You may also view this same thread via Google's Usenet database.
======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:46:30 GMT As if AIDS weren't enough! I charge the government (and all associated minions) for using biological warfare on homosexuals, starting with HIV, and now this new, highly-contagious (skin-contact) strain of flesh-eating virus...or MRSA meaning "methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus". This is nothing less than anti-gay biological warfare, and the use of homosexuals as a pool of human Guinea pigs. Check out the S.F. Chronicle's "gay flesh eating" map (which appeared on their front page, January 15): http://tinyurl.com/2xpgox The 94114 zip code (the Castro) is bright red...like a bull's eye. It's a blatant attack, both psychological and biological to terrorize and decimate our gay ranks. And they're not too covert about it. What does this map really suggest? "Gays are code red, same as Islamic terrorists!" Can you imagine restaurants, coffeehouses, shops and bars shutting down, 'cause tourists (and even SF denizens) fear exposure? And heteros shunning any physical proximity towards gays (forget about shaking hands)...and gays afraid of each other! See the homophobes strike back: our very own Kristallnacht. Shops all around the Castro boarded up, windows smashed, fires lit! Why stop with Gay Mecca's epicenter? Every queer-centric urban community will suffer extreme hostility. Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, D.C., Seattle, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia, et cetera. (Why stop with the United States? No reason. There goes Amsterdam, Sydney, Guadalajara, Toronto, London, Cape Town, Paris, Hong Kong, et al. Good thing we're not an inter-galactic civilization at this juncture!) Just imagine what the radio shock jocks such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh will have to say about this! And what about the churches this Sunday: what hateful poison will they spew from the pulpit, all across our sorry nation! (Let's not forget the Mosques, no friend they!) Believe you me, I'll be listening to the radio, scouring the newspapers and online reports to bring the pieces together into one Ugly Big Picture! (Before I'm rounded up myself by Neocon Brown Shirts or, more optimistically, find hidden sanctuary.) Outspoken queer activists will be very much a target of social scapegoating, and silenced in one way or another. (Possibly arrested and tried for treason, unless we can somehow access a sort of Gay Underground Railroad!) Censorship of all things gay! Verboten to wear a pink triangle, and anything else deemed homosexual. (There go the lavender handbags, gentlemen!) Males will fear walking the streets without a female on their arm. (Poor ladies, how we guys use you, both straight and gay!) I don't think I'm being alarmist at all, but this STINKS of an outright attack upon our community, via media/gov't/medical manipulation. Gays THIRTEEN times more likely to catch this virus? A suspicious number indeed...like they're laughing in our faces, believing there's nothing we can do about it. Why not twelve or eight or four or fifteen times as likely? May as well claim we're 666 times as likely! It's like: they want to be blatant but not that blatant. No, not quite yet, but once society starts rounding up queers for isolation, Then all bets will be off, beyond blatant...it will be outright persecution! Can you say "holocaust?" We gays will very soon be regarded as dangerous vessels of fatal disease, thus isolated in ghetto-type concentration camps. San Francisco, Gay Mecca, the epicenter? Don't they really mean "Bull's eye"? What This Cult is doing, is playing into majority belief that gays are intrinsically filthy, and it's time to put the kibosh on our brazen dare to demand equal rights. Just like when it seemed full steam ahead for our rights in the early 70's, a mysterious virus (and consequent resurgence of homophobic vitriol) blocked our movement in a halting screech. Now, some 25 years later (of much struggling and grief borne, I might add) we've won some gay marriage/partnership rights in various states, and other political inroads and...whaddya know...ANOTHER even MORE virulent and contagious virus crashes the party! AND Al-Qaeda has officially declared a jihad on all gay politicos, starting with the gay Mayor of Paris. These are NOT coincidences, Queer Reader. This is a trans-national sabotage of gays by the global power elite. Holocaust II is on! I'm just one of the first to see the big picture. I've always been ahead of the times, labeled "paranoid" by elite types in order to obfuscate my insightful conclusions, and those of other concerned gay activists (albeit a handful). I am full aware that contemporary governments and cults employ biological weapons in their arsenal of terror. (Gee, isn't that how we founded our nation, with small-pox blankets gifted to the natives? The great Amerikan tradition lives on!) And when pushed against the wall (as homosexuals seem thus threatened), just how do you think some of us will react, out of desperate crisis? Why, we'll retaliate. Turning the same biological weapons used upon us (HIV and MRSA) by our enemies against our enemies. And just who is the enemy? Anyone who professes the terror and death of non-heteros...duh! Granted, many of our spineless queer brethren (and sistren) will obligingly march to their doom...either to biological research centers for experimentation, or (if already a bare husk of mortality thanks to medical sabotage) to death camps. But what about the brave handful of spirited queers who refuse to go down without a fight? Do you really think some of us will not retaliate with biological force? Of course, there's always the ubiquitous gun. But firearms will not invite seduction of our enemies, where we can get really close to them and infect them with the very same microbes they gleefully injected into us! In the wee hours while the enemy is sound asleep and murmuring contented snorts (after giving him the best fuck in his life), we'll quietly slip out of bed, put on our latex gloves, and tenderly administer the invisible agent (in dessicated form, most likely) to his exposed, livid flesh. Then silently slip away, like the proverbial thief in the night. Hearken! I am neither professing such a horrid form of counterattack, nor intend to carry it out myself. For we'd then be no better than our enemies, correct? (I could be wrong here, just playing Angel's Advocate. After all, it was a noble thing for the Allied Resistance to blow up Nazi trains and their centers of power, don't you agree?) But I am being honest here, knowing the nature of, er, human nature. For it is always the case (as history proves time and time again) that a handful of a severely threatened minority will respond with violent and terrorist strategies, to their perceived oppressor. For they have nothing to lose; death is a mere trifle at that point (no more nuisance than a pimple on one's butt). Sinqueerly yours, Zeke Krahlin -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "Ares, God of War"Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:25:43 -0500 On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:46:30 GMT, chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) wrote: >As if AIDS weren't enough! I charge the government (and all associated >minions) for using biological warfare on homosexuals, starting with >HIV, and now this new, highly-contagious (skin-contact) strain of >flesh-eating virus...or MRSA meaning "methicillin-resistant >Staphylococcus aureus". Except for one flaw.....aids affects heterosexuals too. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:49:09 GMT On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:25:43 -0500, "Ares, God of War" wrote: >Except for one flaw.....aids affects heterosexuals too. But NOT with the extreme STIGMATIZATION that gays suffer. Hetero AIDS victims are regarded "innocent" victims, and gays are blamed for spreading it. Same thing now going on with this new MRSA virus. It's all social engineering: scapegoating gays to terrorize people. In hopes starting Holocaust 2...only homosexuals are the main target this time around. Got any more "intelligent" observations to make, o God of Wart? -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:33:22 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > But NOT with the extreme STIGMATIZATION that gays suffer. Hetero AIDS > victims are regarded "innocent" victims No they're not. They're usually assumed to be drug addicts, or at least promiscuous. Neither of which need necessarily be the case. The disease has an associated stigma amongst the ignorant - the only difference with homosexual sufferers is that homosexuality *also* has an associated stigma amongst certain elements of society, and these stigma tend to be cumulative, and that's why you have the perception you have with regard to AIDS. Now, with regard to MRSA: > Same thing now going on with this new MRSA virus. Firstly, MRSA is a bacterium, not a virus. It might seem a trivial distinction to you, but it really isn't. The resistance of MRSA to antibiotics - medicines designed to combat bacterial infections - is the reason it's becoming such a problem. Hospitals here in Britain are being pretty regularly whipped by the media for their attempts to combat MRSA. Not once - not ONCE - have I heard anyone, media or not, suggest that the spread of MRSA is anything at all to do with sexuality. > It's all social engineering: scapegoating gays to terrorize people. As far as I can see, the only person attempting to scapegoat gays in connection with MRSA is you. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:11:21 GMT On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:33:22 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >Not once - not ONCE - have I heard >anyone, media or not, suggest that the spread of MRSA is anything at all >to do with sexuality. Bollocks. I just REFERENCED a news source that is precisely stigmatizing gay people for spreading MSRS: The SF Chronicle, and a USCF medical research team. There are also OODLES of non-religious news reports stigmatizing gays in like manner. >As far as I can see, the only person attempting to scapegoat gays in >connection with MRSA is you. Liar. Homophobe. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "Noon-Air" Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:23:05 -0600 "Seamus" wrote in message news:72980e25-306d-4dbc-a0a5-15df36fddc95@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 20, 2:11 pm, chief_thracia...@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) > wrote: >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:33:22 -0600, Midwinter >> >> wrote: >> >Not once - not ONCE - have I heard >> >anyone, media or not, suggest that the spread of MRSA is anything at all >> >to do with sexuality. >> >> Bollocks. I just REFERENCED a news source that is precisely >> stigmatizing gay people for spreading MSRS: The SF Chronicle, and a >> USCF medical research team. > > Actually, Midwinter is spot-on. > >> There are also OODLES of non-religious news reports stigmatizing gays >> in like manner. > > So? Anyone with a brain will ignore these reports. > >> >As far as I can see, the only person attempting to scapegoat gays in >> >connection with MRSA is you. >> >> Liar. Homophobe. > > You're a staplehead. Get the fuck over yourself. Maybe you guys should get a room?? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:37:39 GMT On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:23:05 -0600, "Noon-Air" wrote: >Maybe you guys should get a room?? Seamus and Midwinter. :D -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:53:04 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > Seamus and Midwinter. :D I'm sure he's lovely - but he's not my type. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:36 GMT On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:53:04 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >I'm sure he's lovely - but he's not my type. Which is...under a rock. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:04:05 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : >>Not once - not ONCE - have I heard >>anyone, media or not, suggest that the spread of MRSA is anything at >>all to do with sexuality. > > Bollocks. I just REFERENCED a news source that is precisely > stigmatizing gay people for spreading MSRS: The SF Chronicle, and a > USCF medical research team. That doesn't make what I said 'bollocks'. Pay attention: *I* have never heard anyone suggest that the spread of MRSA is anything at all to do with sexuality. Well, anyone until you, that is. Now, let's actually read that source, shall we? See what it says? "A new variety of staph bacteria ... is spreading among gay men in San Francisco" Is this an attack on gay men, or is it a report stating a fact? You obviously *want* it to be an attack on gay men so you can do ostentious indignation. But to do that, you'll have to find a way to disprove, or at least cast serious doubt on, the statement. If the statement is factual, then you will have to work very hard indeed in order to turn it into anti-gay propaganda. Bacteria don't care whether we're gay or straight, as a rule: if they can find a way in, they'll get in. "The culprit is a form of MRSA ... circulating outside medical settings, afflicting anyone from injection-drug users to elementary school students." So quite clear, then, that it affects a wide range of people. Far from the implication you've made that the article is targeting gay men. "The study estimated that 200 cases of this highly drug-resistant variant are turning up in San Francisco each year, mostly among gay men." Here we've got the statement that gets closest to the claims you made - and it's still not terribly convincing: again, you need to provide some substantial reason (discounting your hypersensitivity) to believe that they are false or misrepresented. "Chambers stressed that some people, no matter how fastidious, could be more prone than others to staph infections. They could have unknown genetic traits or a history of antibiotic use that raises the risk." Again, we have a statement with regard to the risk factors that makes it clear that *anyone* could potentially be at risk. > There are also OODLES of non-religious news reports stigmatizing gays > in like manner. Oh, oodles, no doubt. But what does religion have to do with anything? I don't think I mentioned it, did I? Is this a religious issue for you, then? >>As far as I can see, the only person attempting to scapegoat gays in >>connection with MRSA is you. > > Liar. Homophobe. Sorry - you can offer all the invisible new clothes you like, but the fact remains that you're the first person I've ever seen make an association between MRSA and sexuality. Even the article you've cited doesn't make any claims that gay men are to blame, or are the sole hosts of this infection. All it says is that certain activities common amongst gay men can increase the risk of infection. There is a choice to be made: if it is the case that a certain type of activity increases the risk of infection, should the medical services withhold that information for fear that *you* might choose to be offended by it? Or should the information be released and the public allowed to make informed decisions and take the relevant precautions to reduce their risk of infection? Should your hair-trigger sensibilities take precedence over the possible benefits of accurate health information? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "Noon-Air" Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:27:32 -0600 "Jack Slutmuffin" wrote in message news:bcaadbe9-86bf-413c-93c2-889f5d9f8f42@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Jan 20, 8:04 pm, Midwinter wrote: > chief_thracia...@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > > >>Not once - not ONCE - have I heard > >>anyone, media or not, suggest that the spread of MRSA is anything at > >>all to do with sexuality. > > > Bollocks. I just REFERENCED a news source that is precisely > > stigmatizing gay people for spreading MSRS: The SF Chronicle, and a > > USCF medical research team. > > That doesn't make what I said 'bollocks'. Pay attention: *I* have never > heard anyone suggest that the spread of MRSA is anything at all to do > with sexuality. > > Well, anyone until you, that is. > > Now, let's actually read that source, shall we? See what it says? > > "A new variety of staph bacteria ... is spreading among gay men in San > Francisco" > > Is this an attack on gay men, or is it a report stating a fact? You > obviously *want* it to be an attack on gay men so you can do ostentious > indignation. But to do that, you'll have to find a way to disprove, or > at least cast serious doubt on, the statement. If the statement is > factual, then you will have to work very hard indeed in order to turn it > into anti-gay propaganda. Bacteria don't care whether we're gay or > straight, as a rule: if they can find a way in, they'll get in. > > "The culprit is a form of MRSA ... circulating outside medical settings, > afflicting anyone from injection-drug users to elementary school > students." > > So quite clear, then, that it affects a wide range of people. Far from > the implication you've made that the article is targeting gay men. > > "The study estimated that 200 cases of this highly drug-resistant > variant are turning up in San Francisco each year, mostly among gay > men." > > Here we've got the statement that gets closest to the claims you made - > and it's still not terribly convincing: again, you need to provide some > substantial reason (discounting your hypersensitivity) to believe that > they are false or misrepresented. > > "Chambers stressed that some people, no matter how fastidious, could be > more prone than others to staph infections. They could have unknown > genetic traits or a history of antibiotic use that raises the risk." > > Again, we have a statement with regard to the risk factors that makes it > clear that *anyone* could potentially be at risk. > > > There are also OODLES of non-religious news reports stigmatizing gays > > in like manner. > > Oh, oodles, no doubt. But what does religion have to do with anything? > I don't think I mentioned it, did I? Is this a religious issue for you, > then? > > >>As far as I can see, the only person attempting to scapegoat gays in > >>connection with MRSA is you. > > > Liar. Homophobe. > > Sorry - you can offer all the invisible new clothes you like, but the > fact remains that you're the first person I've ever seen make an > association between MRSA and sexuality. Even the article you've cited > doesn't make any claims that gay men are to blame, or are the sole hosts > of this infection. All it says is that certain activities common > amongst gay men can increase the risk of infection. > > There is a choice to be made: if it is the case that a certain type of > activity increases the risk of infection, should the medical services > withhold that information for fear that *you* might choose to be > offended by it? Or should the information be released and the public > allowed to make informed decisions and take the relevant precautions to > reduce their risk of infection? Should your hair-trigger sensibilities > take precedence over the possible benefits of accurate health > information? In the minds of many amerikans it doesn't matter whether or not anybody implied it at all. Just hearing it under the terms of 'higher- rate by this much' is enough to make a lot of really stupid people think even more idiotic thoughts than they did a few moments before. Can it be helped? Probably not, a wiser man than me once said that most conspiracies are just accidents forcing more accidents until it's such a mess no one could even believe such a monstrosity could be caused by an accident. Never underestimate the ignorance of the misinformed. Never underestimate the power of stoopid people in large groups either. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:37:40 GMT On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:04:05 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >So quite clear, then, that it affects a wide range of people. Far from >the implication you've made that the article is targeting gay men. Nope, you are twisting the article's stigmatizing of gays. If you don't get that from the article, then you are a goon and a deceiver. I mean, really: a MAP of San Francisco showing The Castro all lit up in bright red, as the EPICENTER of MRSA, then EQUATING that to gay people. Intentionally SKEWED statistics to stigmatize gay people. YOU know what you are doing: you are PURPOSELY thwarting my clear explanation of the LIES stated in these MRSA articles. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:50:53 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > ... you are a goon and a deceiver. I suspect you decided *that* the moment you saw me disagreeing with you. > I mean, really: a MAP of San Francisco showing The Castro all lit up > in bright red, as the EPICENTER of MRSA, then EQUATING that to gay > people. Intentionally SKEWED statistics to stigmatize gay people. Intentionally skewed? Well, like I said, you'll have to provide evidence of that - and your personal obsession with blaming everything on gay people doesn't count. > YOU know what you are doing: you are PURPOSELY thwarting my clear > explanation of the LIES stated in these MRSA articles. Nope: what I'm doing is pointing out your hypersensitivity - your disproportionate reaction to an article that doesn't blame gay people for anything. What the article says is that gay men may be more at risk due to the activity they engage in. Now, that's valuable information for the gay community in the affected area. What it certainly DOESN'T say is that gay men are to blame for it. In fact, the article makes it quite clear that *anyone* could potentially fall victim to this infection. But you didn't answer my question: should medical information be made available to the public so that they can consider it; or should it be suppressed if it offends you? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:37 GMT On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:50:53 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >Intentionally skewed? Well, like I said, you'll have to provide evidence >of that - and your personal obsession with blaming everything on gay >people doesn't count. The EVIDENCE was provided in my followup article. Don't you know how to read? It was two LINKS to two different gay papers out of San Francisco, with opinions by other, well informed folks. Here: http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=7331 and here: http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2612 I suggest however, you RE-read my original post AND its update, only this time SLOWLY, so you won't ask me the very questions that were already ANSWERED in those two pieces. Just go here: http://www.gay-bible.org/truetales/Larkin/FG_06-T.htm >Nope: what I'm doing is pointing out your hypersensitivity - your >disproportionate reaction to an article that doesn't blame gay people for >anything. What the article says is that gay men may be more at risk due >to the activity they engage in. Nope, it says more than that. The DATA is SKEWED, based upon a very SMALL number of patients. I'm not the one being hypersensitive...it is the Chronicle news reporter that is, AND the researchers...IOW: homophobic. A bright red map of The Castro highlighting MRSA cases, which number around FIVE for that entire area. >Now, that's valuable information for the >gay community in the affected area. What it certainly DOESN'T say is >that gay men are to blame for it. In fact, the article makes it quite >clear that *anyone* could potentially fall victim to this infection. AFTER spewing disinformation about the results, and about how gays are THIRTEEN TIMES more like to catch it...based on clearly and intentionaly SKEWED data. (Thirteen? Ha! If you believe that choice of number WASN'T a deliberate attempt to laugh in our gay faces, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.) >But you didn't answer my question: should medical information be made >available to the public so that they can consider it; or should it be >suppressed if it offends you? Medical DISinformation should ALWAYS be suppressed. It's nothing more than Nazi propaganda. You seem to know a thing or two about disinformation...at least, how to keep it flowing. I mean, c'mon, OTHERS in newsgroups DO agree with me, that something fishy is going on, including one right here in this thread, who is ALSO heterosexual (thus less likely to have any bias in FAVOR of gay activists like myself): "1X2Willows". -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:12:22 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > I suggest however, you RE-read my original post AND its update, only > this time SLOWLY, so you won't ask me the very questions that were > already ANSWERED in those two pieces. Just go here: It's up to you whether you address the points I made or not. You're not under oath or anything. > Nope, it says more than that. The DATA is SKEWED, based upon a very > SMALL number of patients. A small cross-section is inevitably going to risk providing inaccurate results. 'Skewed', possibly, if you like. But there's a difference between that and deliberate misrepresentation, which is what you strongly implied. Even then, your responsibility if you wish to challenge the item is to provide new data that exposes the inaccuracies of the original data. Have you done so? > I'm not the one being hypersensitive...it > is the Chronicle news reporter that is It is you that's ranting here about a claim that appears to exist purely in your own imagination. > IOW: homophobic. The only one who's making a big fuss about how gay people are to blame for this new strain of an existing virus is you. If that makes one homophobic... > AFTER spewing disinformation about the results, and about how gays are > THIRTEEN TIMES more like to catch it...based on clearly and > intentionaly SKEWED data. So you've said - but, as I say, I will have to reserve judgement until I see your more accurate data. > (Thirteen? Ha! If you believe that choice of > number WASN'T a deliberate attempt to laugh in our gay faces, I have a > bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.) What ARE you talking about? What number? Thirteen? It's just the one that comes after twelve and before fourteen. Do you think it has some greater meaning in this particular context? > Medical DISinformation should ALWAYS be suppressed. It's nothing more > than Nazi propaganda. You seem to know a thing or two about > disinformation...at least, how to keep it flowing. Ah - of course. I'm not agreeing with you, therefore I'm a paid shill in the service of the conspiracy. Right? That's the standard tack. Evidence you think supports your point of view is valid and true - evidence that contradicts your position is 'Nazi propaganda' and is discounted. There's no point arguing with a conspiracy theorist - they lack the ability to reason. > I mean, c'mon, OTHERS in newsgroups DO agree with me No doubt. Plenty on the newsgroups still insist that there is an artificial face on Mars, that the USA never landed on the Moon, that 9/11 was an inside job by the US Government, and that Princess Diana was assassinated - in each case clinging to these beliefs despite ample evidence to the contrary. And they will *continue* to hold these respective beliefs regardless of ANY information that might be offered to them. Their worldview REQUIRES that they believe these things: it is a matter of faith for them as strong as any religion. > who is > ALSO heterosexual (thus less likely to have any bias in FAVOR of gay > activists like myself): "1X2Willows". I have no bias in favour of 'activists'. Nor do I have any bias against, except when those activists have such an obvious chip on their shoulder, and such a determined lack of objectivity, as you appear to. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "1X2Willows" Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:33:10 -0800 "Chief Thracian" wrote > [....] > I mean, c'mon, OTHERS in newsgroups DO agree with me, that something > fishy is going on, including one right here in this thread, who is > ALSO heterosexual (thus less likely to have any bias in FAVOR of gay > activists like myself): "1X2Willows". So far, I am indeed of the opinion that the original article was presented in a way so as to imply without explicitly saying so, that homosexual men are responsible for the outbreak of a new 'bug' which has the potential to endanger society as a whole. No doubt. Dan ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:37:41 GMT On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:51:24 -0800 (PST), Jack Slutmuffin wrote: >In the minds of many amerikans it doesn't matter whether or not >anybody implied it at all. Just hearing it under the terms of 'higher- >rate by this much' is enough to make a lot of really stupid people >think even more idiotic thoughts than they did a few moments before. >Can it be helped? Probably not, a wiser man than me once said that >most conspiracies are just accidents forcing more accidents until it's >such a mess no one could even believe such a monstrosity could be >caused by an accident. Never underestimate the ignorance of the >misinformed. Very well said, Jack...only let me add one more aspect to your astute conclusion: Those in power can MANIPULATE this tendency for accidents to snowball into conspiracy, by tossing in their OWN snowballs at strategic moments and places. There ARE real conspiracies that occur withOUT accidental mishaps. But the power elite can TAKE ADVANTAGE of this tendency for paranoia and gossip to spin out of control, in a society composed MOSTLY of hysterical knuckleheads. MOST of whom are ALSO extremely hateful against homosexuals. (And some homos are ALSO knuckleheads, thus become TURNCOATS to their own cause for gay liberation.) -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:37:38 GMT On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:30:31 -0800 (PST), Seamus wrote: >You're a staplehead. Get the fuck over yourself. I don't care WHAT anyone calls me. I speak the unadulterated TRUTH. Get over YOUR homophobia. Any straight person (or bisexual) who INSISTS on being the last word re. gay rights is a SABOTEUR. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:52:25 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > I don't care WHAT anyone calls me. I speak the unadulterated TRUTH. > Get over YOUR homophobia. Any straight person (or bisexual) who > INSISTS on being the last word re. gay rights is a SABOTEUR. And on what basis do you make ANY judgements about other posters' sexuality? Could it be your preconceptions and prejudices? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:02:25 -0700 "Midwinter" wrote: > (Chief Thracian) said : > > > I don't care WHAT anyone calls me. I speak the unadulterated TRUTH. > > Get over YOUR homophobia. Any straight person (or bisexual) who > > INSISTS on being the last word re. gay rights is a SABOTEUR. > > And on what basis do you make ANY judgements about other posters' > sexuality? Could it be your preconceptions and prejudices? The OP is a militant for his cause; relying on his own knee-jerk reactions while using the sweeping generalities of falicious premise to accuse others of nonexistant knee-jerk reaction. That's so uncommon on usenet - you're shocked and aghast too, aren't ya? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:13:41 -0600 "sarchasm" said : > That's so uncommon on usenet - you're > shocked and aghast too, aren't ya? Deeply. My faith in humanity has been shaken to its very foundation. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:38:07 -0700 "Midwinter" wrote: > "sarchasm" said : > > > That's so uncommon on usenet - you're > > shocked and aghast too, aren't ya? > > Deeply. My faith in humanity has been shaken to its very foundation. As it should be. What's next, clubbing gay baby seals? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:43 GMT On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:38:07 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >As it should be. What's next, clubbing gay baby seals? You homophobes just can't stay away from thoughts of VIOLENCE, when talking about gays, can you? Even in jest. (Which, come to think of it, is the WORST.) -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:20:34 -0700 Oddly, most gays around here appear much brighter than you - are you sure your're gay? "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >As it should be. What's next, clubbing gay baby seals? > > You homophobes just can't stay away from thoughts of VIOLENCE, when > talking about gays, can you? Even in jest. (Which, come to think of > it, is the WORST.) > > -- > Steal This Blog! > http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:14:09 GMT On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:20:34 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Oddly, most gays around here appear much brighter than you - are you sure >your're gay? Are you sure you're hominid? You seem to SLITHER around. -- Zeke Krahlin http://www.gay-bible.org ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:41 GMT On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:13:41 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >Deeply. My faith in humanity has been shaken to its very foundation. You deserve a swift BOOT to your very foundation. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:40 GMT On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:02:25 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >The OP is a militant for his cause; relying on his own knee-jerk reactions >while using the sweeping generalities of falicious premise to accuse others >of nonexistant knee-jerk reaction. The ONLY fallacious premise going on here, is the notion that any gay person who speaks in outrage is paranoid, not observing with a clear vision. You MIGHT consider that what YOU define as "knee-jerk" is my own unique method of fighting fire with fire (when you consider the brutal tactics employed by homophobes). Have fun thinkin' about THAT one! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:24:03 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >The OP is a militant for his cause; relying on his own knee-jerk reactions > >while using the sweeping generalities of falicious premise to accuse others > >of nonexistant knee-jerk reaction. > > The ONLY fallacious premise going on here, is the notion that any gay > person who speaks in outrage is paranoid, not observing with a clear > vision. The only person throwing that 'paranoid' strawman out there is you, knee-jerk. > > You MIGHT consider that what YOU define as "knee-jerk" is my own > unique method of ... ... being a militant hetero-basher. Yeah, you own words aren't even close to being opaque, even without the emphasis. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:14:15 GMT On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:24:03 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >... being a militant hetero-basher. Yeah, you own words aren't even close >to being opaque, even without the emphasis. Your wit is dim, Take it on the chin. You surely ain't the FIRST breeder Who lacks a sense of humor. Then again, maybe your brain Is burdened by a tumor (Which in others is simply called "thought", Something which to this thread, YOU'VE never brought.) -- Zeke Krahlin http://www.gay-bible.org ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:52:03 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > Your wit is dim, > Take it on the chin. > You surely ain't the FIRST breeder > Who lacks a sense of humor. > Then again, maybe your brain > Is burdened by a tumor > (Which in others is simply called "thought", > Something which to this thread, > YOU'VE never brought.) Genius. McGonagall is reborn. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:39:34 GMT On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:52:03 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >Genius. McGonagall is reborn. : D I once knew a teen called Nick Who possessed an exCEEDingly big dick, But when he dropped his pants All I saw there were ants, So I said: "No thanks, I'll just take a lick." -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:59:47 GMT On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:52:03 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >Genius. McGonagall is reborn. Thanks to you, I just joined McGonagall Online's gem-of-the-day mailing list. http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/ (This doesn't let you off the hook regarding the GAY issue BTW, just the TAY issue. Ah-choo-choo-choo!) -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : >>Genius. McGonagall is reborn. > > Thanks to you, I just joined McGonagall Online's gem-of-the-day > mailing list. Glad to hear it. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:51:14 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > The ONLY fallacious premise going on here, is the notion that any gay > person who speaks in outrage is paranoid, not observing with a clear > vision. No: anyone who takes massive personal offence at a single report that's at best ambiguous, then suggests some massive anti-gay conspiracy involving disinformation and "Nazi propaganda", and becomes abusive and accusatory to anyone who questions their conclusions is probably not observing with a clear vision. The big problem is that such a supposed supporter of gay rights probably does more harm to the public perception of gay people than any number of 'bashers'. Calm down a tad, demonstrate some rational objectivity, support your claims and conclusions, and I might start taking you a little more seriously. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:38:05 GMT On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:51:14 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >The big problem is that such a supposed supporter of gay >rights probably does more harm to the public perception of gay people than >any number of 'bashers'. False premise. Nice try though, albeit weak. The HATRED and DAMAGE already existant by breeders could NEVER be trumped by even the most OUTRAGEOUS accusations by ANY gay person, ANYWHERE in the world. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:49:39 -0700 "Midwinter" wrote: > chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > > > The ONLY fallacious premise going on here, is the notion that any gay > > person who speaks in outrage is paranoid, not observing with a clear > > vision. > > No: anyone who takes massive personal offence at a single report that's at > best ambiguous, then suggests some massive anti-gay conspiracy involving > disinformation and "Nazi propaganda", and becomes abusive and accusatory to > anyone who questions their conclusions is probably not observing with a > clear vision. The big problem is that such a supposed supporter of gay > rights probably does more harm to the public perception of gay people than > any number of 'bashers'. Well said. > > Calm down a tad, demonstrate some rational objectivity, support your claims > and conclusions, and I might start taking you a little more seriously. 'Might' being a key qualifier here. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:39 GMT On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:52:25 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >And on what basis do you make ANY judgements about other posters' >sexuality? Could it be your preconceptions and prejudices? I can smell breeder meat a mile away. Comes with the gaydar...a survival mechanism that evolves out of a society which terrorizes homosexuals as a built-in norm. One becomes more psychically attuned, when survival is at stake. I also conclude that also explains the ultimate succees of our allied forces against the Nazis. We developed the psychic edge, so to speak. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:45:55 -0700 "Seamus" wrote: > (Chief Thracian) wrote: > > Seamus wrote: > > >You're a staplehead. Get the fuck over yourself. > > > > I don't care WHAT anyone calls me. > > Your actions and knee-jerk accusations say otherwise. > > > I speak the unadulterated TRUTH. > > Insofar as your deluded, vindicative mind sees it. > > > Get over YOUR homophobia. Any straight person (or bisexual) who > > INSISTS on being the last word re. gay rights is a SABOTEUR. > > Personally, I have no problem with gay rights. > > "You hate me because I'm [$minority]! You're a [$bias]-ist!" "No. I'm > annoyed with you because you're being an asshole. The fact that you > happen to be [$minority] has no bearing on that whatsoever." Which just goes to show that being an asshole knows no preference-boundries. Congrats to CT for demonstrating such equality with other militant-fundies-on-a mission-lacking-basic-logic. You've shown most adaquately that gays can be as stupid as straights. Rock on, man! (or whatever). ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:43 GMT On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:45:55 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Which just goes to show that being an asshole knows no preference-boundries. >Congrats to CT for demonstrating such equality with other >militant-fundies-on-a mission-lacking-basic-logic. You've shown most >adaquately that gays can be as stupid as straights. Rock on, man! (or >whatever). Typical, bratty homophobe. Can't even do a reasonable job to sound convincing. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:26:11 -0700 My post stands corrected; you are even dumber than the originally low estimate. "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >Which just goes to show that being an asshole knows no preference-boundries. > >Congrats to CT for demonstrating such equality with other > >militant-fundies-on-a mission-lacking-basic-logic. You've shown most > >adaquately that gays can be as stupid as straights. Rock on, man! (or > >whatever). > > Typical, bratty homophobe. Can't even do a reasonable job to sound > convincing. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:14:22 GMT On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:26:11 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >My post stands corrected; you are even dumber than the originally low >estimate. You're so foul, even the rock you crawled under rejects you, breeder pervert! NATURALLY, you refuse to acknowledge my truth in reporting, along with all the reliable BACKUP I've provided. You're a SORE loser. Typical hetero scum! -- Zeke Krahlin http://www.gay-bible.org ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:51:05 -0700 Flattery will get you no where, not interested. "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >My post stands corrected; you are even dumber than the originally low > >estimate. > > You're so foul, even the rock you crawled under rejects you, breeder > pervert! > > NATURALLY, you refuse to acknowledge my truth in reporting, along with > all the reliable BACKUP I've provided. You're a SORE loser. Typical > hetero scum! ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:25:52 GMT On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:33:22 -0600, Midwinter wrote: FYI Midwhiner: I see you have your messages set to self-erase on January 27. However, I've DOWNLOADED the entire thread already, and am KEEPING all contents for the record. AND for public viewing...er, I mean "shaming". You can run, but you can't hide! -- Zeke Krahlin http://www.gay-bible.org ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:34:00 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > Midwhiner It's not nearly as clever as you think, Chief. In fact, it makes quite the opposite statement: "I've not really got an argument to make, so I'll try desperate puns on people's names and hope I look a bit smarter than I feel". > I see you have your messages set to self-erase on > January 27. Not as such. I just like to do my insignificant little part to fuck about with Google. Pardon my Klatchian. > However, I've DOWNLOADED the entire thread already, and am > KEEPING all contents for the record. AND for public viewing...er, I > mean "shaming". Go for it. I stand by everything I've said. And I'm still waiting for your data. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:39:13 GMT On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:34:00 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >Go for it. I stand by everything I've said. And I'm still waiting for >your data. Already posted several days ago. In this thread. If you're too feeble minded to track it down, that's YOUR problem. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:53:04 -0700 "Seamus" wrote: chief_thracia...@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) wrote: > > >Go for it. I stand by everything I've said. And I'm still waiting for > > >your data. > > > > Already posted several days ago. In this thread. If you're too feeble > > minded to track it down, that's YOUR problem. > > Oh, she meant RELEVANT data. Sorry about that. That'll be presented at the next anti-anti-gay cult bash next Wednesday. Don't be late. Bring chips. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:47:46 GMT On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:53:04 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >That'll be presented at the next anti-anti-gay cult bash next Wednesday. >Don't be late. Bring chips. Have you EVER contributed any sort of POSITIVE support of gay people? Have you EVER confronted someone for calling another "faggot" in public, told him that was plain WRONG? Judging by your flippant participation in this thread--treating gay bashing as if it were a silly joke--I'd say no, you never have. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:19:07 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > Judging by your flippant participation in this thread--treating gay > bashing as if it were a silly joke--I'd say no, you never have. Prejudice based on sexuality ("gay-bashing" only covers a fraction of the problem) is a serious matter. The joke here is in seeing someone so obviously consumed with hatred as you are making himself out to be a campaigner for respect and rights. In fact, you have consistently shown yourself absolutely guilty of such prejudice throughout this thread. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "Noon-Air" Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:40:11 -0600 "Midwinter" wrote in message news:BrKdnakGnbcGYAPaRVnyuAA@bt.com... > chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > >> Judging by your flippant participation in this thread--treating gay >> bashing as if it were a silly joke--I'd say no, you never have. > > Prejudice based on sexuality ("gay-bashing" only covers a fraction of the > problem) is a serious matter. > > The joke here is in seeing someone so obviously consumed with hatred as > you > are making himself out to be a campaigner for respect and rights. In > fact, > you have consistently shown yourself absolutely guilty of such prejudice > throughout this thread. It sounds to me like you have some serious issues about being gay. Maybe you should seek some professional help. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:18:50 GMT On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:40:11 -0600, "Noon-Air" wrote: >It sounds to me like you have some serious issues about being gay. Maybe you >should seek some professional help. Hey, go fuck yourself! I DO have serious issues about living in a society which MAINTAINS its violent anti-gay prejudice, while pretending to be oh-so-progressive. You (and other idiots in this thread) blithely IGNORE the several solid messages of support I've received for my bold stand. Again: go fuck yourself. It's the ONLY pleasure you'll ever know. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:36:10 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : >>It sounds to me like you have some serious issues about being gay. >>Maybe you should seek some professional help. > > Hey, go fuck yourself! I DO have serious issues about living in a > society which MAINTAINS its violent anti-gay prejudice, while > pretending to be oh-so-progressive. > > You (and other idiots in this thread) blithely IGNORE the several > solid messages of support I've received for my bold stand. > > Again: go fuck yourself. It's the ONLY pleasure you'll ever know. You see? A furious, hair-trigger response, without even taking the trouble to find out whether Noon-Air was talking to you or to me. It could have been either, of course - but the fact that you rushed to an angry retaliation first just illustrates the point I've made: you're no advert for tolerance. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "Noon-Air" Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:57:35 -0600 "Midwinter" wrote in message news:8rGdnV1q-rPHNwLanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com... > chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > >>>It sounds to me like you have some serious issues about being gay. >>>Maybe you should seek some professional help. >> >> Hey, go fuck yourself! I DO have serious issues about living in a >> society which MAINTAINS its violent anti-gay prejudice, while >> pretending to be oh-so-progressive. >> >> You (and other idiots in this thread) blithely IGNORE the several >> solid messages of support I've received for my bold stand. >> >> Again: go fuck yourself. It's the ONLY pleasure you'll ever know. > > You see? A furious, hair-trigger response, without even taking the > trouble > to find out whether Noon-Air was talking to you or to me. It could have > been either, of course - but the fact that you rushed to an angry > retaliation first just illustrates the point I've made: you're no advert > for tolerance. Having been raised in the SF Bay Area in the late 60s and early 70s, I have a much more open mind than most. I have found that when somebody launches into a tirade about something, its because of their own insecurities. I could be wrong(its been known to happen), but I am generally not too far off the mark. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:24:48 -0600 "Noon-Air" said : > Having been raised in the SF Bay Area in the late 60s and early 70s, I > have a much more open mind than most. I have found that when somebody > launches into a tirade about something, its because of their own > insecurities. I could be wrong(its been known to happen), but I am > generally not too far off the mark. It would still be presumptuous of me to make assumptions as to which of us you're talking about. :o) ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "Noon-Air" Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:52:03 -0600 "Midwinter" wrote in message news:BJOdnUNtIpdNXgLanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com... > "Noon-Air" said : > >> Having been raised in the SF Bay Area in the late 60s and early 70s, I >> have a much more open mind than most. I have found that when somebody >> launches into a tirade about something, its because of their own >> insecurities. I could be wrong(its been known to happen), but I am >> generally not too far off the mark. > > It would still be presumptuous of me to make assumptions as to which of us > you're talking about. :o) I try not to "ass-u-me" anything, and can only speak of what I observe. I don't presume, I don't throw rocks... tho I might stir the pot a little, then smoke the pot :-) I mearly observed that a couple of folks seemed to have issues and pointed it out. I hope the issues can be sorted out. Personally, it doesn't matter what sex I am with, as I like them all. No that doesn't make me gay, or straight, it just makes me happy. :-) ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:46:39 GMT On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:57:35 -0600, "Noon-Air" wrote: >Having been raised in the SF Bay Area in the late 60s and early 70s, I have >a much more open mind than most. I have found that when somebody launches >into a tirade about something, its because of their own insecurities. I >could be wrong(its been known to happen), but I am generally not too far off >the mark. WRONG in this case. San Francisco is a WICKED and MEAN-SPIRITED city rife with buffoons, drug dealers, and charlatans. I've lived here since 1973. "Liberal" SF is nothing more than a BIG FAT JOKE. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:06:45 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > WRONG in this case. San Francisco is a WICKED and MEAN-SPIRITED city > rife with buffoons, drug dealers, and charlatans. I've lived here > since 1973. "Liberal" SF is nothing more than a BIG FAT JOKE. Yep; you're really letting rip with your balanced and rational viewpoint now, aren't you? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:13:19 -0700 "Midwinter" wrote: > (Chief Thracian) said : > > > WRONG in this case. San Francisco is a WICKED and MEAN-SPIRITED city > > rife with buffoons, drug dealers, and charlatans. I've lived here > > since 1973. "Liberal" SF is nothing more than a BIG FAT JOKE. > > Yep; you're really letting rip with your balanced and rational viewpoint > now, aren't you? That one never seems to run out of feet to shoot himself in, does he? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "Noon-Air" Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:30:58 -0600 "Chief Thracian" wrote in message news:47a00efd.11991035@amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com... > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:57:35 -0600, "Noon-Air" > wrote: > >>Having been raised in the SF Bay Area in the late 60s and early 70s, I >>have >>a much more open mind than most. I have found that when somebody launches >>into a tirade about something, its because of their own insecurities. I >>could be wrong(its been known to happen), but I am generally not too far >>off >>the mark. > > WRONG in this case. San Francisco is a WICKED and MEAN-SPIRITED city > rife with buffoons, drug dealers, and charlatans. I've lived here > since 1973. "Liberal" SF is nothing more than a BIG FAT JOKE. There is a reason why I haven't lived in California in 30 years. If you don't like it where you are, you don't have to live there. In the mean time, Please seek help so you can remove yourself from membership in the afore mentioned groups of people. In other words, Id you don't like it there, MOVE. in the mean time, take a chill pill dude, all that anger and emotion is gonna give you a heart attack or stroke. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:08:24 GMT On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:30:58 -0600, "Noon-Air" wrote: >There is a reason why I haven't lived in California in 30 years. If you >don't like it where you are, you don't have to live there. In the mean time, Nonsense. I live on disability income...cannot AFFORD to move. Besides, San Francisco is TYPICAL of Amerikan cities...corrupt and unfriendly. Furthermore: being GAY in a homophobic society strictly LIMITS where one can live w/minimal harassment and threats. >Please seek help so you can remove yourself from membership in the afore >mentioned groups of people. That is NOT possible. Anywayz, I'm all too GLAD to be a thorn in their side...and eventually, I will succeed in driving THEM away, and attracting DECENT people to my neighborhood and city. >in the mean time, take a >chill pill dude, all that anger and emotion is gonna give you a heart attack >or stroke. Again, nonsense. It is when you BOTTLE UP your rage, you put your health in danger. Besides, you EXAGGERATE my expressions of outrage. I'm very HAPPY to undestand so clearly, the nature of homophobia, and actually do something about it. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:02:37 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > Besides, San Francisco is TYPICAL of Amerikan cities...corrupt and > unfriendly. It's just a wild guess, but I bet you find a lot of people are unfriendly towards you, "Chief", wherever you go. Would that be fairly near the mark? And it'd hardly be surprising: if you're as indiscriminately hostile to everyone you meet in the real world as you are online, it's hardly surprising they're unfriendly back. > Furthermore: being GAY in a homophobic society strictly LIMITS where > one can live w/minimal harassment and threats. Odd, then, that so many gay people seem to manage just fine, in the US and the UK. Oh, I won't say that there aren't problems, or that gay people are always treated with the civility that's due - but in general, the world's a *lot* more tolerant towards gay people than it was. In fact, in many areas, it's scarcely cause for comment these days. Unless, of course, you think it might be to do with the fact that you're so incredibly angry about being gay? (Or GAY, if you prefer?) > That is NOT possible. Anywayz, I'm all too GLAD to be a thorn in their > side...and eventually, I will succeed in driving THEM away, and > attracting DECENT people to my neighborhood and city. No you won't. You might well drive *yourself* away - or at least make yourself into a recluse (if you're not already). But if you treat the world outside your door with the attitude you show here, I doubt you'll find it a very friendly place. > Again, nonsense. It is when you BOTTLE UP your rage, you put your > health in danger. Actually, neither is all that healthy. Bottling intense emotions up can be harmful. Expressing them every now and then, as the need arises, that's healthy - provided the mode of release is positive. But it doesn't seem to be an occasional thing with you, and your mode of release is not at all positive. If you get used to living in a state of rage then, as Noon-Air said, it may well pose a long-term threat to your health. And if you direct that rage at other people, blaming them for all the wrongs in your world simply because they don't agree with something you've said, then that's definitely unhealthy. > Besides, you EXAGGERATE my expressions of outrage. > I'm very HAPPY to undestand so clearly, the nature of homophobia, and > actually do something about it. But you *don't* understand, and that's the sad irony. You rage and you shout and you accuse - but you haven't once stopped to ask a single poster what their feelings are about gay people. You haven't sought any information at all. You've leapt to conclusions from a standing start, and from there you've let rip with all your bile against this imagined conspiracy of yours. What you're *doing* about 'homophobia' is encouraging it. Could it be that that's your true intention? I don't know. But what you certainly aren't doing is combatting it. You're angry, intolerant, and closed-minded, and you're claiming to represent gay people. The truth is that gay people don't benefit from being represented by someone with attitudes like yours: quite the reverse, in fact. As to exaggeration, your 'outrage' clearly needs none. People are responding to what you've said and how you've said it. If you find their representation of what you've said unpleasant, then you should perhaps reflect on your own posts. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:42:35 GMT On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:02:37 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >As to exaggeration, your 'outrage' clearly needs none. People are >responding to what you've said and how you've said it. If you find their >representation of what you've said unpleasant, then you should perhaps >reflect on your own posts. Of course, you ignore COMPLETELY the excellent responses supporting my viewpoint. The REST of what you've type, is simply a distraction from a more important subject. Which I care not to be sucked into. Just remember this: A man without character doesn't have many enemies. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:28:51 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > Midwinter wrote: > > >As to exaggeration, your 'outrage' clearly needs none. People are > >responding to what you've said and how you've said it. If you find their > >representation of what you've said unpleasant, then you should perhaps > >reflect on your own posts. > > Of course, you ignore COMPLETELY the excellent responses supporting my > viewpoint. The REST of what you've type, is simply a distraction from > a more important subject. What utter tripe. > Which I care not to be sucked into. What utter bullshit. > Just remember this: > A man without character doesn't have many enemies. You do have character; it's cartoonish. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:06:54 GMT On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:02:37 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >It's just a wild guess, but I bet you find a lot of people are unfriendly >towards you, "Chief", wherever you go. No. Only when they're homophobic. THEN the fur flies! > Would that be fairly near the mark? Not at all. Besides which, MANY good people suffer prejudice and rejection for a variety of reasons. YOU simplify with a formulaic theory that is totally erroneous. >And it'd hardly be surprising: if you're as indiscriminately >hostile to everyone you meet in the real world as you are online, it's >hardly surprising they're unfriendly back. Everyone? That is NOT true either online OR off. You INTENTIONALLY ignore (as I've stated twice previously) the FRIENDLY and SUPPORTIVE comments I've received in this thread. Why don't you bother to view readers' comments on my web log, as well as my web site's guestbook? LOTS of folks have posted their appreciation of my forthright stand and eloquence on behalf of gay liberation. >Odd, then, that so many gay people seem to manage just fine, in the US >and the UK. That's a lie. MOST gays in the US still live in the closet, out of terror. Across small-town and rural America. MANY is a relative term. A thousand could be many, but when you compare that with 10 million, it's just a drop in the bucket. I should also add it's not much better for gay people, even in our big cities. >Oh, I won't say that there aren't problems, or that gay >people are always treated with the civility that's due Oh, yes, you're SUCH a nice guy, I already know that! >- but in general, >the world's a *lot* more tolerant towards gay people than it was. In >fact, in many areas, it's scarcely cause for comment these days. Bull dung. TOTALLY untrue. I get harassed FREQUENTLY by homophobic street people right here in "Gay Mecca", especially in the Castro. Many people I meet HATE gay activists like me, even when they consider themselves progressives in every other way. You don't sound like you've read ANY gay media source in your life! As the saying goes: "Ignorance is hetero bliss!" >Unless, of course, you think it might be to do with the fact that you're >so incredibly angry about being gay? (Or GAY, if you prefer?) I'm not at all angry about being gay. I am OUTRAGED at the new rise of homophobia, and the ARROGANCE of so many heteros I meet. My anger is righteous, as was the anger of South African blacks during apartheid. >No you won't. You might well drive *yourself* away - or at least make >yourself into a recluse (if you're not already). Hey armchair shrink, you make Dr. Phil look like Carl Jung himself! YOU are certainly NOT the last word in this matter...especially since you aren't the LEAST BIT acquainted with the politics of homosexual liberation OR with the culture of conspiracy and social engineering. I've become deeply familiar with ALL three, due to years of activism, research, deduction and speculation. > But if you treat the >world outside your door with the attitude you show here, I doubt you'll >find it a very friendly place. WRONG. I find the world a MOSTt friendly place, as everything around me is in the process of setting me up to become a celebrated here. You are simply one of the players...a protagonist if you will. Albeit a BIT player, an extra. >Actually, neither is all that healthy. Bottling intense emotions up can >be harmful. Expressing them every now and then, as the need arises, >that's healthy - provided the mode of release is positive. But it >doesn't seem to be an occasional thing with you, and your mode of release >is not at all positive. It is your WICKED attitude against outspoke gays that inspires you to give as much negative spin on their fight for independence, as you can muster up. It is the MISSION of civil rights advocates to transform OUTRAGE into productive results. And that's PRECISELY what I do, which does include Usenet participation. IOW, I am most JOYFUL in my righteous rage! I just happen to be PROLIFIC in my mission...a far cry from how YOU define my calling. >If you get used to living in a state of rage >then, as Noon-Air said, it may well pose a long-term threat to your >health. Noon-Air is no more an authority than yourself. You're BOTH dipwads! Long-term threat to my health? Actually, that's what YOU and your cronies are: a long-term threat to the health of ALL free-speaking homosexuals. >And if you direct that rage at other people, blaming them for >all the wrongs in your world simply because they don't agree with >something you've said, then that's definitely unhealthy. But that's completey off the wall. I do not oppose ANYONE "simply" because they don't agree. But if I said black people should never be enslaved...wouldn't a Nazi of KKK member disagree? Likewise when I confront homophobic attitudes, MANY of which are cleverly guised as "friendly" liberals and counterculture and alternative-religion types. (As in this newsgroup.) IOW: "wolves in sheep's clothing." >But you *don't* understand, and that's the sad irony. You rage and you >shout and you accuse - but you haven't once stopped to ask a single >poster what their feelings are about gay people. I DID. But whenever I do, they IGNORE my question. Like my Jan. 26 comment to sarchasm: Have you EVER contributed any sort of POSITIVE support of gay people? Have you EVER confronted someone for calling another "faggot" in public, told him that was plain WRONG? He NEVER answered those two simple questions. Likewise, you, him, et al REFUSED to acknowledge my accuracy on three important conclusion...despite my providing clear EVIDENCE via several media outlets. Likewise, neither did you and your cronies bother to ACKNOWLEDGE the supportive remarks towards me, by six other participants. That's ONE MORE than the number of those who've OPPOSED me. Just because a handful of hetero GOONS hammer away with message after message, to make it SEEM that many oppose me, does NOT make it ture, upon closer scrutiny. So, now I ask YOU: Have you EVER contributed any sort of POSITIVE support of gay people? Have you EVER confronted someone for calling another "faggot" in public, told him that was plain WRONG? >You haven't sought any information at all. Totally off the wall! I provided several news outlets that challenged and DISPROVED the original skewed research, along with three letters to the editor of firsthand accounts that LIKEWISE disproved those scummy researchers. It's right here in this thread! I guess you are DETERMINED to go down in history as a vacuous, anti-gay dunderhead. More power to you, dunderhead! >You've leapt to conclusions from a standing start, Wrong. I NEVER leapt to any conclusion. I am well informed on homophobic subterfuge, gov't deception, thanks to my many years studying gay-relevant news articles, research, and political events. My conclusions come from an extensive BACKGROUND of knowledge and activism. You see, dufus, just because YOU are poorly informed in the matter of anti-gay subterfuge, does NOT mean what little you DO not, the end-all and be-all of what there IS to know about gay rights. That's JUST like a white supremacist with an education that stopped with the 3rd grade, claiming he's the LAST WORD on black rights! >The truth is that gay people don't benefit from being >represented by someone with attitudes like yours: quite the reverse, in >fact. The truth is that the allied nations never benefitted from Winston Churchill's claims that Adolf Hitler could EVER be a threat to democracy. >People are >responding to what you've said and how you've said it. If you find their >representation of what you've said unpleasant, then you should perhaps >reflect on your own posts. So here are two MORE question I'm sure you'll blithely ignore: Why can't you acknowledge I was correct on THREE of my FOUR major conclusions? Why can't you acknowledge the message of SUPPORT I received in this thread? -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:13:30 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > Midwinter wrote: > > >It's just a wild guess, but I bet you find a lot of people are unfriendly > >towards you, "Chief", wherever you go. > > >- but in general, > >the world's a *lot* more tolerant towards gay people than it was. In > >fact, in many areas, it's scarcely cause for comment these days. > > Bull dung. TOTALLY untrue. I get harassed FREQUENTLY by homophobic > street people right here in "Gay Mecca", especially in the Castro. If they are strangers on the streets, how do they know you're gay, zeke? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:57:14 GMT On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:13:30 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >If they are strangers on the streets, how do they know you're gay, zeke? Because I am very well know in my city. Republican gays hate me, 'cause I'm liberal. Heteros hate me, 'cause they hate outspoken queers...and because in these last 20 years, S.F. has been DELUGED by Bible Belt migrants who think it is God's will to declare war on homosexuals. I have suffered under the burden of the swing towards the right, which started with Nixon, erupted with Reagan, steamrolled with Clinton's "centrism", and snowballed with Dubya's illegal takeover of the White House. I've also had local drug dealers try to drive me out of the Castro, since my street activism was/is an obstruction to their violent form of street capitalism. But NOW, I've begun receiving increasing appreciation for standing my ground all these years. Each day, another person who once opposed me, has come to apologize, and support me. This excellent turnaround will soon SNOWBALL into success and victory after victory. And whatever GOOD happens to me, will be good for ALL gay people. The entire community will benefit greatly by my successes, as I will empower OTHER unsung gay heroes. Unlike previous and PRESENT activists who want to hog up the stage all for themselves, denyin many spirited activists and artists who could achieve our liberation quickly. I also usually way some sort of button that supports gays, such as a pink triangle with "I bash back" printed on eat, or a sticker that shows Pacman and Pacwomen gobbling up a glitter jockstrap, with words "Eat my jockstrap, homophobes", or a burning Amerikan flag faded in the background, words in the foreground: "Burn flags, not fags." That is the mischievous style of dissent from the 60s Free Speech Movement that I incorporate into my own button and decal designs. But if not wearing any pro-gay emblem, whenever I get to speak to a stranger, one of the first things I tell them is that my main interest and love, is being a gay street activist. I have MANY amazing stories to tell as an activist of many years...some of which you can now read on my web log and site. If people are still upset and hateful towards me, simply because I am outspoken, innovative, and high energy...well, THEY have a serious problem with jealousy, if not homophobe. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:21:46 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >If they are strangers on the streets, how do they know you're gay, zeke? > > Because I am very well know in my city. How, wanted posters or what? > > I also usually way some sort of button that supports gays, such as a > pink triangle with "I bash back" printed on eat, or a sticker that > shows Pacman and Pacwomen gobbling up a glitter jockstrap, with words > "Eat my jockstrap, homophobes", or a burning Amerikan flag faded in > the background, words in the foreground: "Burn flags, not fags." > Okay, so you purposefully advertise your stance in order to feel justified when the responses are negative. Presumably, the load of typos in your above reply was due to the highly-charged emotional nature of your heterophobia, right? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:54:15 -0600 "sarchasm" said : > Okay, so you purposefully advertise your stance in order to feel > justified when the responses are negative. "More persecuted than thou", I think they call it. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:09:45 GMT On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:54:15 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >"More persecuted than thou", I think they call it. Wrong again, dumb het. It's actually my way of consciousness raising. But of course, I EXPECT homophobes to put a negative spin on ANYthing a gay activist says. You're as common as a dog turd. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 01:01:42 -0700 "Midwinter" wrote: > "sarchasm" said : > > > Okay, so you purposefully advertise your stance in order to feel > > justified when the responses are negative. > > "More persecuted than thou", I think they call it. That's what those who relish covering their delusions with the slimey coating of victimhood call it alright. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:08:33 GMT On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:21:46 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >> Because I am very well know in my city. > >How, wanted posters or what? Ha, ha. Nope. Guess again, oh clueless breeder clown. >> I also usually way some sort of button that supports gays, such as a >> pink triangle with "I bash back" printed on eat, or a sticker that >> shows Pacman and Pacwomen gobbling up a glitter jockstrap, with words >> "Eat my jockstrap, homophobes", or a burning Amerikan flag faded in >> the background, words in the foreground: "Burn flags, not fags." >Okay, so you purposefully advertise your stance in order to feel justified >when the responses are negative. No, I do it because it's important for gays to be VISIBLE, as a form of raising consciousness. Since I do not display any physcial or speech gay stereotype, I have to find another way to make them aware. So the WON'T automatically assume I'm a breeder. >Presumably, the load of typos in your >above reply was due to the highly-charged emotional nature of your >heterophobia, right? Load of typos? I only count one: "Pacwomen" should have been spelled "Pacwoman". I PURPOSELY spell America as "Amerika" to honor gay poet Alan Ginsberg, who originated that intentional mispell. Once again, you lose. Thanks for making my calling so EASY! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 01:16:58 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >> Because I am very well know in my city. > > > >How, wanted posters or what? > > Ha, ha. Nope. Guess again, oh clueless breeder clown. You use the term 'breeder' as some sort of intended insult when that's the process whereby hetero & homosexual births occur throughout this thread. It must be concluded that you are, indeed, delusional and irrational. > > >> I also usually way some sort of button that supports gays, such as a > >> pink triangle with "I bash back" printed on eat, or a sticker that > >> shows Pacman and Pacwomen gobbling up a glitter jockstrap, with words > >> "Eat my jockstrap, homophobes", or a burning Amerikan flag faded in > >> the background, words in the foreground: "Burn flags, not fags." > > >Okay, so you purposefully advertise your stance in order to feel justified > >when the responses are negative. > > No, I do it because it's important for gays to be VISIBLE, as a form > of raising consciousness. Since I do not display any physcial or > speech gay stereotype, I have to find another way to make them aware. > So the WON'T automatically assume I'm a breeder. Untrue. You obviously wallow in your perceptions of victimhood. As far as your continuously idiotic breeder comments; biologically, nonbreeders are an evolutionary dead-end, since they do not reproduce biologically. Isn't that interesting? > > >Presumably, the load of typos in your > >above reply was due to the highly-charged emotional nature of your > >heterophobia, right? > > Load of typos? I only count one: That's probably due to you're being unobservant, unable to count and generally stupid. Here's what you snipped out, dumbass: > "I also usually way " 'Way' isn't even close to 'wear'. > " ... some sort of button that supports gays, such as a > pink triangle with "I bash back" printed on eat, " On 'eat' isn't a near miss of 'it', either. > " ... or a sticker that > shows Pacman and Pacwomen gobbling up a glitter jockstrap, with words > "Eat my jockstrap, homophobes", or a burning Amerikan flag faded in > the background, words in the foreground: "Burn flags, not fags." > "Pacwomen" should have been spelled > "Pacwoman". Okay, three isn't really a 'load' but, it is more than one. > > Once again, you lose. Thanks for making my calling so EASY! Back to ranting about spelling errors being as irrelevant as your 'reasoning' errors for you, huh? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:38:47 GMT On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 01:16:58 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >You use the term 'breeder' as some sort of intended insult when that's the >process whereby hetero & homosexual births occur throughout this thread. It >must be concluded that you are, indeed, delusional and irrational. You don't have to go very far to grasp at straws. One's between your legs! >Untrue. You obviously wallow in your perceptions of victimhood. Yeah, like a raped woman speaking out against machismo. >As far as >your continuously idiotic breeder comments; biologically, nonbreeders are an >evolutionary dead-end, since they do not reproduce biologically. Isn't that >interesting? Even MORE interesting is your failure to acknowledge how MANY gay partners have their OWN children via artificial insemination. We don't NEED no stinkin' breeders! Children no longer need be victims of hetero dogma that preaches violence as a way of life, and fag-bashing as a national pastime. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:39:44 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >You use the term 'breeder' as some sort of intended insult when that's the > >process whereby hetero & homosexual births occur throughout this thread. It > >must be concluded that you are, indeed, delusional and irrational. > > You don't have to go very far to grasp at straws. One's between your > legs! That's your 'reasoned' response, utilizing 'logic'? > > >Untrue. You obviously wallow in your perceptions of victimhood. > > Yeah, like a raped woman speaking out against machismo. Act like a victim and you'll likely be treated like one. Act like a terrorist-heterphobic extremist and you wallow in your delusions. > > >As far as > >your continuously idiotic breeder comments; biologically, nonbreeders are an > >evolutionary dead-end, since they do not reproduce biologically. Isn't that > >interesting? > > Even MORE interesting is your failure to acknowledge how MANY gay > partners have their OWN children via artificial insemination. We don't > NEED no stinkin' breeders! > Lesbian women have managed that, have gay men? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:45:30 -0600 "sarchasm" said : > Lesbian women have managed that, have gay men? And it's worth pointing out that in most (if not all - see below) cases the, er, 'raw material' still has to be sourced from somewhere. (It might well be possible to force-combine the DNA of two people of the same sex, but I'm not a geneticist, so I really wouldn't like to comment.) ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:24:22 -0700 "Midwinter" wrote: > > And it's worth pointing out that in most (if not all - see below) cases > the, er, 'raw material' still has to be sourced from somewhere. True, and at the risk of providing radical extremists with fodder: http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/men-no-longer-necessary-for -sperm-production/750 > > (It might well be possible to force-combine the DNA of two people of the > same sex, but I'm not a geneticist, so I really wouldn't like to comment.) There seem to be viability questions. Not to mention the possible genetics with resulted in the OP. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:27:25 -0600 "sarchasm" said : > Not to mention the possible genetics with resulted in the OP. Fortunately, not something I'll ever have to worry about. There are reasons for gratitude...! ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:05:43 -0700 "Midwinter" wrote: > "sarchasm" said : > > > Not to mention the possible genetics which resulted in the OP. > > Fortunately, not something I'll ever have to worry about. There are > reasons for gratitude...! It'd be interesting to discover whether the result tends to support preference or genetics, despite currently unsupported claims though. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:42:55 GMT On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:39:44 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Act like a victim and you'll likely be treated like one. Go tell that to all the decimated, shrivelled up children dying by the hundreds every day in Africa. Better yet: Build yerself a TIME machine, journey back to 1943, to Nazi Germany. Go to the concentration camps, and tell the Jews the only reason they're suffering so, is because they're acting like victims. Apparantly, the world is way too complex for breeder pinheads like yourself, so you buy into simplistic formulas like self-help seminars and feel-good new-age spiritual tripe. That's why pinheads like yourself will soon be eradicated from this planet. You're too DANGEROUS for the survival of our species (and all others) by your IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY...as manifest by your anti-gay blather (not to mention OTHER froms of bigotry). >Lesbian women have managed that, have gay men? Spoken like a true homophobe! It's called sperm banking, dumbshit. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:08:47 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > > Build yerself a TIME machine, journey back to 1943, to Nazi Germany. [Godwin invocation] > > > >Lesbian women have managed that, have gay men? > > > It's called sperm banking, dumbshit. And yet, gay men remain unable to get pregnant and therefore currently still require a female womb, heterophobic idiot. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:50:16 GMT On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:08:47 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >And yet, gay men remain unable to get pregnant and therefore currently still >require a female womb, heterophobic idiot. No matter how many times I explain it, you're just TOO dumb to understand. My bone of contention is against heterocentrism, not heterosexuality per se. But being the smug hetero you are, you act like hetero breeding is something we should all bow down and worship. You stereotype me, by assuming (wrongly) that I am upset that one still needs both sperm AND egg to reproduce. Thanks to artificial insemination, we no longer have ANY excuse to perpetrate heterosexism with all its attending prejudices, violence and smug supremacy. Children can now be brought into the world withOUT needing any bigoted anti-gay heteros involved. That is a much HEALTHIER way to propagate...the child thus born is assured of not being an undesired byproduct of breeder lust or dogma. Get it? No, of course you don't. You'd MUCH rather hang your anti-gay phobia out to dry, than admit the veracity of my words. Have fun! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:52:04 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >And yet, gay men remain unable to get pregnant and therefore currently still > >require a female womb, heterophobic idiot. > > No matter how many times I explain it, Don't care - the matter referenced your repetitious 'breeder' comments, nothing more. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:49:41 GMT On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:52:04 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Don't care - the matter referenced your repetitious 'breeder' comments, >nothing more. Breeder breeder breeder. Never had her, So he had to Bleed her. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:30:55 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > Midwinter wrote: > > > >And if you direct that rage at other people, blaming them for > >all the wrongs in your world simply because they don't agree with > >something you've said, then that's definitely unhealthy. > > But that's completey off the wall. I do not oppose ANYONE "simply" > because they don't agree. > That is incorrect, as shown by your archived posts in this thread. It must be logically concluded that you lie. > >But you *don't* understand, and that's the sad irony. You rage and you > >shout and you accuse - but you haven't once stopped to ask a single > >poster what their feelings are about gay people. > > I DID. But whenever I do, they IGNORE my question. Like my Jan. 26 > comment to sarchasm: > Those are known as "rigged" questions in that they are phrased in such a way as to manipulate the response. And here you claim others are manipulative in their replies - shame on you, zeke! > Have you EVER contributed any sort of POSITIVE support of gay people? In this instance, the question seeks to elicit a yes or no response. If 'yes' were selected, examples of this might be sought. This draws the respondant into a prearranged tacitly supportive position, whether or not that is their actual position. In other words, it's a cheap tactic. If 'no' were selected, the sophist reaction would be that the questioner was 'right all along' about their preconceptions. Again, a cheap tactic often employed by those whose intelligence quotients vie for numerical superiority with their shoe sizes. > Have you EVER confronted someone for calling another "faggot" in > public, told him that was plain WRONG? > See above; cf: rigged questions. > He NEVER answered those two simple questions. That's simply due to not being as stupid as the questioner. Now you know why they went unanwered. Quick, fabricate a delusional alternative! > Likewise, you, him, et > al REFUSED to acknowledge my accuracy on three important > conclusion...despite my providing clear EVIDENCE via several media > outlets. There was no accuracy and therefore, nothing to acknowledge. That factor escapes you, doesn't it? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:02:27 GMT On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:30:55 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Those are known as "rigged" questions in that they are phrased in such a way >as to manipulate the response. And here you claim others are manipulative >in their replies - shame on you, zeke! Rigged? Asking you if you've ever contributed to a gay cause, or confronted someone for calling another "faggot"? Rigged? ROTFLMAO >In this instance, the question seeks to elicit a yes or no response. If >'yes' were selected, examples of this might be sought. This draws the >respondant into a prearranged tacitly supportive position, whether or not >that is their actual position. In other words, it's a cheap tactic. Ha ha ha ha ha. You either put your money where your mouth is, or just SHUT UP. I put you in a corner, and you STILL refuse to answer two simple questions. I got you to give yourself away! You're obviously a homophobe pretended he's gay friendly. A TYPICAL and very OLD worn-out strategy by soft-core phobes. (Meaning those who don't go around bashing queers, but by the same token, never speak out against homophobia, or vote in favor of gays.) But I knew ALL ALONG what kind of loser you are, simply by the tone of your articles. I have a KEEN intuition on where people are coming from, re. gay friendliness. I use my words in such a way as to EXPOSE their souls in public...and they don't even realize until too late! This is rich. I think I'll celebrate once more, by treating me to a fine dinner at a favorite restaurant, tomorrow afternoon. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:26:34 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >Those are known as "rigged" questions in that they are phrased in such a way > >as to manipulate the response. And here you claim others are manipulative > >in their replies - shame on you, zeke! > > Rigged? Asking you if you've ever contributed to a gay cause, or > confronted someone for calling another "faggot"? Rigged? > Yep. Those are known as "rigged" questions in that they are phrased in such a way as to manipulate the response. > ROTFLMAO Too dumb to process that concept, are you? > > >In this instance, the question seeks to elicit a yes or no response. If > >'yes' were selected, examples of this might be sought. This draws the > >respondant into a prearranged tacitly supportive position, whether or not > >that is their actual position. In other words, it's a cheap tactic. > > Ha ha ha ha ha. You either put your money where your mouth is, or just > SHUT UP. I put you in a corner, and you STILL refuse to answer two > simple questions. I got you to give yourself away! You're obviously a > homophobe pretended he's gay friendly. This is gay-friendly? heh > > A TYPICAL and very OLD worn-out strategy by soft-core phobes. (Meaning > those who don't go around bashing queers, but by the same token, never > speak out against homophobia, or vote in favor of gays.) In other words, if they aren't on your 'side', they're against you? That's an extremely naive stance; what are you, 17 years old? > > I have a KEEN intuition on where people are coming > from, re. gay friendliness. No, you merely have a fixed agenda and abhor any point of view that cannot be subsumed by it. You're shallow, Hal. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:14:48 GMT On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:26:34 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Yep. Those are known as "rigged" questions in that they are phrased in such >a way as to manipulate the response. Ha, ha. It was a VERY appropriate question to ask at the time. So many heteros who claim the label "progressive" just love to brag how they are well informed on minority issues (blacks, etc.). And how they contribute both money and time to their causes. EXCEPT when it comes to gay issues, where they totally fall flat on their faces. Thus, I scratch the surface to discover the REAL truth. It is HIDEOUS, not to mention disingenuous, for any politically progressive person to pretend concern for all minorities, yet EXCLUDE the gay issue as if it were totally irrelevant. OTOH, perhaps you are right-ring, Republican or conservative. In that case, I don't EXPECT you to support gays. But since MOST pagans tend towards progressive politics, I find my challenge to you extremely relevant. It does not suffice to accuse your opponent of "trickery" as a valid reason for not answering a pertinent question. It only serves to bury you deeper in your own sewage. And makes ME out to be the one who speaks truth. You can run but you can't hide, 'phobe! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "Noon-Air" Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 22:44:51 -0600 "Chief Thracian" wrote in message news:47a3ed14.8706017@amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com... > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:26:34 -0700, "sarchasm" > wrote: > >>Yep. Those are known as "rigged" questions in that they are phrased in >>such >>a way as to manipulate the response. > > Ha, ha. It was a VERY appropriate question to ask at the time. So many > heteros who claim the label "progressive" just love to brag how they > are well informed on minority issues (blacks, etc.). And how they > contribute both money and time to their causes. EXCEPT when it comes > to gay issues, where they totally fall flat on their faces. > > Thus, I scratch the surface to discover the REAL truth. It is HIDEOUS, > not to mention disingenuous, for any politically progressive person to > pretend concern for all minorities, yet EXCLUDE the gay issue as if it > were totally irrelevant. > > OTOH, perhaps you are right-ring, Republican or conservative. In that > case, I don't EXPECT you to support gays. But since MOST pagans tend > towards progressive politics, I find my challenge to you extremely > relevant. > > It does not suffice to accuse your opponent of "trickery" as a valid > reason for not answering a pertinent question. It only serves to bury > you deeper in your own sewage. And makes ME out to be the one who > speaks truth. > > You can run but you can't hide, 'phobe! Back into the killfile troll *click* ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:39:27 GMT On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 22:44:51 -0600, "Noon-Air" wrote: >Back into the killfile troll > >*click* One homophobe down, four to go! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:42:40 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "Noon-Air" wrote: > > >Back into the killfile troll > > > >*click* > > One homophobe down, four to go! > You ignorant terrorist; killfiling does not mean that persons who've chosen not to read/respond to your heterphobic rantings are 'gone'. They remain, much to your chargrin. Bummer, huh? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:42:57 GMT On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:42:40 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >You ignorant terrorist; killfiling does not mean that persons who've chosen >not to read/respond to your heterphobic rantings are 'gone'. They remain, >much to your chargrin. Bummer, huh? They're gone for all PRACTICAL purposes, as I'll no longer have my threads FLOODED by ingorant breeders! Much to YOUR chagrin. Hetero bummer, huh? -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:12:51 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > > They're gone for all PRACTICAL purposes, as I'll no longer have my > threads FLOODED by ingorant breeders! Instead, you'll flood your own threads with "ingorant" heterophobic screelings and get diminished attention. Much like your attention-span. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:09:18 GMT On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:12:51 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Instead, you'll flood your own threads with "ingorant" heterophobic >screelings and get diminished attention. Much like your attention-span. Wrong as usual, breeder faggot! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:09:00 -0700 The prediction correctly manifested in your numerous repetitions of denials. Here's another: you haven't shot yourself in the foot for the last time. "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >Instead, you'll flood your own threads with "ingorant" heterophobic > >screelings and get diminished attention. Much like your attention-span. > > Wrong as usual, breeder faggot! ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 01:23:23 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >Yep. Those are known as "rigged" questions in that they are phrased in such > >a way as to manipulate the response. > > Ha, ha. It didn't work the way you wanted it to, did it? > > It does not suffice to accuse your opponent of "trickery" as a valid > reason for not answering a pertinent question. Not not much an accusation as an observation of the form of your questions. In this instance, the question seeks to elicit a yes or no response. If 'yes' were selected, examples of this might be sought. This draws the respondant into a prearranged tacitly supportive position, whether or not that is their actual position. In other words, it's a cheap tactic. If 'no' were selected, the sophist reaction would be that the questioner was 'right all along' about their preconceptions. Again, a cheap tactic often employed by those whose intelligence quotients vie for numerical superiority with their shoe sizes. > It only serves to bury > you deeper in your own sewage. And makes ME out to be the one who > speaks truth. You remain your own worst enemy, zeke. You don't need others for that. > > You can run but you can't hide, 'phobe! There has been no 'running' on my part, heterophobe. From your replies, you cannot claim the same without lying, (some more). ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:41:32 GMT On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 01:23:23 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >It didn't work the way you wanted it to, did it? Oh yes it did. That's why I'm LMAO. C'mon, show some common sense here, put me in your killfile like your ass-lickin' buddy Noon-Air. Please please please! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Pisano Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:29:21 -0500 On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:41:32 GMT, chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) wrote: >On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 01:23:23 -0700, "sarchasm" >wrote: > >>It didn't work the way you wanted it to, did it? > >Oh yes it did. That's why I'm LMAO. > >C'mon, show some common sense here, put me in your killfile like your >ass-lickin' buddy Noon-Air. Please please please! Chief . . . Watch the video: "Ron Paul on Drugs and Prostitution" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypYBfvnwBTc In this video, which was refused airtime on national television, Dr. Paul also addresses the issues of homosexuality and gay marriage. I think you will find his views most refreshing. :) ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:42:58 GMT On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:29:21 -0500, Pisano wrote: > "Ron Paul on Drugs and Prostitution" > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypYBfvnwBTc > > > In this video, which was refused airtime on national >television, Dr. Paul also addresses the issues of homosexuality and >gay marriage. > > I think you will find his views most refreshing. :) I already have. Too bad sanity is the EXCEPTION rather than the rule, in Amerikan politics. Were I running for prez, this would be MY platform: Decriminalize drugs. Legalize marijuana and all other soft drugs. Legalize prostritution. Equal rights for sexual minorities, including gays. Outlaw any churches, mosques or other groups that perpetrate anti-gay bigotry (as we already do for other prejudices). Universal health care. Tax the wealthy, and corporations proportionate to the resources they use. House the houseless. Job the jobless. Stop religious groups from their political skulduggery. No tax exemptions for religious groups. Total crackdown on homophobia; treat it like a dangerous pestilence (which it is). Declare a state of emergency to protect sexual minorities, create a separate branch of the military for that purpose. Guaranteed living salary, whether or not your are employed. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:08:23 GMT On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:29:21 -0500, Pisano wrote: > Chief . . . > > Watch the video: > > "Ron Paul on Drugs and Prostitution" > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypYBfvnwBTc > > > In this video, which was refused airtime on national >television, Dr. Paul also addresses the issues of homosexuality and >gay marriage. Unfortunately, all the radio and TV ads for Ron Paul EXCLUDE his stand for gay rights. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid he's just ONE MORE politician who want the gay vote, but will sell us out when push comes to shove. Else the radio/TV ads would not HESITATE to include his pro gay-marriage stand. What are they afraid of? Losing votes? Fuck 'em, fuck Ron Paul. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:53:03 GMT On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:29:21 -0500, Pisano wrote: > Chief . . . > > Watch the video: > > "Ron Paul on Drugs and Prostitution" > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypYBfvnwBTc I don't have high speed access, still connecting w/56kbps modem. So sadly, I cannot enjoy most videos unless real short. But I did visit his web site. > In this video, which was refused airtime on national >television, Dr. Paul also addresses the issues of homosexuality and >gay marriage. > > I think you will find his views most refreshing. :) Enough to discover he's ANTI pro-choice. Also Republican. Those two points are more than enough to make any sane, compassionate and progressive person PUKE. He wants to ELIMINATE Roe vs. Wade. See: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Abortion Ron Paul is against the Federal Marriage Amendment...but he says to leave this to the states! That's just tossing us LGBT's to the wolves. C'mon, how many states would legalize gay marriage? And the handful that do, you be it will be rapidly eroded by ferocious homophobes. Did we leave black slavery up to the states? No the Supreme Court intervened. What about a woman's right to vote? Imagine it THAT were left to the states...ha! On the matter of civil rights, each state should defintely NOT go its own seperate way. You see, for Ron Paul of ANYONE to claim the gay marriage issue should be left to each state, is simply a way to wash one's hands of the issue. It's a cop-out. Quoting Ron: "Social problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts." Sounds appealing, but in reality it invites increasing corruption of minority civil rights throughout our nation. The supreme court is INTENDED to protect minorities fromt the tyranny of the majority. IOW: the supreme court MUST interven on matters of civil rights...'cause OBVIOUSLY we're dealing with widespread prejudices OF the majority. Thus, leaving gay marriage up to the vote of the people in each state is gonna do what? The majority of many states were AGAINST freeing blacks from slavery. Leave that to a vote, and guess the result! I am NOT willing to elect for President, one who SEEMS (at least half-heartedly) in favor of gay marriage (which he really isn't, he's copping out by saying it should be left to each state)...in exchange for outlawing abortion. Here's what I had to say about gay marriage back in 2004: Gay Marriage By Any Other Name -or- Letter to the Pharisees (c) 2004 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin December 9, 2004 Dear Editor, WE THE PEOPLE FOR A SANE WORLD officially declare 100% support for gay marriage, as a civil right and a birthright. Those religious institutions that condemn such partnerships are in flagrant violation of the US Constitution's first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Furthermore, said institutions often encourage attitudes of hatred and promotion of violence against sexual minorities in many other ways, and have a long history of such. And these "godly" organizations remain, as they have for untold centuries, the major and sole cause of virulent homophobia. Amerika would not tolerate such ugly behavior by a religious group towards any other minority, in our modern day. And it is one important tenet of so-called activist judges, to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. Especially when such a minority is more universally hated than any other; as are homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals. In fact, as oppressed as many minorities remain, most still cling to backward and hateful notions against even their own non-hetero brethren. The issue of gay marriage has become a glaring example of dangers that arise when church matters are not kept separate from those of the state. Indeed, it has become The Great Test Of Today's Amerika regarding the issue of individual rights versus majority prejudice. And if we keep moving in that sorry direction much longer, we are likely to see a full-blown holocaust against these long-suffering people. But progressives of all stripes must also share considerable shame, for sometimes participating in homophobic actions (at worst), or looking the other way too often (at best). To rectify this, we stand with other responsible liberals and moderates, who take up the cause of gay equality starting with marriage, in brave and aggressive manners. Even some churches are finally joining in, thus answering to their savior's message of compassion. I hope this will mark a sea-change in attitude regarding our sexual minorities. We stand with good folks like Assemblyman Mark Leno, with good organizations like Marriage Equality California, and with good media venues like Air Amerika (and KGO) Radio We demand an apology from politicians such as: * Senator Diane Feinstein, for suggesting that gay marriage is directly responsible for the Election Fiasco. * Senator John Kerry, for stating in a presidential debate that he is Catholic and against gay marriage. * Former president Bill Clinton, for his signing of the Defense of Marrage Act and the destructive policy coined Don't Ask Don't Tell. * Queer-politico turncoats like Congressman Barney Frank, who likewise blame gay marriage for Kerry's Fall From Grace. We also acknowledge that none of these four examples are Republicans; in fact they are all regarded as staunch Democrats. (Centrists have thus proven themselves to be Republican wolves in Donkey hide.) All truly progressive people will not tolerate any more homophobia from our own liberal groups and representatives, and must therefore, if need be, not just condemn but separate ourselves from those who continue to harbor anti-gay attitudes. We must be as clear, as strong, and as steadfast regarding gay marriage, as we have been these many years against racism, misogyny, child abuse, capital punishment, and preemptive declarations of war. For it has become all too obvious that condemnation of gay marriage is a red herring to distract us from the real agenda: removal of all LGBT rights to mark them as second-class citizens in perpetuity. And then, the elimination of all rights for every other citizen, except a remnant of the power elite. We will no longer tolerate frivolous and mean-sprited arguments questioning whether or not gays can marry, whether or not they deserve equal status as human beings, and whether or not they shall go to heaven. Such debates hold no validity in any civilized nation, as they are founded on a premise that is blatantly erroneous from the start, for it flies in the face of common sense and compassion. Nor shall we ever again engage any discussion over partnerships termed and defined as something resembling marriage, but not ever equal to. In other words "separate and unequal." In short: Marriage by any other name just doesn't cut the mustard. Most sincerely, Ezekiel J. Krahlin Queer Voice in the Oscar-Wilderness -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:47:47 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >It didn't work the way you wanted it to, did it? > > Oh yes it did. That's why I'm LMAO. In context, your asking questions to elicit predeternined responses did not work. Claiming it worked or, shifting the context, is a cheap troll tactic. Then again, that's all you are here. > > C'mon, show some common sense here, put me in your killfile like your > ass-lickin' buddy Noon-Air. Please please please! > Let's skip to the part where if that were done, you'd claim some hollow victory or, if not done; you'd claim something else as ridiculous. Instead, it remains my choice to reply or not to your bullshit, not yours. Now go write some whining shit on the back of your next disability check from the government you despise. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:46:31 -0600 "sarchasm" said : > In context, your asking questions to elicit predeternined responses > did not work. Claiming it worked or, shifting the context, is a cheap > troll tactic. Then again, that's all you are here. I think you are having *some* impact, though. I gave him a straightforward 'yes' to one of the questions, but I note he didn't address it - either honestly or dishonestly. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:26:25 -0700 "Midwinter" wrote: > "sarchasm" said : > > > In context, your asking questions to elicit predeternined responses > > did not work. Claiming it worked or, shifting the context, is a cheap > > troll tactic. Then again, that's all you are here. > > I think you are having *some* impact, though. I gave him a straightforward > 'yes' to one of the questions, but I note he didn't address it - either > honestly or dishonestly. Possibly so. There is much he ignores unless he can bend it to his agenda. Then again, maybe the feds picked him up on outstanding warrants. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca, alt.religion.druid, alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Seamus Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:36:44 -0800 (PST) On Feb 4, 2:26 pm, "sarchasm" wrote: > > I think you are having *some* impact, though. I gave him a > straightforward > > 'yes' to one of the questions, but I note he didn't address it - either > > honestly or dishonestly. > > Possibly so. There is much he ignores unless he can bend it to his agenda. > Then again, maybe the feds picked him up on outstanding warrants. He keeps screaming "Killfile me! Plonk me! Justify my anger!" But I'm just too busy laughing my ass off. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:55:23 -0600 Seamus said : > He keeps screaming "Killfile me! Plonk me! Justify my anger!" But I'm > just too busy laughing my ass off. Well, I'm going to have to leave it to you. As the groups will know, I have no sense of humour, I'm afraid, so get no such benefit...! ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "Noon-Air" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:59:59 -0600 "Seamus" wrote in message news:edcc9c0f-a0bd-4f23-a670-7734902508b1@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 4, 2:26 pm, "sarchasm" wrote: >> > I think you are having *some* impact, though. I gave him a >> straightforward >> > 'yes' to one of the questions, but I note he didn't address it - either >> > honestly or dishonestly. >> >> Possibly so. There is much he ignores unless he can bend it to his >> agenda. >> Then again, maybe the feds picked him up on outstanding warrants. > > He keeps screaming "Killfile me! Plonk me! Justify my anger!" But I'm > just too busy laughing my ass off. Absolutely.....Never argue with an idiot... they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:05:01 GMT On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:59:59 -0600, "Noon-Air" wrote: >Absolutely.....Never argue with an idiot... they drag you down to their >level then beat you with experience. I consider my calling re. Gay Rights too important to shun idiots. For they at LEAST provide me with the backdrop on which to expound my ideas for Queer Liberty. So I write NOT for the buffoons, but to benefit my gay brothers/sisters...IOW: for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. So I'm not bothered ONE IOTA with the squeedunks and breeder bozos that seem to haunt this thread like demented cyber-poltergeist! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:16:42 -0700 "Seamus" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > "MidWinter" > > I think you are having *some* impact, though. I gave him a > > straightforward > > > 'yes' to one of the questions, but I note he didn't address it - either > > > honestly or dishonestly. > > > > Possibly so. There is much he ignores unless he can bend it to his agenda. > > Then again, maybe the feds picked him up on outstanding warrants. > > He keeps screaming "Killfile me! Plonk me! Justify my anger!" But I'm > just too busy laughing my ass off. That's what he desperately believes gives him his hollow victories. He's using a common usenet-troll ploy; reply and you feed the troll/don't reply and the troll 'wins', (whatever it is they think they're 'winning'). Dull and uncreative but, then again, so is zeke. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:10:02 GMT On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:16:42 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >That's what he desperately believes gives him his hollow victories. Wrong agian, breeder faggot! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca, alt.religion.druid, alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Seamus Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:56:24 -0800 (PST) On Feb 5, 3:10 am, chief_thracia...@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:16:42 -0700, "sarchasm" > wrote: > > >That's what he desperately believes gives him his hollow victories. > > Wrong agian, breeder faggot! Aaawww... Did all the synapses in that dried up raisin you call a brain finally misfire? Or did you eat a super-heaping bowl of Dipshit Flakes for breakfast? That is, by the way a truly AWESOME looking pair of Fuckwit Shades you're wearing. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:43:00 GMT On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:47:47 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >In context, your asking questions to elicit predeternined responses did not >work. Claiming it worked or, shifting the context, is a cheap troll tactic. >Then again, that's all you are here. Right. That's why I, the OP of this thread, brought up a most important topic that impacts the pagan community big time. It is hetero IDIOTS like yourself who jumped all over me, absolutely FAWNING over the SF Chronicle as if it were the word of Goddess herself. >Now go >write some whining shit on the back of your next disability check from the >government you despise. Wow. Your PREJUDICE in another matter sticks out like a sore thumb, too! I won't even begin to point out the many ways in which you err, and project MALICIOUS attitudes. Any INTELLIGENT and COMPASSIONATE person will see right through you. Besides, it would be beneath me to go on the defense against a spinless Nazi. Thanks for additional evidence that it is SCUMBAGS attacking me on this thread, not well-meaning gay-friendly breeders. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:17:30 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >In context, your asking questions to elicit predeternined responses did not > >work. Claiming it worked or, shifting the context, is a cheap troll tactic. > >Then again, that's all you are here. > > Right. Good. That's settled then. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:10:36 GMT On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:17:30 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Good. That's settled then. Wrong again, breeder faggot! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca, alt.religion.druid, alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Seamus Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:44 -0800 (PST) On Feb 5, 3:10 am, chief_thracia...@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:17:30 -0700, "sarchasm" > wrote: > > >Good. That's settled then. > > Wrong again, breeder faggot! Wow. We've broken his widdwe bwain. All he can say now is "Wrong again, breeder faggot!" even without realizing the contradiction in terms he's spewing. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:50:19 GMT On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 01:23:23 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >It didn't work the way you wanted it to, did it? Wrong. >In this instance, the question seeks to elicit a yes or no response. Not so. You are free to answer any question the way you want. YOU chose to answer it with smug heterosexism. >There has been no 'running' on my part, heterophobe. No such thing as "heterophobia". But you'll make up ANYTHING in order to satiate your fat breeder ego. >From your replies, you cannot claim the same without lying, (some more). Demonizer! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:51:56 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : >>It's just a wild guess, but I bet you find a lot of people are >>unfriendly towards you, "Chief", wherever you go. > > No. Only when they're homophobic. THEN the fur flies! Or, presumably, when you judge them to be homophobic without taking even a moment to ask them their point of view? >> Would that be fairly near the mark? > > Not at all. That's good, then. I'm glad you get on better in the real world than you apparently do in Usenet. But, as I said elsewhere, one's persona here behind the shield of anonymity doesn't necessarily indicate the sort of person one is in reality. >>And it'd hardly be surprising: if you're as indiscriminately >>hostile to everyone you meet in the real world as you are online, it's >>hardly surprising they're unfriendly back. > > Everyone? That is NOT true either online OR off. It's pretty much true that you've laid screaming into anyone who's questioned you here - thus garnering even more attention from those interested to see just how incandescent you can get. > You INTENTIONALLY > ignore (as I've stated twice previously) the FRIENDLY and SUPPORTIVE > comments I've received in this thread. Friendly and supportive comments don't make your initial argument right, and they don't make your attitude favourable. How other people see your posts isn't my concern - how *I* see them is. > Why don't you bother to view readers' comments on my web log, as well > as my web site's guestbook? Because I don't care about your weblog, or your guestbook. They're of no relevance to this thread. Simply showing me that someone appreciated something you posted somewhere else doesn't make what you've posted here any more correct. > LOTS of folks have posted their > appreciation of my forthright stand and eloquence on behalf of gay > liberation. And that's fine: maybe you're doing a better job on your blog than you are here. But in here, you're an embarrassment to the cause of gay rights. > That's a lie. MOST gays in the US still live in the closet, out of > terror. Across small-town and rural America. MANY is a relative term. > A thousand could be many, but when you compare that with 10 million, > it's just a drop in the bucket. Okay. >>Oh, I won't say that there aren't problems, or that gay >>people are always treated with the civility that's due > > Oh, yes, you're SUCH a nice guy, I already know that! Hmm? I said that gay people aren't always treated with the civility that's due. Do you question that statement? > Bull dung. TOTALLY untrue. I get harassed FREQUENTLY by homophobic > street people right here in "Gay Mecca", especially in the Castro. I wonder: how do they know you're gay in order to harass you? Or is it merely that you're present in a certain area? In which case, if that be their view, what are *they* doing there? > You don't sound like you've read ANY gay media source in your life! As > the saying goes: "Ignorance is hetero bliss!" You know, maybe it's just my ignorance, but I don't limit myself to 'gay' or 'hetero' sources. I look for sources that provide reliable information. >>Unless, of course, you think it might be to do with the fact that >>you're so incredibly angry about being gay? (Or GAY, if you prefer?) > > I'm not at all angry about being gay. I am OUTRAGED at the new rise of > homophobia, and the ARROGANCE of so many heteros I meet. My anger is > righteous, as was the anger of South African blacks during apartheid. Of course. That's why you'll see no problem in the way you conduct yourself here - and that in turn is why you'll continue to be an obstacle to the furtherance of gay rights, despite your grand self-image. >>No you won't. You might well drive *yourself* away - or at least make >>yourself into a recluse (if you're not already). > > Hey armchair shrink, you make Dr. Phil look like Carl Jung himself! > YOU are certainly NOT the last word in this matter...especially since > you aren't the LEAST BIT acquainted with the politics of homosexual > liberation OR with the culture of conspiracy and social engineering. Mmm, so you say. That's how it needs to be: I don't agree with you, therefore I'm The Enemy. This isn't complicated psychological stuff, 'Chief' - Jung has nothing to do with it. This is basic, everyday extremist thinking. "If you're not with me, you're against me." I've questioned your initial claims, therefore I'm not 'with' you, therefore I'm absolutely everything you hate. I'm whatever you need me to be in order to validate your worldview. > I've become deeply familiar with ALL three, due to years of activism, > research, deduction and speculation. Research is fine. It's the speculation I tend to have problems with - especially when you present your speculation as learned fact. > WRONG. I find the world a MOSTt friendly place, as everything around > me is in the process of setting me up to become a celebrated here. You > are simply one of the players...a protagonist if you will. Albeit a > BIT player, an extra. You are the central player on your world stage. Everything revolves around you. QED, I think. > It is your WICKED attitude against outspoke gays No problem here with outspoken gays. My problems are with prejudiced, closed-minded bigots - particularly those convinced that they're the very lynchpin of the universe. > But that's completey off the wall. I do not oppose ANYONE "simply" > because they don't agree. Of course not. That would be prejudicial, wouldn't it? And your mission is to *oppose* prejudice, not to indulge in it. Right? But, like it or not, *see* it or not, that's *precisely* what you do. You make a claim, the claim is challenged, and immediately the challenger is everything you purportedly oppose, no matter that you know nothing about them at all. > But if I said black people should never be > enslaved...wouldn't a Nazi of KKK member disagree? 'Black people should never be enslaved' isn't an argument that's likely to garner much in the way of open opposition these days. So it's not really a great analogy. In this case, your initial claim was dubious: you argued that a particular experimental finding (which may or may not have produced accurate data) was a deliberate attempt to smear gay men. *That's* what you were picked up on, and it's that simple challenge to that flawed conclusion that had you raging and hurling abuse. I even gave you an out: I said that if you wanted to invalidate the data, all you needed to do was run the experiment yourself and provide more accurate results. You declined. > Likewise when I > confront homophobic attitudes, MANY of which are cleverly guised as > "friendly" liberals and counterculture and alternative-religion types. > (As in this newsgroup.) Just out of interest, which religion *should* I be, in your view? > I DID. But whenever I do, they IGNORE my question. Like my Jan. 26 > comment to sarchasm: > > Have you EVER contributed any sort of POSITIVE support of gay people? > Have you EVER confronted someone for calling another "faggot" in > public, told him that was plain WRONG? > > He NEVER answered those two simple questions. Assuming that's true, I don't blame him. Those weren't the sort of questions I had in mind. Such questions would be: "Are you gay?"; "Have you ever suffered discrimination or abuse because you're gay?"; "What do you believe should be done to further the cause of gay rights?"; "If you're not gay, what's your honest view of homosexuality?"; "Do you believe that gay people should have the right to express their preferences publicly?" That sort of thing. Pretty simple stuff. Foundation-level, you might say. The sort of thing that would help you actually find out who you're talking to and what their attitudes are *before* you lay into them for being this or that. Your questions were phrased in such a way as to assume negativity, and to challenge. In other words, they were rooted in an established hostility. > Likewise, neither did you and your cronies bother to ACKNOWLEDGE the > supportive remarks towards me, by six other participants. As a matter of interest, I note you haven't done a great deal about those supportive comments, either. It's odd that someone so single-mindedly devoted to the cause would pay such scant attention to those who might support him. Apparently you prefer to spend your time on people who, if your prejudiced statements were to be believed, are implacable enemies whose minds you could never hope to change. Could it possibly be that you're here for a fight, rather than to increase awareness of 'gay issues'? > Have you EVER contributed any sort of POSITIVE support of gay people? Yes. > Have you EVER confronted someone for calling another "faggot" in > public, told him that was plain WRONG? I live in Britain. A faggot is a sort of meatball. The nearest term we have is 'fag', as used in the public schools; but even then that doesn't mean quite the same thing (although there is supposedly a fair amount of overlap). But if you're asking me whether I've challenged someone for using slurs based on prejudice, then yes - actually quite a few times. Just as I challenge you for your prejudice on these groups. You seem blissfully unaware of the true depth of your prejudice - and it is, absolutely, wrong. >>You haven't sought any information at all. > > Totally off the wall! I provided several news outlets... Yes, yes. But I mean information about the people you're slating. You won't find that in news outlets. >>You've leapt to conclusions from a standing start, > > Wrong. I NEVER leapt to any conclusion. I am well informed on > homophobic subterfuge, gov't deception Exactly my point: you've established a view of the world as a deceptive place full of subterfuge and conspiracy, and you allow that to influence your view of new people, even after exchanging no more than a few words. You are deeply, deeply prejudiced. > You see, dufus, just because YOU are poorly informed in the matter of > anti-gay subterfuge, does NOT mean what little you DO not, the end-all > and be-all of what there IS to know about gay rights. Sorry - could I have that again in English? > So here are two MORE question I'm sure you'll blithely ignore: > > Why can't you acknowledge I was correct on THREE of my FOUR major > conclusions? Because I'm interested in the conclusion you made initially: that the scientific result (right or wrong) was an attack on gay men and an attempt to slander them. That's the conclusion I'm concerned about - that, and your reaction to those who questioned it. > Why can't you acknowledge the message of SUPPORT I received in this > thread? I don't deny them. But despite your apparent assumption, they don't make you right, any more than the fact that I oppose you in itself makes you wrong. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 05:13:15 GMT On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:51:56 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >Or, presumably, when you judge them to be homophobic without taking even >a moment to ask them their point of view? Well, I did...but then I got accused of asking "trick" questions. >That's good, then. I'm glad you get on better in the real world than you >apparently do in Usenet. That's because MOST of my time spent in newsgroups is to challenge stereotype notions among alternative, non-Xian types, who tend to BRAG they are so gay-friendly, when actually, they're NOT. I spend very little time with pleasant pastimes on Usenet. As an acitivist, I am devoted to political issues, which usually foment opposing views from angry bigots. Seeing as I'm a LEFT-WING activist, as well as a gay activist. >But, as I said elsewhere, one's persona here >behind the shield of anonymity doesn't necessarily indicate the sort of >person one is in reality. Not necessarily. I'm very good at scratching the surface and bringing out a person's REAL feelings...no matter how anonymous he or she may appear. >It's pretty much true that you've laid screaming into anyone who's >questioned you here - It's IMPOSSIBLE to scream at anyone on Usenet. It's simply TEXT. The closest I've seen anyone attempt to scream via text, is when they compose a sea of text completely capitalized, and filled with exclamation points. But that STILL isn't really screaming, 'cause it's imPOSSIBLE to do in this medium. > thus garnering even more attention from those >interested to see just how incandescent you can get. Your analysis is far from correct. But it IS important that I grab people's attention. That way, they're less likely to forget my words, and what I stand for. >Friendly and supportive comments don't make your initial argument right, >and they don't make your attitude favourable. How other people see your >posts isn't my concern - how *I* see them is. Yes, I agree. But the fact you don't even ACKNOWLEDGE the presence of supportive comments, speaks volumes about where YOU'RE really coming fun. You did NOT respond to ANY of those comments. And that, I'm sure, was INTENTIONAL. >Because I don't care about your weblog, or your guestbook. They're of no >relevance to this thread. Yes they are, because you CLAIMED in this thread that NO ONE agrees with me, and that EVERYONE is annoyed by my approach. So what you really mean is you don't CARE about reading any more positive support and apprecation by others, for my words, as it would totally pop your bubble. >Simply showing me that someone appreciated >something you posted somewhere else doesn't make what you've posted here >any more correct. That depends on the context of their comment. Some do, some don't. So once again, your BLANKET statement reveals a manipulative strategy with poor reasoning. >And that's fine: maybe you're doing a better job on your blog than you >are here. But in here, you're an embarrassment to the cause of gay >rights. Ha ha. Wrong again. YOU are an embarassment to heteros, especially those who really DO support gay people. You are ALSO an embarrassment to intelligent, and well-informed progressive folks who actually DO bother to read a gay media source now and then. (Still, too few and far bewteen.) >Hmm? I said that gay people aren't always treated with the civility >that's due. Do you question that statement? I'd say that's a very WEAK observation that trivializes the TERRORISM gays are subjected to each and every day, by the media, the churches, and politicians. >I wonder: how do they know you're gay in order to harass you? Or is it >merely that you're present in a certain area? In which case, if that be >their view, what are *they* doing there? Heterocentrics get their ROCKS off by hanging out in gay neighborhoods, and even moving there. They go out of their way to stalk, harass, and demean gay people...'cause both gov't and church GOAD them to do so. This is an example of what I mean by anti-gay conspiracy. Some do it to gain money (such as preachers), by creating fear over a false enemy, some do it for fame (to play hero against perceived devils), and some do it for power (such as gov't's desire to manipulate the masses by creating fake terrors). Stigmatizing gays has been a most effective formula to achieve any of the above three examples, for CENTURIES. I am attempting to SHATTER this real conspiracy for once and for all. >You know, maybe it's just my ignorance, but I don't limit myself to >'gay' or 'hetero' sources. I look for sources that provide reliable >information. But we live in an overwhelmingly HETERO society. Thus reliable information re. gay issues is NOT generally available from mainstream sources. And OFTEN such sources intentionally DISTORT and DEMONIZED gays. You've just seen a PERFECT example of this, via the SF Chronicle's vilification of gays via their MRSA article...which is the topic of this thread. >Of course. That's why you'll see no problem in the way you conduct >yourself here - and that in turn is why you'll continue to be an obstacle >to the furtherance of gay rights, despite your grand self-image. You can NOT prove in any way I'm an obstacle to gay rights. How absurd! >'Black people should never be enslaved' isn't an argument that's likely >to garner much in the way of open opposition these days. So it's not >really a great analogy. But my point suffices, nonetheless. You KNOW what I meant by that example. >In this case, your initial claim was dubious: you argued that a >particular experimental finding (which may or may not have produced >accurate data) was a deliberate attempt to smear gay men. *That's* what >you were picked up on, and it's that simple challenge to that flawed >conclusion that had you raging and hurling abuse. Incorrect, The smear campaign was DEFINITELY instigated by the SF Chronicle. Which they KNEW the consevative (Xian) media would take this false article and run with it. EXACTLY what has happened. Now, the medical researchers...one could stop with the claim that they unintentionally released skewed data. Or maybe even it was INTENTIONAL, in order to gain glory and advancement. But I take it just one step further: they, too, participated in a smear campaign. As do preachers, who use fear of homosexuals to empty the wallets of their frightened congregation. If such a shameless strategy works for preachers, why should other professions do same? After all, so MANY are scrambling for the almight dollar, it's very TEMPTING. The head researcher of the MRSA project, Diep, claims to be gay. In that case, he is your typical queer opportunist, who will stab his brothers in the back for profit and glory. EVERY minority has its underbelly, its saboteurs. I'm sure SOME Jews changed their religion to Xian, and became Nazis for the same reasons. >I even gave you an out: I said that if you wanted to invalidate the data, >all you needed to do was run the experiment yourself and provide more >accurate results. You declined. Duh. I don't have the vast power and access required. So of course I turned it down. And you knew that. But it was not necessary, since the original data HAS been invalidated...and I posted the results from various media sources, and personal accounts by those who've been infected by MRSA. >Just out of interest, which religion *should* I be, in your view? An alternative one that fits one of the four newsgroups to which I've posted this thread. >Assuming that's true, I don't blame him. Of course not, you're both in cahoots. How very convenient! >Those weren't the sort of questions I had in mind. But I did! It's one of my methods of scratching the surface of those who aren't gay, but claim gay friendliness. >Such questions would be: "Are you gay?"; "Have >you ever suffered discrimination or abuse because you're gay?"; Doesn't matter WHAT gay-pertinent question I ask. He'd STILL accuse me of "trickery". >That sort of thing. Pretty simple stuff. Foundation-level, you might >say. It's also pretty simple stuff to ask a declared gay-friendly straight, MY two questions. For if the answer is NO to both, he is clearly NOT gay friendly. >Your questions were phrased in such a way as to assume negativity, and to >challenge. In other words, they were rooted in an established hostility. Wait a minute, negativity was NOT assumed, it was OBVIOUS in his responses. My challenge to him was not in the LEAST hostile. It was simply confronting a devious poster. >As a matter of interest, I note you haven't done a great deal about those >supportive comments, either. It's odd that someone so single-mindedly >devoted to the cause would pay such scant attention to those who might >support him. How absolutely phony of you! To each one, I responded with gratitude and respect. I even posted a POEM of mine to one, and a TALE of mine to another. >Apparently you prefer to spend your time on people who, if >your prejudiced statements were to be believed, are implacable enemies >whose minds you could never hope to change. No, I write for the benefit of OTHER, future readers, who might BENEFIT from the discourse. Especially as to learning more effective STRATEGY in which to fight fire with fire when it comes to homophobic pretense. I SAVE all my gay relevant threads, and feature them on my web site. >Could it possibly be that you're here for a fight, rather than to >increase awareness of 'gay issues'? Could it possibly be that you're here to sabotage my good words, rather than to assist other pagan heteros in defusing their homophobia? >You seem blissfully >unaware of the true depth of your prejudice - and it is, absolutely, >wrong. Your analysis is SKEWED. Let the record stand for anyone to read, any time in the future. >Exactly my point: you've established a view of the world as a deceptive >place full of subterfuge and conspiracy, That IS the state of this world, in large part. VERY large part. >and you allow that to influence your view of new people, Of course! Just as a Jew in Nazi Germany colored a most negtive view of the majority of people around him...most of whom were IMPLICIT in bringing the Nazis to power, due in great measure to CENTURIES of anti-semitic attitudes. A SIMILAR conspiracy exists in many nations around the world...including those that are relatively more gay friendly than most, such as the Netherlands. (Now suffering an increasing SERIES of gay bashing by Muslims and other fanatic groups, not to mentioned the spinelessness of Dutch gov't when it comes to confronting Muslim fanatics.) >even after exchanging no more than a few words. With years' experience under my belt dealing w/bigots day in, day out, one can more READILY know who's who withOUT first wading through an encyclopedia of research. There are certain key phrases, key attitudes, key strategies that DOG-EAR the standard homophobe. I TEACH my gay brothers through EXAMPLE and essays, how to sharpen their senses in this matter. >You are deeply, deeply prejudiced. You are deeply, deeply, in breeder doo-doo! >> You see, dufus, just because YOU are poorly informed in the matter of >> anti-gay subterfuge, does NOT mean what little you DO not, the end-all >> and be-all of what there IS to know about gay rights. > >Sorry - could I have that again in English? NO ONE who is NOT out-of-the-closet gay, especially any proclaimed HETERO who does not stay informed about gay rights, has any RIGHT to insist he should be the last word ON the gay issue. Especially when confronted with an actual gay activist of many years. >Because I'm interested in the conclusion you made initially: that the >scientific result (right or wrong) was an attack on gay men and an >attempt to slander them. That's the conclusion I'm concerned about - >that, and your reaction to those who questioned it. I gave ALL my reasons several times over, backed up by outside evidence and deduction. It was OBVIOUS from the first, when SF Chronicle published a bright RED map of the Castro. They DON'T do that to ANY other group who suffer a disease endemic to their own. It is ONLY towards gays do they publish such tripe. >I don't deny them. Only because I twisted their arm. You DENY them by virtually NO reaction whatsoever towards their presence. >But despite your apparent assumption, they don't make >you right, any more than the fact that I oppose you in itself makes you >wrong. Incorrect. You have NOT posted or provided links to ANY resources that would PROMOTE the view of the SF Chronicle, OR the original data presented by Dr. Diep et al (for which doctor et el APOLOGIZED several days later). Yet I HAVE provide more than ample proof that the data was skewed, accidently and hastily at best, and intentional at worst. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 01:37:53 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > Seeing as I'm a LEFT-WING activist, as well as a gay > activist. > > But it IS important that I grab > people's attention. That way, they're less likely to forget my words, > and what I stand for. > > by creating > fear over a false enemy, some do it for fame (to play hero against > perceived devils), and some do it for power > Since I know my destiny: as instigator and leader > BTW, browsing through my web site, one can put the pieces together to learn my plans for conquest of the world, and realignment of all powers > > You can NOT prove in any way I'm an obstacle to gay rights. How > absurd! > > > Wait a minute, negativity was NOT assumed, > > You are deeply, deeply, in breeder doo-doo! > > it was OBVIOUS in his > responses. My challenge to him was not in the LEAST hostile. > > It was simply confronting a devious poster. > > You are deeply, deeply, in breeder doo-doo! ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:57:41 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : >>Or, presumably, when you judge them to be homophobic without taking >>even a moment to ask them their point of view? > > Well, I did...but then I got accused of asking "trick" questions. You were asking rigged questions, as sarchasm pointed out. You understand what a rigged question is yet? The classic would be, "when did you stop beating your partner" - you must be aware that such questions are fundamentally dishonest? I'll need to demonstrate why further down, no doubt. > That's because MOST of my time spent in newsgroups is to challenge > stereotype notions among alternative, non-Xian types Ah - so now it's a religious issue, is it? Funny - it wasn't, as far as I was concerned. So only Christians can tolerate gays, is that right? > they are so gay-friendly, when actually, they're NOT. I spend very > little time with pleasant pastimes on Usenet. Hardly surprising. As I said elsewhere, I think you and I share a certain masochism in common. You certainly seem to work very hard to make Usenet an unpleasant place for yourself. > As an acitivist, I am > devoted to political issues, which usually foment opposing views from > angry bigots. No, you're devoted to opposing the people *you've* decided are 'angry bigots'. This is why I point out the fact that you haven't taken the time to ask a single real question of any of us. > Seeing as I'm a LEFT-WING activist, as well as a gay > activist. I don't really care about 'left' and 'right'. They're so overused they don't really mean anything any more. > Not necessarily. I'm very good at scratching the surface and bringing > out a person's REAL feelings...no matter how anonymous he or she may > appear. All you're good at is attributing characteristics to people and then judging them on that basis. The only thing you've been good at here is prejudice. > It's IMPOSSIBLE to scream at anyone on Usenet. It's simply TEXT. It's easy to see your emotional state and your attitudes, though, from that text, and you do indeed manage to convey that impression. If it weren't so pointless it'd be quite clever. >>Friendly and supportive comments don't make your initial argument >>right, and they don't make your attitude favourable. How other people >>see your posts isn't my concern - how *I* see them is. > > Yes, I agree. But the fact you don't even ACKNOWLEDGE the presence of > supportive comments I acknowledge their presence - I don't acknowledge their relevance. You're relying on the principle called 'truthiness' - the very same thing that a lot of people would argue powers Wikipedia: truthiness is 'truth by consensus'. If so many people believe something, it must be true. But truthiness *isn't* truth - and the presence of supportive comments just means that there are people who agree with you. It doesn't mean that you're right. Similarly, for the sake of balance (which I do try to do, regardless of your preconceptions), the presence of opposing comments doesn't in itself mean that you're wrong. If your argument about supportive comments has merit, then it should work both ways - because there are more posters than me disagreeing with you. But it doesn't. What makes you right or wrong is whether you're in possession of the correct facts; whether you correctly interpret those facts; whether your conclusions based on those facts are logically valid; whether you make your arguments rationally, calmly and honestly; and whether you find out about people before judging them. Those are the key points here, and so far you've failed on all counts, support or not. > Yes they are, because you CLAIMED in this thread that NO ONE agrees > with me Could you provide a reference, please? I wasn't aware that I'd said any such thing. > and that EVERYONE is annoyed by my approach. 'Chief', I'm not *annoyed* by your approach. I'm pointing out its absolute lack of merit, and the fact that, due to your closed-mindedness, aggressiveness and prejudice, you're a hindrance to the cause you claim to be fighting for. I can't speak for whether anyone else is annoyed. As I said previously, I think it's more likely that you amuse people. > So what you > really mean is you don't CARE about reading any more positive support > and apprecation by others, for my words, as it would totally pop your > bubble. No, what I really mean is that if you've got a point to make you can make it here in this thread. >>And that's fine: maybe you're doing a better job on your blog than you >>are here. But in here, you're an embarrassment to the cause of gay >>rights. > > Ha ha. Wrong again. YOU are an embarassment to heteros But you haven't once asked me a crucial question pertaining to that, have you? You don't *need* to, because you've already got all the information you need, right there in your head. That's why you're prejudiced. >>Hmm? I said that gay people aren't always treated with the civility >>that's due. Do you question that statement? > > I'd say that's a very WEAK observation that trivializes the TERRORISM > gays are subjected to each and every day, by the media, the churches, > and politicians. So after all that, you don't disagree with the statement I made, just the way in which I put it? 'Weak' is the word, then, certainly. > Stigmatizing gays has been a most effective formula to achieve any of > the above three examples, for CENTURIES. I am attempting to SHATTER > this real conspiracy for once and for all. Do you think? I'll tell you something: you're *helping* it. Do you really think attitudes like yours benefit the people you claim to be fighting for? Consciously or not, you're working hard to create more friction, more distrust, more hatred. You're like a religious militant who won't tolerate any other outlook but his own. Such people continue to fight (and I do mean fight) for 'equality' until they gain absolute superiority, with no differing views tolerated. To paraphrase Tacitus, such people would create a desert and call it 'peace'. > But we live in an overwhelmingly HETERO society. Can't be helped, 'Chief'. Sexual orientation isn't a choice. If less people are gay than are heterosexual, well, that's the way it goes. The key point is to ensure that gay people are treated properly - and that will *not* happen as a result of 'activism' like yours. > You can NOT prove in any way I'm an obstacle to gay rights. How > absurd! You provide all the proof I need. Fortunately, most people here in Usenet are intelligent enough not to let one bigoted crank change their views significantly. Unfortunately, not everyone in the real world has so much about them. >>In this case, your initial claim was dubious: you argued that a >>particular experimental finding (which may or may not have produced >>accurate data) was a deliberate attempt to smear gay men. *That's* >>what you were picked up on, and it's that simple challenge to that >>flawed conclusion that had you raging and hurling abuse. > > Incorrect, The smear campaign was DEFINITELY instigated by the SF > Chronicle. Which they KNEW the consevative (Xian) media would take > this false article and run with it. "Which they knew the... media would take..."? I'm not sure what's happening to the word 'which' at the moment - but it's not just you here, 'Chief'. I thought it was a British thing, but I guess it must be American, too. Still - back to the point: > Now, the medical researchers...one could stop with the claim that they > unintentionally released skewed data. One could. Occam's Razor would demand that we do, unless and until some evidence comes to light suggesting otherwise. But that wouldn't serve your prejudices, would it? You already *have* the evidence you need, supplied by your own desire for persecution. > If such a shameless strategy works for preachers, why should other > professions do same? After all, so MANY are scrambling for the almight > dollar, it's very TEMPTING. What do you do for a living, 'Chief'? > The head researcher of the MRSA project, Diep, claims to be gay. In > that case, he is your typical queer opportunist, who will stab his > brothers in the back for profit and glory. Ah. So, if he was heterosexual, he'd be a gay-basher. Since he says he's gay, either he's lying or he's a traitor to the cause? How very predictable of you. > EVERY minority has its underbelly, its saboteurs. Its blinkered fanatics... You're right, it does. > I'm sure SOME Jews changed their religion > to Xian, and became Nazis for the same reasons. Maybe so. If you can find me an example of a Jew converting to Christianity AND joining the Nazi party, you let me know, and we'll discuss it then, okay? >>Just out of interest, which religion *should* I be, in your view? > > An alternative one that fits one of the four newsgroups to which I've > posted this thread. That's great. I already am. So what, I wonder, was your point? >>Assuming that's true, I don't blame him. > > Of course not, you're both in cahoots. How very convenient! Convenient for you, certainly. If we're in cahoots, you don't have to account for two independent thinkers coming to the same conclusion. If we're in cahoots, you can treat both views as one view, and oppose it more easily (given your inclination to believe that supportive posts add to the logical weight of an argument). > But I did! It's one of my methods of scratching the surface of those > who aren't gay, but claim gay friendliness. Mmm, no doubt: use rigged questions, you'll con at least a couple of fools into making an honest attempt to answer them. >>Such questions would be: "Are you gay?"; "Have >>you ever suffered discrimination or abuse because you're gay?"; > > Doesn't matter WHAT gay-pertinent question I ask. He'd STILL accuse me > of "trickery". Try it. Go on, try it out: ask him one or two of the questions I've suggested. If he accuses you of trickery, then we'll talk about it some more. But I'm not going to make judgements based on what you expect him to do. Tip: if you spent more time being honest with people, they'd be more inclined to be honest back. 'True dat', as the young folks say. > It's also pretty simple stuff to ask a declared gay-friendly straight, > MY two questions. For if the answer is NO to both, he is clearly NOT > gay friendly. And if the answer is yes, what happens then? You back down? You say, "oh, sorry, my friend, for judging you wrongly; I can see you are actually gay friendly." Have those words, or any to the same effect, *ever* issued from your mouth or from your keyboard? And if the latter, can you show me where? > Wait a minute, negativity was NOT assumed Of course it was. The questions were built on that premise. > How absolutely phony of you! To each one, I responded with gratitude > and respect. I even posted a POEM of mine to one, and a TALE of mine > to another. But still you concentrate the bulk of your energy on those you've taken a dislike to. > Could it possibly be that you're here to sabotage my good words, > rather than to assist other pagan heteros in defusing their > homophobia? Well, given that you've been accusing me of that from the start, I'd assume you believe it. What *I* think my own motivations are obviously doesn't figure in your worldview. >>You are deeply, deeply prejudiced. > > You are deeply, deeply, in breeder doo-doo! Oh? Could you tell me about my kids, then? I wasn't aware I had any. Seriously: are you ever going to stop with the 'breeder' cobblers? It's only an insult in the mind of a troglodyte like yourself. > has any RIGHT to > insist he should be the last word ON the gay issue. Like I said, there's no closet here. Ask my girlfriend. But I'm not after the 'last word' anyway - I'm simply having a conversation with you. If you see it as a contest, that's your business. I'm simply trying to point out ways in which you might improve your credibility. > I gave ALL my reasons several times over, backed up by outside > evidence and deduction. It was OBVIOUS from the first, when SF > Chronicle published a bright RED map of the Castro. They DON'T do that > to ANY other group who suffer a disease endemic to their own. So... the colour of the map was the problem? Or are you seriously saying that no-one ever plots occurrences of disease or other incidents on a map to identify clusters and possible sources, unless they seek to target gay people? > Yet I HAVE provide more than ample proof that the data was skewed, > accidently and hastily at best, and intentional at worst. And that's my point. So breezily you *say* "accidently and hastily at best", and then rule out the very possibility; preferring to assume ill- will and deceitfulness, so that you have grounds to launch an attack on the people you hate. *That's* the issue here, that's *always* been the issue here. It's not a matter of whether the data was right or wrong: it's a matter of whether the accusations you're making can be backed up. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:28:32 GMT On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:57:41 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >Ah - so now it's a religious issue, is it? Funny - it wasn't, as far as >I was concerned. So only Christians can tolerate gays, is that right? Never said that. Don't you know how to read? It has been my observation over MANY years, that Xians are not the SOLE instigators of anti-gay bigotry. Homophobia is alive and well in alternative religions. In SPITE of what claims they make about being gay friendly. Pagans and atheists are barely LESS gay-hateful than Xians. >Hardly surprising. As I said elsewhere, I think you and I share a >certain masochism in common. You certainly seem to work very hard to >make Usenet an unpleasant place for yourself. Nope. Its unpleasant all unto itself. Many newsgroups have already been destroyed and made useless by hetero porn spam. TONS of racism and homophobia is spewed throughout most groups. Just like real life: if you're HETERO so many things in the world cater to you. UNLIKE if your gay and OUT. >No, you're devoted to opposing the people *you've* decided are 'angry >bigots'. This is why I point out the fact that you haven't taken the >time to ask a single real question of any of us. Don't need to. The arrogant comments are markers of heterocentric bigots. You many not be KKK material, but you ARE along the way there. >All you're good at is attributing characteristics to people and then >judging them on that basis. The only thing you've been good at here is >prejudice. Sure. Keep believing that. >If it weren't so pointless it'd be quite clever. Certainly YOU have a point: at the top of your hetero head! >I acknowledge their presence - I don't acknowledge their relevance. You couldn't acknowledge your way out of a paper bag. >If so many people believe something, it must be true. Nope. That's a tool of homophobes. If enough breeders say queers are a pox on humanity, everyone comes to believe it! That's how holocausts begin. >because there are more posters >than me disagreeing with you. Four or five, that's it. Because they spew COUNTLESS messages, with intent to make it appear a whole ARMY is against me! The ones who support me do not make a deal over posting more than one or two comments. They understand that QUALITY always supercedes QUANTITY. >Could you provide a reference, please? I wasn't aware that I'd said any >such thing. Download the thread. You'll find it. I'm not here to assist my opponents. Too many queer turncoats already do that! >But you haven't once asked me a crucial question pertaining to that, have >you? You don't *need* to, because you've already got all the information >you need, right there in your head. That's why you're prejudiced. You confuse insight for prejudice. Just because you can't read between the lines, and discern people's intentions by what they DON'T say as much as what they DO say, doesn't mean NO ONE ELSE can't either! So besides not NEEDING to ask such questions 'cause the answers are already obvious: Why ask questions I know you'll LIE about anyway? >Do you think? I'll tell you something: you're *helping* it. Do you >really think attitudes like yours benefit the people you claim to be >fighting for? Consciously or not, you're working hard to create more >friction, more distrust, more hatred. Bull dung. The intense hatred and violence have been there all along, there is NOTHING that could make things worse for gays. We have nothing to lose at this point, and everything to GAIN by aggressive forms of civil dissent. >You're like a religious militant >who won't tolerate any other outlook but his own. You don't get it, do you? I'm MIRRORING society's hatred, reflecting it BACK. Fighting fire with fire. My enemies are the enemies of all gay people, and they play DIRTY. There is NO rule that says we queers can't fight dirty right back. All's fair in love and WAR. We do NOT need to hope some day, keeping our fingers crossed, that enough heteros will decide gays can get married, and then VOTE permission that we can. We queers can WREST hetero power from the hands of society and run the show ourSELVES. I'm simply INSPIRING my gay brother by example, and how to fight fire with fire even BETTER than the enemy. Such strategy was how the allied forces beat down the Nazi empire. That SAME strategy, I have concluded, is the ONLY method at this point, that will gain gays their freedom. Business as usual may work for HETERO minorities, but it WON'T for queers. The system is hopelessly RIGGED against us. So we CAN'T win our rights through the ballot or marches or the usual forms of civil dissent. We must learn how to throw monkey wrenches into the system, at the most strategic moments. And it can ALL be done w/o shedding a drop of blod or any kind of violence. But AGGRESSIVE we must be, and SABOTAGE we must. >Such people continue >to fight (and I do mean fight) for 'equality' until they gain absolute >superiority, with no differing views tolerated. To paraphrase Tacitus, >such people would create a desert and call it 'peace'. A more appropriate word is "Amerika". >Can't be helped, 'Chief'. Sexual orientation isn't a choice. If less >people are gay than are heterosexual, well, that's the way it goes. But that's pure bullshit. The MAJORITY of people are bisexual, around 80%. Only 10% are wholly hetero, just as just 10% are entirely homosexual. But when society PRESSURES men to act matcho and straight, it is EASY for bisexuals to PRETEND hetero. So when you include bisexuals along with gays under the "queer" umbrella, we are speaking then of NINETY PERCENT of the world's population being non-hetero. The issue then, is NOT one of a gay minority in the shadow of an overwheling breeder majority. Indeed, the issue is ACTUALLY one of egregious HYPOCRISY played out by the vast MAJORITY...who've been teerorized into pretending they're hetero. Therefore the MAJORITY of men who claim straight are LIARS. >most people here in Usenet are intelligent Hardly. It's a cybership of fools, with a few islands scattered here and there of DECENT folk. Just like the real world. enough not to let one bigoted crank change their >views significantly. Unfortunately, not everyone in the real world has >so much about them. > > >>>In this case, your initial claim was dubious: you argued that a >>>particular experimental finding (which may or may not have produced >>>accurate data) was a deliberate attempt to smear gay men. *That's* >>>what you were picked up on, and it's that simple challenge to that >>>flawed conclusion that had you raging and hurling abuse. >> >> Incorrect, The smear campaign was DEFINITELY instigated by the SF >> Chronicle. Which they KNEW the consevative (Xian) media would take >> this false article and run with it. > >"Which they knew the... media would take..."? > >I'm not sure what's happening to the word 'which' at the moment - but >it's not just you here, 'Chief'. I thought it was a British thing, but I >guess it must be American, too. > >Still - back to the point: > >> Now, the medical researchers...one could stop with the claim that they >> unintentionally released skewed data. > >One could. Occam's Razor would demand that we do, unless and until some >evidence comes to light suggesting otherwise. But that wouldn't serve >your prejudices, would it? You already *have* the evidence you need, >supplied by your own desire for persecution. > > >> If such a shameless strategy works for preachers, why should other >> professions do same? After all, so MANY are scrambling for the almight >> dollar, it's very TEMPTING. >What do you do for a living, 'Chief'? I've lived on disability funds most of my life. That allows me the freedom to dedicate myself as an activist. My talents also include writing fiction, non-fiction, poems, letters, essay. See my blog for examples. Hopefully, my opus "Steal This Blog" (composed of two books, one a work in progress for a while longer) will bring in the money, freeing me from any gov't stipends. Here's the URL http://www.gay-bible.org/steal It is free for anyone to read and share. What monies I make will be the result of spinoff opportunites (lectures, open-mic readings, publications of my other writings, for examples). >Ah. So, if he was heterosexual, he'd be a gay-basher. Since he says >he's gay, either he's lying or he's a traitor to the cause? How very >predictable of you. The nature of homophobia is very predictable. Just the way it goes. >Maybe so. If you can find me an example of a Jew converting to >Christianity AND joining the Nazi party, you let me know, and we'll >discuss it then, okay? MANY Jews Xianized their names to be spared Nazi misery. >Convenient for you, certainly. If we're in cahoots, you don't have to >account for two independent thinkers coming to the same conclusion. If >we're in cahoots, you can treat both views as one view, and oppose it >more easily (given your inclination to believe that supportive posts add >to the logical weight of an argument). Both of you (and a few others) essentially parade the same heterocentric party line. NO variations whatsoever. You make my mission a breeze. >Try it. Go on, try it out: ask him one or two of the questions I've >suggested. If he accuses you of trickery, then we'll talk about it some >more. But I'm not going to make judgements based on what you expect him >to do. Well, since you KNOW very well he's reading this, of course, he'll behave in any way that makes me look bad. So your suggestion is a setup or IOW: "rigged". >Tip: if you spent more time being honest with people, they'd be more >inclined to be honest back. There is VERY little honesty among people, especially breeders, when the gay issue is brought up. "Faggot" is their MOST common invective, BTW. > 'True dat', as the young folks say. Nope, not at all. Furthermore, I AM honest, but it brings me tons of angered reactions. That is because my focus is on breaking down walls, which people don't realize are there. They PERSIST in maintaining bigoted viewpoints against gays, of the most violent sort. And since they have majority advance, with the backing of both church AND gov't, they continue to terrorize, marginalize, and trivialize gays...being the bullies they are. Harassment in schools of gay students has INCREASED, and calling other kids "faggot" is the most frequent word of abuse. MOST teacher pretend it's not happening, usually because of their OWN anti-gay prejudice. Human nature: scapegoating. And gays have been successfully scapegoated for many centuries. Why stop a good thing, eh? >And if the answer is yes, what happens then? You back down? You say, >"oh, sorry, my friend, for judging you wrongly; I can see you are >actually gay friendly." Boy, you must be stupid to think I'm stupider than you! May as well ask a skinhead if he loves Jews. He might say "yes" to your face, but he'll be laughin' behind your back. >Have those words, or any to the same effect, *ever* issued from your >mouth or from your keyboard? And if the latter, can you show me where? Give it up, Lulu! >Well, given that you've been accusing me of that from the start, I'd >assume you believe it. What *I* think my own motivations are obviously >doesn't figure in your worldview. You've had PLENTY of time to describe your real motivaitions. If you haven't done so by now, you never will. Anywayz, your motivations are rather obvious, and I've addressed them already. >Oh? Could you tell me about my kids, then? I wasn't aware I had any. Breeder is a state of mind, as much as it is an arm of the state. >Seriously: are you ever going to stop with the 'breeder' cobblers? It's >only an insult in the mind of a troglodyte like yourself. We have so few words of insult against hetero boors, and so many against decent gays. The English language is stacked UNFAIRLY to a great degree, in favor of hetero dogma. Sure wish there WERE more curse-type words specifically targeting breeders. THAT would be a balance of justice! >It's not a matter of whether the data was right or wrong: >it's a matter of whether the accusations you're making can be backed up. No, it's not just a matter of the data. It's a matter of why they proceded in this manner, and why the SF Chronicle intentionally demonized gays...KNOWING the devasting impact it will probably have in the long run. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:25:25 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > Never said that. Don't you know how to read? It has been my > observation over MANY years, that Xians are not the SOLE instigators > of anti-gay bigotry. Homophobia is alive and well in alternative > religions. In SPITE of what claims they make about being gay friendly. > Pagans and atheists are barely LESS gay-hateful than Xians. So we can add religious prejudice to your collection. >>Hardly surprising. As I said elsewhere, I think you and I share a >>certain masochism in common. You certainly seem to work very hard to >>make Usenet an unpleasant place for yourself. > > Nope. Its unpleasant all unto itself. Many newsgroups have already > been destroyed and made useless by hetero porn spam. The Internet was *built* on 'hetero porn spam'. It seems a bit odd to be complaining about it as though it's something new. > TONS of racism and homophobia is spewed throughout most groups. Certainly is. 'Heterophobia', too - just like you peddle. > Just like real life: > if you're HETERO so many things in the world cater to you. UNLIKE if > your gay and OUT. Funny, I've never got that. Admittedly, if you're gay and aggressive and in everyone's face then people are going to get a bit cheesed off - just like if you're religious and are shoving it down someone's throat. Now, that's not to say that anti-gay prejudice doesn't happen - I know it does. But it's interesting to note that you only started really copping flak when you started doing the angry militant thing. My point here isn't that gay people should just shut up (though no doubt you'll try to represent my comments in that light); but that what happens in some places isn't necessarily happening everywhere. Still, if you set out expecting a fight, and decide to get your retaliation in first, 99 times out of 100 you'll find the fight you were expecting. > Don't need to. The arrogant comments are markers of heterocentric > bigots. You many not be KKK material, but you ARE along the way there. I held off invoking Godwin's Law the last time you tried to bring the Nazis and the KKK into it. >>All you're good at is attributing characteristics to people and then >>judging them on that basis. The only thing you've been good at here >>is prejudice. > > Sure. Keep believing that. I do. >>If it weren't so pointless it'd be quite clever. > > Certainly YOU have a point: at the top of your hetero head! Genius. Pure, unmitigated genius. What was it you said in the last post? You have a 'gift for writing"? Well, you've certainly shown that here. >>because there are more posters >>than me disagreeing with you. > > Four or five, that's it. One, three, twelve - doesn't matter. Because your argument - that support equals verification - doesn't hold. A thousand people agreeing with me wouldn't make me right if I was wrong. In this case, the few people you've grabbed as your 'supporters' (notably quiet though they are) don't make you right. >>Could you provide a reference, please? I wasn't aware that I'd said >>any such thing. > > Download the thread. You'll find it. I'm not here to assist my > opponents. We'll put that one down to a hopeful lie on your part that didn't quite work out, then. > Why ask questions I know you'll LIE about anyway? Bingo: that's exactly my point. You pretend your loaded questions are honest, and now admit that you've already made your mind up before you *ask* any questions. Which is what I've been trying to explain to you for some time now. > You don't get it, do you? I'm MIRRORING society's hatred, reflecting > it BACK. A weak rationalisation for the fact that you don't have it in you to rise above the level of the people you condemn. You make yourself like them, skulk about at their level, and then claim you're making a conscious choice to 'mirror' them. The truth is, you're simply no better than them. That's not activism. That's not having an impact. The people who make a difference are the people who can rise from the status quo and show the way. > I'm simply INSPIRING my gay brother by example Your example is a degenerate one - simplistic and small-minded. There will, no doubt, be some who follow it, simply because it will validate their own desire to strike out in hatred. > Therefore the MAJORITY of men who claim straight are LIARS. So speaks militant anti-heterosexual propaganda. A person's sexuality is their own affair, and if someone tells me they are straight then they are straight until they tell me, or unambiguously show me, otherwise. I do not presume to dictate other people's sexuality based on my own prejudices. > Hardly. It's a cybership of fools, with a few islands scattered here > and there of DECENT folk. Just like the real world. Yet you spend your time here, supposedly pursuing your magnificant agenda of activism, rather than out in the real world where things might be more difficult for you. As a wise man once said, who's the more foolish - the fool, or the fool who follows him? >>What do you do for a living, 'Chief'? > > I've lived on disability funds most of my life. Noted. > That allows me the freedom to dedicate myself as an activist. And that you do by turning up on Usenet behaving like a spoilt infant? My, I'm sure the gay working population of America is delighted that their hard-earned dollars are going to fund your activities. > My talents also include > writing fiction, non-fiction, poems, letters, essay. See my blog for > examples. I'm not interested in your talents, or your blog. I'm interested in how you comport yourself in debate here and now. So far, there's not been a glimpse of the skill you repeatedly boast of. >>Maybe so. If you can find me an example of a Jew converting to >>Christianity AND joining the Nazi party, you let me know, and we'll >>discuss it then, okay? > > MANY Jews Xianized their names to be spared Nazi misery. Like I said: If you can find me an example of a Jew converting to Christianity AND joining the Nazi party, you let me know, and we'll discuss it then, okay? > Both of you (and a few others) essentially parade the same > heterocentric party line. NO variations whatsoever. You make my > mission a breeze. Then why, I wonder, are you finding it so hard to accomplish it? > Well, since you KNOW very well he's reading this, of course, he'll > behave in any way that makes me look bad. So your suggestion is a > setup or IOW: "rigged". I've already seen how you squirm out of asking the questions. The simple point is that by refusing to do so you make my point: your prejudice makes such questioning unnecessary - you already know all you want to know. >>Tip: if you spent more time being honest with people, they'd be more >>inclined to be honest back. > > There is VERY little honesty among people, especially breeders, when > the gay issue is brought up. "Faggot" is their MOST common invective, > BTW. Just as 'breeder' is yours? > Nope, not at all. Furthermore, I AM honest, but it brings me tons of > angered reactions. There's honest, and then there's abusive. 'I speak as I find, me' is something I hear so often from people attempting to justify abusiveness, or even simple lack of courtesy. Honesty is a noble virtue - but employing it only when you wish to justify hostility is a violation of it. >>And if the answer is yes, what happens then? You back down? You say, >>"oh, sorry, my friend, for judging you wrongly; I can see you are >>actually gay friendly." > > Boy, you must be stupid to think I'm stupider than you! May as well > ask a skinhead if he loves Jews. He might say "yes" to your face, but > he'll be laughin' behind your back. So, in other words, if someone answers yes to your honestly-asked question, you'd assume he (or she) was lying? Precisely what I said. >>Have those words, or any to the same effect, *ever* issued from your >>mouth or from your keyboard? And if the latter, can you show me >>where? > > Give it up, Lulu! That'll be a pitiful 'no', then. >>Oh? Could you tell me about my kids, then? I wasn't aware I had any. > > Breeder is a state of mind, as much as it is an arm of the state. Ah! A 'state of mind'. In other words, it's an insult you're going to cling to regardless of little details like whether or not someone actually *is* a 'breeder'. Pitiful. > We have so few words of insult against hetero boors So it would seem, since you appear able to find only one. So you think 'justice' would be served not by *stopping* abuse in either direction, but by generating *more* abusive language for gay people to use against heterosexuals? I think that says more about you than I could say in a thousand more posts - and with equally little chance of persuading you to grow up. So, with that in mind, and with far more time already wasted on you than your pathetic hatemongering is worth, I'll address your doubts about whether I'm capable of killfiling you. You may squawk on unheeded. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:38:25 GMT On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:25:25 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >So we can add religious prejudice to your collection. Truthful observation is a FAR CRY from prejudice. To my dismay, I have learned over these last ten years, just how HOMOPHOBIC many pagans are...yet they keep pointing their fingers at Xians as the lone cause of anti-gay bigotry. Your continued sophistry in our discussions only makes you the obvious loser...and bigot. >The Internet was *built* on 'hetero porn spam'. It seems a bit odd to be >complaining about it as though it's something new. Yet MORE sophistry. Anyone is free to do at search on the history of the Internet, to see how badly you err. You OBVIOULSY skew what I say in a ludicrous attempt to make YOUR silly responses look like the truth. Sophist! >Certainly is. 'Heterophobia', too - just like you peddle. --excerpt from "Bisexual Politics = Vampires on the Blood of Gay Rights" [ www.gay-bible.org/write/4_bisexual.htm ]: I don't buy into this heterophobia theory, one bit. Any gay who does, already reveals his own self betrayal, hypocrisy, and lack of pride. To accuse a gay person of heterophobia (or biphobia), is like accusing a concentration camp survivor of Naziphobia. As far as the terms "biphobia" and "heterophobia"...they are invalid because nonexistant. Whatever disgust a gay person shows towards bi's and straights is founded on truth, not illusion...and homophobia possesses such extensive dimensions of hatred, violence, and ignorance...that to even accuse a gay person of either biphobia or heterophobia is in itself a homophobic manipulation. Biphobia is a crock. So's heterophobia. Homophobia, on the other hand, is real. A "phobia" is any unjustified fear or hatred. From Random House Dictionary: pho+bi+a (fO_bEE uh) n. pl. <-bi+as> 1. a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it. Homophobia is totally unjustified. It is a violent and cruel act of persecution to a vulnerable group of people. Ergo, homophobia *is* a true phobia. Fear and hatred of heterosexuals is quite real, as so many are homophobic...and often difficult to discern which ones aren't. In our heterosexist society, no gay person can safely be himself or herself--anwhere in our nation--without the persistant threat of being murdered, beat up, job loss, housing loss, or a number of other hostile responses. "Biphobia" is a clever term created by the so-called bisexual political movement. Bisexual politics in large part, plays on homophobia to create their own distinct identity...while coyly pretending not to be homophobic in the least. They take the hard-earned achievements of lesbian/thracian rights, and turn it into their own...rather than bravely participate directly in the gay movement. For the only real problem bisexuals have in society, is their desire for homosexual expression...they have *no* problem being accepted for their heterosexual passions. In a nutshell: Gays sacrifice their lives for a better world, and bisexuals lick up the blood to slake their thirst. Bisexuals often portray their dual sexual drive as "perfect", contrasting that with homosexuality, which is implied as discriminatory to the opposite sex. As if sexual arousal were proof of acceptance towards another...in truth, it is only an itch for selfish pleasure, and is often used by heterosexists to justify a sexual act that is legally seen as rape. Every incidence of violence against bisexuals has always been a form of homophobia. Just because the victim happens to be bisexual, does not make the hate crime biphobic. Beware, gay people: any bisexual who *insists* that biphobia is real, is homophobic, and should not be trusted, ever. Any real fighter for gay rights--who is bisexual or hetero--has no difficulty participating in same-sex civil rights without feeling a need to create a separate political entity...that is, "bisexual politics". Bisexuality is real, but is not a valid political movement. If heterophobia (or biphobia) were real, we'd having roving gangs of queers bashing straights (or bi's), queer property owners evicting them, and queer employers firing them. None of this is the case. But if you insist heterophobia is real, by pointing out the occassional slur a gay might make about straights...then you are equating an action that is so ridculously mild as to be harmless, with another action that is deplorably brutal and malicious. In other words, you would be homophobic yourself. --end of excerpt >Funny, I've never got that. Admittedly, if you're gay and aggressive and >in everyone's face then people are going to get a bit cheesed off - just >like if you're religious and are shoving it down someone's throat. No, NOT just like. Try again, sophist! >Now, >that's not to say that anti-gay prejudice doesn't happen - I know it does. >But it's interesting to note that you only started really copping flak when >you started doing the angry militant thing. Not at all. I only decide to become AGGRESSIVE after years and years of seeing respect towards gays deteriorate ever since Clinton signed DOMA, and getting much WORSE once Dubya took over. More people than before holler "faggot" in public, including right here in Gay Mecca. AND anti-gay violence has sharply INCREASED, with no small help from churches and mosques. I've had many people snarl at me and attack me, simply for telling them I'm a gay activist, after they asked what I do for a living. So NO, you're completely WRONG, and you KNOW it because I already explained CLEARLY where I'm coming from. I am now AGGRESSIVE because that is the ONLY way we'll turn things around at this point...unless of course queers are willing to VOLUNTARILY walk into concentration camps by order of their hetero overlords. I SET AN EXAMPLE of how gays can better regain respect and true freedom. We MUST be aggressive (short of violence) and we MUST stop looking the other way whenever we are insulted, threatened, and declared VERMIN to the human race by politicians and religious leaders. >My point here isn't that gay people should just shut up (though no doubt >you'll try to represent my comments in that light); but that what happens >in some places isn't necessarily happening everywhere. It's HAPPENING big time in MOST nations, including the "gay friendliest" nation in the world: Holland. Not to mention ALL of Islam, Latin America, Africa, the U.S., Eastern Europe, Russia and China. No, I agree, homophobia has NOT reared its ugly head everywhere. Just MOST everywhere. Why? Because it's been there all along, just like antisemitism prior to the rise of Nazi Germany. >Still, if you set >out expecting a fight, and decide to get your retaliation in first, 99 >times out of 100 you'll find the fight you were expecting. Sophistry once more. I have been THREATENED and ATTACKED numerous times with NO intent to fight, NO expectation of maliciousness. It was only after experiencing this DIRECT hatred for my gay proclivities continued over and over no matter where I went, that I decided to fight fire with fire. >I held off invoking Godwin's Law the last time you tried to bring the Nazis >and the KKK into it. Godwin's law is a crock. The Nazi regime still lives, still is a warning to the world, and still is IMPORTANT to use as a standard of the WORST that could happen. The ONLY time Godwin's law should be invoked, is when it is used FLIPPANTLY. But when used as a historical example, it's still totally legit. Godwin's Law is NOT part of the official netiquette standards, BTW. >Genius. Pure, unmitigated genius. What was it you said in the last post? >You have a 'gift for writing"? Well, you've certainly shown that here. One sentence out of a million. Why does the phrase "grasping at straws" come to mind? Read "Steal This Blog" before you know ANYthing about my writing skills. Usenet is not exactly Literary Central. >One, three, twelve - doesn't matter. Because your argument - that support >Bingo: that's exactly my point. You pretend your loaded questions are >honest, and now admit that you've already made your mind up before you >*ask* any questions. Which is what I've been trying to explain to you for >some time now. Nope. They ARE honest question. To corner a breeder liberal regarding all his generous charity donations by asking him if he INCLUDES donating to a gay cause, is MOST appropriate, and and EXCELLENT way of uncovering truth. You should SEE how many of these kind go into a SNIT when I confront them in this fair manner. This thread is but the latest example. >A weak rationalisation for the fact that you don't have it in you to rise >above the level of the people you condemn. You make yourself like them, So YOU insiste, sophist! But your simply WRONG Madge, simply WRONG. >The people who make a >difference are the people who can rise from the status quo and show the >way. Oh, so you AGREE that the status quo is largely homophobic! Gotcha! That's the point I've been making all along, which you've resisted every inch of the way. NOW, you admit my correctness without even realizing it. I'm very GOOD at drawing the truth out of liars. >Your example is a degenerate one - simplistic and small-minded. There >will, no doubt, be some who follow it, simply because it will validate >their own desire to strike out in hatred. There will soon be MANY who follow my example...because it is TRUTH. Far above and beyond what any BREEDER thugs claim! >So speaks militant anti-heterosexual propaganda. You don't have to be militant to be anti-heterosexual. Heterocentrism's bastard violence speaks for itself. >A person's sexuality is their own affair, NOT when a hetero majority JUSTIFIES violence against non-heteros, by virtue of their "deemed superior" sexuality. You WOULD obfuscate people to believe otherwise, in order to keep queers in a constant state of terror and misery. PLUS: most who claim heterosexuality are LIARS, since 80% of all humans born are bisexual. It is living in a society that TERRORIZES people into acting "straight" that forces most (even many gays, still) to convince everyone they're actually hetero. THUS there is no way a person's sexuality should be his or her own affair. NOT when this is WAR, and MANY suffer directly or indirectly the TERRORISM this puts on us all (whether we realize it or not). There is NO privacy left in any other matter, thanks to technology. So why should BREEDERS be exempt from invasion of their bedrooms, when THEY persist in shoving their ugly noses up our queer ASSCRACKS every chance they get? No, sexuality is NOT a private affair...at least, not as long as we queers continue to have OUR privacy violent, especially with such TERROR and VIOLENCE simply for loving another of the same sex. >I do not presume to dictate other people's sexuality based on my own >prejudices. LIAR. >Yet you spend your time here, supposedly pursuing your magnificant agenda >of activism, rather than out in the real world where things might be more >difficult for you. I do BOTH real world and cyberspace. After all, don't you? HYPOCRITE. >As a wise man once said, who's the more foolish - the fool, or the fool who >follows him? Which wise man? And how do you know he's wise? Just because others claim he is? 'Cause obviously YOU can be NO judge of wisdom. >And that you do by turning up on Usenet behaving like a spoilt infant? My, >I'm sure the gay working population of America is delighted that their >hard-earned dollars are going to fund your activities. Yet one MORE form of bigotry you manifest. SOME who "work" for a living totally SUPPORT my agenda. Because they can't afford the TIME to dissent and research and speak out, like I can. I AM their voice. Those working fools who HATE me are limited by their own right-wing, conformist blinders. >I'm not interested in your talents, or your blog. Well you OUGHT to be, since you are curious about my lifestyle and my philosophy. >I'm interested in how >you comport yourself in debate here and now. So far, there's not been a >glimpse of the skill you repeatedly boast of. I am not focused on writing a book or even an ESSAY, here in Usenet. You use a straw man to bolster your erroneous claims. Sophistry! >If you can find me an example of a Jew converting to Christianity AND >joining the Nazi party, you let me know, and we'll discuss it then, okay? That is common knowledge of WWII history. I have NO interest in digging up references for you. Find 'em yourself. Just as some gays betray their own brothers due to heterocentric terrorism, SOME Jews became Xians and/or Nazis. >Then why, I wonder, are you finding it so hard to accomplish it? I have NO difficulty in this matter. >I've already seen how you squirm out of asking the questions. Saying so doesn't make it so. >So, in other words, if someone answers yes to your honestly-asked question, >you'd assume he (or she) was lying? Precisely what I said. Depends on the context. But I AM very well informed on the devious nature of breeders. >Ah! A 'state of mind'. In other words, it's an insult you're going to >cling to regardless of little details like whether or not someone actually >*is* a 'breeder'. MANY people without children (including back stabbing queers) peddle the breeder mentality. For example, they attack or condemn those who live an outspokenly non-hetero life. That, BTW, is the ORIGINAL intent for gays using the word "breeder". >So it would seem, since you appear able to find only one. Even "breeder" does NOT match the harshness, the years of violence, behind words like "faggot", "queer", "fudge packer", "sodomite" ad infinitum. The language is tremendously BIASED in favor of breeders and AGAINST non-heteros. >So you think 'justice' would be served not by *stopping* abuse in either >direction, but by generating *more* abusive language for gay people to use >against heterosexuals? Fighting fire with fire is NECESSARY at this point. For, like Neville Chamberlain to the Nazis, we queers have tried EVERY passive tactic possible. Or only choice now IS aggressive strategies short of violence. Yes, coming up with equally abusive terms WILL help level the playing field, and accomplish getting MORE breeders to back off, and even respect us. Like whacking a bullying flat to the concrete several times, before he finally stops beating up smaller guys. He'll even RESPECT them. >So, with that in mind, and with far more time already wasted on you than >your pathetic hatemongering is worth, I'll address your doubts about >whether I'm capable of killfiling you. You may squawk on unheeded. GOOD riddance, hetero fart! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:24:33 -0700 [How many times can zeke use a word which he fails to comprehend? Answer below]: "Chief Thracian" wrote: > Midwinter wrote: > > >So we can add religious prejudice to your collection. > > ... sophistry > > Yet MORE sophistry. > Sophist! > > > No, NOT just like. Try again, sophist! > > > Sophistry once more. > > So YOU insiste, sophist! But your simply WRONG > > You use a straw man to bolster your erroneous claims. Sophistry! > Seven times - and in every instance, misapplied. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:57:01 -0700 "Seamus" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > [How many times can zeke use a word which he fails to comprehend? Answer > > below]: > > > > Seven times - and in every instance, misapplied. > > That was friggin' AWESOME! Next, on another heart-stopping edition of > "When Whiny Emo Douche Bottles Attack (Usenet Edition)", Zeke will > attempt to call sarchasm a homophobe in a vain, hopeless attempt at > obtaining relevance. Bahahaha. Maybe he'd really freak-out if you asked, sprechen sie Deutsch? ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:11:30 GMT On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:57:01 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Bahahaha. Maybe he'd really freak-out if you asked, sprechen sie Deutsch? Wrong again, breeder faggot! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:11:14 GMT On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:24:33 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Seven times - and in every instance, misapplied. Wrong again, breeder faggot! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:38:11 -0700 "Midwinter" wrote: > chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > > >>Or, presumably, when you judge them to be homophobic without taking > >>even a moment to ask them their point of view? > > > > Well, I did...but then I got accused of asking "trick" questions. > > You were asking rigged questions, as sarchasm pointed out. You > understand what a rigged question is yet? The classic would be, "when > did you stop beating your partner" - you must be aware that such > questions are fundamentally dishonest? I'll need to demonstrate why > further down, no doubt. > Zeke-who-wishes-he-were-Thracian has shown that he disregards such things when they disagree with his delusions. One could ask him rigged questions to demonstrate them further but, only others who haven't by now, would get it. > > > That's because MOST of my time spent in newsgroups is to challenge > > stereotype notions among alternative, non-Xian types > > Ah - so now it's a religious issue, is it? Funny - it wasn't, as far as > I was concerned. So only Christians can tolerate gays, is that right? > At a guess, it would seem zeke expects *generic* pagans to be more tolerant of gays and, by extension, of his intolerance of anyone who doesn't toerlate his extremism. > > > > As an acitivist, I am > > devoted to political issues, which usually foment opposing views from > > angry bigots. > > No, you're devoted to opposing the people *you've* decided are 'angry > bigots'. This is why I point out the fact that you haven't taken the > time to ask a single real question of any of us. > > > > Seeing as I'm a LEFT-WING activist, as well as a gay > > activist. > > I don't really care about 'left' and 'right'. They're so overused they > don't really mean anything any more. Elsewhere in this thread, zeke makes it clear that his agenda is to 'take over'. > > > > Similarly, for the sake of balance (which I do try to do, regardless of > your preconceptions), the presence of opposing comments doesn't in itself > mean that you're wrong. If your argument about supportive comments has > merit, then it should work both ways - because there are more posters > than me disagreeing with you. > > But it doesn't. What makes you right or wrong is whether you're in > possession of the correct facts; whether you correctly interpret those > facts; whether your conclusions based on those facts are logically valid; > whether you make your arguments rationally, calmly and honestly; and > whether you find out about people before judging them. Those are the key > points here, and so far you've failed on all counts, support or not. > > > 'Chief', I'm not *annoyed* by your approach. I'm pointing out its > absolute lack of merit, and the fact that, due to your closed-mindedness, > aggressiveness and prejudice, you're a hindrance to the cause you claim > to be fighting for. > > I can't speak for whether anyone else is annoyed. As I said previously, > I think it's more likely that you amuse people. The United States can be said to be annoyed with Iran. > > > > But you haven't once asked me a crucial question pertaining to that, have > you? You don't *need* to, because you've already got all the information > you need, right there in your head. That's why you're prejudiced. > > Do you > really think attitudes like yours benefit the people you claim to be > fighting for? Consciously or not, you're working hard to create more > friction, more distrust, more hatred. You're like a religious militant > who won't tolerate any other outlook but his own. Such people continue > to fight (and I do mean fight) for 'equality' until they gain absolute > superiority, with no differing views tolerated. To paraphrase Tacitus, > such people would create a desert and call it 'peace'. > > > > You can NOT prove in any way I'm an obstacle to gay rights. How > > absurd! > > You provide all the proof I need. Fortunately, most people here in > Usenet are intelligent enough not to let one bigoted crank change their > views significantly. Unfortunately, not everyone in the real world has > so much about them. > > [re: rigged questions]: > >>Assuming that's true, I don't blame him. > > > > Of course not, you're both in cahoots. How very convenient! > > Convenient for you, certainly. If we're in cahoots, you don't have to > account for two independent thinkers coming to the same conclusion. If > we're in cahoots, you can treat both views as one view, and oppose it > more easily (given your inclination to believe that supportive posts add > to the logical weight of an argument). > Instead of trying to address the content of the posts, he claims individual posters are in 'cahoots' as a convenient evasion. If we're not in collusion, his conspiracy theory falls flat. It is unthinkable for him that two or more posters rationally dissent with his illogical arguments. > > > But I did! It's one of my methods of scratching the surface of those > > who aren't gay, but claim gay friendliness. > > Mmm, no doubt: use rigged questions, you'll con at least a couple of > fools into making an honest attempt to answer them. Yes, have you got more rigged questions, zeke? > > > > Doesn't matter WHAT gay-pertinent question I ask. He'd STILL accuse me > > of "trickery". > > Try it. Go on, try it out: ask him one or two of the questions I've > suggested. If he accuses you of trickery, then we'll talk about it some > more. But I'm not going to make judgements based on what you expect him > to do. Having been induced to lower my expectations of zeke, he should be obliged in turn to raise his. > > > > Wait a minute, negativity was NOT assumed > > Of course it was. The questions were built on that premise. > Exactly. The preconceived notions and prejudice were inherent in the questions. Alternatively, very few questions lack this inherency. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:43:02 GMT On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:38:11 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Zeke-who-wishes-he-were-Thracian I AM Thracian in spirit. And THAT'S what counts. >At a guess, it would seem zeke expects *generic* pagans to be more tolerant >of gays and, by extension, of his intolerance of anyone who doesn't toerlate >his extremism. Yet one MORE incorrect guess by a breeder pinhead who thinks he's SUPERIOR to gays. What "extremism" I possess doesn't even come CLOSE to your breeder ARROGANCE. >Elsewhere in this thread, zeke makes it clear that his agenda is to 'take >over'. Right. One characteristic ALL homophobes seem to have in common, is a complete LACK of sense of humor, when it comes to gays. >Instead of trying to address the content of the posts, he claims individual >posters are in 'cahoots' as a convenient evasion. Wrong again. SOME posters have ganged up on me...quite TYPICAL of homophobes against gay posters. >If we're not in collusion, his conspiracy theory falls flat. But you ARE in cahoots, as evidenced by those posters who've all treated the SF Chronicle's bigoted MRSA article with adulation. Thus making it EASY for me to identify the homophobes, and DENOUNCE them. >It is unthinkable for him that >two or more posters rationally dissent with his illogical arguments. There MIGHT be some truth in that, IF (and ONLY if) these same dissenters were not licking the SF Chronicle's asses...even AFTER outside evidence came in as to their anti-gay bias. >Yes, have you got more rigged questions, zeke? The only SEEM rigged to a guilty conscience. >Exactly. The preconceived notions and prejudice were inherent in the >questions. Alternatively, very few questions lack this inherency. He says while ejaculating all over the LCD screen, imagining Zeke's hard wanger up his anus! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:29:28 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >Zeke-who-wishes-he-were-Thracian > > I AM Thracian in spirit. And THAT'S what counts. Claim to be whatever you wish, like native american or thracian. An unsupported claim is merely that and nothing more. > > > >Elsewhere in this thread, zeke makes it clear that his agenda is to 'take > >over'. > > Right. Just another petty dictator wannabe, how pedestrian. > One characteristic ALL homophobes seem to have in common, is a > complete LACK of sense of humor, when it comes to gays. Your conclusion lacks the same thing your other ones do; accuracy. > > >Instead of trying to address the content of the posts, he claims individual > >posters are in 'cahoots' as a convenient evasion. > > Wrong again. As you say, to the contradiction of your own posts. So, which time were you lying? <-note: example of a loaded question, for baseline purposes ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:11:59 GMT On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:29:28 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Claim to be whatever you wish, like native american or thracian. An >unsupported claim is merely that and nothing more. Wrong again, breeder faggot! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:45:16 GMT On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:36:10 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >You see? A furious, hair-trigger response, without even taking the trouble >to find out whether Noon-Air was talking to you or to me. It could have >been either, of course - but the fact that you rushed to an angry >retaliation first just illustrates the point I've made: you're no advert >for tolerance. Blah blah blah. Closet case. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:09:22 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : >>You see? A furious, hair-trigger response, without even taking the >>trouble to find out whether Noon-Air was talking to you or to me. It >>could have been either, of course - but the fact that you rushed to an >>angry retaliation first just illustrates the point I've made: you're >>no advert for tolerance. > > Blah blah blah. Closet case. No closet here, my friend. The group here knows I prefer women. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:57:16 -0700 "Seamus" wrote: > (Chief Thracian) wrote: > > > Translation: TOLERATE ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! > > You claim to be a druid. This must be some new definition of the word > "druid" of which I was previously unaware. > > Here's a razor. Please apply it to your wrists. Remember to go uptown, > NOT across the street. > Now, now Seamus ... if he cannot apply Occam's Razor, what makes you think he can manage a less complex feat? > _ > > "They laughed when I accused my parents, and I killed them. Let's see > if they'll be laughing now!" - Tom Servo, MST3K ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:52:47 GMT On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:57:16 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >"Seamus" wrote: >> (Chief Thracian) wrote: > >> >> >> Translation: TOLERATE ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! I NEVER said or implied that. >Now, now Seamus ... if he cannot apply Occam's Razor, what makes you think >he can manage a less complex feat? The simplest solution is most likely the correct one. Thanks again for playing the buffoon, that I may come off as the hero. It's dipwads like you that give me a superiority complex! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 01:50:28 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >"Seamus" wrote: > >> (Chief Thracian) wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Translation: TOLERATE ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! > > I NEVER said or implied that. No? "BTW, browsing through my web site, one can put the pieces together to learn my plans for conquest of the world, and realignment of all powers " By the way, Seamus posted the translation, not me, dumbass. > > >Now, now Seamus ... if he cannot apply Occam's Razor, what makes you think > >he can manage a less complex feat? > > The simplest solution is most likely the correct one. You miss the point, which is unsurprising given your archived record. > > Thanks again for playing the buffoon, that I may come off as the hero. > It's dipwads like you that give me a superiority complex! > At the risk of insulting a sack of rocks, you make such a sackfull look like a genius, zeke. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:30:03 GMT On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 01:50:28 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >At the risk of insulting a sack of rocks, you make such a sackfull look like >a genius, zeke. I have that power, if I so choose. I can also make a genius look like a sack of rocks. Especially one who is homophobic. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:41:07 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > "sarchasm" wrote: > > >At the risk of insulting a sack of rocks, you make such a sackfull look like > >a genius, zeke. > > I have that power, if I so choose. Inherently stupid? Not by your own choice, eh? > I can also make a genius look like > a sack of rocks. Especially one who is homophobic. > When will that process begin? It's been days and so far, you've shot yourself in the feet so many times that if you could, you'd rent more feet. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:43:03 GMT On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:41:07 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >When will that process begin? It's been days and so far, you've shot >yourself in the feet so many times that if you could, you'd rent more feet. So speaketh a sack of rocks. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:54:00 -0700 "Midwinter" wrote: > (Chief Thracian) said : > > > Judging by your flippant participation in this thread--treating gay > > bashing as if it were a silly joke--I'd say no, you never have. > > Prejudice based on sexuality ("gay-bashing" only covers a fraction of the > problem) is a serious matter. Stupid-bashing being an altogether different matter, however. > > The joke here is in seeing someone so obviously consumed with hatred as you > are making himself out to be a campaigner for respect and rights. In fact, > you have consistently shown yourself absolutely guilty of such prejudice > throughout this thread. Concurrance. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:52:09 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > Already posted several days ago. In this thread. If you're too feeble > minded to track it down, that's YOUR problem. Ah, no. See, that would be a couple of articles plus your otherwise unsubstantiated claims that the data was deliberately skewed, that it's "Nazi propaganda", and that there's some sort of conspiracy going on to defame gay people. Like I said, I await the data that you have obtained scientifically, with which you are going to show the inaccuracy of that provided by these other researchers. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:40:09 GMT On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:52:09 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >Ah, no. See, that would be a couple of articles plus your otherwise >unsubstantiated claims that the data was deliberately skewed, that it's >"Nazi propaganda", and that there's some sort of conspiracy going on to >defame gay people. You intentionally TRIVIALIZE the news reference I provided. The data WAS skewed deliberately, for which the medical and news culprits were reprimanded by various savvy and concerned SF citizens. Their skewing data against an already persecuted minority is PRECISELY a Nazi style tactic. So the first two points you made are invalid, and OBVIOUSLY an attempt to support your heterocentric ARROGANCE. When the Chronicle's article came out, I was the FIRST to denounce their skulduggery, as well as that of SF General Hospital and the UC Med Center. Within several days, other outraged citizens spoke up with the SAME accusations as yours truly...stopping short however, with seeing the PATTERN of an orchestrated attempt to foment social ANTAGONISM against gays. >Like I said, I await the data that you have obtained scientifically, with >which you are going to show the inaccuracy of that provided by these other >researchers. I have a KEEN intuition that sees more readily, obvious connections between events that eludes many others. ESPECIALLY when it comes to gay issues (my specialty), since the MAJORITY of citizens are already BIASED against gays, and thus, like you, are EAGER to jump all over the rare gay activist who is blowing the whistle against an OBVIOUS conspiracy. The evidence you expect, is the last to come in, but I assure you it will. My whistle blowing--which is based on CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence (albeit overwhelming)--will FACILITATE those outraged persons who have ACCESS to solid evidence, which is unavailable to yours truly. You didn't even ACKNOWLEDGE the veracity of my pointing out the homophobic slant of the SF Chronicle and Dr. Binh Diep...after other reporters and letter writers chimed in, giving ME affirmation of my claim You PERSISTED with your original stance, even AFTER circumstancial evidence proved CLEARLY the intent (or "conspiracy") of some people and institutions to blame homosexuals, and to gain fame and glory by their LIES. This indicates you maintain a cruel bias AGAINST queers, rather than a neutral position. The MAJORITY of people are readily to BELIEVE that gays are at higher risk to MRSA, as well as SPREADERS of this horrid bacteria...due to their ugly BIAS against gays. And that gay sex is NATURALLY far more filthier than hetero sex (citing butt-fucking as the cause, regardless than straights partake in same with considerably frequency. Implying that queer feces harbors more diseases than breeder feces! (After all, aren't they natural carriers of plague?) Dr. Diep et al were shoved into a corner and had to APOLOGIZE for their erroneous and poorly gathered data. The ONLY reason why intelligent people would commit such a horrid act of homophobic bigotry, is because that was their PLAN in the first place. This is NO accident, and I am totally sick and tired of heteros in power who CONTINUE to play the old "faggots are filthy" card in order to gain glory, wealth, and power. Since YOU are not even willing to acknowledge the ACCURACY of my claim of these culprits presenting CLEARLY skewed data as an underhanded and prejudiced tactic, even when the EVIDENCE came pouring in... I must CONCLUDE that your are a malicious breeder who will NEVER stop demeaing gays until his last breath (and may THAT come soon)...while doing his very, very best to appear "gay friendly". I got your number. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:16:00 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > You intentionally TRIVIALIZE the news reference I provided. No, not at all. In fact, I seek only to encourage people to read what the news reference actually *said*. As I've already said a few times, it's important that people who're potentially affected by a medical development are made aware of possible risk factors. That's what the article is doing, rightly or wrongly. In your almost fervent desire to see gay-bashing in the article, *you* are misrepresenting what the report says and attempting to discourage people from paying heed to it. No scientific finding is absolute on the basis of one test, one experiment or one survey. But it is right that where potential risks are identified, that information is made available so that people can make their own judgements. Scientists are the discoverers of information, not the judges of what information the public should have access to. Further research may support the finding or it may disprove it. That's science. But had you your way, at least as you've indicated, you would do the community a great disservice by seeking to prevent the publication of such information. All because you can't accommodate the notion that certain activities can and might (or might not) simply put one at greater risk, and that saying so does not necessarily constitute part of a grand conspiracy against anyone. > So the first two points you made are invalid, and OBVIOUSLY an attempt > to support your heterocentric ARROGANCE. 'Obvious' in your mind - and let's face it, based on your track record here, you need no other confirmation. > When the Chronicle's article > came out, I was the FIRST to denounce their skulduggery Passionately and emotionally, no doubt, as you have on Usenet. Which is precisely why I question your reliability in doing so. You are an angry person; angry and intolerant - and that automatically throws your judgement into doubt. > other outraged citizens spoke up with the SAME accusations as > yours truly...stopping short however, with seeing the PATTERN of an > orchestrated attempt to foment social ANTAGONISM against gays. And yet you would have it that that pattern was so obvious. So why, I wonder, were you the only one able to see it or willing to challenge it? >>Like I said, I await the data that you have obtained scientifically, >>with which you are going to show the inaccuracy of that provided by >>these other researchers. > > I have a KEEN intuition that sees more readily, obvious connections > between events that eludes many others. As I thought. You have no data, and are working entirely on the basis of your assumptions and prejudices (and you are quite clearly very prejudiced indeed - even to the point of assuming the sex and sexuality of those who question your pronouncements). Therefore your claims are scientifically worthless, and you move to gag researchers purely based on what offends your overactive sensibilities. > since the MAJORITY of citizens are already > BIASED against gays, and thus, like you, are EAGER to jump all over > the rare gay activist who is blowing the whistle against an OBVIOUS > conspiracy. The rare gay activist who through his absolute intolerance, prejudice and anger is doing his cause far more harm than good; and who would seek to gag even preliminary scientific research if it does not agree with his "keen intuition". > The evidence you expect, is the last to come in, but I assure you it > will. When it does, come back to me. Until then, you are just one more bigot wasting everybody's time. > This indicates you maintain a cruel bias AGAINST queers, rather than a > neutral position. The MAJORITY of people are readily to BELIEVE that > gays are at higher risk to MRSA, as well as SPREADERS of this horrid > bacteria...due to their ugly BIAS against gays. And that gay sex is > NATURALLY far more filthier than hetero sex (citing butt-fucking as > the cause, regardless than straights partake in same with considerably > frequency. Implying that queer feces harbors more diseases than > breeder feces! (After all, aren't they natural carriers of plague?) How adeptly you rattle out these assertions. You seem pretty practised with them. Still, I make none of them - and nor do I maintain a neutral position. > I got your number. Don't bother ringing. You're not my type. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:20:31 GMT On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:16:00 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >When it does, come back to me. Until then, you are just one more bigot >wasting everybody's time. Wow, I sure pressed YOUR buttons. (HOMOPHOBIC buttons, that is.) GOOD! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Midwinter Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:34:03 -0600 chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) said : > Wow, I sure pressed YOUR buttons. (HOMOPHOBIC buttons, that is.) > > GOOD! As with all bigots, you will see what you want to see. I can't help that. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:47:27 GMT On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:34:03 -0600, Midwinter wrote: >As with all bigots, you will see what you want to see. I can't help that. Of course not. You can't HELP but be a bigot. You were BRAINWASHED at an early age. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: Joseph Littleshoes Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:01:48 -0800 Chief Thracian wrote: > I have a KEEN intuition... .32 cents per minute? > I got your number. > > 1 - 800- ... .... > I must CONCLUDE that your are a malicious breeder who will NEVER stop > demeaing gays until his last breath (and may THAT come soon)...while > doing his very, very best to appear "gay friendly". > > Originally i objected to the "Chief Thracian" nom de net. Now it begins to make a bit of sense, if your going to voluntarily tackle the ignorance and hostility of the net its probly best to be a mighty warrior, heck, if berserker mode could be turned on an off by an act of will... Perhaps someday a virtual Burebista of Dacia will arise and unify those who are repelled by ignorant, fundamentalist hypocrisy and violence, will be able to convince people to object to such bigotry as often as it rears its ugly head, instead of the more routine reaction of a Gallic shrug denoting a lack of interest in doing any thing about it. -- JL ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 05:34:24 GMT On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:01:48 -0800, Joseph Littleshoes wrote: >Chief Thracian wrote: > > >> I have a KEEN intuition... > >.32 cents per minute? :) > > I got your number. > > > > > >1 - 800- ... .... :D >Originally i objected to the "Chief Thracian" nom de net. I chose it because I came up with a new word for gay men, "Thracian". Since "gay" was too wimpy, like a silly butterfly, and "homosexual" was way too clinical, like an insect examined under a microscope. (And for obvious reasons, I didn't find "Cretan" a happy alternative.) Since I know my destiny: as instigator and leader of gay rights on a global level, the word "chief" came to mind. You may read my essay on this: Regarding the words "Hellene" & "Thracian" http://www,gay-bible.org/write/4_newwords.htm >Now it begins >to make a bit of sense, if your going to voluntarily tackle the >ignorance and hostility of the net its probly best to be a mighty >warrior, heck, if berserker mode could be turned on an off by an act of >will... Bingo! Acting like an overzealous queer activist is my way of injecting HUMOR into my mission. Being as I am a mirror shaman dedicated to reflecting BACK the bigot's image. And I do so in a way that HEALS (instead of damages) in the process. I gleefully play this role, it presses buttons in the manner intended, as well as provides a wholesome catharsis for my rage. >Perhaps someday a virtual Burebista of Dacia will arise and unify those >who are repelled by ignorant, fundamentalist hypocrisy and violence, >will be able to convince people to object to such bigotry as often as it >rears its ugly head, instead of the more routine reaction of a Gallic >shrug denoting a lack of interest in doing any thing about it. From [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daco ]: "Under Burebista (Boerebista), a contemporary of Julius Caesar, who thoroughly reorganised the army and raised the moral standard of the people, the limits of the kingdom were extended to their maximum." My thought on this: Apparantly, the spirit of liberator stirs within my bosom, matters not which culture of the oppressed. I presume there are OTHERS presently on the planet, of similar ilk. And that we will soon be effectively network to become an IRRESISTABLE force! From that same source: "According to Herodotus History (book 4) account of the story of Zalmoxis (or Zamolxis), the Getae (speaking the same language as the Dacians - Strabo) believed in the immortality of the soul, and regarded death as merely a change of country." My thought on this: "Dying is the best way to travel?" Well, it's certainly a lot CHEAPER, especially if you let the STATE worry about tending your corpse! But I essentially agree with their take on immortality. Death is indeed an illusion, and realizing that relieves one cosiderably of those anxiety-inducing Demons of Fear. BTW, browsing through my web site, one can put the pieces together to learn my plans for conquest of the world, and realignment of all powers towards the shamanic, the native, the earthy, and the sanely opitimistic. I owe that all to the wisdom of Native America and all OTHER native cultures. Thank God/dess it has managed to survive through all those eons of devastation! That make some modern soul like me, so LUCKY to number among the True Appreciators! "Chief Thracian" is my Usenet personna. My stage name as an open-mic gay humorist and pholisopher (and occasional standup comedian) is: Jehovah's Queer Witness. (Badda-bing, badda-boom.) -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:37:38 GMT On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:00:12 -0800 (PST), Seamus wrote: >Your personal angst is getting in the way of your cause. You WISH. Actually, my personal angst MOTIVATES my cause, and INSPIRES my writing and other aspects of my activism. I am FINELY TUNED to My Great Cause. YOU, poor breeder sucker, are simply JEALOUS. -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:49:15 GMT On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:01:31 -0800 (PST), Noinden wrote: >Ahh but Zekey baby here would like to wipe them off the face of the >planet That's a GROSS exaggeration of my position, you homophobic bum. I only desire HOMOPHOBES wiped off the face of this planet. NOT truly gay-friendly heteros. 'Cause HOMOPHOBES are also women-rapers, child abusers, racists, and overall, a POX upon humanity. If you're not sure just WHO I'm talking about, go look in a mirror. >(go look at the long history this "gentleman" has with >hetrophobia). Oh, barfolicious! Accusing a gay person of heterophobia is like accusing a Jew of Naziphobia. It's hateful jerkwads like you, who inspire me to compose pieces like: Hetero Shame Week http://www.gay-bible.org/truetales/6_shame.htm >He's ammusing like a capering jester when he rants on >the street (I've seen in when in SF) but thats about it. FYI, I can't do my skits on the streets of the Castro any more, because of the rampant HOMOPHOBIA among so many homeless. And the cops do NOTHING to make gays feel safe in our own neighborhoods. San Francisco is no Gay Mecca...they sold us down the river. That's why we are going to have a civil war, with gays coming out ON TOP. Thanks for the free advertising, you hetero goofball, you! -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:37:36 GMT On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:58:24 -0800 (PST), Seamus wrote: >Right, 'cause anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a >homophobe, right? I don't know where you get THAT idea from. Except that OBVIOUSLY homophobes will do everything they can to obfuscate my statements, and make me look like an absolute fool. So of COURSE they'll disagree with me...or at least, attempt to demonize me with statements like; "Right, 'cause anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a homophobe, right?" And then, OBVIOUSLY, other homophobes will piggy-back upon such false accusations, because they are bullies, and LOVE to gang up on outspoke queers. It's a Nazi-style tactic, by repeating the lie over and over again, some decent gays will get worn out and discouraged...and give up. You want ME to give up, don't you? -- Steal This Blog! http://www.gay-bible.org/steal ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: "sarchasm" Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:09:53 -0700 "Chief Thracian" wrote: > Seamus wrote: > > >Right, 'cause anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a > >homophobe, right? > > I don't know where you get THAT idea from. Probably from you: "Chief Thracian" wrote in message news:4792db2d.14966114@amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com... "That's a GROSS exaggeration of my position, you homophobic bum." ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.druid,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Under Attack From: chief_thracianNO@SPAMyahoo.com (Chief Thracian) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:44 GMT On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:09:53 -0700, "sarchasm" wrote: >Probably from you: >"Chief Thracian"