08 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Gunner Asch
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by anonymous
Post by martin
So what makes a homosexual a homosexual if it's not the prefered bedroom
habit?
Well, homosexuals are homosexuals because they were raised by
heteroseuxals in a special way and treated by society in a special way
Actually...the vast majority of homosexuals were simply born that way.
Shrug..they didnt have a lot to say about it.
They may not have much to say about how they were born, but they
do have a say in how they behave.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Gunner Asch
2009-08-16 04:50:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:40:08 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Gunner Asch
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by anonymous
Post by martin
So what makes a homosexual a homosexual if it's not the prefered bedroom
habit?
Well, homosexuals are homosexuals because they were raised by
heteroseuxals in a special way and treated by society in a special way
Actually...the vast majority of homosexuals were simply born that way.
Shrug..they didnt have a lot to say about it.
They may not have much to say about how they were born, but they
do have a say in how they behave.
True enough. Most of the gays I know arent fems, or if they are...they
keep a low profile.

Shrug....the really effeminate hair dresser types set my teeth on edge.
Not because they are gay, but because they are in ones face full
throttle. The "regular" guys, shrug... long as they dont have sex in
front of my, dont bother me in the slightest. Same holds with lesbians.
A couple of big butch types swapping spit...out of line. Holding hands,
etc etc..no biggy.

Shrug..but then, I live in California..work in So. Cal, so run into
gays, cross dressers, TVs etc etc fairly regularly. Over time, one can
get used to anything I reckon.
Post by pyotr filipivich
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907
pyotr filipivich
2009-08-16 06:47:31 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Gunner Asch
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Gunner Asch
Actually...the vast majority of homosexuals were simply born that way.
Shrug..they didnt have a lot to say about it.
They may not have much to say about how they were born, but they
do have a say in how they behave.
True enough. Most of the gays I know arent fems, or if they are...they
keep a low profile.
Shrug....the really effeminate hair dresser types set my teeth on edge.
Not because they are gay, but because they are in ones face full
throttle. The "regular" guys, shrug... long as they dont have sex in
front of my, dont bother me in the slightest. Same holds with lesbians.
A couple of big butch types swapping spit...out of line. Holding hands,
etc etc..no biggy.
Personally, I don't really care which way you swing (up to a
point, e.g, child molesters.). just "get a room" for that stuff.
Sheesh.

Ot3h - camp can sometimes be so much fun! I mean, simply
Fabulous! (Mark, Beth, Shell and I went to see "talking Heads: Stop
making Sense" After wards the girls were all, "lets go dancing!" Why
not? I don't dance, but ... I didn't know about The Embers, so the
girls when got up to dance and after a while, I asked Mark "Is this
one of 'those clubs'? And he said, "Yes, this is one of _those_
clubs." "Oh", says I, "that explains the hairy chest in the leopard
print dress." Obviously, women's lib had not reached the drag
community.
Post by Gunner Asch
Shrug..but then, I live in California..work in So. Cal, so run into
gays, cross dressers, TVs etc etc fairly regularly.
I shared a house with Actors. Drama Queens!
Post by Gunner Asch
Over time, one can
get used to anything I reckon.
Yep. Which worries me sometimes.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Gunner Asch
2009-08-16 10:58:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:47:31 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by pyotr filipivich
They may not have much to say about how they were born, but they
do have a say in how they behave.
True enough. Most of the gays I know arent fems, or if they are...they
keep a low profile.
Shrug....the really effeminate hair dresser types set my teeth on edge.
Not because they are gay, but because they are in ones face full
throttle. The "regular" guys, shrug... long as they dont have sex in
front of my, dont bother me in the slightest. Same holds with lesbians.
A couple of big butch types swapping spit...out of line. Holding hands,
etc etc..no biggy.
Personally, I don't really care which way you swing (up to a
point, e.g, child molesters.). just "get a room" for that stuff.
Sheesh.
Child molesters are serial criminals and frankly..should be executed
when caught.
Post by pyotr filipivich
Ot3h - camp can sometimes be so much fun! I mean, simply
Fabulous! (Mark, Beth, Shell and I went to see "talking Heads: Stop
making Sense" After wards the girls were all, "lets go dancing!" Why
not? I don't dance, but ... I didn't know about The Embers, so the
girls when got up to dance and after a while, I asked Mark "Is this
one of 'those clubs'? And he said, "Yes, this is one of _those_
clubs." "Oh", says I, "that explains the hairy chest in the leopard
print dress." Obviously, women's lib had not reached the drag
community.
No one has ever heard of Nair?
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Gunner Asch
Shrug..but then, I live in California..work in So. Cal, so run into
gays, cross dressers, TVs etc etc fairly regularly.
I shared a house with Actors. Drama Queens!
Dear Crom! Not Actors! Brrrrrrrr...you are one tough bastard to put
up with them!!!
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Gunner Asch
Over time, one can
get used to anything I reckon.
Yep. Which worries me sometimes.
Shrug...its all part of the aging process. The next thing is
dementia..so we will forget about all the freaks we ran into over the
years.

Least..I hope so....brrrrrr!

Humm..well..there was Shelly...6' tall beautiful gal..stunning..with a
fascination for getting her poop chute fucked for hours...sigh..and
Angie...who could suck a dime off the floor while standing up..and
Maria....

Hummm again....about that dementia thing....it doesnt happen to
everyone..right?
Post by pyotr filipivich
-
pyotr filipivich.
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907
pyotr filipivich
2009-08-17 03:03:32 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Gunner Asch
Post by Gunner Asch
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:47:31 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by pyotr filipivich
They may not have much to say about how they were born, but they
do have a say in how they behave.
True enough. Most of the gays I know arent fems, or if they are...they
keep a low profile.
Shrug....the really effeminate hair dresser types set my teeth on edge.
Not because they are gay, but because they are in ones face full
throttle. The "regular" guys, shrug... long as they dont have sex in
front of my, dont bother me in the slightest. Same holds with lesbians.
A couple of big butch types swapping spit...out of line. Holding hands,
etc etc..no biggy.
Personally, I don't really care which way you swing (up to a
point, e.g, child molesters.). just "get a room" for that stuff.
Sheesh.
Child molesters are serial criminals and frankly..should be executed
when caught.
Post by pyotr filipivich
Ot3h - camp can sometimes be so much fun! I mean, simply
Fabulous! (Mark, Beth, Shell and I went to see "talking Heads: Stop
making Sense" After wards the girls were all, "lets go dancing!" Why
not? I don't dance, but ... I didn't know about The Embers, so the
girls when got up to dance and after a while, I asked Mark "Is this
one of 'those clubs'? And he said, "Yes, this is one of _those_
clubs." "Oh", says I, "that explains the hairy chest in the leopard
print dress." Obviously, women's lib had not reached the drag
community.
No one has ever heard of Nair?
Some might have - but a bright blue leopard print dress? I dunno,
is just screams 1950s!
It is one of those oddities, but most of the cross dressers I've
seen, seem to come straight out of a 1950's/early 60's Ladies
Magazine. I got to admit, the fashions were better in those days ...
but really.
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Gunner Asch
Shrug..but then, I live in California..work in So. Cal, so run into
gays, cross dressers, TVs etc etc fairly regularly.
I shared a house with Actors. Drama Queens!
Dear Crom! Not Actors! Brrrrrrrr...you are one tough bastard to put
up with them!!!
Student Actors, too.
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Gunner Asch
Over time, one can get used to anything I reckon.
Yep. Which worries me sometimes.
Shrug...its all part of the aging process. The next thing is
dementia..so we will forget about all the freaks we ran into over the
years.
I've been told you only remember two times: your first, and your
last. At least that is what I think I was told.
Post by Gunner Asch
Least..I hope so....brrrrrr!
Humm..well..there was Shelly...6' tall beautiful gal..stunning..with a
fascination for getting her poop chute fucked for hours...sigh..and
Angie...who could suck a dime off the floor while standing up..and
Maria....
Hummm again....about that dementia thing....it doesnt happen to
everyone..right?
What were we talking about ...
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
No Dick Up My Ass!
2009-08-16 09:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:40:08 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Gunner Asch
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by anonymous
Post by martin
So what makes a homosexual a homosexual if it's not the prefered bedroom
habit?
Well, homosexuals are homosexuals because they were raised by
heteroseuxals in a special way and treated by society in a special way
Actually...the vast majority of homosexuals were simply born that way.
Shrug..they didnt have a lot to say about it.
They may not have much to say about how they were born, but they
do have a say in how they behave.
True enough. Most of the gays I know arent fems, or if they are...they
keep a low profile.
Shrug....the really effeminate hair dresser types set my teeth on edge.
Not because they are gay, but because they are in ones face full
throttle. The "regular" guys, shrug... long as they dont have sex in
front of my, dont bother me in the slightest. Same holds with lesbians.
A couple of big butch types swapping spit...out of line. Holding hands,
etc etc..no biggy.
Shrug..but then, I live in California..work in So. Cal, so run into
gays, cross dressers, TVs etc etc fairly regularly. Over time, one can
get used to anything I reckon.
Born and raised in California. I will never get used to, or
accept gays at my place of work. They are a constant
distraction and threat to efficient production and workplace
morale. Most gays miss work at much higher rates than
straights, can't depend on them.
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by pyotr filipivich
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-08-16 11:01:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:17:58 +0200,
SUBMORONIC BIGOT, BILL TAYLOR
I will never get used to, or accept gays at
my place of work.
Which makes you precisely as big a MORON as you
would be if you said the same thing about left-handers,
or people with hazel eyes.

Par for the course for *you*, LOSER.
Gunner Asch
2009-08-16 11:13:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:17:58 +0200, "No Dick Up My Ass!"
Post by No Dick Up My Ass!
Post by Gunner Asch
Shrug..but then, I live in California..work in So. Cal, so run into
gays, cross dressers, TVs etc etc fairly regularly. Over time, one can
get used to anything I reckon.
Born and raised in California. I will never get used to, or
accept gays at my place of work. They are a constant
distraction and threat to efficient production and workplace
morale. Most gays miss work at much higher rates than
straights, can't depend on them.
Gay males, or gay females? As a service tech in machine shops Ive
noticed both gender gays seem to have excellent work records.

Perhaps in other industries...?

Guner

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907
Coffee's For Closers
2009-08-11 22:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps posting
about their bedroom habits. Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by
your fantasies about what they are doing.
No, he just has a wide stance.
--
Want Privacy?
http://www.MinistryOfPrivacy.com/
anonymous
2009-08-12 05:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps posting
about their bedroom habits. Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by
your fantasies about what they are doing.
Brilliant. You would think it would be something a heterosexual
wouldn't want to even mention.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 13:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps posting
about their bedroom habits. Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by
your fantasies about what they are doing.
Brilliant.
No, it actually was just another weak "play" in The Queer Game, and if
you read it more carefully, you'd see why.
Post by anonymous
You would think it would be something a heterosexual
wouldn't want to even mention.
Why would you think that? There's no logic to that statement at all.
anonymous
2009-08-12 19:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps posting
about their bedroom habits. Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by
your fantasies about what they are doing.
Brilliant.
No, it actually was just another weak "play" in The Queer Game, and if
you read it more carefully, you'd see why.
Well, Wilson, the words speak for themselves.
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
You would think it would be something a heterosexual
wouldn't want to even mention.
Why would you think that? There's no logic to that statement at all.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 19:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by anonymous
Post by martin
Post by Wilson Woods
It's hilarious, and it's also the surest bet going. Whenever someone
criticizes queers and the queer agenda ...
I'm more puzzled as to why someone who doesn't like queers keeps posting
about their bedroom habits. Your thoughts must be constantly occupied by
your fantasies about what they are doing.
Brilliant.
No, it actually was just another weak "play" in The Queer Game, and if
you read it more carefully, you'd see why.
Well, Wilson, the words speak for themselves.
Yes, your words - another attempt at playing The Queer Game - do,
indeed, speak for themselves.
anonymous
2009-08-12 01:32:08 UTC
Permalink
There are two possibilites, homosexuals are genetic by way of creation or within the heterosexual marriage, child rearing is sufficiently altered that the child turn out homosexual. Those are the only two possiblities.
So science or no science, by the age of 6 homosexuals are pretty well
created. Exceptions if the parents adjusted their raising of the child,
but parents immediately blame the rest of society when their particular
offspring doesn't fit the mold of other boys. The parents distance
themselves from what they have produced. But in fairness to parents,
the animal world does exactly the same thing. Any unusual offspring is
dragged to the side away from the rest of the litter.


Heterosexual parents used to do that with children that were crippled or
deaf, etc. and the kid would be kept home with the mother and politely
hidden from society. Today most parents know that is the wrong thing to
do and the kid is now shown how to fit in in spite of his handicap.
Kids now wear artificial legs showing as opposed to long pants or long
shirts.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-12 02:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by anonymous
There are two possibilites, homosexuals are genetic by way of creation or within the heterosexual marriage, child rearing is sufficiently altered that the child turn out homosexual. Those are the only two possiblities.
I didn't write the above. Someone fucked up the attributions, or
someone forged a post under my name.
Post by anonymous
So science or no science, by the age of 6 homosexuals are pretty well
created. Exceptions if the parents adjusted their raising of the child,
but parents immediately blame the rest of society when their particular
offspring doesn't fit the mold of other boys. The parents distance
themselves from what they have produced. But in fairness to parents,
the animal world does exactly the same thing. Any unusual offspring is
dragged to the side away from the rest of the litter.
Heterosexual parents used to do that with children that were crippled or
deaf, etc. and the kid would be kept home with the mother and politely
hidden from society. Today most parents know that is the wrong thing to
do and the kid is now shown how to fit in in spite of his handicap.
Kids now wear artificial legs showing as opposed to long pants or long
shirts.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-13 07:09:18 UTC
Permalink
It isn't what they do in their bedrooms; I don't care about that. It
isn't even mostly about the exaggeratedly flamboyant queer demeanor,
because they're not all like that (but those who are are obnoxious in
the extreme.)

It's this: their shrill insistence that I acknowledge them, as queers,
and their insistence on injecting their group identity into every aspect
of public life. Anyone who listens to NPR for more than a couple of
hours a week knows what I'm talking about: scarcely a day goes by
without NPR featuring, tediously, yet another story about some queer and
his "story" of what it's like to be queer in America. Somewhere in the
high reaches of NPR's administration, some garden variety "liberal"
hand-wringing do-gooders have decided that we "need" to hear queer
stories and queer voices. But they can't show that there is such a
need; it's simply an unquestioned political truism. The fact is, *I*
don't have any such "need", and I will not accept anyone telling me to
what I owe my attention.

There are a lot of group types I don't like:

- flamboyant queers
- loud, boisterous Negroes
- surly, glowering Armenians (especially ranting about Turks and "genocide")
- squawking obnoxious New York Jews
- excruciatingly deliberate Asian (mostly Chinese) golfers
- stupid religiously fundamentalist rednecks

just to name a few.

But what I dislike more than any of these group types is a "liberal"
elite telling me that I "ought" to view - in fact, *must* view - all but
the last of these groups in whatever flattering light they choose to
view themselves, and that if I don't, I'm a "bigot". That, and telling
me that I "owe" it to them to be interested in their group identities.
I'm not interested, and I won't be interested, and I will not accept
anyone telling me where my interest ought to be directed. I make that
choice - no one else.

Sorry - for now, at least, this is still a free enough country that I
can tell all of 'em to go fuck themselves, and I can view them in
whatever light I choose. I don't like flamboyant queers, or any other
group whose group identity I find obnoxious, and I'm not gong to change
my view. I don't like or accept *any* queers telling me, through their
craven media representatives, that I owe their queer identities any
interest at all, and I won't give them that interest. They can do
whatever they like in their homes, but when they try to force me to
acknowledge them, according to their terms and their views of
themselves, I won't do it.
Bill Taylor
2009-08-17 17:59:54 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
"(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
Like the collapse of the Roman empire when they caved in to
queers?
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will succeed.
At failing again.
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-08-17 23:08:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
Diogenes <***@its.invalid> wrote:


[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will succeed. EQUALITY is what
America STANDS for. And this is the last remaining barrier to
FULL equality for ALL people.

After that, the rest of the world will no longer need to view
us as a nation of hypocrites!

So this is a ver FORTUNATE and WELCOME trend!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

••• Rest in Peace •••
••• George Richard Tiller, MD •••
••• A True American HERO! •••
••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 •••

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

-- Craig Chilton <***@mchsi.com>

www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
leroy blue
2009-08-19 02:27:12 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
"(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will
continue to be anus-pounding losers.
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-08-19 02:45:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
Diogenes <***@its.invalid> wrote:


[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will succeed. EQUALITY is what
America STANDS for. And this is the last remaining barrier to
FULL equality for ALL people.

After that, the rest of the world will no longer need to view
us as a nation of hypocrites!

So this is a ver FORTUNATE and WELCOME trend!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

••• Rest in Peace •••
••• George Richard Tiller, MD •••
••• A True American HERO! •••
••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 •••

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

-- Craig Chilton <***@mchsi.com>

www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2009-08-19 08:07:16 UTC
Permalink
"(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) .. WHY be Unemployed?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will
continue to be anus-pounding losers.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that in 2002:
Thirty-eight percent of men ages 18 to 59 had had anal sex with a woman.
Thirty-five percent of women ages 25 to 44 had asked for it.

So you're calling that thirty-eight per cent of heterosexual Americans
"anus-pounding losers".
OK - to judge from the ignorant homophobic rightardism in this group you're
probably right.
No One
2009-08-20 08:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) .. WHY be Unemployed?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will
continue to be anus-pounding losers.
Thirty-eight percent of men ages 18 to 59 had had anal sex with a woman.
Thirty-five percent of women ages 25 to 44 had asked for it.
You have posted a lie.
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
So you're calling that thirty-eight per cent of heterosexual Americans
"anus-pounding losers".
OK - to judge from the ignorant homophobic rightardism in this group you're
probably right.
You bigotry and ignorance are showing, cowgirl.
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-08-20 15:42:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:05:18 -0400,
BILL TAYLOR, DISHONEST THIEF of the username
Post by No One
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) •• WHY be Unemployed?
[ ... ]
Post by No One
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated
Thirty-eight percent of men ages 18 to 59 had had anal sex with a woman.
Thirty-five percent of women ages 25 to 44 had asked for it.
You have posted a lie.
Wrong. He just GOT you, BIG-time, moronic liar.

And having ZERO integrity, you aren't man enough to ADMIT it.

That's YOU, Bill Taylor -- ALWAYS a total LOSER.

But at least you earn LOTS of •• OCR •• Points, making major
contributions to the HASTENING of the upcoming EXTINCTION of
your worthless and sociopathic hate-agendas.

That's ALL that you're good for. Beyond that, you are nothing
but pond scum on humanity's punchbowl.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

••• Operation Consciousness-Raising (OCR) ••• ...

... THANKS you for your CONTRIBUTION to society as one of
the very BEST weapons that fair-minded, sensible, compassionate
and intelligent egalitarians have in their arsenal for supporting,
defending and promote full and equal access to all persona liber-
ties that either are legal already, or should be.

You see, a really great way of hastening the DEMISE of hate-
agendas is to facilitate the awareness of society to the fact that
not only do NO FACTS even *exist* that support the loathsome
agendas of those who seek to have girls and women FORCED to
gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term against their will, at the
expense of their long-term well-being and countless future oppor-
tunites. And to expose the speciousness of the agenda that
seeks to continue the hateful exclusion of same-sex couples from
marriage. Even though there is NO valid reason for doing so, and
despite the fact that there is NO way that fully-legal same-sex
marriage could ever adversely affect the marriages of any oppo-
site sex couples' marriages or society.

Those agendas are based on scare tactics and bald-faced LIES
that most people of average-and-above intelligence would see
through in a nanosecond.

Most of the people who lend any credence to those hateful
agendas fall into one or the other of two categories. Either (1)
they are uninformed with regard to abortion, marriage equality,
or both, or (2) they actively promote those agendas.

People in Category 2 are almost always people of low intellect
who have been CONNED into actually believing that those spec-
ious and sociopathic agendas actually have redeeming social
value and need to be supported. The good news is that SOME
of them can be brought to the realization of the fact that they
*were* conned. The bad news is that MOST of them have be-
come SO steeped in the propagandistic lies that teaching pigs to
sing would stand a strong likelihood of success.

So the weapon that egalitarians wield against the hate-agen-
das in Operation Consciousness-Raising is the help the ignorant
proponents of those agendas help to destroy them. We do that
by seizing on the vocal or written pronouncements and shine a
nice, bright spotlight of TRUTH on them. The *more* that people
see that the bigots actually almost ALL oar dolts whose "argu-
ments" are so vacuous as to be ludicrous. With the result that
the component of society in Category 1, above (and there are
tens of millions of them) can regularly SEE that those agendas
are something that NO *reasonable* person would touch with a
50-foot pole. And as more and more people realize that, society
moves steadily close to it will subject the bigots' agendas to the
same dramatic REJECTION that it imposed on the equally hateful
and moronic agendas of the segregationists, decades earlier.

So THANKS for this demonstration of your ignorance. It was
a valuable contribution to helping your worthless agendas to
come to an END.

Keep up the good work!!

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2009-08-25 08:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
"(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) .. WHY be Unemployed?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will
continue to be anus-pounding losers.
Thirty-eight percent of men ages 18 to 59 had had anal sex with a woman.
Thirty-five percent of women ages 25 to 44 had asked for it.
You have posted a lie.
LOL
Typical rightard response to something they just *can't believe*.

http://www.dinagyang.com/forum/index.php?topic=2605.0;wap2
http://men.style.com/details/blogs/details/alternative_orifices/

"...A 2005 survey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
found a rising incidence of anal relations in the American heterosexual
population. The survey showed that 40% of men and 35% of women between 25
and 44 had engaged in heterosexual anal sex; in 1992 a similar survey found
that only 26% of men 18 to 59 and 20% of women 18 to 59 had. [10] By way of
comparison, seven times as many women as gay men engage in anal intercourse,
a figure reflecting the greater overall heterosexual population. [11]
Another survey in 2008 focused on a much younger demographic of teens and
young adults aged 15-21. It found that 16% of 1350 surveyed had had anal sex
in the previous 3 months, with condoms being used 29% of the time. [12]
However, given the subject matter, the survey hypothesized the prevalence
was probably underestimated...."
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Anal_sex

Did you get that shithead?

*Seven times as many women as gay men engage in anal intercourse*

You lose again shithead.
No One
2009-08-30 09:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by No One
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) .. WHY be Unemployed?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will
continue to be anus-pounding losers.
Thirty-eight percent of men ages 18 to 59 had had anal sex with a woman.
Thirty-five percent of women ages 25 to 44 had asked for it.
You have posted a lie.
LOL
Typical rightard response to something they just *can't believe*.
http://www.dinagyang.com/forum/index.php?topic=2605.0;wap2
http://men.style.com/details/blogs/details/alternative_orifices/
"...A 2005 survey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
found a rising incidence of anal relations in the American heterosexual
population. The survey showed that 40% of men and 35% of women between 25
and 44 had engaged in heterosexual anal sex; in 1992 a similar survey found
that only 26% of men 18 to 59 and 20% of women 18 to 59 had. [10] By way of
comparison, seven times as many women as gay men engage in anal intercourse,
a figure reflecting the greater overall heterosexual population. [11]
Another survey in 2008 focused on a much younger demographic of teens and
young adults aged 15-21. It found that 16% of 1350 surveyed had had anal sex
in the previous 3 months, with condoms being used 29% of the time. [12]
However, given the subject matter, the survey hypothesized the prevalence
was probably underestimated...."
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Anal_sex
Did you get that shithead?
*Seven times as many women as gay men engage in anal intercourse*
You lose again shithead.
Every word you have posted is part of a the Big Homosexual Lie (BHL)
The CDC does not keep such data.

You lose every time, boy.
No One
2009-09-01 07:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by No One
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) .. WHY be Unemployed?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will
continue to be anus-pounding losers.
Thirty-eight percent of men ages 18 to 59 had had anal sex with a woman.
Thirty-five percent of women ages 25 to 44 had asked for it.
You have posted a lie.
LOL
Typical rightard response to something they just *can't believe*.
http://www.dinagyang.com/forum/index.php?topic=2605.0;wap2
http://men.style.com/details/blogs/details/alternative_orifices/
"...A 2005 survey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
found a rising incidence of anal relations in the American heterosexual
population. The survey showed that 40% of men and 35% of women between 25
and 44 had engaged in heterosexual anal sex; in 1992 a similar survey found
that only 26% of men 18 to 59 and 20% of women 18 to 59 had. [10] By way of
comparison, seven times as many women as gay men engage in anal intercourse,
a figure reflecting the greater overall heterosexual population. [11]
Another survey in 2008 focused on a much younger demographic of teens and
young adults aged 15-21. It found that 16% of 1350 surveyed had had anal sex
in the previous 3 months, with condoms being used 29% of the time. [12]
However, given the subject matter, the survey hypothesized the prevalence
was probably underestimated...."
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Anal_sex
Did you get that shithead?
*Seven times as many women as gay men engage in anal intercourse*
You lose again shithead.
Every wood you posted is a lie. The CDC does not collect such data so
your source is nothing more than a homo supporting pile of dog shit,
boy.
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-09-01 10:28:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:15:56 -0400,
SUBMORONIC BIGOT, BILL TAYLOR,
**FORGING** the Username of another
poster as: "No One" <***@NOPLACE.NOW> ...


...accomplished NOTHING other than the USUAL --
making a complete ASS of himself.

That's what bigots DO.

Taylor has *perfected* it.

<flush>


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")

"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.

This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).

See Message-ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.

The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)

Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "***@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).

However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:***@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).

He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:***@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.

Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
LeRoy Blue
2009-09-03 02:08:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:28:42 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) •• WHY be
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")
"Craig Chilton", aka "Thomas P.," aka anonymous is a Liberal facist bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic Iowa corn pone patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "Craig Chilton" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"SOCK-It-To-Me" and former identities.
This guy is completely shameless.
The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about his strong
support for abortion and homosexuality (closted homo? Yes, most think so))
Some of his rantings are just comical.
However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. he recently
posted that it was "proper to lie to cover one's ass".
He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior.
Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment <Crazy> Craig Chilton
makes. You really have to wonder about someone
who would post such a lies when everything is so easily checked
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Nod.
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-09-03 03:21:50 UTC
Permalink
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")

"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.

This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).

See Message-ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.

The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)

Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "***@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).

However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:***@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).

He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:***@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.

Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
No One
2009-09-04 04:03:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:28:42 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) •• WHY be
Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••" <***@mchsi.com> wrote:

(...)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")
"Craig Chilton", aka "Thomas P.," aka Bill Taylor is a Liberal facist bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic Iowa corn pone patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "Craig Chilton" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"SOCK-It-To-Me" and former identities.
This guy is completely shameless.
The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about his strong
support for abortion and homosexuality (closted homo? Yes, most think so))
Some of his rantings are just comical.
However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. he recently
posted that it was proper to lie to cover one's ass.
He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior.
Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment <Crazy> Craig Chilton
makes. You really have to wonder about someone
who would post such a lies when everything is so easily checked
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-09-04 13:18:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:15:56 -0400,
SUBMORONIC BIGOT, BILL TAYLOR,
**FORGING** the Username of another
poster as: "No One" <***@NOPLACE.NOW> ...


...accomplished NOTHING other than the USUAL --
making a complete ASS of himself.

That's what bigots DO.

Taylor has *perfected* it.

<flush>


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")

"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.

This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).

See Message-ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.

The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)

Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "***@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).

However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:***@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).

He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:***@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.

Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-08-22 13:12:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
"Diogenes" <***@its.invalid> wrote:


[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will succeed. EQUALITY is what
America STANDS for. And this is the last remaining barrier to
FULL equality for ALL people.

After that, the rest of the world will no longer need to view
us as a nation of hypocrites!

So this is a very FORTUNATE and WELCOME trend!

http://www.Egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html
No One
2009-08-25 04:15:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:12:47 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) •• WHY be
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of US!
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the Vegalitarians will succeed OR theY will suck,
suck suck until hey do suck seed!. EQUALITY is what
America STANDS for. And meat eating (a synonym for homosexual)
is the last remaining barrier to FULL equality for ALL people.
YOU'RE DOING THE RECREATIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS AGAIN, AREN'T YOU,
BOY...
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-08-25 10:47:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
"Diogenes" <***@its.invalid> wrote:


[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will succeed. EQUALITY is what
America STANDS for. And this is the last remaining barrier to
FULL equality for ALL people.

After that, the rest of the world will no longer need to view
us as a nation of hypocrites!

So this is a very FORTUNATE and WELCOME trend!

http://www.Egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html
No One
2009-08-30 09:28:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:47:13 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) •• WHY be
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will succeed. EQUALITY is what
America STANDS for. And this is the last remaining barrier to
FULL equality for ALL people.
After that, the rest of the world will no longer need to view
us as a nation of hypocrites!
So this is a very FORTUNATE and WELCOME trend!
Said the homosexual as he dreamed of a world ruled by cock suckers.
knowing full well, though, that it was only a dream and that he would
awaken still lying on his death bed in the AIDS ward of the county
hospital,
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-08-30 14:11:22 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:41 -0500,
"Diogenes" <***@its.invalid> wrote:


[ ... ]
This is what will cause the eventual...
...ENHANCEMENT...
...of the US.
There is an all-out movement to make homosexuality
acceptable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will succeed.
Of COURSE the egalitarians will succeed. EQUALITY is what
America STANDS for. And this is the last remaining barrier to
FULL equality for ALL people.

After that, the rest of the world will no longer need to view
us as a nation of hypocrites!

So this is a very FORTUNATE and WELCOME trend!

http://www.Egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html
S&
2009-09-01 07:18:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:47:13 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) •• WHY be
Of COURSE the egalitarians will succeed
or we'll suck, suck suck until we do suck semen.
You're posting some racy stuff lately, Crazy Craig...
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-09-01 10:32:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:18:58 -0400,
SUBMORONIC BIGOT, BILL TAYLOR
(aka "<S&***@Mactan-Game-Warden-Assoc.pi>") ...


...FORGED some crap the everyone in here knows I would
never write. Thus once again making a TOTAL fool of himself.
His desperation, as a bigoted LOSER, is FUN to watch! Great
comic theater!

<idiocy flushed>

WATCHING the BIGOTS SELF-DESTRUCT.
Sit Back and Enjoy the Show!!

[[[ READERS: It is funnier than hell to observe the
increasing crescendo of DESPERATION on the
part of the bigots as they make greater and
greater, and more *obvious* FOOLS of them-
selves, when egalitarians systematically expose,
and thus hasten the ultimate demise, of their
hate-agendas with FACTS that they cannot even
BEGIN to refute.

In LIEU of the opposing/refuting FACTS of which
they have NONE -- because such facts so not
even EXIST -- they resort to dishonest and down-
right idiotic actions and ploys, such as those in
which the above bigot engages routinely, in their
shrill desperation to do ANYTHING they can to
"defend" themselves. And as a result of their
OBVIOUS desperation and utter stupidity, they
succeed ONLY in assisting to raise society's con-
sciousness of the VACUOUSNESS and hateful-
ness of their SPECIOUS agendas.

Take their INANE attitude toward gays, for
example. Here in the USA, there are about 15
MILLION perfectly-normal people who happen
merely to have been born to find members of
the same sex attractive as partners, instead
of the opposite sex. Just like straights, they
have sex in private -- which thus makes that NO
one else's business. There is NO way that with
WHOM any person of legal age a person has
sex is anyone *else's* business. And that leaves
ONLY the **way** people have sex as a suppo-
sed "justification" for hateful and IGNORANT
people to cling to.

BUT -- *More* straights have sex in the SAME
way that gays do than there even ARE gays.

SO MUCH for there being ANY rational reason
for seeking to discriminate against ANY person
or group over the TRIVIALITY of such variations
of NORMALCY as are found in people with re-
gard to race, sexual, orientation, handedness,
or eye color.

The agendas of the sociopathic homophobes
thus are DOOMED, as society comes to the full
realization of this, and then REJECTS those
hateful agendas wholesale.

The SAME fate befell the segregationists 45
years ago, for the very SAME reasons. They
harbored IRRATIONAL and UNCONSCIONABLE
hate toward normal people for NO good reason.
Try and even FIND an UNcloseted segregation-
ist *now*!

SO -- let's all sit back and ENJOY the spectacle
as these bigots continue to publicly self-destruct
via their INANE and LYING antics -- while the
FACTS presented by egalitarians disintegrate
their agendas the way bright sunlight would
render literature's Dracula into a heap of dust. ]]]
LeRoy Blue
2009-09-03 02:10:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:32:59 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) •• WHY be
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")
"Craig Chilton", aka "Thomas P.," aka anonymous is a Liberal facist bigot who
posts regularly on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners,
his hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic Iowa corn pone patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "Craig Chilton" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"SOCK-It-To-Me" and former identities.
This guy is completely shameless.
The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about his strong
support for abortion and homosexuality (closted homo? Yes, most think so))
Some of his rantings are just comical.
However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. he recently
posted that it was proper to lie to cover one's ass.
He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior.
Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment <Crazy> Craig Chilton
makes. You really have to wonder about someone
who would post such a lies when everything is so easily checked
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Nod.
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-09-03 03:22:09 UTC
Permalink
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")

"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.

This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).

See Message-ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.

The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)

Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "***@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).

However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:***@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).

He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:***@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.

Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Anonymous Remailer
2009-09-03 09:13:51 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
"(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed?
The PROVEN Dishonesty of QUEERS and CRAIG BUTTHOLE CHILTON!
Pedophilia in the Homosexual World
By Bob Ellis on June 30th, 2009

It’s slowly starting to make the news, now. To be sure, the
“mainstream” media is doing as little as possible to cover this
heinous crime, but the new media is starting to make it know
despite their efforts to promote their “objective bias.”

I’m talking about Frank Lombard, Associate director of Duke
University’s Center for Health Policy, and his despicable
molestation of a 5-year old boy he adopted.

According to RPV Network, Lombard

was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with offering up
his adopted 5-year-old African American son for sex to an
undercover cop. Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted
son to the undercover officer in an online chat room under the
user name “Perv Dad for Fun”. He invited the under cover officer
to travel to North Carolina to rape his already-molested adopted
son. Lombard faces 20 years in prison if convicted but is not
eligible for the death penalty.

This is a video (see below) from a local newscast at WRAL; in
case it doesn’t embed well, you can go here to watch the report.
The video report says Lombard told undercover cops that he
specifically adopted a black child because they are “easier to
adopt” than white children. He also said that the abuse was
easier to perpetrate when the child was too young to talk or
know what was happening, and he had drugged the child with
benadryl during the molestation. Lombard lived in the house
with another homosexual, but waited until the partner was gone
to perpetrate the abuse.

What a disgusting excuse for a human being. It doesn’t matter
who did this to the child; it was extremely wrong. But as I
alluded to before, perhaps because Lombard was a homosexual, the
“mainstream” media seems to be keeping this outrageous crime
very low-key…as they have done in the past when homosexuals have
committed terrible crimes against children and other adults.

Research also indicates that the rate of molestation at the
hands of homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals.

Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education,
says that Department of Justice statistics show that 67 percent
of all reported sex abuse victims are children and 64 percent of
forcible sodomy victims are boys under 12.

The Baptist Press also reports that a study a study by Dr. Gene
Abel, director of the Behavioral Medicine Institute in Atlanta,
which was published in 1987 in the Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, found that homosexuals sexually molest young boys with
an incidence five times greater than the molestation rate of
girls. The study found that 150 boys are molested by one male
homosexual offender, compared to 19.8 girls by heterosexual
offenders.

This is especially telling because according to a survey
commissioned last year by the pro-homosexual Human Rights
Campaign, only 2.9% of the population is homosexual. This means
that while only making up a tiny portion of the overall
population, the perpetration of male molestation by homosexuals
is greater than the much larger general population.

This behavior would seem to go hand in hand with findings that
homosexual males were molested as children at much higher rates
than heterosexual men: 35% versus 4%; one study found a ratio
as high as 46% to 7%. As a former law enforcement official, the
information we had indicated that people who were molested as
children have a greater likelihood of perpetrating that behavior
on others when they grow up.

The Daily Mail from Great Britain reported last month that a
homosexual activist was exposed as a ringleader in one of
Scotland’s biggest pedophilia rings. According to the article,
James Rennie, 38, molested a three-month-old baby boy.

Rennie, 38, molested the toddler son of unsuspecting friends – a
little boy he had been trusted to babysit – recording the abuse
and sharing it with other perverts.

During their investigations, police recovered tens of thousands
of still and moving images of the most vile child abuse.

As bad as this is, it isn’t the worst of it:

One of the most worrying aspects of the case is the way Rennie
was able to reach a position where he could influence Executive
policy on child sexuality.

A trained teacher, Rennie became the boss of LGBT Youth
Scotland, a publicly-funded support group for lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender young people.

He took on the £40,000 a year role when the group was set up in
2003 and became the Executive’s most important and influential
adviser on gay issues affecting children.

Under his leadership, the group backed proposals to allow gay
adoption. As well as appearing in the Scottish parliament, he
was invited to a Royal Garden Party and to Downing Street.

This is far from the first time this has happened. The Daily
Mail in Britain reported two years ago that a homosexual couple
were allowed to foster care for several children and ended up
molesting four boys:

A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse
vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared
being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints,
an inquiry concluded yesterday.

Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual
couples in the country to be officially approved as foster
parents.

They looked after 18 children in only 15 months.

With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable
men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems.

In reality, they were paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the
children in their care.

Even when the mother of two of the children reported her
suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men’s
explanations and did nothing.


Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey,
they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between
them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.

No doubt “hate crime” laws and vociferous legitimization of
homosexual behavior led to this dereliction of duty on the part
of officials charged with protecting these children. This is
what can happen when political correctness is put ahead of the
welfare of the innocent.

And how much of this do we simply not hear about, since the
“mainstream” media sold out long ago to running interference for
the homosexual agenda.

We are making the same politically correct mistake here in the
United States that puts children in harm’s way.

President Obama and his wife Michelle both push homosexual
adoption in the United States, putting children at risk and at
best deliberately depriving them of either a mother or a father.

And as if to mirror this story from the UK, President Obama has
appointed Kevin Jennings, one of the biggest homosexual
activists in the country, to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of
Education. He is now in a very influential position to shape
educational policy for our nation’s children.

Yes, child molestation can and does happen with heterosexuals,
and that is just as wrong and as damaging to the child. Do all
homosexuals molest? No.

But if a person is willing to step over the line of one standard
of sexual conduct to perform acts that are immoral, unnatural
and unhealthy, how likely is it they may reach the point where
they are willing to step over even more critical ones? The
breaking down of moral barriers and progressive depravity is a
step-by-step process for most offenders that gets worse with
each new stage.

The primary duty of government is to protect innocent citizens
from harm. Except for children still in the womb, there are no
human beings more vulnerable to harm than children. The state
must stop treating children as if they were merely pets to be
passed around and start rigorously protecting them from any
substandard environment and environments that carry higher risks.

Homosexuals doing what they want in the privacy of their own
homes is one thing. For the state to place children in harm’s
way and to disregard the duty of the state to above all protect
the innocent is unconscionable.
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-09-03 10:41:56 UTC
Permalink
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")

"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.

This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).

See Message-ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.

The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)

Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "***@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).

However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:***@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).

He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:***@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.

Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
RamRod Sword of Baal
2009-09-03 21:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anonymous Remailer
Research also indicates that the rate of molestation at the
hands of homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals.
Not so, a look at the varous sex registries around the country prove that
this is a lie, and they cannot be tampered with.

Heterosexuals lead by far the number of persons who are on the sex registry
for molesting children

Check it out for yourself.


=========================
Post by Anonymous Remailer
Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education,
says that Department of Justice statistics show that 67 percent
of all reported sex abuse victims are children and 64 percent of
forcible sodomy victims are boys under 12.
These are convienient numbers to quote but mean little when you look at
them.



For instance if I said 95% of all children under 12 who were raped were
female it would have just as much meaning.

(95% is a fictional number to show a point)

Typical baloney put out by the bigot brigade and who love quoting Judith
Reisman, who does not have an untarnished record.........



http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2006/kinsey.html
A former singer and songwriter on the old "Captain Kangaroo" children's
show, Reisman remade herself into a researcher (her doctorate is in
communications, not any scientific discipline) and a self-proclaimed expert
on pornography and anything that makes Kinsey look bad. After the Kinsey
Institute criticized Reisman's 1990 Kinsey-bashing book -- described by one
scholarly reviewer as "an inflated political pamphlet" filled with
"innuendo, distortion, and selective representation of decontextualized
'facts'" -- Reisman sued the Kinsey Institute, claiming that it was trying
to suppress publicity about her book. Reisman was represented by the
Rutherford Institute, a conservative legal organization best known for suing
President Clinton on behalf of Paula Jones. The suit was eventually thrown
out of court.

-------------------------

Love this quote......

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/more_junk_science_from_judith.php

"Dr" Judith Reisman, the venerable old battleaxe who bravely fights the
forces of naughtiness, is back with yet another medically-useless diagnosis
of people she's never met.

-------------------------

http://www.jesus21.com/poppydixon/sex/kinsey/judith_reisman.html


THE PORN STUDY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early 1980s "the US Justice Department had given Reisman a grant for
$734,371 to study pictures in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler." [ 3 ]
Reisman used the grant to confirm her conclusion of "Kinsey's role in child
sexual abuse and the link to children appearing in mainstream
pornography..." [ 4 ] Dr. Reisman pored over thousands of pages of
pornographic literature. She felt herself persecuted at every turn and
complained of a conspiracy to derail her efforts, going so far as to blame
the Kinsey Institute for her inability to get published by a legitimate
publishing house. [ 5 ]

And to an extent, she was persecuted, though not for the reasons she
assumed. The Reagan-appointee who had commissioned the study, Alfred Regnery
(the head of a conservative publishing house), admitted he had been wrong to
do so. Avedon Carol writes:

It was a scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and baseless
assumptions. The American University (AU), where Reisman's study had been
academically based, actually refused to publish it when she released it,
after their independent academic auditor reported on it. Dr Robert Figlio of
the University of Pennsylvania told AU that, 'The term child used in the
aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be
meaningless.' Figlio told the press, 'I wondered what kind of mind would
consider the love scene from Romeo and Juliet to be child porn'. (Carol,
1994, p.116) [6]
Dr Loretta Haroian, the cochair of the plenary session of Child and
Adolescent Sexuality at the 1984 World Congress of Sexology, an expert on
childhood sexuality, was quoted as saying of Reisman,
This is not science, it's vigilantism: paranoid, pseudoscientific
hyperbole with a thinly veiled hidden agenda. This kind of thing doesn't
help children at all. ... Her [Reisman's] study demonstrates gross
negligence and, while she seems to have spent a lot of time collecting her
data, her conclusions, based on the data, are completely unwarranted. The
experts Reisman cites are, in fact, not experts at all but simply people who
have chosen to adopt some misinformed, Disneyland conception of childhood
that she has. These people are little more than censors hiding behind Christ
and children." (Carol, 1994, p.116). [7]

======================================
Bodine Pritchert
2009-09-04 05:36:53 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:46:42 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Anonymous Remailer
Research also indicates that the rate of molestation at the
hands of homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals.
Not so, a look at the varous sex registries around the country prove that
this is a lie, and they cannot be tampered with.
Heterosexuals lead by far the number of persons who are on the sex registry
for molesting children
On a per capita basis homosexuals far, far out number heterosexuals
in the crime of sexual abuse of children. One need only consider the
homosexual sexual abuse of tens of thousands post pubescent boys by
priest in the Catholic churches to get and understanding of the
enormously of this homosexual crime
Wilson Woods
2009-09-04 05:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bodine Pritchert
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:46:42 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Anonymous Remailer
Research also indicates that the rate of molestation at the
hands of homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals.
Not so, a look at the varous sex registries around the country prove that
this is a lie, and they cannot be tampered with.
Heterosexuals lead by far the number of persons who are on the sex registry
for molesting children
On a per capita basis homosexuals far, far out number heterosexuals
in the crime of sexual abuse of children. One need only consider the
homosexual sexual abuse of tens of thousands post pubescent boys by
priests in the Catholic churches to get an understanding of the
enormity of this homosexual crime
How about PRE-pubescent boys?

The fact the media didn't report the Catholic Church boy rape scandal as
a homosexual crime - a fact - is staggering.
RamRod Sword of Baal
2009-09-04 06:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bodine Pritchert
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:46:42 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Anonymous Remailer
Research also indicates that the rate of molestation at the
hands of homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals.
Not so, a look at the varous sex registries around the country prove that
this is a lie, and they cannot be tampered with.
Heterosexuals lead by far the number of persons who are on the sex registry
for molesting children
On a per capita basis homosexuals far, far out number heterosexuals
in the crime of sexual abuse of children. One need only consider the
homosexual sexual abuse of tens of thousands post pubescent boys by
priest in the Catholic churches to get and understanding of the
enormously of this homosexual crime
The statement was "Research also indicates that the rate of molestation at
the
hands of homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals".


Nothing to do with 'per capita' and I have stated that the majority of
sexual offenders in the sex registries are by far heterosexuals, which you
can check out for yourself.

Sex registries have true numbers, not forged or manipulated numbers like the
ones the bigots quote.

If you wish to see just how many underage females are sexually taken
advantage of, just do a search of underage unmarried
pregnancies...............

...................and these are the ones who got 'caught' having sex and
got pregnant, the true number is huge.

Unless of course you are silly enough to believe every one of these underage
girls got pregnant the first and only time they had sex and 100% of these
under aged girls who had sex got pregnant.............
Adolph Chilton
2009-08-15 20:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
It isn't what they do in their bedrooms; I don't care about that. It
isn't even mostly about the exaggeratedly flamboyant queer demeanor,
But you insist upon the very same thing. You insist that your
heterosexual relationships (assuming that there are any) be recognized
by the state and get state approval.
No, I don't.
So you wouldn't object if all marriage was eliminated.
Of course I would object.
Then you're a liar for claiming that you don't insist that your
heterosexual relationships get state approval.
No.
Stop lying.
I don't need any state approval of heterosexual relationships in
order not to want to see marriage eliminated.
And yet you ffer no other reason. You're just a stupid and dishonest
bigot flailing about for some reason to justify your hate.
Herr Fischer, you failed to call him a NAZI! You're slipping, Brown
Shirt Boy. Your great grand father, Adolf Hitler, would be
You're projecting, bigot.
Not at all. It is you, Herr Fischer, who constant makes reference to
the Nazis. Don't make your lying more obvious by denying that fact.
He's part of the hetero-hater family. If you don't suck dicks,
you're a Nazi.
Bill Taylor
2009-08-21 17:04:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
"(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
You failed again. How's it feel to be a continual failure?
(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) •• WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ••
2009-08-22 03:26:11 UTC
Permalink
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")

"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.

This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).

See Message-ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.

The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)

Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "***@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).

However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:***@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).

He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:***@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.

Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...