 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / July 2009Stand Up For Traditional Marriage!
On November 4th, the people spoke out on gay marriage - but the attacks on traditional marriage continue. Voters in California, Arizona and Florida added their voices to those in twenty seven other states by adding amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But now, radical liberals and gay activists are working to overturn the will of the people - even attempting to get judges to rule the amendments unconstitutional. Others even want the new liberal majority in Congress to pass legislation revoking the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Make sure that they don't succeed! Stand up and be counted for traditional marriage! Make sure that your elected officials hear from you and other pro- family Americans all across our country. Make sure they know that you want them to defend the traditional definition of marriage. Join our online campaign and have an impact: * Add your name to our petition to Defend Traditional Marriage * Send your members of Congress a fax letting them know how you feel * Forward a message to other pro-family Americans and encourage them to do the same! http://cc.org/savemarriage > On November 4th, the people spoke out on gay marriage - but the > attacks on traditional marriage continue. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > http://cc.org/savemarriage Come on now, let them get married and ram their aids infested dicks into aids infested a.sholes. > On November 4th, the people spoke out on gay marriage - but the > attacks on traditional marriage continue. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > http://cc.org/savemarriage When Deviant Behavior (deviating from normal accepted behavior) becomes mainstream we need to worry, especially when its forced upon us (including the forced teaching to our children, of this unacceptable lifestyle which most parents vehomently oppose), it opens the door for normalizing paligomy, incest, statatory rape / molestation, beastialty and many other offensive unacceptable behaviors. I am not trying to force gays not to act gay, but to respect my opinion (as they are demanding of me) that it is not acceptable to me to force me to participate in their lifestyle choice, that I don't agree with as being normal, or openly promote that unacceptable behavior to my children, whom I have every right to protect from what I deem unacceptable. It's not a right to be offensive. > > On November 4th, the people spoke out on gay marriage - but the > > attacks on traditional marriage continue. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > molestation, beastialty and many other offensive unacceptable > behaviors. Acceptance of gay marriage typically gets into the forties of percent in polls. Are you saying that forty percent of Americans now accept incest and statuatory rape? Are you saying that Iowa is now rife with polygamy and bestiality? If not, they why not? > I am not trying to force gays not to act gay, but to respect my > opinion (as they are demanding of me) that it is not acceptable to me > to force me to participate in their lifestyle choice, Oh, *that's* the problem. Well then, rest easy: no one, gay or straight, is asking you to marry a gay. Or even go out with one. > that I don't > agree with as being normal, or openly promote that unacceptable > behavior to my children, Ah, jeez. Who do you think is trying to get you to try to make your kids to go gay? > whom I have every right to protect from what > I deem unacceptable. > > It's not a right to be offensive. Um, check that First Amendment thingie. It actually is. Haiku Jones >> > On November 4th, the people spoke out on gay marriage - but the >> > attacks on traditional marriage continue. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > If not, they why not? Just because it's unclean and we're not going to tolerate take your reprobate attempts at relative moral acceptance >> I am not trying to force gays not to act gay, but to respect my >> opinion (as they are demanding of me) that it is not acceptable to me [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or straight, is asking you to marry a gay. Or even go out > with one. Hate crime legislation is an attempt to force communities to accept flamboyant expressions of solicitation under penalty of law. The Macy's Day Parade would be forced to tolerate homos on parade as would a Sadie Hawkins Dance all across America be forced to tolerate homo grinding. >> that I don't >> agree with as being normal, or openly promote that unacceptable >> behavior to my children, > > Ah, jeez. Who do you think is trying to get you to try to make > your kids to go gay? It's been the homo maphia's goal for 30 years >> whom I have every right to protect from what >> I deem unacceptable. >> >> It's not a right to be offensive. Then stop the attempt at relative moral acceptance > Um, check that First Amendment thingie. It actually > is. How about the equal protection clause which prohibits Congress from creating a special group of people who can dictate to others what they can say in church? > Haiku Jones > On November 4th, the people spoke out on gay marriage - but the > attacks on traditional marriage continue. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > majority in Congress to pass legislation revoking the federal Defense > of Marriage Act. You know something? If your marriage is in trouble, it's not because somewhere, somebody named Steve is marrying some dude named Jim. If your marriage is in trouble, it's because you're not doing your job, or your wife is not doing hers, or most likely both. A marriage of two people who are willing to work at it hardly needs "defending" from the preferences of two other people you've never even met. If you're running around on your wife, then telling Lisa she can't marry Daphne is hardly going to fix it. Haiku Jones > Make sure that they don't succeed! Stand up and be counted for > traditional marriage! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://cc.org/savemarriage Um ... what FOR ? Nothing particularly great about it, certainly no greater than a number of other options. Just seems a scheme to make divorce attourneys richer ... > Um ... what FOR ? > > Nothing particularly great about it, certainly no > greater than a number of other options. Just seems > a scheme to make divorce attourneys richer ... It is easier to just buy a house for some woman you hate. >On November 4th, the people spoke out on gay marriage - but the >attacks on traditional marriage continue. How is it that two homosexual men wanting to dedicate their lives to one another is somehow threatening "traditional marriage"? Does two men wanting to marry somehow mean you cannot marry a woman? Whree is the threat, or "attacks" on you? >Voters in California, Arizona and Florida added their voices to those >in twenty seven other states by adding amendments to their state [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >http://cc.org/savemarriage From: "hal" How is it that two homosexual men wanting to dedicate their lives to one another is somehow threatening "traditional marriage"? Does two men wanting to marry somehow mean you cannot marry a woman? Where is the threat, or "attacks" on you? Another stupid radical liberal cherry picking certain details to fit his agenda. Heterosexuality is morally acceptable; Opposites (a man and a woman) attract. Whereas faggots and dikes try to FORCE their lifestyle in Americans' faces and demand the same rights. If faggots and dikes were QUIET and private about their lifestyle choice, Hey, no problemo. BUT, they openly hold hands and/or french kiss their "partner" disgustingly in public, speak about the sick sexual things they do with their "partner", like sharing vibrators for example, they declare that they're gay or lesbian, and demand the same rights. Even Pat Robertson speaks out against "Gay Marriage" on the 700 Club, quoting the bible. Heterosexuals don't approach politicians asking for a declaration or acknowledgement of their sexual orientation from the mayor of the city they're in and have parades dedicated to them. Only the fags and dikes do that, seeking acceptance for their choices. Faggots and dikes CHOSE to be gay. They could say NO to that lifestyle, but chose not to. They chose the gay lifestyle, and that means inferior treatment regarding their wishes to get married to something the same gender as they. It really is morally unacceptable, and a sin. How does the wedding go if they get that right? The priest or whoever marries them would have to tell the faggots "I now pronounce you husband and husband; you may now kiss the husband". And what if they want to adopt? What are they going to tell the kids when they ask why they have 2 dads or 2 moms and where the other parent is? How are they going to explain to their kids that they chose to be gay and that they won't ever have the opposite parent. Kids need to be raised by 2 opposite parents instead of being taught the gay lifestyle to prevent the kids from adopting that lifestyle too, since they're impressionable at such a young age. So, "hal", THIS is where the THREAT comes from. I'm now guessing you'll see this and share more liberal myths to support gays marrying each other even though the voters don't approve of the gay lifestyle and their wishes to marry something the same gender as they. P.S. There's a HUGE difference between "dedicating their lives" like you said up above, and "gay marriage". Sure the fags and lesbians can "dedicate their lives" to their "partner", but if you think that's synonymous with "gay marriage" that's where your liberal mind set is sorely mistaken. > > From: "hal" [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > synonymous with "gay marriage" that's where your liberal mind set is > sorely mistaken. "dedicating their lives" is what marriage is all about, and is probably the best that they can have where they can't marry. I don't look at the "marriage" point of view. There is no threat to conventional marriage. I look at the happiness of two people who find emotional support in each other. Frankly, I would hate to be one of them, vilified as they are by people like the OP. But they are human beings, and they are entitled to "the pursuit of happiness," just as much as you and me.  SignatureDogmatism is only puppyism come to full growth. Yes! ram405@webtv.net wrote: From: "hal" How is it that two homosexual men wanting to dedicate their lives to one another is somehow threatening "traditional marriage"? Does two men wanting to marry somehow mean you cannot marry a woman? Where is the threat, or "attacks" on you? Another stupid radical liberal cherry picking certain details to fit his agenda. Heterosexuality is morally acceptable; Opposites (a man and a woman) attract. Whereas faggots and dikes try to FORCE their lifestyle in Americans' faces and demand the same rights. If faggots and dikes were QUIET and private about their lifestyle choice, Hey, no problemo. BUT, they openly hold hands and/or french kiss their "partner" disgustingly in public, speak about the sick sexual things they do with their "partner", like sharing vibrators for example, they declare that they're gay or lesbian, and demand the same rights. Even Pat Robertson speaks out against "Gay Marriage" on the 700 Club, quoting the bible. Heterosexuals don't approach politicians asking for a declaration or acknowledgement of their sexual orientation from the mayor of the city they're in and have parades dedicated to them. Only the fags and dikes do that, seeking acceptance for their choices. Faggots and dikes CHOSE to be gay. They could say NO to that lifestyle, but chose not to. They chose the gay lifestyle, and that means inferior treatment regarding their wishes to get married to something the same gender as they. It really is morally unacceptable, and a sin. How does the wedding go if they get that right? The priest or whoever marries them would have to tell the faggots "I now pronounce you husband and husband; you may now kiss the husband". And what if they want to adopt? What are they going to tell the kids when they ask why they have 2 dads or 2 moms and where the other parent is? How are they going to explain to their kids that they chose to be gay and that they won't ever have the opposite parent. Kids need to be raised by 2 opposite parents instead of being taught the gay lifestyle to prevent the kids from adopting that lifestyle too, since they're impressionable at such a young age. So, "hal", THIS is where the THREAT comes from. I'm now guessing you'll see this and share more liberal myths to support gays marrying each other even though the voters don't approve of the gay lifestyle and their wishes to marry something the same gender as they. P.S. There's a HUGE difference between "dedicating their lives" like you said up above, and "gay marriage". Sure the fags and lesbians can "dedicate their lives" to their "partner", but if you think that's synonymous with "gay marriage" that's where your liberal mind set is sorely mistaken. ______________________________________ From: Doug Laidlaw "dedicating their lives" is what marriage is all about, and is probably the best that they can have where they can't marry. That's sufficient considering that they CHOSE to be gay and live the gay lifestyle. I don't look at the "marriage" point of view. There is no threat to conventional marriage. I look at the happiness of two people who find emotional support in each other. Fine, they're entitled to their "partner's" emotional support, but shouldn't be vindictive towards lawmakers and voters when they don't support "gay marriage". Frankly, I would hate to be one of them, vilified as they are by people like the OP. Doug, I vilify them ONLY because they go public with their sexual orientation and making out in public, and then have the guts to tell the rest of society to respect their (immoral) life choice. They KNOW that what they're doing is morally unacceptable, and a sin according to the bible. They know what they're doing is wrong; That's why they demand for citizens, lawmakers, and voters to support and legalize what they're doing or trying to do (in this case, marry something the same gender as they) And then they get mad when states pass laws or constitutional amendments banning "gay marriage". They say they want the SAME rights as heterosexuals, but allowing gays to marry gives them SPECIAL rights; Lawmakers and churches would have to rewrite the law books and wedding procedures. They can "devote their lives" to someone who offers them "emotional support", but allowing "gay marriage" is asking the government to legalize their immoral choices and give them SPECIAL rights over heterosexuals. But they are human beings, Huh? Very questionable due to their risky, unprotected sex acts. They act more like animals. and they are entitled to "the pursuit of happiness," just as much as you and me. Just not by begging and getting vindictive towards lawmakers and voters since most don't approve of those marrying something the same gender as they. >Doug, I vilify them ONLY because they go public with their sexual >orientation and making out in public, and then have the guts to tell the >rest of society to respect their (immoral) life choice. They KNOW that >what they're doing is morally unacceptable, and a sin according to the >bible. Did you say "bible"? Dear ram405: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your posts and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them. 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. From: rjklutz@hotmail.com (rj) Did you say "bible"? Yeah, so what the f.ck are you going to do about it from your keyboard? Dear ram405: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. Glad you realize I'm right. I have learned a great deal from your posts and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. Good, as long as you realize the truth instead of your liberal delusions. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. Nope, debate goes on until you quit antagonizing by defending the homosexual lifestyle that you preached up above but you didn't say you practice it. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them. Too bad; those "other specific laws and how to follow them" are totally irrelevant to the topic of "gay marriage" It really is tough for a bleeding heart liberal such as yourself to stay on topic instead of going off on a tangent, eh "rj"? I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. You're right; I just did, too. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. You're welcome for realizing that I'm right and you're not. > ram405@webtv.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Robertson speaks out against "Gay Marriage" on the 700 Club, quoting > the bible. Why would it be ok for heteros to hold hands but not homosexuals? If you replaced this entirething with inter racial marriage, then we could just rewind the historical tape. You are doing the same thing all over again. > Heterosexuals don't approach politicians asking for a declaration or > acknowledgement of their sexual orientation from the mayor of the city > they're in and have parades dedicated to them. Only the fags and dikes > do that, seeking acceptance for their choices. Heterosexuals don't have to. They are already legally able to marry. > Faggots and dikes CHOSE to be gay. Whether or not that is true, so what? It is their right to so choose. From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) Why would it be ok for heteros to hold hands but not homosexuals? If you replaced this entire thing with inter racial marriage, then we could just rewind the historical tape. You are doing the same thing all over again. My remarks are in reference to them PUBLICLY making out and then demanding acceptance for their choices. In private, fine, but not so everybody in public can watch the homos licking each other or inserting their tongues in each others mouth with one's head to the side; THAT's what's sick! When puppies do it, it's cute, but not homos. Heterosexuals don't approach politicians asking for a declaration or acknowledgement of their sexual orientation from the mayor of the city they're in and have parades dedicated to them. Only the fags and dikes do that, seeking acceptance for their choices. Heterosexuals don't have to. They are already legally able to marry. Irrelevant; My point is, gays approach politicians like mayors, and want a declaration from the city and parades dedicated to their choice to act and be sexual towards something the same gender as they. Heterosexuals don't ask mayors to declare a day for them and have a parade for their sexuality. Faggots and dikes CHOSE to be gay. Whether or not that is true, so what? It is their right to so choose. I didn't say that they DIDN'T have the "right to so choose" as you said, but there's a liberal myth that faggots and lesbians are inclined genetically or hereditarily to be gay, or they're under some kind of spell that made them gay. PURE MYTH!! They CHOSE to be gay, but they'd rather blame it on them going that way or being inclined to for whatever reason. Nope; They CHOSE to be gay, but they'd rather have others believe that they had no control over that CHOICE. Bull sh.t!!! So don't say "Whether or not that is true", because it IS true. You're not very smart if you believe they're under a spell or somehow forced to be gay; they're not forced to be gay; they're inclined, which implies voluntary consent, not duress. > > From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > be gay; they're not forced to be gay; they're inclined, which implies > voluntary consent, not duress. So much meat and taters here.. I'm honestly sad I did not read all your post. Bob > From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My remarks are in reference to them PUBLICLY making out and then > demanding acceptance for their choices. You are demanding, in this public newgroup, that I accept your ignorance. What's the difference? I am forced to accept the pubkic choices of bible thumpers on street corners and knocking on my door. What's the difference? I don't think anyone every guaranteed the right not to witness things you don't like. From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) Why would it be ok for heteros to hold hands but not homosexuals? If you replaced this entire thing with inter racial marriage, then we could just rewind the historical tape. You are doing the same thing all over again. My remarks are in reference to them PUBLICLY making out and then demanding acceptance for their choices. You are demanding, in this public news group, Never heard of a private NG. What's you point, other than accusations to twist the facts towards and against me on totally irrelevant topics? And besides, it may be a public NG, but I'm posting in the PRIVACY of my cozy furnished apartment, using only my e-mail address and no nickname or monicker. So I'm not PUBLICLY expressing hate for gays, like immediately outside a building. Being outside a building is what makes it PUBLIC. that I accept your ignorance. What's the difference? I am forced to accept the public choices of bible thumpers on street corners and knocking on my door. What's the difference? I don't think anyone every guaranteed the right not to witness things you don't like. I didn't demand a thing. That's your persecutory delusions lashing out at me because you feel harassed by my views on faggots and dikes. So that's what the difference is. I never said I was a bible thumper or even implied I was, but that's the (mis)interpretation by you and "rj". And, there's a difference between "witnessing things I don't like" and witnessing sick things like fags and dikes making out in public and declaring they're gay and demanding acceptance. And FYI, "Stephanie", I don't demand a thing in life because I don't have any power and very little money. Demands (and expectations) are greedy, and greed is most noticeable by those with money and power, like: Obama, the rich such as Bill Gates & Donald Trump, celebrities, employers, banks, Congress, the Supreme Court. I think you get the point unless you turned into a pinhead that's cherry picking certain statements and making accusations and charges that are unfounded based on what I say. Yes, I'm very opinionated on hot button issues like gay marriage, Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, and cops. You're mad because my opinions and viewpoints don't match yours. > From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to twist the facts towards and against me on totally irrelevant topics?Any > more than I have a right My point iss that you don't have a right to have other people not do things that make you iuncomfortable to satisfy your ignorance. I suggest OE quote fix to you. >> From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > not do things that make you iuncomfortable to satisfy your > ignorance. The fact that you've attributed the difference between your respective opinions as being due to *his* ignorance speaks volumes of your own. "The first casualty of the need to prove tolerance IS tolerance". From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) Why would it be ok for heteros to hold hands but not homosexuals? If you replaced this entire thing with inter racial marriage, then we could just rewind the historical tape. You are doing the same thing all over again. My remarks are in reference to them PUBLICLY making out and then demanding acceptance for their choices. You are demanding, in this public news group, Never heard of a private NG. What's you point, other than accusations to twist the facts towards and against me on totally irrelevant topics?Any more than I have a right My point iss that you don't have a right to have other people not do things that make you iuncomfortable to satisfy your ignorance. I suggest OE quote fix to you. You're incomprehensible. Learn to speak intelligently and spell correctly. And as usual you're misinterpreting and trying to twist something irrelevant towards me (and it's not working in your favor, either) because I don't share your selfish liberal views on the topic of "gay marriage", which pinheaded bleeding heart liberals like yourself are veering off topic. The topic is "Stand up for Traditional Marriage". I am, you're not. And unless you're president, Congress, or a judge, YOU DON'T TELL ME what I do and don't have a right to do. It's a free country. I express my opinions without telling you what your rights are and/or aren't. You disagree, so you're trying to create and invoke a dictatorship in this Democracy. > From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You're incomprehensible. Learn to speak intelligently and spell > correctly. How of hands, fellow newsgroup people. Who found that sentence incomprehensible? Please tell me which words were spellled incorrectly. >And as usual you're misinterpreting and trying to twist > something irrelevant towards me (and it's not working in your favor, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > president, Congress, or a judge, YOU DON'T TELL ME what I do and > don't have a right to do. It's a free country. Ahhh. For *you* it is. But I will end this torture. From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) Why would it be ok for heteros to hold hands but not homosexuals? If you replaced this entire thing with inter racial marriage, then we could just rewind the historical tape. You are doing the same thing all over again. My remarks are in reference to them PUBLICLY making out and then demanding acceptance for their choices. You are demanding, in this public news group, Never heard of a private NG. What's you point, other than accusations to twist the facts towards and against me on totally irrelevant topics?Any more than I have a right My point iss that you don't have a right to have other people not do things that make you iuncomfortable to satisfy your ignorance. I suggest OE quote fix to you. You're incomprehensible. Learn to speak intelligently and spell correctly. How of hands, fellow newsgroup people. Who found that sentence incomprehensible? Please tell me which words were spellled incorrectly. I shouldn't have to, but I will since you're too dumb and/or lazy to look in the dictionary yourself. Yeah, you're a lazy Dumbocrat. You said "My point iss". Don't you mean "My point IS"? In the paragraph above that, you have an incomplete sentence; you typed "Any more than I have a right" "not to do things that make you iuncomfortable" There is no I in uncomfortable. You typed "How of hands". Don't you mean "Show of hands"? You typed "Please tell me which words were spellled incorrectly". There's only 2 L's in "spelled", not 3. I almost missed that 1 if I hadn't used my spell checker on my WebTV. HA!!! You misspelled "spelled" by using 3 L's. Now that's funny!! ROTFLMAO "I suggest OE quote fixed to you". More incomprehensibility. You get so upset by my viewpoints that you don't pay close attention to what you're typing, and obviously you don't use your computer's spell checker, because you're obsessed with turning the "gay marriage" debate into something about me that's irrelevant to the topic. And you're in a hurry to turn the debate onto something about me and my views by making irrelevant comparisons that aren't fact based. They're your assumptions. And as usual you're misinterpreting and trying to twist something irrelevant towards me (and it's not working in your favor, either) because I don't share your selfish liberal views on the topic of "gay marriage", which pin headed bleeding heart liberals like yourself are veering off topic. The topic is "Stand up for Traditional Marriage". I am, you're not. And unless you're president, Congress, or a judge, YOU DON'T TELL ME what I do and don't have a right to do. It's a free country. Ahhh. For *you* it is. But I will end this torture. How are you gonna do that, with or from your KEYBOARD? Not much you can do but lash out. You dish it to me, I'll dish it right back. I've proven myself to be a NG troll with my viewpoints you don't agree with, so you're trying to control me, instead of your out-of-control self. Bring it on!!! I'm ready for what you dish out. I'm right, you're wrong. > From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > You said "My point iss". Don't you mean "My point IS"? Ah. You like to pick nints on people's typographical errors. Nice for you. Have a nice life. From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) Why would it be ok for heteros to hold hands but not homosexuals? If you replaced this entire thing with inter racial marriage, then we could just rewind the historical tape. You are doing the same thing all over again. My remarks are in reference to them PUBLICLY making out and then demanding acceptance for their choices. You are demanding, in this public news group, Never heard of a private NG. What's you point, other than accusations to twist the facts towards and against me on totally irrelevant topics?Any more than I have a right My point iss that you don't have a right to have other people not do things that make you iuncomfortable to satisfy your ignorance. I suggest OE quote fix to you. You're incomprehensible. Learn to speak intelligently and spell correctly. How of hands, fellow newsgroup people. Who found that sentence incomprehensible? Please tell me which words were spellled incorrectly. I shouldn't have to, but I will since you're too dumb and/or lazy to look in the dictionary yourself. Yeah, you're a lazy Dumbocrat. You said "My point iss". Don't you mean "My point IS"? Ah. You like to pick nints on people's typographical errors. Nice for you. Have a nice life. Nope; you're misinterpreting again; YOU said, and I quote, "Please tell me which words were spellled incorrectly". So I did. And because you said "Please", I'll say "You're welcome". That's not "picking nints". I did what you asked nicely for others to do for you. And I will have a nice life. Thanks for your sincere wishes. It's better than your irrelevant attacks. LOL (snip of madness) >Ah. You like to pick nints on people's typographical errors. Nice for you. >Have a nice life. Yo! Steph! PEOPLE! As should be abundantly clear by now, this "ram405" creature is naught but a TROLL. And the most effective way to deal with a troll is to simply ignore it. <evil grin> But personally, I think it's sometimes a bit more fun to talk ABOUT the troll.... but not talk TO the troll. Tends to drive 'em even nuttier than they already are... if that's possible. Cheers! rj > (snip of madness) > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > rj Ok. Well I will start. But I am not sure how successful I will be. (The nore sanity returns to my own life, the less I feel like calling people names and generally being a beotch.) I think it is really alarming that people this stupid are allowed to vote. I am reminded of a book by Sherry S Tepper. It is called El Fresco or The Fresco or some such. She is not the Great American Author or anything, but she spins a moving tale, always with NOT subtle political messages.So in this story she is ridiculing political posturing and a bunch of other things. So... in this fictional story there are a bunch of aliens... and their motives are not important. .Some of the aliens wh have arrived in a peace negotiation only agreed to come if their offspring were found appropriate hosts as they can only reproduce X times per Y. So they choose.... white Replublican right wing men who have been stumping about the immorality of terminating life and the need to suck it up, even in the case of rape, for the greater good. The aliens figured that they would be the perfect hosts with such convictions! I wish this gentleman could have such a mind altering thing happen to him! It is easy enough to see how THOSE people should not be allowed to ... whatever. >> (snip of madness) >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > It is easy enough to see how THOSE people should not be allowed to ... > whatever. I think we all ought to vote for Sarah Palin. Next? ROFLMAO. >>> (snip of madness) >>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >ROFLMAO. Ahh, Bill! Good to see you laughing! Y'know, Bill... YOU could almost qualify for membership in The United Brotherhood of Trolls yourself. <grin> Almost. But not quite! rj On Jul 15, 9:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> (snip of madness) > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > ROFLMAO. I'd ROFLMAO too, 'cept I'm staying at a Day's Inn, and who knows who rolled around here--prob'ly a bunch of heterosexual porno adulterers? >>> (snip of madness) >>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > ROFLMAO. To be so misunderstood! >>>> (snip of madness) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > To be so misunderstood! Who?? The group, or Sarah? Sarah is NOT misunderstood, at least not by me (there's just not all that much "there" to be understood). >>>>> (snip of madness) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Who?? The group, or Sarah? Sarah is NOT misunderstood, at least > not by me (there's just not all that much "there" to be understood). No, you must have misunderstoof me to come up with such a complete non-seuitur as to sya let's vote for Sarah Palin. Unless you have an onsession with her and would respond that to anything, which is not all that unlike you. Viva la new age. >>>>>> (snip of madness) >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Viva la new age. I wasn't referring to what YOU explicitly said, Steph. It was a more general comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding. >>> Who?? The group, or Sarah? Sarah is NOT misunderstood, at least >>> not by me (there's just not all that much "there" to be understood). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I wasn't referring to what YOU explicitly said, Steph. It was a more > general comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Well I can only say it is amazing that you caould tell what the hell I was saying. My typing has gotten *even worse.* I guess I don't understand why you reply to specific posts with general comments. You could always start a thread. I would cheerfully have a conversation about all the reasons Sarah Palin demonstrates some of the difficulties of democracy and giving stupid lemmings the vote. But I don't understand why you make outbursts like that mid-thread to whcih you comments have no relationship. > (snip of madness) > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > rj What's that old saying about how it's best to get out of the trough when swimming with the pigs, or whatever it was? I can't recall. > (snip of madness) > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > rj Isn't that what we're doing? :) Yo! Steph! PEOPLE! As should be abundantly clear by now, this "ram405" creature is naught but a TROLL. And the most effective way to deal with a troll is to simply ignore it. <evil grin> But personally, I think it's sometimes a bit more fun to talk ABOUT the troll.... but not talk TO the troll. Tends to drive 'em even nuttier than they already are... if that's possible. Cheers! rj Gossiping about me within this thread isn't going to make me nuttier. Actually it'll be funnier, because it really reflects on the other poster's mental state rather than mine. Like I keep saying, Bring it on!! I'm fully prepared to defend my viewpoints which the liberal pussies don't agree with, so they try to make the thread about me instead of staying on topic. I just dish back the same, or worse than what pricks like "rj" say about and/or to me. So, keep it up; I'm having fun. The adrenaline's really pumpin' now since y'all are so obsessed with trying to change my viewpoints on traditional and gay marriage. > > Yo! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > since y'all are so obsessed with trying to change my viewpoints on > traditional and gay marriage. It easy to tell you are pumping something... But we still find you amusing, so just be whom you are. Bob >> >> Yo! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Bob No Bob! <evil grin> ABOUT the troll.... not TO the troll. So, keep it up; I'm having fun. The adrenaline's really pumpin' now since y'all are so obsessed with trying to change my viewpoints on traditional and gay marriage. It easy to tell you are pumping something... It's easy to tell you are FULL of something... But we still find you amusing, so just be whom you are. But I still find you boring and ancient, so change. Robert > > From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > rights are and/or aren't. You disagree, so you're trying to create and > invoke a dictatorship in this Democracy. Can we agree that "making out" in any public place is offensive under any circumstance, and should be left for a more private situation? I don't care if you are gay or any other orientation. But making out in public regardless of your orientation is just rude public behavior. Bob Why would it be ok for heteros to hold hands but not homosexuals? If you replaced this entire thing with inter racial marriage, then we could just rewind the historical tape. You are doing the same thing all over again. My remarks are in reference to them PUBLICLY making out and then demanding acceptance for their choices. You are demanding, in this public news group, Never heard of a private NG. What's you point, other than accusations to twist the facts towards and against me on totally irrelevant topics?Any more than I have a right My point iss that you don't have a right to have other people not do things that make you iuncomfortable to satisfy your ignorance. I suggest OE quote fix to you. You're incomprehensible. Learn to speak intelligently and spell correctly. And as usual you're misinterpreting and trying to twist something irrelevant towards me (and it's not working in your favor, either) because I don't share your selfish liberal views on the topic of "gay marriage", which pin headed bleeding heart liberals like yourself are veering off topic. The topic is "Stand up for Traditional Marriage". I am, you're not. And unless you're president, Congress, or a judge, YOU DON'T TELL ME what I do and don't have a right to do. It's a free country. I express my opinions without telling you what your rights are and/or aren't. You disagree, so you're trying to create and invoke a dictatorship in this Democracy. Can we agree that "making out" in any public place is offensive under any circumstance, and should be left for a more private situation? I don't care if you are gay or any other orientation. But making out in public regardless of your orientation is just rude public behavior. Bob I TOTALLY agree with that statement, Bob. Making out in public should be banned, but especially by gays since it's a sick thing to witness them play with each others tongues while 1 of the guys head is to the side. It's so animalistic. That's all I'm saying, is that gays should keep their sexual orientation to themselves and do their fiendish, sick sex acts in their partner's abode, PRIVATELY. What I hate about gays is when they make out in public, publicly declare that they're gay and simultaneously demanding the same rights as heterosexuals, and getting vindictive towards lawmakers and voters who pass laws and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. They know their idea is a loser to begin with, and that most states and voters have said they don't approve of, especially like in California, but they won't be satisfied until they're allowed to marry their "partner". Time for the faggots and dikes to suck it up and move on, and realize they don't get everything they want in life, especially unreasonable requests like marrying something the same gender as they. On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, ram...@webtv.net wrote: > Why would it be ok for heteros to hold hands but not homosexuals? If you > replaced this entire thing with inter racial marriage, then we could [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > especially unreasonable requests like marrying something the same gender > as they. Damn! I'm glad you weren't around when women were trying to get the right to vote...or blacks trying to become more than 3/5 human! > On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, ram...@webtv.net wrote: >> Why would it be ok for heteros to hold hands but not homosexuals? If you [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Damn! I'm glad you weren't around when women were trying to get the > right to vote...or blacks trying to become more than 3/5 human! Women have the right to vote???? (duckin.....) (snip) > Damn! I'm glad you weren't around when women were trying to get the > right to vote...or blacks trying to become more than 3/5 human! I think he was. Or at any rate, plenty of people just like him. > (snip) > >> Damn! I'm glad you weren't around when women were trying to get the >> right to vote...or blacks trying to become more than 3/5 human! > > I think he was. Or at any rate, plenty of people just like him. Yes! I feel better now that I responded to his ilk!!! And women by the way, deserve to vote, as long as they vote my way :-P Bob > > Why would it be ok for heteros to hold hands but not homosexuals? If you [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > especially unreasonable requests like marrying something the same gender > as they. Are you as really retarded as you sound? Do NOT associate me with your thoughts on gayness. I cuold give a lords leap about if you are gay (or in your case, have an issue with it) or not. My statement had to do with the rudeness of sharing public displays of affection, where it is offensive to others. Has nothing to do with orientation. Grow up, and come back when you have an opinion worth listening to. Bob From: bob.muncie@gmail.com (Bob Muncie) Are you as really retarded as you sound? No, but I can picture you beating the palm of your hand against your chest like you retards are known to do since you don't know any better. Do NOT associate me with your thoughts on gayness. I agreed; that's different from associating, they're not synonymous. I cuold give a lords leap about if you are gay (or in your case, have an issue with it) or not. My statement had to do with the rudeness of sharing public displays of affection, where it is offensive to others. Has nothing to do with orientation. Grow up, and come back when you have an opinion worth listening to. Make me. And let me know HOW you're going to make me, especially from YOUR keyboard. And I feel the same way about you too; YOUR opinions aren't "worth listening to" either. It's only natural for hate mongers like yourself to despise those who don't have the exact same opinions as you. Well, you're not changing MY views on "gay marriage"; you're not going to, Stephanie isn't, NOBODY! Too many fuckin' brainless liberal pussies here, and I'm not 1 of them. Only liberals support "gay marriage". Conservatives sure don't. And Bob Muncie and Stephanie are the biggest brainless liberal pussies that ever existed. I'm glad you pussies don't know MY identity. And Bob needs to learn to be comprehensible, and take spelling lessons too. The unedited posting has "cuold" misspelled. Better than Stephanie's typing, but not error free, like mine, since I always spell check and edit where needed. I'm not in a hurry to post like you liberal pussies. Keep it up and bring it on!! I'm having fun lashing out at the liberal pussies who support gay marriage and try to make the issue about me when it isn't. I've posted a lot, but the topic is "Stand up for traditional marriage", which I'm doing. And that pisses you liberal sissies off that I'm against it and that I'm loud with my viewpoints. That's the beauty of posting online vs. a letter to the editor of a newspaper. On the internet, online anonymity exists. So, any of you liberal pussies going to do a Google search to find out who I am? > > From: bob.muncie@gmail.com (Bob Muncie) [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > the internet, online anonymity exists. So, any of you liberal pussies > going to do a Google search to find out who I am? I'm glad you are more worried about the finer points. That makes mine all the easier to make. I don't consider myself a liberal, but if that means I am opposite from you, than that's okay. I never wanted to be a retard. I don't need Google by the way to know your ilk. You are rather a plain jane "off the scale" retard. I would not bother looking for you in real life. I have no interest. Have fun being whom you are. Some day, it will catch up with you. I feel sad for your life. Bob I'm glad you are more worried about the finer points. That makes mine all the easier to make. Wow, the assumptions continue, this time from the liberal pussy that's not female. I don't consider myself a liberal, Maybe you don't "consider yourself a liberal" but you DEMONSTRATE liberalism by your comments implying that you support gay marriage like Stephanie does. Mine are arrogant towards dictative pussies like yourself that order me to do or not to do things when you're not even my employer. I only take orders from employers. I even disobey cops. but if that means I am opposite from you, than that's okay. Nope; THAT'S ilk. I never wanted to be a retard. But you are, so time to accept and face your new reality since you don't have the wits to compete against me with sarcastic and vindictive postings after you read mine. I don't need Google by the way to know your ilk. You are rather a plain jane "off the scale" retard. I know you are, but what am I? I would not bother looking for you in real life. I have no interest. And if I saw you having a heart attack on the street and I knew CPR, I STILL wouldn't try to save your life or even call 911 on your behalf since you're such a dink. Have fun being whom you are. I will, because I'm proud. Some day, it will catch up with you. Doubt it. I feel sad for your life. No reason to; I'm a lot better off in life than you. Bobblehead > > I'm glad you are more worried about the finer points. That makes mine [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Bobblehead > I'd laugh and point at you, but that really would just make me as sad as you. Please go on and be a happier person. That would really make me feel better. Good luck with your future, and please consider trying to be a happier person, Bob On Jul 15, 7:55 pm, ram...@webtv.net wrote: > No reason to; I'm a lot better off in life than you. > > Bobblehead How so? I mean,what are your criteria for being "better off in life" than another? No reason to; I'm a lot better off in life than you. Bobblehead How so? I mean,what are your criteria for being "better off in life" than another? The only criteria is B.M. telling me he's sorry for my life, and that's why I told him there's no reason to. On Jul 15, 9:17 pm, ram...@webtv.net wrote: > No reason to; I'm a lot better off in life than you. > Bobblehead [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The only criteria is B.M. telling me he's sorry for my life, and that's > why I told him there's no reason to. That's pretty sorry criteria. As for the Bible, well, didn't Jesus say to just leave the ppl who didn't believe in His word alone? (Sermon on the Mount) Don't worry about thee mote in thine brother's eye, Ramwhatever, just look to your own... No reason to; I'm a lot better off in life than you. Bobblehead How so? I mean,what are your criteria for being "better off in life" than another? The only criteria is B.M. telling me he's sorry for my life, and that's why I told him there's no reason to. That's pretty sorry criteria. Too bad; it's sufficient enough. As for the Bible, well, didn't Jesus say to just leave the ppl who didn't believe in His word alone? (Sermon on the Mount) I don't know, you tell me; I never directly stated NOR implied that I read the bible from front to cover; that's what's being assumed though. And I haven't made any statements to even remotely imply that I ever studied. I only study what seems interesting to me. Don't worry about thee mote in thine brother's eye, Ramwhatever, just look to your own... Amen, Sista! LOL On Jul 15, 10:11 pm, ram...@webtv.net wrote: > No reason to; I'm a lot better off in life than you. > Bobblehead [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And I haven't made any statements to even remotely imply that I ever > studied. I only study what seems interesting to me. Huh? The bible isn't interesting to you? Why not? Just b/c I mentioned it doesn't mean I think *you* believe in it--so where did you make that connection? > Don't worry about thee mote in thine brother's eye, Ramwhatever, just > look to your own... > > Amen, Sista! LOL Ain't a Sista, eitha...bro.... > On Jul 15, 10:11 pm, ram...@webtv.net wrote: >> No reason to; I'm a lot better off in life than you. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ain't a Sista, eitha...bro.... I will say I am pleased to see my initials bandied about so much.. makes me feel special. But you Fill are just keeping me rolling about the floor laughing. Thanks as I needed this tonight. Bob I will say I am pleased to see my initials bandied about so much.. makes me feel special. Didn't realize that using initials 1 time qualified as "so much". I will say I am pleased to see my initials bandied about so much.. makes me feel special. Didn't realize that using initials 1 time qualified as "so much". AND, under THAT analogy, I guess if you have only 1 penny, you have "so much" money. Right? Huh? The bible isn't interesting to you? Why not? Just isn't. Just b/c I mentioned it doesn't mean I think *you* believe in it--so where did you make that connection? Why are you assuming? Amen, Sista! LOL Ain't a Sista, eitha...bro.... Ain't black, eitha...Sista.... > > Huh? The bible isn't interesting to you? Why not? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ain't black, eitha...Sista.... Plonk... you have now crossed into the zone of boring. G'bye. Plonk... you have now crossed into the zone of boring. G'bye. Hey, you can quit reading my posts at any time, but you can't resist, can you? You read and then reply indirectly to me. And it's YOU who's boring. See ya later, I know you'll read my posts and post a short, dismissive opinion, telling me "Go away" or like you said above "G'bye". I'll go away when I'm ready. Posters like yourself and Stephanie keep me going. > > Plonk... you have now crossed into the zone of boring. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > opinion, telling me "Go away" or like you said above "G'bye". I'll go > away when I'm ready. Posters like yourself and Stephanie keep me going. Marriage needs more than the Bible to make it credible. Marriage was around long before the Bible was written. And it exists in every culture, in one form or another. Revolutionary Russia tried to do away with it, but popular demand made them bring it back. I believe in the values stated in the Bible (and I respect it enough to capitalise it,) but I won't let it stop me using my God-given intelligence. That is the only thing that is boring about your posts. "The Bible says.." end of story. It is an assumption set in concrete. When that is applied to attitudes to Negroes, it is called prejudice. Or try to reason with somebody from soc.men -- I have tried. When it is applied to the Bible, it is apparently different. Why? Because the alternative is illegal, or because considering the alternative is too risky for you? I am prepared to consider the possibility that the Bible is a subversive creation of the Devil. Having considered that, I no longer believe it. The Bible accords with my idea of positive human values. But you won't even consider the possibility. Doug L. SignatureWe make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. - Winston Churchill. A man's values, not a woman's, apparently? Plonk... you have now crossed into the zone of boring. G'bye. Hey, you can quit reading my posts at any time, but you can't resist, can you? You read and then reply indirectly to me. And it's YOU who's boring. See ya later, I know you'll read my posts and post a short, dismissive opinion, telling me "Go away" or like you said above "G'bye". I'll go away when I'm ready. Posters like yourself and Stephanie keep me going. Marriage needs more than the Bible to make it credible. Marriage was around long before the Bible was written. And it exists in every culture, in one form or another. Revolutionary Russia tried to do away with it, but popular demand made them bring it back. I believe in the values stated in the Bible (and I respect it enough to capitalise it,) but I won't let it stop me using my God-given retardation. That is the only thing that is boring about your posts. "The Bible says.." end of story. It is an assumption set in concrete. When that is applied to attitudes to Negroes, it is called prejudice. Or try to reason with somebody from soc.men -- I have tried. When it is applied to the Bible, it is apparently different. Why? Because the alternative is illegal, or because considering the alternative is too risky for you? I am prepared to consider the possibility that the Bible is a subversive creation of the Devil. Having considered that, I no longer believe it. The Bible accords with my idea of positive human values. But you won't even consider the possibility. Doug L. Short, dismissive opinion, just like I called it. Only difference is, you didn't tell me to go away. Like I said, I'll go away when I'm ready. >> From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Bob Is it still considered so, even in today's world? I'm not so sure. I think good manners have long gone by the wayside. I'd suggest a good read of Austen or Bronte for starters. On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > ram...@webtv.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > think good manners have long gone by the wayside. I'd suggest a good read > of Austen or Bronte for starters. Right...because the making out in hiding in those novels worked out *so well* for the characters, eh? > On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Right...because the making out in hiding in those novels worked out > *so well* for the characters, eh? Whether or not it "worked out" well is another (and tangential) point. I was addressing the issue of manners. Yes Dorothy, even with good manners, things may not work out. :-) So, should we just dispense with good manners??? Errrr, wait a minute, I think we're pretty much already "there" (as a society), aren't we? (rhetorical) > On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Right...because the making out in hiding in those novels worked out > *so well* for the characters, eh? LOL! >> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > LOL! Both you and Fill missed the point I was addressing about manners. I think ya both need a course in logic! :-) >>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Both you and Fill missed the point I was addressing about manners. I > think ya both need a course in logic! :-) Wait...did you just succeed in one of our dares? If so, quite the sneaky devil! Vickie >>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Vickie I'm too old to recall. (I'm still trying to remember which specific filament finally worked for Edison, but it's still escaping me). >>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > I'm too old to recall. (I'm still trying to remember which specific > filament finally worked for Edison, but it's still escaping me). Carbon? Escaping you because of all that lovely Pink Floyd you listened to? I know it's your favorite...confess! Vickie >>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Carbon? On a silk thread, as I recall. But it's been awhile. :-) > Escaping you because of all that lovely Pink Floyd you listened to? > I know it's your favorite...confess! > > Vickie Actually, I do like some of Pink Floyd. :-) And a whole bunch of other stuff, too, going back to Doo-Wop, and even way before Doo-Wop. :-) Anybody remember Helen Forest? >>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Anybody remember Helen Forest? You mean like this Bill? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfPCqXLKu7g&feature=PlayList&p=85C351A14A77FF6E&i ndex=0 Bob >>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > Bob I'm on dial-up, Bob, so online videos are "out" for me. (try it sometime and you'll see what I mean :-) >>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > I'm on dial-up, Bob, so online videos are "out" for me. (try it sometime > and you'll see what I mean :-) Bill - You would have loved me tonight. I sent a link to an actual recording sung by Helen. Even had a picture of a 45 (most don't remember those either), but it was Helen singing her heart out. Since you couldn't be there, know I close my eyes now and can enjoy it for you :-) Bob >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > > Bob Thanks. Well, I've got a lot of her recordings on mp3s here, so all I'm missing is the videos, although I even have a few of those, from a few WWII era DVDs. It does sound tempting, though. Hmmm. Does it say how large the file is on YouTube, or what format it is in? (Just curious). I suppose I could break down and give it a try, but I'm pretty sure it's screwed, for dial-up. >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > suppose I could break down and give it a try, but I'm pretty sure it's > screwed, for dial-up. Sorry Bill. Being flash media thats of an "on demand" basis, you wouldn't normally notice how big something is until you already downloaded it. You might want to try it just for grins and giggles. flash downloads aren't as time sensitive as other downloads. Might even work over dial-up okay. Bob >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" >>>>>>>>>>>> <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > > Bob Well, I just tried it out, and it took 45 minutes for it to come in (playing in bits and pieces along the way), but, "other than that", it was great. :-) The file size (in the cache) was around 8 MB, so no wonder it took this long on dial-up. What is interesting, though, is that all this stuff is there (in .flv flash file format), and I had no idea such a large collection would be online in YouTube. The way I usually get these old files is to buy some mp3 cds (i.e., a bunch of mp3s which were saved on a CD), which works great for me. I'm still so impressed with her voice. AND Dick Haymes. Nothing like this stuff today. What we have today is (for the most part) a bunch of amateurs, who think they are great, but who have little training or skills (at least not in that league). >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > amateurs, who think they are great, but who have little training or skills > (at least not in that league). Bill - I'm glad to have pointed out the source for you. I'm just passing along the same good deed that was given to me. Bob >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 158 lines] > > Bob You might try finding and listening to some others, like: "All The Things You Are" (Helen Forest with Artie Shaw Orch), and Tangerine (Helen O'Connell and Bob Eberly). I could also put a plug in for some of Bing Crosby's works, too. Again - and quite sadly - this real talent is lacking today, for the most part. What we have instead is (in large part) a bunch of untrained yahoos off the street, and what's even worse, is that they THINK they are great.. >>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > Anybody remember Helen Forest? Only after you mention her. :-) July 15th, a hard day for me and sis. Glad you and I talked. V >>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > > V Sorry to hear that, Vickie. :-( And yeah, me too. >>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > Sorry to hear that, Vickie. :-( > And yeah, me too. Aw well. You know me; I'll be fine. >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > Aw well. You know me; I'll be fine. Yeah. Like you, I sometimes have to remind myself: "and this too, shall pass..". I wish you didn't have to go through it each year, though. >>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > I'm too old to recall. (I'm still trying to remember which specific > filament finally worked for Edison, but it's still escaping me). Bill - If it helps, I do know it was many in the attempt. Here is a pretty cool page on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb Bob >>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> >>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Bill - If it helps, I do know it was many in the attempt. Thousands, as I recall. > Here is a pretty cool page on the topic: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb > > Bob >>> From: noway@nohow.com (Stephanie) >>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > I think good manners have long gone by the wayside. I'd suggest a > good read of Austen or Bronte for starters. Oh How I wuld LOVE to be back in that time, when a cosmic accident could keep you screwed for life. "ram405@webtv.net" wrote, explaining that he was objecting to gay people: > PUBLICLY making out and then demanding acceptance for their choices. > In private, fine, but not so everybody in public can watch the homos[.] Do you mean that you would support gay marriage, if there were also laws against people kissing passionately in public? Usually, at a wedding, the Big Kiss is romantic but not overly passionate or graphic. If your position is "I support equal rights for gay people, but I don't want them engaging in public displays of affection", then I have misunderstood. Because it sounds to me that you don't want them to have the legal rights of heterosexual couples at all, even if their public behaviour is properly reserved. So, please clarify: if there were laws against gay people behaving in the ways that offend you, would you then support gay marriage? * > Heterosexuals don't approach politicians asking for a declaration or > acknowledgement of their sexual orientation from the mayor of the city > they're in and have parades dedicated to them. Only the fags and dikes > do that, seeking acceptance for their choices. Incidentally, a "dike" is a wall used to prevent flooding from the sea, as in the story of the boy who put his finger in the dike. The offensive word you are looking for -- though it is not clear to me how it benefits you to give offense -- is "dyke", spelled with a "y". I feel obliged to point out, however, that it would really be better manners not to use intentionally offensive terms at all. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "[T]here are disadvantages to not knowing how to read, chief among them that it prevents someone from enjoying my column." -- Dear Abby > "ram405@webtv.net" wrote, explaining that he was objecting to gay > people: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The offensive word you are looking for -- though it is not clear to me > how it benefits you to give offense -- is "dyke", spelled with a "y". Is it considered offensive anymore? I thought it was just the term for a particular style of lesbian. they certainy use the term themselves. But then, that wouold not be the first term to acceptible *withing* a community and not without. > I feel obliged to point out, however, that it would really be better > manners not to use intentionally offensive terms at all. > > Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy > "[T]here are disadvantages to not knowing how to read, chief among > them that it prevents someone from enjoying my column." -- Dear Abby > > "ram405@webtv.net" wrote, explaining that he was objecting to gay > > people: (snip) > >> Heterosexuals don't approach politicians asking for a declaration or > >> acknowledgement of their sexual orientation from the mayor of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > then, that wouold not be the first term to acceptible *withing* a community > and not without. Yes. I think this is exactly the case of "who is using the word and how." Which, as you point out, is not unusual. From: kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) PUBLICLY making out and then demanding acceptance for their choices. In private, fine, but not so everybody in public can watch the homos. Do you mean that you would support gay marriage, if there were also laws against people kissing passionately in public? Do you mean to deliberately misinterpret my statements to twist it to your way of thinking and trying to get a confession out of me? Usually, at a wedding, the Big Kiss is romantic but not overly passionate or graphic. If your position is "I support equal rights for gay people, but I don't want them engaging in public displays of affection", then I have misunderstood. Oh, you misunderstood from the first statement you tried to twist your opinion on. Because it sounds to me that you don't want them to have the legal rights of heterosexual couples at all, even if their public behaviour is properly reserved. No, I'm saying let faggots and dikes be gay in private, prohibit them from sexual acts in public. And what I'm saying is if gays are allowed to marry, that gives them SPECIAL rights (not EQUAL rights, as you tried to claim). So, please clarify: if there were laws against gay people behaving in the ways that offend you, would you then support gay marriage? OK, I'll clarify. I would STILL object to gays marrying, because that means the government condones legalizing an immoral act that's a sin in the bible. Churches would have to conduct weddings differently if gays can marry, when the 2 faggots say "I do", the priest or whoever does the wedding has to say "I now pronounce you husband and husband; you may now kiss the husband". Heterosexuals don't approach politicians asking for a declaration or acknowledgement of their sexual orientation from the mayor of the city they're in and have parades dedicated to them. Only the fags and dikes do that, seeking acceptance for their choices. Incidentally, a "dike" is a wall used to prevent flooding from the sea, as in the story of the boy who put his finger in the dike. Then you need a more MODERN, or RECENTLY PUBLISHED dictionary. Dike is also a slang, and/or vulgar term in the dictionary for a lesbian. I looked it up at the local library until I found a dictionary with that definition there you alleged literary scholar proved a phony. The offensive word you are looking for -- though it is not clear to me how it benefits you to give offense -- is "dyke", spelled with a "y". I feel obliged to point out, however, that it would really be better manners not to use intentionally offensive terms at all. I got news for you; I just used my spellchecker for dike (or as YOU spelled it, dYke), and YOUR version came up misspelled; not mine. Joke's on you!! LOL! Well, as to your final sentence in the above paragraph, are you claiming to be a perfect saint who never sins and only lives to correct others? Bring it on!! I got time to defend my viewpoints which liberals like yourself and Stephanie attack because you don't agree with them. I'm extremely used to hostile treatment; Hostile treatment makes me bitter, BUT, I just give it right back to the 1 who dished it. "ram405@webtv.net" earlier wrote that his objection to gay people was their rudeness in public, and has clarified that he's opposed to gay marriage for other reasons as well. At least part of his objection is that government-supported gay marriage would mean "government condones legalizing an immoral act that's a sin in the bible." In your view, is "civil union" legislation that allows gay people to have hospital visitation rights, and inheritance rights, and so on, acceptable? * On the question of an offensive word used for gay women (often paired with an offensive word used for gay men), I noted that ram405 has been using an incorrect spelling, and that it wasn't good manners to be offensive at all. He replied that: > I got news for you; I just used my spellchecker for dike (or as YOU > spelled it, dYke), and YOUR version came up misspelled; not mine. Many spellcheckers use word lists that have been trimmed of vulgarities and other rude words, so the publishers of the software don't get accused of being offensive by including the words in their lists. I assure you that I did check a very recent edition of _The New Oxford American Dictionary_, that it distinguishes the words as I described, and lists the one you mean as "offensive". In response to my remark that it would be better manners not to use offensive words at all, ram405 asked: > [A]re you claiming to be a perfect saint who never sins and only > lives to correct others? Certainly not. But I wanted to make clear that in directing you to the correct spelling of the word you wanted, I did not mean to endorse or support your use of that or any other offensive word. It is not what goes in a man that defiles him, but what comes out. With that teaching clearly in mind, I wanted to make clear that I was not encouraging the use of offensive language. I would never suggest that someone be offensive if it could be avoided, lest they defile themselves the way you have been doing. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "Intolerance is a state of mind, rudeness is a way of life." -- Charley Wingate "ram405@webtv.net" earlier wrote that his objection to gay people was their rudeness in public misinterpretation and assumption duly noted and has clarified that he's opposed to gay marriage for other reasons as well. Justifiably I will add. At least part of his objection is that government-supported gay marriage would mean "government condones legalizing an immoral act that's a sin in the bible." A keen grasp of the obvious sounding like a journalistic court reporter. In your view, is "civil union" legislation that allows gay people to have hospital visitation rights, and inheritance rights, and so on, acceptable? Who wants to know? On the question of an offensive word used for gay women (often paired with an offensive word used for gay men), I noted that ram405 has been using a correct spelling, and that it wasn't good manners to be offensive at all. He replied that: I got news for you; I just used my spell checker for dike (or as YOU spelled it, dYke), and YOUR version came up misspelled; not mine. Many spell checkers use word lists that have been trimmed of vulgarities and other rude words, so the publishers of the software don't get accused of being offensive by including the words in their lists. Irrelevant; Point was, according to the spell checker, I spelled that vulgar name correctly, unlike the alleged and phony literary scholar who made a post that sounds more like a newspaper article, and to which I am now replying. I assure you that I did check a very recent edition of _The New Oxford American Dictionary_, that it distinguishes the words as I described, and lists the one you mean as "offensive". You can't prove it; You're making it up with promises of "assurance" that you followed through. And besides, still irrelevant. My spell checker did not signal that my spelling was incorrect, but rather, YOUR'S WAS. In response to my remark that it would be better manners not to use offensive words at all, ram405 asked: Are you claiming to be a perfect saint who never sins and only lives to correct others? Certainly not. But I wanted to make clear that in directing you to the ALLEGED correct spelling of the word you wanted, I did not mean to endorse or support your use of that or any other offensive word. It is not what goes in a man that defiles him, but what comes out. You mean like penises, feces, and urine? Glad you cleared that up for me. With that teaching clearly in mind, I wanted to make clear that I was not encouraging the use of offensive language. I would never suggest that someone be offensive if it could be avoided, lest they defile themselves the way you have been doing. Whatever. > > "ram405@webtv.net" earlier wrote that his objection to gay people was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > would mean "government condones legalizing an immoral act that's a sin > in the bible." Ramwhatever, I stopped reading at this point. Anyone that uses the bible to justify their position rarely have anything to say worth listening to. Good luck in your future. I hope you find like minded people to associate with. Bob Ramwhatever, I stopped reading at this point. Robertwhatever, Then why do you keep reading my posts and replying indirectly you liberal pussy? Anyone that uses the bible to justify their position rarely have anything to say worth listening to. Wow, an Atheist. Good luck trying to reach those pearly gates, sinner. Good luck in your future. I know you're not being sincere, but thanks anyway. I hope you find like minded people to associate with. Already have; they're called "friends" of which you obviously have none. Bobblehead > > Ramwhatever, I stopped reading at this point. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Bobblehead Thats "agnostic" you putz. But I certainly wouldn't expect you to know the difference. BTW, I have had fun poking at your pedantic attempt at trolling tonight. It has amused me therefore you have value past that of being plant food sometime in your life cycle. For that you should feel grateful. Now I'm just bored with you... you can go away now. Bob >> Ramwhatever, I stopped reading at this point. >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Bob ROFLMAO! But alas, it's just (yet another) sign of the dumbass times... Thats "agnostic" you putz. I don't recall typing or misspelling that word, retard. But I certainly wouldn't expect you to know the difference. And it's obvious to me that you DON'T know the difference. BTW, I have had fun poking at your successful trolling tonight. It has amused me therefore you have more value than myself. Now I'm just bored with you... you can go away now. I'll go away when I'm ready, not because you order me to as if you're my employer, which you're not. And your nonsense bores me too. >> "ram405@webtv.net" earlier wrote that his objection to gay people was >> their rudeness in public [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Bob This current world has a plethora of such, so that's not a problem. >> "ram405@webtv.net" earlier wrote that his objection to gay people was >> their rudeness in public [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> marriage would mean "government condones legalizing an immoral act >> that's a sin in the bible." It may be considered a sin based on the bible, and of even that I am unsure. I could probably prove that I am my own g'pa from the bible. But it does not rate as immoral in my book. Thank goodness we are not a religious nation despite what some rightist nut jobs would desire. If I could have one wish, it would be that the bible, god or goddess be wiped out of polical and governance conversations. Why the people who want to take the bible *literally* think the rest of us need to have their morality legislated at us I cannot fathom. Why can't I see to my own soul? You see to yours. And we can legislate based on equitable coabitaion. Jesus DID say he wanted people's hearts and not just their compliance. > Ramwhatever, I stopped reading at this point. Anyone that uses the > bible to justify their position rarely have anything to say worth [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bob >>> "ram405@webtv.net" earlier wrote that his objection to gay people was >>> their rudeness in public [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> Bob Stephanie - This was another example of someone posting as me. It was not me. I did post the first email (note the ramwhatever reference), but not the follow up stuff. Bob > Incidentally, a "dike" is a wall used to prevent flooding from the sea, > as in the story of the boy who put his finger in the dike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_pliers I also learned the word for side cutters or diagonal pliers. It is not listed in www.dictionary.com but it is mentioned in that wikipedia page. > The offensive word you are looking for -- though it is not clear to me > how it benefits you to give offense -- is "dyke", spelled with a "y". Listed as an alternative spelling for dike. When I first head the word I wondered if it had anything to do with side cutters. So I thought it referred to emasculation. That would make it offensive. The story of the finger in the dike makes poetic sense in a way I don't find offensive. Let's see if I have it right what "traditional" marriage is - As recently as a few centuries ago women were sold into marriage by their fathers. Willing or not rarely mattered. This theme appears as recently as romance novels that have what boils down to financial bargains that result in marriages. Go a few more centuries back and almost any powerful or rich family was expected to bargain their daughters away in business deals. To an extent it still happens in the few remaining royal families in the world. And the daughters of poor families were sent to matchmakers who matched them with poor men like it the song in Fiddler on the Roof. The concept of arranged marriage is still commonplace in some regions of the world. With both families participating for the best interests of both wife and husband, this seems rather more personal and generous than the business deals giving away a daughter I've read about in Europe. In the US there's been a long tradition of "mail order brides". I've seen it in movies about times a century past and I've known at least one native born US citizen who got a "mail order bride" and they were very happily married as long as I knew them. Plus I've known a few US citizens who'd been born in regions that still have arranged marriages who went on a vacation to visit family and came back married. So will I come out in favor of a traditional marriage? Given what it's meant over time, I don't know or care. Folks who want to get in the way of two people expressing a commitment to each other have a lot of nerve getting into other peoples' business. >> Incidentally, a "dike" is a wall used to prevent flooding from the sea, >> as in the story of the boy who put his finger in the dike. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > to each other have a lot of nerve getting into other peoples' > business. Doug! Stop that. Trying to make sense to trolls is a wasted effort. Rather we keep them on the phone line like other trolls selling stuff, and have fun with them. Have you ever had pudding? The kind Pink Floyd had at the wall? That is the same sort of thing here. Feed the troll, but only a little bit. Bob >>> Incidentally, a "dike" is a wall used to prevent flooding from the sea, >>> as in the story of the boy who put his finger in the dike. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Bob Pink Floyd??? Is this one of those dang fang newage rock groups? Didn't he end up in the nuthouse? >>>> Incidentally, a "dike" is a wall used to prevent flooding from the sea, >>>> as in the story of the boy who put his finger in the dike. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Pink Floyd??? Is this one of those dang fang newage rock groups? Didn't > he end up in the nuthouse? Doesn't matter... he was way cool :-) Listen to his music sometime with a light buzz, and he might even seem god like. Bob >>>>> Incidentally, a "dike" is a wall used to prevent flooding from the >>>>> sea, [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Bob LOL. I've listened already. :-) God like? No. None of these newagers are God like. >>>>>> Incidentally, a "dike" is a wall used to prevent flooding from the >>>>>> sea, [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > LOL. I've listened already. :-) > God like? No. None of these newagers are God like. Bill - You must be like *really* old to consider Pink Floyd a "newager". I enjoyed his music the most when listening back in the late 70's. And listening to the helicopter circling the room back then was pretty cool. ;-) Bob Bob >>>>>>> Incidentally, a "dike" is a wall used to prevent flooding from the >>>>>>> sea, [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Bob I remember when Edison discovered the light bulb. >>>>>>>> Incidentally, a "dike" is a wall used to prevent flooding from the >>>>>>>> sea, [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > I remember when Edison discovered the light bulb. Stop that! You and Fill both are cracking me up tonight... and I am seriously appreciating the both of you tonight. Bob |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.