|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #143491 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 16:26 |
|
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:S0I0f.120826$ks3.35760 [at] fe11.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>> As I have already stated, most of the people hurling personal attacks and opposing my views here
>> work BSG Hollywood Homosexual public relations here for pay.
>More bizare paranoia on your part. You are not worth the trouble for anyone to pay someone to counter. You are not even reaching
>much of an audience.
>> Why would anyone spend their whole day on various public forums supporting the products of
>> Billion Dollar corporations without being paid to do it ?
>Why would you spend all day on public forums bitching about imagined sodomy? Are you being paid?
No. My concerns have been stated explicitly, regarding Sodomy symbolism and other Organized Crime muck in BSG.
People normally go to and spoend significan time when they have a complaint about something.
Why would anyone praise a billion dollar company's product without being paid for it.
They do not need you or any other person: they have their own hacks, paid cash.
>> Remember, you are nothing but a piece of trash to these people who are laughing at you.
>> And anyone who is defending BSG here and who is not being paid, is the true Chump of them all.
>> Why would anyone trust the word of someone whose mouth has been bought and paid for ?
>This just your overactive imagination talking to you again. There are no paid hacks here.
Would you really be shocked if some lawsuit ensued and on discovery it turned out that many of the people
you have been talking to here for years, people who spent their whole lives on these Newsgroups without
any clear compelling reason expressed defining what brought them here,
were actually paid public relations hacks ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #143511 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 17:46 |
|
"The Secretary of HomIntern" <ý|<®åñ5ë9ô9 [at] \/\/òé|\/|.6®ó> wrote in message news:Cq10f.49794$oW2.16500 [at] pd7tw1no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
>> "Velvet Elvis" wrote...
>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>> When was the last time you saw the hero of a show pulled to the ground
>>>> face down like that ? This is clearly Oz prison rape symbolism. and BSG
>>>> Hollywood Homosexuals hope it along with other scenes shown and planned
>>>> will help turn the tide and sell Sodomy or at least the homosexual
>>>> agenda to you and your kids.
>>> If anyone has asked this yet, I missed it.
>>> How do you feel about heterosexual sodomy, analingus, fellatio and
>>> cunnilingus inside the context of a marriage? I'm trying to figure out if
>>> you're a bigot, repressed, or a repressed bigot.
>> More personal attacks.
>> These are all disgusting behaviors which also should not be shown on TV in
>> BSG or Dr. Who.
> Well, whaddaya know? You won't.
Dr. Who should remain banned from the US until every last scintilla of Sodomy is extirpated from its storyline and script.
BSG already has Sodomy symbolism in the US.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #143513 ] |
Mi, 05 Oktober 2005 17:48 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051002103737.7769D-100000 [at] mail...
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> <pluto [at] quentincrisp.com> wrote in message news:1127775998.580224.159960 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > John Shocked says:
>> >> Apollo being pulled down to the ground face down, sunny side up . . .
>> >> grappling with another man. It should be clear now to everyone
>> >> watching this series that there is a pattern . . . . The producers of
>> >> this series are desperate to show at the very least the symbolism
>> >> of Sodomy in the series. It is very important to them.
>> > Uh, lemme get this straight. *Wrestling* is symbolic of *Sodomy" to you?
>> > Get thee to a psychiatrist, quick.
>> When was the last time you saw the hero of a show pulled to the ground face down like that ?
> I've seen it happen to James T. Kirk, Marshall Matt Dillon, Jim
> Rockford and Thomas Magnum (to name but a few). It's such a familiar image
> that the only lead male character of a drama that I'm sure it's *never*
> happened to is Inspector Columbo.
Document the exact episodes where you saw this exact face down sunny side up (Apollo was the god of the Sun)
symbolism, in those other series.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #143615 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 03:10 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> I have and want no connection to the muck who run Hollywood.
You have no connection to reality either, so far that hasn't stopped you!=
>=20
>=20
>>>Sodomy on TV in BSG has been proven here and is irrefutable.
>=20
> Saturday Night Live saw it TV Guide saw it. And there was an explicit =
Sodomy scene in the
> BSG final episode of this 2nd season involving Boomer/Sharon character.=
>=20
So no you rely on Saturday Night Live for your news sources?
>=20
> Saturday Night Live saw it TV Guide saw it. And there was an explicit =
Sodomy scene in the
> BSG final episode of this 2nd season involving Boomer/Sharon character.=
>=20
Saturday Night Live does not, has not and never will agree with you. It =
is a comedy show.
> Wrong. This is what the US Constitution says in its description of the=
powers of the Supreme Court.
> It is clearly described at several points as being subordinate to the C=
ongress and the Presidency.
> Congress makes Regulations by passing laws/statutes.
Wrong on your part bozo. It is an equal partner in the 3 way split.
> In addition, the Congress can create Regulations indirectly, by passing=
laws to create Agencies of the government
> (which should be considered on the same level as the Supreme Court) li=
ke the
> Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which itself would pass regulat=
ions, in this Agency case
> to regulate the Broadcast Media and Telephone industry.
>=20
What a fucking moron you are. The FCC is nowhere near the equal of the=20
Supreme court.
> There is widespread Sodomy symbolism and recently explicit Sodomy in th=
e BSG series.
> This content must be banned by Congress and the FCC.
>=20
There is absolutely no sodomy symbolism in BSG, you are the only fuckwit =
seeing any in it. Get help.
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145068 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 12:19 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
> "The Secretary of HomIntern" wrote...
>>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
>> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
>>> "No One" wrote...
>>>> "John Shocked" writes:
>>>>> "The Secretary of HomIntern" wrote...
>>>>> > No. Bigots like you should learn that "homosexual kissing" is not
>>>>> > obscene, and children do not need "protection" from it.
>>>>> More personal attacks.
>>>>> Homosexual kissing is disgusting and should be banned from broadcast
>>>>> TV.
>>>> A kiss is just a kiss. Should we also ban the movie that first used
>>>> that line?
>>> I would assume that the movie that uttered that line was referring to a
>>> kiss between a man and a woman.
>> It was from a song in that movie. It didn't refer to *any* specific
>> couple.
>
> Seems like the song does refer to a man and a woman.
Yeah, once, though the line may be repeated. No reason exists to believe
that the line applies to the whole song, however.
> I assume this was the movie Casablanca (1942).
Duh.
> Is there some homosexual interpretation of this movie?
You could say that, yeah. The closing line of the movie has a certain double
entendre...
> This movie receives a huge amount of 'free' hype which usually is a clear
> indication it contains either homosexuality Sodomy content or something
> anti-Arab/Moslem or pro-Israel, (e.g. Holocaust content etc)
Well, it's set in Morocco. I suppose that's close enough for your purposes.
BTW, were you aware that radical Islam has Nazi connections going right
back to the '30s? Right along with the Bush family.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145069 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 12:25 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
> They do not need you or any other person: they have their own hacks, paid
> cash.
I am not paid one red cent for posting to usenet. I post to display what
meagre artistry I may possess, and I read for enjoyment. Your issues are
not my issues.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145070 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 12:37 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
> "The Secretary of HomIntern" wrote...
>>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
>> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
>>> "Velvet Elvis" wrote...
>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>> When was the last time you saw the hero of a show pulled to the ground
>>>>> face down like that ? This is clearly Oz prison rape symbolism. and
>>>>> BSG Hollywood Homosexuals hope it along with other scenes shown and
>>>>> planned will help turn the tide and sell Sodomy or at least the
>>>>> homosexual agenda to you and your kids.
>>>> If anyone has asked this yet, I missed it.
>>>> How do you feel about heterosexual sodomy, analingus, fellatio and
>>>> cunnilingus inside the context of a marriage? I'm trying to figure out
>>>> if you're a bigot, repressed, or a repressed bigot.
>>> More personal attacks.
>>> These are all disgusting behaviors which also should not be shown on TV
>>> in BSG or Dr. Who.
>> Well, whaddaya know? You won't.
>
> Dr. Who should remain banned from the US until every last scintilla of
> Sodomy is extirpated from its storyline and script. BSG already has Sodomy
> symbolism in the US.
The BBC should place a moratorium on airing Doctor Who in the US until
religious wackjobs are no longer ascendant in DC.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145086 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 15:42 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written:
> I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
> > "The Secretary of HomIntern" wrote...
> >>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> >> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
> >>> "Velvet Elvis" wrote...
> >>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>> When was the last time you saw the hero of a show pulled to the ground
> >>>>> face down like that ? This is clearly Oz prison rape symbolism. and
> >>>>> BSG Hollywood Homosexuals hope it along with other scenes shown and
> >>>>> planned will help turn the tide and sell Sodomy or at least the
> >>>>> homosexual agenda to you and your kids.
> >>>> If anyone has asked this yet, I missed it.
> >>>> How do you feel about heterosexual sodomy, analingus, fellatio and
> >>>> cunnilingus inside the context of a marriage? I'm trying to figure out
> >>>> if you're a bigot, repressed, or a repressed bigot.
> >>> More personal attacks.
> >>> These are all disgusting behaviors which also should not be shown on TV
> >>> in BSG or Dr. Who.
> >> Well, whaddaya know? You won't.
> >
> > Dr. Who should remain banned from the US until every last scintilla of
> > Sodomy is extirpated from its storyline and script. BSG already has Sodomy
> > symbolism in the US.
>
> The BBC should place a moratorium on airing Doctor Who in the US until
> religious wackjobs are no longer ascendant in DC.
Do you mind? I want to see another Doctor Who episode before I die!
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145091 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 16:23 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050929173237.9655C-100000 [at] mail...
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Bob wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:08:41 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net>
>> wrote:
>> >> Children need a father and a mother. That should be obvious.
>> > I didn't mention children in my statement, but since you brought it
>> >up: What studies indicate that same-sex parents aren't as good as hetero
>> >parents? "Everyone knows that" is not an adequate reply, btw.
>> Studies conducted in Britain. But you will have to look them up
>> because if I provided links you would not acknowledge them.
> You won't know until you try.
> Me, I think you're lying and you don't have a source. By all means,
> prove me wrong.
============================================================ ==========
http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
============================================================ ==========
Homosexual Urban Legends -- The Series...
Homosexuals claim that "heterosexuals" molest most children but statistics show that homosexuals molest at
far higher rates than do heterosexuals. Rev. Paul Shanley, a retired Catholic priest was arrested on May
4, 2002 in San Diego on three counts of child rape. Shanley had a history of molesting boys that went back
to 1967. He was at the founding meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and while
in San Diego operated a bed & breakfast for homosexuals in Palm Springs. Shanley has openly called for
"man-boy" love.
David Carlton Nurmi, was arrested in Florida on April 26, 2002, for possession of child pornography and
for molesting a 15-year-old boy.
Geoffrey Cornish, a well-respected Solana Beach, California therapist was sentenced to 23 years in prison
in September, 2001 for sexually molesting boys who came to him for therapy. Cornish, who is HIV-positive,
was also a coach for the Torrey Pines High School surf team. Cornish told police he had been molested
himself by a Boy Scout leader for three years when he was living in England.
James Edward Sanders, a homosexual child molester, was arrested in New Mexico in December, 2001 for
sexually abusing a 7-year-old boy. Police also discovered child pornography in Sanders' home.
Christopher Reardon, a homosexual, former youth minister, and Boy Scout leader was sentenced to 40-50
years in prison in the Summer of 2001 for raping, molesting, and disseminating pornography to 29 boys
under his care. These are only a few of the homosexual child molestation cases to hit the news during
2001-02. Virtually every week, newspapers detail more cases involving homosexuals who have sexually
assaulted children under their care. New York Post Exposes High Rate Of Teacher/Student Molestations In a
story not widely publicized in the mainstream press, the New York Post published a story in its July 30,
2001 edition about the secret epidemic of homosexual child abuse cases that go unreported in New York
City's public schools.
The report, "Secret Shame Of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant," by Douglas Montero, is
the result of an analysis of 117 cases of sexual abuse between January 1999 and June 2001. Sixty percent
of those accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs inside the school district. Forty percent
of those transferred suspects were repeat sex offenders.
The report noted that out of the 117 cases, 212 children were victims. In 45% of the cases, the sex
offender attacked more than one student. In nearly 16% of the cases, school officials delayed or tried to
cover up the sexual molestations. The average victim is a 15-year-old girl and 75% of the victims were
girls. According to the report, "Nearly 20 percent of the offenders are homosexuals and in most of these
cases, the attack led to a sexual relationship with the stu- dent." The report also discovered that the
Board of Education investigated another 347 substantiated sex abuse cases between January 2000 and July
20, 2001. Adding the 117 cases with the 327, it appears that at least one child is sexually abused each
day by a school employee-and 20% of these molestations against children are done by homosexuals!
Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals
Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on current surveys. The National Opinion
Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as "homosexual" or
"bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that
2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within
the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.
Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are "heterosexual" males, thus shifting the
focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual,
it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics
indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.
For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases
involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14
female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys
and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child
molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the
population.
Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene
Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child
molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This
is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435
molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals "sexually
molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of
girls."
This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past
several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:
The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the
women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had
been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals.
(Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985) In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders
found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., "Adolescent Sex Offenders-Vermont, 1984"
Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)
In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons,
a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight,
"Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters," Eastern Psychological
Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991) Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of
Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex
offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals.
(Freund, K. "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984;
10:193-200)
From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate
than do their heterosexual counterparts. While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are
responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children. Exposing The
Homosexual/Pedophile Link Homosexuals seldom openly admit that they want to sexually assault children, but
their literature and their actions tell another story. In the January 1-8, 2001 issue of The Weekly
Standard, author Mary Eberstadt exposed the clear link between homosexual activism and the growing North-
American Man- Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) movement. Writing in "'Pedophilia Chic' Reconsidered: The
taboo against sex with children continues to erode," Eberstadt notes:
The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy pedophilia is that this 'question,' settled
though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled
within certain parts of the gay rights movement. The more that movement has entered the mainstream, the
more this 'question' has bubbled forth from that previously distant realm in the public square.
Eberstadt notes that the book, Male Inter-Generational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and
Legal Perspectives edited by pedophile Edward Brongersma is currently available in the "gay/lesbian"
sections of bookstores like Borders. This book, which openly promotes pedophilia, was first published in
the Journal of Homosexuality in 1990. The Journal is edited by John DeCecco, a psychologist at San
Francisco State University. DeCecco is a board member of the Dutch pedophile journal, Paidika. The
homosexual magazine Guide published a pro-pedophile editorial in its July, 1995 issue. In referring to
pedophiles as "prophets" of sexual freedom, the Guide editorialist wrote: "We must listen to our prophets.
Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including
children's sexuality. . . . Surrounded by pious moralists with deadening anti-sexual rules, we must be
shameless rulebreakers, demonstrating our allegiance to a higher concept of love. We must do it for the
children's sake."
Parents are correct to be concerned about homosexuals sexually assaulting their children. The Boy Scouts
of America, for example, is right to prohibit homosexuals from membership or leadership positions. It is
evident from the statistical evidence and news reports of child molestation cases, that homosexuals pose a
clear and present danger to children. Our laws and social policies should protect children, not cater to
the whims and sexual desires of sexual predators. We must oppose homosexual activism "for the children's
sake."
============================================================ =======
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145093 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 16:28 |
|
>"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051003123648.7769N-100000 [at] mail...
>On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> "The Secretary of HomIntern" <ý|<®åñ5ë9ô9 [at] \/\/òé|\/|.6®ó> wrote in message news:n_S%e.53801$tl2.39773 [at] pd7tw3no...
>> >I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
>> > Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>> >> "Captain Kundalini" wrote...
>> >>> I think John Shocked must be one of those Kansas City faggots meantioned
>> >>> in "Blazing Saddles".
>> >> This sounds like some humor common amongst homosexuals which most
>> >> non-homosexuals would not understand.
>> > People who haven't seen "Blazing Saddles" wouldn't understand, but the
>> > number of adults in that group is vanishingly small. Only the truly
>> > humour-free...
>> I have seen it but I do not think I or 98% of the public have seen it in the past 15 years.
>> And at that time, I probably did not have a good Sodomy radar to know this movie
>> had Sodomy symbolism in it.
>Where did you get your "Sodomy radar"? Do you ever have to take it
>in for maintenance? How about upgrades?
Are you saying that Blazing Saddles had homosexual agenda content in it ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145096 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 16:40 |
|
"The Secretary of HomInt3rn" <ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote in message news:J771f.107335$tl2.59613 [at] pd7tw3no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>> "The Secretary of HomIntern" wrote...
>>>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
>>> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
>>>> "Velvet Elvis" wrote...
>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>> When was the last time you saw the hero of a show pulled to the ground
>>>>>> face down like that ? This is clearly Oz prison rape symbolism. and
>>>>>> BSG Hollywood Homosexuals hope it along with other scenes shown and
>>>>>> planned will help turn the tide and sell Sodomy or at least the
>>>>>> homosexual agenda to you and your kids.
>>>>> If anyone has asked this yet, I missed it.
>>>>> How do you feel about heterosexual sodomy, analingus, fellatio and
>>>>> cunnilingus inside the context of a marriage? I'm trying to figure out
>>>>> if you're a bigot, repressed, or a repressed bigot.
>>>> More personal attacks.
>>>> These are all disgusting behaviors which also should not be shown on TV
>>>> in BSG or Dr. Who.
>>> Well, whaddaya know? You won't.
>> Dr. Who should remain banned from the US until every last scintilla of
>> Sodomy is extirpated from its storyline and script. BSG already has Sodomy
>> symbolism in the US.
> The BBC should place a moratorium on airing Doctor Who in the US until
> religious wackjobs are no longer ascendant in DC.
Just for the record: no one in Washington DC has banned Dr. Who from US TVs.
That act came from Hollywood which opposes any programming from foreign countries that they do not own,
and specifically refuses to buy any British programming, even Soccer.
If not for Media Baron Rupert Murdoch's breakthrough, which was one of the worst developments
in the US for News quality, there would be no Soccer in the US.
There still is no rugby or cricket.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145121 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 17:18 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
John,
You are completely overlooking those yummy lesbians kisses on certain star trek episodes!
--
Eileen Gray
Galérie Jean Désert
217 Rue du Faubourg St-Honore
"the future projects light, the past only shadows"
Eileen Gray
http://www.interiorexpress.com/
http://www.designliving.org.uk/htms/Bauhaus-furniture-Eileen -Gray-folding-table.htm
http://www.architonic.com/web/nCatalogue/fstCatalogue.php?ni d=0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.3.0.8100281.0&lng=1&sid=1371cc11 22d08a051671e3587505833b
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145202 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 00:29 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> >"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1=
051003123648.7769N-100000 [at] mail...
> >On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> >> "The Secretary of HomIntern" <=FD|<=AE=E5=F15=EB9=F49 [at] \/\/=F2=E9|\/|.6=
=AE=F3> wrote in message news:n_S%e.53801$tl2.39773 [at] pd7tw3no...
> >> >I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Go=
ddess
> >> > Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
> >> >> "Captain Kundalini" wrote...
> >> >>> I think John Shocked must be one of those Kansas City faggots mean=
tioned
> >> >>> in "Blazing Saddles".
> >> >> This sounds like some humor common amongst homosexuals which most
> >> >> non-homosexuals would not understand.
> >> > People who haven't seen "Blazing Saddles" wouldn't understand, but t=
he
> >> > number of adults in that group is vanishingly small. Only the truly
> >> > humour-free...
> >> I have seen it but I do not think I or 98% of the public have seen it =
in the past 15 years.
> >> And at that time, I probably did not have a good Sodomy radar to know =
this movie
> >> had Sodomy symbolism in it.
> >Where did you get your "Sodomy radar"? Do you ever have to take it
> >in for maintenance? How about upgrades?
>=20
> Are you saying that Blazing Saddles had homosexual agenda content in it ?
=09No, I don't think it did (of course I don't believe that there's
even a homosexual agenda).
=09Since you responded you must have seen my questions about your=20
"Sodomy radar"--why didn't you answer them? Is it too embarrassing?
--=20
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145770 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 13:31 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050929173237.9655C-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Bob wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:08:41 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Children need a father and a mother. That should be obvious.
> >> > I didn't mention children in my statement, but since you brought it
> >> >up: What studies indicate that same-sex parents aren't as good as hetero
> >> >parents? "Everyone knows that" is not an adequate reply, btw.
> >> Studies conducted in Britain. But you will have to look them up
> >> because if I provided links you would not acknowledge them.
> > You won't know until you try.
> > Me, I think you're lying and you don't have a source. By all means,
> > prove me wrong.
>
> ============================================================ ==========
>
> http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
That website uses a nonstandard definitio of "homosexual"--it does
nto, for example, take into account people who are attracted to members
of their sex but do not act on that attraction.
It also takes a single study that's almost 20 years old and expands
it to cover everything. Bad science.
I guess I should have asked for "real" science--my bad.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145908 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 18:25 |
|
"The Secretary of HomIntern" <ý|<®åñ5ë9ô9 [at] \/\/òé|\/|.6®ó> wrote in message news:z820f.63265$tl2.11177 [at] pd7tw3no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
>> "The Secretary of HomIntern" wrote...
>>>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
>>> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
>>>> "ToolPackinMama" wrote...
>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>> More personal attacks.
>>>>> If you don't have the stomach for it, then get off your soap-box, pussy.
>>>> You can win this thing.
>>> She can win it while standing on her head, using only _Finnegan's Wake_
>>> as her reference material.
>> What does Finnegan's Wake have to do with this ? That it was based on dreams ?
> It has as much to do with "this" as anything you post has to do with this
> reality. IOW, nothing in particular. She could still defeat you with it,
> though, since it makes more sense...
He/she would engage in debate here if he/she thought that was possible. What is obvious
is that the policy chosen is the same Hollywood Homosexual public relations hack policy
to attempt to prey on the weak minds of others to con them into not reading my messages.
>>>> On the facts, without the personal attacks.
>>> You have no facts. You have no knowledge. You have no intelligence. We
>>> make personal attacks on you for fun.
>> You make personal attacks on me just to satisfy the Hollywood Homosexual public relations machine
>> here that you are really with the program they dictate. Fear. I understand.
> No, I have nothing to with their PR department. I make personal attacks on you for fun only.
You mean you are one of the few outspoken here who is not being paid for his services by
Hollywood Homosexual public relations headquarters ?
Your services are worth money and you deserve to be paid just like all the other HH PR workers here.
>>>> I am vulnerable.
>>> You have no idea...
>> I do.
> You really don't.
I'm on the ropes.
>> One more salvo and I could be knocked out.
> You were knocked out months ago, but you haven't gotten it yet. There are a
> whole whack of Usenet K00k Awards just waiting for you...
You are just one knockout punch away from the championship. The World Championship.
All you have to do disprove one of my arguments. Then, all that glory. All that adulation.
>>>> I can be defeated.
>>> I can defeat you in my /sleep/!
>> If that is where you develop your best ideas, bring it.
> I could develop an argument that would demolish you out of my cat's litterbox. Without trying hard.
Bring it.
>>>> You are close.
>>> She's dancing rings around you in bullet time.
>> So, now is the time to land your best arguments, on the facts, to win this thing once and for all.
> I reduced your arguments to kindling back in August, and now I'm idly
> kicking you around for lack of something better to do.
You have not proven anything yet, but I did not train for this fight. Anything could happen in the later rounds.
>> You can prove me wrong. Victory is just around the corner.
> Victory is *so* last summer. Parading your head around on a pike -- that's where I'm at now...
Looks like you have the wrong head there. But your aim is true. Keep at it. You can win this.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145964 ] |
Sa, 08 Oktober 2005 17:22 |
|
"Eileen Gray" <E-Gray [at] e1027.gray.fr> wrote in message news:43454028.BAEC13D9 [at] e1027.gray.fr...
> John Shocked wrote:
> John,
> You are completely overlooking those yummy lesbians kisses on certain star trek episodes!
> Eileen Gray
That has not been overlooked. Those events happened when Gene Roddenberry died in 1991
and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took control of the Star Trek franchise.
It is really shameful what Roddenberry's wife allowed to happen to the Star Trek franchise
after his death.
============================================================ ==========
"Zeligg" <zeligg [at] nospeedspamfactoryatall.net> wrote in message news:8u5rj1lppf8hmef9ca2gbl5nj9cifi3633 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:40:16 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In these 1994 Saturday Night Live skits, Patrick Stewart of Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994), to his credit,
>>says: "say No to anal sex !". As such, Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both of these 1994 Saturday Night
>>Live scripts, clearly wanted to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took at that time when it was
>>taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals, after the 1991 death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover of the Star Trek
>>enterprise by Rick Berman.
>>
>>Episodes like ST:TNG The Outcast in 1992 and the whole script of the new series Star Trek Deep: Space Nine
>>(1993-1999) with the androgynous (male and female in the same body) Jadzia Dax (Terry Farrell) character were
>>designed primarily to sell Sodomy to you and your kids in this new Rick Berman era.
> I realize this guy's a troll, but seriously, he posts some of the best
> bigotry against gays I have ever seen. To equate BSG or star trek as
> promoting sodomy. That's just brilliant! John, I really, really enjoy your work-- keep it up, man.
> Zeligg
More personal attacks. Why not tell us about what is so good about Sodomy and why Hollywood Homosexuals
for whom you work are so determined to sell Sodomy to you and your kids ? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Win this thing. Defeat my views.
You cannot win this debate by simple personal attacks. The general public may not be generally that smart,
but they are smarter than that.
How can simple truths about deviant disgusting and harmful behavior be bigotry ?
Behavior like Sodomy, Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution have nothing to do with Civil Rights, which is based
on discrimination against people based on their appearance at birth, black or woman.
Sodomy, like Drugs, Gambling and Prostitution, is a right wing libertarian Civil Liberties issue.
To weak minds, civil rights and civil liberties sound similar. How they are at completely opposite
ends of the political spectrum.
For example, blacks and hispanics vote in much higher proportions against homosexual marriage
than the rest of the population. There is no connection between these two issues.
=======================================================
http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22), defining marriage as the union of a
man and a woman. In liberal, laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional marriage was 61%
to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by higher percentages than whites.
========================================================
=====================================================
1) Sodomy involves bringing the male procreative organ in contact with the faeces excrement of another man,
which is disgusting and does not belong on TV,
2) it is a major source of disease since cuts within the anal tract occur when an unnatural hard object is
inserted into that orifice, which allow blood to mix with disease carrying sperm ejaculate,
3) Sodomy is central to a lifestyle of homosexuality, which rejects life, and the role of
child procreation and child nurturing, which is essential to the continuation of any civilization.
For these reasons and more, Sodomy/Homosexuality has been universally condemned by all societies and
is universally considered to be immoral.
Sodomy/Homosexuality should not be shown on TV.
The same Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives forcing Sodomy on TV to you and your kids are
selling Hate and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
======================================================
People should not be chased away from their TVs by criminals who have bought control of
the science fiction TV genre in Hollywood for the purpose of selling Sodomy to you and your kids
and preaching Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.
Society should respond by banning the deviant content.
1) The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) needs to step in on deviant
Hollywood Homosexual TV series like BSG and ban the deviant content outright.
2) Congress needs to pass a law restricting the US Supreme Court from making any further
corrupt decisions claiming to interpret the First Amendment which in any way interfere with
the actions of the US Congress and the FCC in this area.
Then if those same wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexuals still want to continue creating the series,
that would be up to them. I really doubt they would, without being allowed to peddle their
deviant habits to you and your kids on national TV.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145965 ] |
Sa, 08 Oktober 2005 18:05 |
|
You know, I shouldn't reply but ...
John Shocked wrote:
> Why not tell us about what is so good about Sodomy
Don't knock it till you've tried it, it's fan-fucking-tastic! ;)
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145980 ] |
So, 09 Oktober 2005 14:23 |
|
"The Secretary of HomInt3rn" <ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote in message news:DY61f.94511$oW2.83767 [at] pd7tw1no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>> They do not need you or any other person: they have their own hacks, paid cash.
> I am not paid one red cent for posting to usenet. I post to display what
> meagre artistry I may possess, and I read for enjoyment. Your issues are not my issues.
You are clearly spending all your time serving a corporate interest. A billion dollar corporate interest.
They already have their own employees who do that, both as employees and at separate public relations firms.
Why would anyone do that for free ?
Politics
============================================================ ==========
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:S0I0f.120826$ks3.35760 [at] fe11.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>> As I have already stated, most of the people hurling personal attacks and opposing my views here
>> work BSG Hollywood Homosexual public relations here for pay.
>More bizarre paranoia on your part. You are not worth the trouble for anyone to pay someone to counter. You are not even reaching
>much of an audience.
>> Why would anyone spend their whole day on various public forums supporting the products of
>> Billion Dollar corporations without being paid to do it ?
>Why would you spend all day on public forums bitching about imagined sodomy? Are you being paid?
No. My concerns have been stated explicitly, regarding Sodomy symbolism and other Organized Crime muck in BSG.
People normally go to and spend significant time at a public forum when they have a complaint about something.
Why would anyone praise a billion dollar company's product without being paid for it.
They do not need you or any other person: they have their own hacks, paid cash.
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145981 ] |
So, 09 Oktober 2005 14:30 |
|
"Adam Highway" <adamhighway [at] yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1128787551.081657.274820 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> You know, I shouldn't reply but ...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> Why not tell us about what is so good about Sodomy
> Don't knock it till you've tried it, it's fan-fucking-tastic! ;)
Why do not BSG and Scifi Channel come forward with this appeal directly to their viewers and see how it flies,
rather than all of the devious methods which they are utilizing currently.
At least this appeal is more forthright and transparent.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145982 ] |
So, 09 Oktober 2005 14:40 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051003123754.7769O-100000 [at] mail...
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051002093055.7769A-100000 [at] mail...
>> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> >> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050929081103.15907F-100000 [at] mail...
>> >> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Kweeg wrote:
>> >> >> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050928084757.7612I-100000 [at] mail...
>> >> >> Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
>> >> > Oh, no, please--anything but that...please, have mercy...how can you be so cruel...oh, the humanity...
>> >> Deviant horrific inhumanity really, when you consider this guy supports the
>> >> bringing of the male procreative organ into contact with the faeces excrement of another man
>> >> to elicit some sort of diabolical pleasure.
>> > What's the difference between "heavenly" and "diabolical" pleasure?
>> > Does "love" have anything to do with it?
>> No idea what heavenly pleasure would be.
>> But Nature is the main determinant.
> What about love? Is this another question you'll run away from?
> snip
Love is a component of the whole primal drive infused into living beings by Nature to bring
a man and a woman together to perform child procreation and child nurturing.
A man and a woman seek out a person of the opposite gender who appears to have good genes and
with whom they are compatible, since they are likely to be living with that person for 50 years, overseeing
1, 2 maybe 3 generations of their line, passing on child procreation and child nurturing experience.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145983 ] |
So, 09 Oktober 2005 14:46 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051001170143.531C-100000 [at] mail...
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message news:8xB_e.6888$tl2.3111 [at] pd7tw3no...
>> > "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
>> > news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050928084757.7612I-100000 [at] mail...
>> > Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
>> > Qa ' PLONK
>> > Kweeg
>> ================================================
>> As anyone can see from the conflict which has been going on here on this
>> alt.battlestar-galactica Usenet Newsgroup, Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-
>> Conservatives are desperate on this public forums to spread their propaganda
>> and to censor anyone who would disagree with them.
> Pointing out that you have no evidence for your claims, laughing at those claims and pointing out
> that you want to censor TV doesn't make any of us any of those things, John.
> big snip--same shit, different day
You and others can try and have tried to point this out, but you have had your claims drown in an
avalanche of evidence which clearly shows that my arguments here are by far the most
grounded and substantiated of any arguments here.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #145987 ] |
So, 09 Oktober 2005 17:11 |
|
"Adam Highway" <adamhighway [at] yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1128685233.007089.79680 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You know, you know ... I am fully aware I should just walk away from
> this, it's not possible to hold a reasoned argument .... however, one
> last attempt:
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "Adam Highway" <adamhighway [at] yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1128340400.042406.25120 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> "Adam Highway" <adamhighway [at] yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1128077348.703293.204190 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Um, if you're referring to my posting, three comments:
>> >> > 1) I've never seen BSG, not interested (sorry to those in the groups suffering cross postings)
>> >> > - it's in rec.arts.drwho and I'm stuck with your bullshit filling up bandwidth
>> >> Good to hear from the Dr. Who contingent here. Dr. Who is included in this conversation because
>> >> of reports that there was homosexuality injected into the Dr. Who storyline and script in this
>> >> current incarnation. Can you confirm or deny this ?
>> >> And do you agree with this direction in the Dr. Who ? (go on, tell us the truth).
>> > Various forms of human sexuality were referred to in the latest series.
>> > And yes, it's fantastic. Finally the show reflects the prevailing morals and beliefs of sociey in general.
>> > Your encouragement to "go on, tell [you] the truth" is unnecessary -
>> > I'm hardly ashamed to state something so banal and self-evident.
>> Amazing how the true prevailing morality of society voted against the homosexual agenda
>> in overwhelming numbers across the US in 2004 and 2000.
> In the 2000 election I don't think sexuality played a particularly big role.
> In 2004 it was used as a wedge issue.
> I don't believe that morality had anything to do with how people voted;
> those opposed to liberalising society do so based on fear of the
> unknown and the repressive mores of an outdated and increasingly irrelevant religion.
In 2000, Sodomy was not an issue in the Presidential campaign because Gore was not pushing
that issue, and unlike Kerry, his home State had not had a group of crooked bribed out judges
legalizing Homosexual Marriage, forcing their State's candidate to declare where he stands on this
suicidal issue. Kerry had to renounce the Sodomy issue to win. Simple.
However, the State of California did have Homosexual Marriage on the ballot in 200, and they voted
overwhelmingly against it, with Left groups like blacks and hispanics voting in higher proportions
against the homosexual agenda than the white majority in the state.
==========================================================
Kerry clearly did support Sodomy enough to take their money and try to stonewall the
homosexual agenda issue which dominated the campaign. There are a lot of Hollywood Homosexuals
in the media so the issue was not discussed that much but in one of the debates
(all 3 of which Kerry seemed to win and that prevented a total electoral landslide against
Kerry and the Democrats)
However, one questioner (I think it was a citizen, not a crooked
Hollywood Homosexual media person) broke through the crooked media praetorian guard
and asked him a question about homosexuality which gave him a chance to separate himself
from the homosexual agenda and come on to win the election.
His response failed since he stated general support for homosexuality and he did it in
that repulsive homosexual way I have been talking about here:
he dropped a name, in this case Vice President Dick Cheney's (his opponent's 2nd man)
homosexual daughter, and shunted the issue onto to Cheney saying something like his
"daughter was just being who she is".
One of the networks had a focus group of people who were wired with press button devices
to show in realtime support or disagreement with what is being said. The resultswer were
aggregated and graphed as the candidate was speaking and it clearly showed that more than
anything else that was said in that debate, his answer to that question hurt him with the
focus group and at that point it was clear that the campaign was over.
========================================================
>> >> > 2) It's not my job, I don't work in/for Hollywood, have nothing to do with BSG
>> >> The same Hollywood Homosexuals pushing Sodomy in BSG are also pushing Sodomy in Dr. Who.
>> >> Hollywood Homosexuals have satellite office in the UK. The home of Elton John has to have a
>> >> vibrant Sodomy/Entertainment nexus.
>> > FYI, newsflash: Homosexuality does not equate with sodomy, per se. (by
>> > the way, why do you always capitalise sodomy? is it a brand name now?).
>> > For example, one notable strand of homosexuality is lesbianism where,
>> > while not unheard of, sodomy usually plays a relatively small role.
>> > Equally, there a numerous heterosexual couples who enjoy sodomy as part
>> > of their perfectly normal, healthy sex lives. And RTD has very little
>> > to do with Hollywood, AFAIK.
>> Sodomy is definitely a key component of the homosexual world.
>> I have heard that women sometimes artificially achieve Sodomy through prosthetics.
>> There are no statistics available that state that heterosexual couples engage regularly in Sodomy.
> Sodomy is *A* component of homosexuality. There are many gay men who never participate in anal sex.
Rubbish. Sodomy is paydirt for male homosexuals.
> Lesbians *may* use sex toys to carry out anal sex, but I have no particular interest in knowing the statistics.
> There are innumerable studies that anal sex is enjoyed by many straight couples.
> I'm not going to indulge you by performing the very simplest of google searches for you.
There are no such studies. There are some studies which say that significant numbers of homosexuals
have tried Sodomy together at least once.
>> >> > 3) When it comes to you, it absolutely IS rudeness, and SHOULD be taken personally.
>> >> > You mindless fuckwitted cunt brain.
>> >> I am so hurt by this insult. Please stop saying such horrible things. You know I cannot take it.
>> > Fuck fuck fuckety fuck fuck! Fuck!
>> Seriously, you can say what you want. But you ought to try to win this thing.
>> I am vulnerable. To the winner goes the spoils.
> I know I can say what I want, thank you for your permission.
> That said, I'm bored of this interminable back-and-forth with nothing
> being taken on board. You can't have a discussion with someone who
> ignores points that are uncomfortable and simply regurgitates the same
> mindless pablum. So I'm not reading or responding to these posts any
> longer. Enjoy your own little world.
You have lost every single point and I am not surprised you or your corner have thrown in the towel.
============================================================
><pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121782197.469495.27830 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>As I have mentioned, one of the big problems in this country which we have yet
>>>>to deal with appropriately and head on is corrupt judges.
>>>You may have mentioned it, but you haven't supported it and your
>>>reasoning is circular - the judges are corrupt because I don't like
>>>their decision, and they'd only make decisions I don't like if they
>>>were corrupt.
>>No, judges are corrupt when it is clear that their decision deviate from
>>written Statutes and the US Constitution and/or the Facts of the case.
>>Most obvious was US Supreme Court Plessy v Ferguson (1896) legalizing
>>racial segregation, which violated clearly the 14th Amendment.
>You really don't think the judicial system has been improved in the
>past 110 years?
Corruption cannot be chased out of the seats of government without scandals,
and the crooks in the Hollywood Homosexual controlled Press are determined that there
never be any scandals in the Judiciary, because they have a nice cozy deal going with
these crooked judges to obtain favorable illegal expansions on the First Amendment
from these same Courts. Congress must act to eradicate this relationship between the
US Supreme Court and the Press by taking away the ability of the US Supreme Court
to render these illegal expansions of the First Amendment in their crooked bribed out decisions.
>>There is a running commercial in the US over the past few months in which
>>Elton John does kiss a Dog on the mouth.
>Could be worse - they could be torturing the viewer with that "Puppy
>Love" song like they have done in UK adverts...
I never figured out what that Osmond song was about.
>>Hollywood Homosexuals' strategy is that once they make the viewers accustomed
>>to mouth kissing animals, vomiting in the face of the viewer, dogs urinating on people
>>and showing people going to the bathroom, once people are accustomed to
>>these sorts of revolting behaviors,
>>then what could possibly be wrong with Sodomy ?
>Wow, you really aren't content with just putting your foot in it, are
>you? You have to leap in headfirst. Now you're comparing sodomy with
>going to the bathroom - so by your logic that should be banned on the
>basis of being 'revolting'.
Banning people going to the bathroom ? No. Ban Hollywood Homosexuals
showing it on TV, Yes.
>>>On his other song, he does not write his own lyrics, Bernie Taupin does.
>>>True, but Taupin writes them for him and has included some with
>>>homosexual themes in recent years ("Made in England" and "Freaks in
>>>Love" - the latter never released as a single, the former not one of
>>>Elton's major hits), but overwhelmingly Elton sings and has sung love
>>>songs about heterosexual or ambiguous relationships.
>>Obviously, Elton John has always known that if he force fed his customers
>>Sodomy, they would run for the hills in drives and his career would be over.
>Maybe he doesn't actually have an agenda to "force feed his customers
>sodomy"; ever thought of that? He's been open about his sexuality since
>the late '70s and his customers have known it, at which time he was the
>most popular artist among the American public. He remains the world's
>best-selling living musician to this day - do you really think it would
>be so different if he substituted the odd 'he' for the various 'shes'
>in his songs? When the first series of the Pop Idol talent show was
>shown in the UK, I heard (since I didn't watch it) that it was won by a
>singer who was open about his homosexuality from day one - based on
>votes cast by the general public. He then went straight to Number 1
>with his first song - face it, homosexuality simply isn't an issue for
>the public at large.
You just never know what the truth is about a claim of a public vote
until it is done at the ballot box. Hollywood Homosexuals are dishonest people.
We have seen that here on this Newsgroup.
What makes you think the vote was not falsified ?
There is clearly something to gain and they have the availability to con the public
about the results. Why should they not ?
>>>>>>Buying politicians is not the democratic process.
>>>>> You really are fond of throwing libellous, unsubstantiated allegations
>>>>> around, aren't you? The vote didn't go the way you hoped it would, so
>>>>> naturally the voting politicians are corrupt. Self-evident; no need for
>>>>> anything as useless as *evidence* to back up such ideas...
>>>>When politicians or judges vote against the will of the people they represent,
>>>>financial corruption is the most common reason for that.
>>>Another unsubstantiated comment - the UK government supported the EU
>>>constitution while a likely majority of the British public didn't. This
>>>isn't because the government is corrupt, it's because the people had
>>>elected it to make decisions on their behalf for the next four years.
>>>In any case, was the Spanish vote against the will of the people?
>>>I believe it was part of the new government's manifesto when it was
>>>elected, in which case the government is entitled to claim public
>>>backing for the measure.
>>Most people believe that it was the coincidence of the Spain having troops in the
>>US Iraq Massacre
>While a Bush campaign focusing entirely on the aftermath of 9/11 and
>the need for the War on Terror and tight national security laws had
>nothing whatever to do with his victory in the US? Are you really
>saying that while the Spanish voted on relevant, topical political
>issues with repercussions beyond their borders the Americans voted
>based on trivia like gay marriage? Do you honestly believe the
>Americans are that much more stupid than the Spanish?
Bush's campaign was based on attacking his opponent John Kerry who was
an incompetent candidate and should never be the nominee of the Democrats again.
You may already know this, since US news seems to be covered a lot over there,
but the central issues of the 2004 Presidential campaign:
1) Kerry was from the State of Massachusetts and crooked bribed out Judges of the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts earlier in 2004 had made a decision which legalized Homosexual Marriage in his home State. This
caused an outrage across the country and since Kerry was from that State it was critical that he clearly separate
himself from that issue in a big way. Perhaps a Sister Souljah moment, (wherein Clinton in 1992 attacked a black
woman rapper to gain favor with the US white voters). This crooked Court decision put the homosexual agenda
heavily into the campaign and if the True Left (The Poor, Blacks, Unions, Women) mattered to Kerry he had to act
to represent the Left and reject the homosexual agenda. He refused to do that, because he was determined to
accept Hollywood Homosexual money in the campaign. The weird thing about this failure is that I have never heard
Kerry make a major speech supporting the homosexual agenda in any way.
2) Kerry was a decorated Vietnam war veteran. Bush was able through pulling strings
to obtain a position in the Texas National Guard and avoid being drafted to serve in Vietnam.
However, these strings were difficult to prove.
What developed was incredible. Bush's campaign friends paid $200,000 to support a
group of Vietnam War veterans to allege that Kerry medals were improperly earned and
that some of the injuries he sustained were exaggerated.
After Kerry won the Democratic nomination, these Republican encouraged attacks flooded
the advertising on TV and also even the Hollywood Homosexual controlled News shows
which debated these charges incessantly. Kerry was silent throughout this. What was
necessary in the middle of this was for Kerry to come forward and make the simple statement
repeatedly "I served my country in Vietnam. Bush could have enlisted and served as I did,
but he failed to serve this country".
These were two simple tests which Kerry should have hopped, skipped and jumped over but
he failed to defuse these issues and so the campaign remained about these 2 issues to the end.
No other issues were debated and settled in the campaign.
The fact is that Bush was a severely wounded sitting President, with an economy which had
collapsed, he failed to pres\vent the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon,
and he lied to con the US into this Iraq Massacre, which by the time of the election was a
liability for Bush.
Kerry was simply incompetent on these 2 issues and should never be President.
>>and the bombing of Spain by freedom fighters opposed to
>>the the Iraq Massacre just days before the elections
>Which would be wrong, since polls from before the attacks placed the
>socialists firmly in the lead.
That is not what I heard. And even now, they only hold a slight lead in seats
in the 350 Seat legislature, 164 to 148.
==========================================================
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114147,00.html
Aznar chose not to seek a third term, saying he wanted renewal in government and his party.
Pre-election polls had favored his ruling party to win handily.
But on election day voters expressed anger with the government, accusing it of provoking the
Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which a vast majority of Spaniards opposed.
===========================================================
>>>>>>An issue of this type which involves the issues of wealthy people should be
>>>>>>put to the electorate in a plebiscital vote ballot question.
>>>>> So, only wealthy people are homosexual now?
>>>>A disproportionate number of homosexuals are wealthy.
>>>Where are the statistics to support that? Many of the best-known
>>>homosexuals are wealthy, but that's equally true of the best-known
>>>heterosexuals - they're well-known because they're wealthy, usually
>>>celebrities.
>>======================================================
>> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=article&am p;articleid=C...
>>
>>Spending Muscle
>>Gays and lesbians had a half trillion dollars in disposable income in 2004
>>Group Population (million) Buying Power (billion)
>>Entire U.S. 292 $8,600
>>Whites 217 $7,000
>>Blacks 37 $723
>>Hispanics 41 $686
>>GLBT* 15 $585
>>Asians 12 $363
>>*GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) reflects the 6%-7% of Americans
>>age 18+ who identify themselves as GLBT, according to the
>>Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combos.
>>SOURCES: Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combos,
>>Selig Center for Economic Growth at the University of Georgia.
>>=======================================================
>>I do not believe there are 15 million homosexuals in the US. Maybe 6 or 7.
>Then your maths as well as your comprehension are at fault - firstly
>that also included bisexuals (who are probably more common than
>homosexuals) and transsexuals (who aren't but probably still represent
>a couple of million or more). Homosexuals are estimated to make up
>between 1 in 12 and 10% of the population worldwide - yet 6 or 7 would
>put the US figure barely above 2%. What possible reason do you have for
My "maths" were were just right. I do not believe there are more than 2% of the US
being homosexual. That is around 6 million.
>believing the US has so much fewer proportionately than anyone else?
>This is undoubtedly an underestimate. Admittedly these figures are
>slightly disproportionate, but note the qualifier that this is based on
>self-declared homosexuals - middle-class homosexuals live in a
>generally more accepting part of society than working-class ones, and
>in the US specifically the areas of greatest tolerance are the
>wealthier, more developed states and urban centres.
Fraud and media manipulation is easier in many other countries.
>>>>>>Civil Rights is about people who already had rights but who had those rights denied
>>>>> Like, oh to take a random example, the banning of sodomy (legal in
>>>>> England until 1533, for instance)?
>>>>Legal, meaning there was no law which addressed Sodomy ?
>>>>Democracy in the UK was a gradual development which did not completely
>>>>gel until the late 1600's. But my guess is Parliament was responsible for that law.
>>>You'd guess wrong - it was put in place by Henry VIII, who didn't have
>>>much time for Parliament in his decision-making. Parliament didn't gain
>>>the ability to pass laws at all until after the Civil War.
>>Parliament passed laws to levy taxes before the English Civil War.
>OK, I should have qualified that - taxation was the only function of
>Parliament; it had no ability to pass laws on civil matters.
>Essentially, before the Civil War Parliament acted as a treasury - the
>King appealed to it when he wanted money gained from tax revenue, and
>the laws setting taxes originated wiith him, though they were passed by
>Parliament. Henry VIII, for instance, had to appeal to Parliament to
>pass a Shipping Act to levy taxes, but Parliament simply rubber-stamped
>the law the monarch had proposed.
At least, if they did not rubber stamp his law, sometimes the King's henchmen
would come into the Parliament and arrest people.
>>>>> completely missing the point being made - this has nothing whatsoever
>>>>> to do with black attitudes towards homosexuality. Blacks themselves
>>>>> would still be a minority group (although strictly speaking they are
>>>>> close to becoming the majority ethnic group in some Western nations)
>>>>> even if members in some other minority group were racist towards them.]
>>>>More dishonesty. I did not make the above statement.
>>>Nor did I say you did, again it was analogy - a(nother) concept you
>>>appear unable to grasp. You made the absurd case that homosexuals can't
>>>be a minority group because some members of another minority group
>>>don't like them, which I was pointing out is, indeed, absurd.
>>Rubbish. If you base minority groups on behavior, there are a million behaviors,
>>including murder, drug use/sales, gambling etc which could constitute "minorities".
>You're the only one basing a group on behaviour - are you only
>heterosexual when engaging in heterosexual activity? A practising
>heterosexual, yes, but sexual identity isn't defined by behaviour, it's
>defined by orientation - who people are sexually attracted to - which
>is as innate as colour, gender or disability. A homosexual could be
>celibate as easily as a heterosexual, but would still be a homosexual.
No. A homosexual engages in Sodomy and/or other related sexual acts
or he is not a homosexual.
>>>Rubbish. If that disease was in existence in Africa before, it would have showed
>>>up long before, since African communities have undergone the least change of most
>>>communities in the world over the past 30 years.
>>>The disease was likely created in Defense Biological Warfare laboratory and
>>>then spread from a Western country to Africa by Hollywood Homosexuals.
>>Is there any loony conspiracy theory you won't latch onto, however
>>poorly-researched?
>>If this disease has been around for decades before the early 1980's, how do you
>>explain that it was not a problem and did not spread widely in Africa before now ?
>A combination of factors - firstly HIV itself causes no symptoms, just
>renders carriers more suspectible to the AIDS virus, and so people can
>go for a long time without AIDS symptoms, which themselves take around
>a decade to manifest. So the disease had plenty of time to spread
>before symptoms became widespread, and Africa's a large place for it to
>spread through. What's more, in case you hadn't noticed, the past two
>decades have seen a lot more turmoil in Africa than the previous ones,
>with post-colonial dictators being overthrown, wars destroying health
>systems and creating refugees who spread into neighbouring countries
>carrying whatever diseases they have with them. People like Mbeki and
>Mugabe weren't around to stifle AIDS research and treatment in their
>countries before the '90s. And sexual habits over the continent have
>changed just as much as those in the West, with promiscuity becoming
>more widespread. Whatever the combination of reasons - and these are
>the accepted ones, and indeed mentioned in the BBC article - it is
>undeniable that the first AIDS case did occur in West Africa, that it
>has been traced to chimpanzees, and that it occurred several decades
>before its emergence in the West.
The issue is where and how the AIDS virus was created and how it was transported to Africa.
What you have described in terms of incubation period and decades makes my point.
Given the stealth nature of the disease (carriers do not show symptoms and thus are more
likely to be able to spread the disease to more unsuspecting victims), if that disease had
been around for even the last 100 years, there would have been a much more widespread penetration of the continent.
Just in the last decade there has been a huge explosion in the spread of AIDS in Africa.
You really think there is something special going on there in just the last 2 decades behaviorally
that is different from the preceding 8 decades ?
AIDS is much more capable of spreading because the carrier does not know he has the
disease sometimes for years.
>>>>This is another of those clear differences between the black community and
>>>>the homosexual community. No one in the black community believes that
>>>>AIDS was created in Africa. It is a ridiculous claim and since AIDS in
>>>>obviously a new disease. No one is ever cured of AIDS and habits in
>>>>Africa have not changed that much.
>>>>To hear someone who is a homosexual sympathizer accusing falsely the
>>>>black population in Africa of bringing AIDS to the world is one of those clear beacons
>>>>of what the fraud is we are talking about here, that homosexuals and blacks are in a common struggle.
>>>You're really hung up on race, aren't you? It's irrelevant what colour
>>>the first person to be infected was - HIV doesn't discriminate. The
>>>first human victim happened to be black merely because this particular
>>>disease happens to have emerged in Africa, whose native population is
>>>predominantly black, just like Ebola.
>>I heard the first human victim was a white homosexual.
>Read the article. You heard wrong. It may well be that the first victim
>of the "AIDS epidemic" the media fussed about in the '80s (and that
>never actually emerged in the West) was a white homosexual, but
>certainly not the first human victim.
That is simply something that is not proven. And if you read between the lines of that BBC article, you will realize that the
reporter did not believe that either. No one with a simple logical mind is going to believe that such a powerful incurable disease
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/269306.stm
>>>Note: this is a report of a scientific finding. Not a Hollywood
>>>Homosexual lobby group, not an unsubstantiated opinion by an internet
>>>bigot. It produces verifiable evidence, and reports empirical facts
>>>about the history of the disease. In fact it cites the first known case
>>>of AIDS - in 1959 (okay, I was out in saying a century, but the point
>>>remains that this was before the disease was ever known in the West),
>>>in the Congo (where the chimps live, curiously enough). It didn't reach
>>>the West until the 1970s at the earliest and only became a public
>>>health concern in the '80s.
>>How do you know this scientist does not receive funding from the Defense Dept.
>>and has an incentive to cover this up ?
>What reason do you have to suppose that she has? Nature is a
>peer-reviewed journal which has a very good reputation to protect, and
>scientific papers submitted for publication require referees; papers
>and researchers are vetted for conflicts of interest before they ever
>get to the pages of a peer-reviewed publication. This is why, for
>instance, people like Paul Cameron are unable to publish in these
>journals.
Do you realize that these researchers are overwhelmingly dependent on the Federal
government or the national government of other countries to pay them to create these
diseases and hopefully cures of some diseases ?
They are going to go to whatever lengths are necessary not to take the blame for this
catastrophic disease.
What is weird is that there have never been Congressional hearings to delve to the bottom
of this issue, putting the researchers at various laboratories under oath.
Meanwhile, these biological researchers are robbing us blind, claiming they are working
on a cure which never appears.
>> Do you notice how the BBC reports what
>>they are told by these scientists but then presents a volley of information that
>>contradicts the veracity of the claims.
>None of it does, and I've read the article thoroughly.
>>================================================
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/269306.stm
>>In the early days of Aids research, dozens of chimps were deliberately infected
>>with the HIV virus to see if they developed the disease. To the surprise of scientists,
>>they did not, despite sharing 98% of their genetic material with humans.
>>================================================
>You do understand the concept of a carrier, I take it? A mosquito
>carries dengue and malaria parasites, but it's immune (or largely so)
>to the symptoms of both diseases. Infected snails don't die from
>giardia. A carrier is an organism that carries a disease but which
>doesn't exhibit symptoms.
I have made clear that this carrier aspect of AIDS is are major spreading
accelerator for the disease.
>>Now, let us say the truth is that these biological warfare engineers infected
>>some test chimps from Africa with their cocktail of the day, and no disease
>>developed. They assumed that the chimps were disease free and returned
>>them to Africa.
>>Let us say a bestialist was involved in this testing and when he felt lonely
>>one night he thought one of these chimps looked fine.
>>Bestialitst then meets homosexual, they hook up. Then homosexual goes
>>to the bathhouse and engages with 5 partners that night.
>>Once this disease reaches a homosexual, it explodes.
>>That is one of the likely ways this thing spread.
>No, that's a convoluted conspiracy fantasy - captive chimps, like all
>research animals, are generally bred in captivity and certainly aren't
>'returned' to the wild. The assumptions are completely absurd, starting
>with the improbability of any such infected research animal being
>encountered by a randy bestialist. Note also that the infection of
>chimps with HIV took place *after* the first human case in 1959; before
>that the disease simply wasn't known, so no one was conducting research
>on it at all.
That was just one of the scenarios, as I mentioned. Another would be that the monkeys
which were returned to Africa were eaten by bushmen there and some of the bushmen
cut themselves or were bitten while killing the animal before eating it. That could clearly
have spread the disease to Africa.
>>>>>>>Even homosexuals in the psychological business admit that homosexuality
>>>>>>>>develops early in life normally
>>>>>>> Sexuality of all forms develops early in life - at a stage known as puberty.
>>>>>>There is only one true sexuality. Everything else, including Sodomy and Bestiality,
>>>>>>is deviant.
>>>>> That's simply a statement of opinion.
>>>>Most people overwhelmingly believe this.
>>>Something for which you still have only your own claim and
>>>interpretation of votes cast on completely different matters to go by.
>>Who are you going to believe. Hollywood Homosexuals in the Press who
>>claim they represent the public, or actual popular Votes ?
>There have been no "actual popular Votes" on the issue that I'm aware
>of, and certainly the US presidential elections don't count - that
>wasn't a single issue poll, and even if it were the
>homosexuality-related issue in Kerry's manifesto had nothing to do with
>attitudes about homosexuality or even homosexual unions, merely
>attitudes towards homosexual marriage.
>>>> And that is democracy.
>>>Reality isn't a matter of democracy - however many people hold it an
>>>opinion remains an opinion, not a fact.
>>The people choose. That is democracy.
>More than 50% of Americans apparently believe to choose in creationism.
>That doesn't mean that evolution didn't happen in America, although
>from this statistic and the bigoted attitudes found in much of rural
>America, it seems that it might have stopped with sea urchins in some
>parts of the continent.
If one believes in the Bible, then one has to believe all of it, so if such a person is
asked whether they believe Genesis is true, of course they will say yes.
A better question is how many people believe in evolution.
>>>>>I have posted numerous quotes here in which it is clear to the experts that
>>>>>>Sodomy is an acquired trait.
>>>>> Not in this thread or any other I've read on the Dr Who newsgroup you
>>>>> haven't, and since you seem so eager to have people restate their own
>>>>> points ad nauseam at you it seems only reasonable to demand you do the
>>>>> same.
>>>>I posted the Cameron piece.
>>>A post from someone with a clear agenda, whose work has never been
>>>peer-reviewed, whose argumentation is poor, his misuse of statistics
>>>bordering on the fraudulent, who has reportedly been barred from the
>>>American Psychological Association for misusing his sources and has
>>>been the subject of a Court ruling that he has misrepresented evidence.
>>>He certainly does not qualify as an expert.
>>APA (American Psychological Association) acted against Cameron because
>>he advocated against Sodomy
>Correct. Advocating a political position is not compatible with
>belonging to a credible scientific association.
This issue is not happening in abstraction. Lots of homosexuals go to psychologists and
ask the Dr. "what is wrong with me" ?
I doubt these psychologists see many heterosexuals coming in and complaining about
their heterosexuality. If a doctor knows what is causing a man's homosexuality,
he ought to share it with parents, especially if this is an inclination which occurs
in childhood and can in many cases be prevented.
>>and that organization is dominated by university types
>Cameron has a PhD, implying that he spent at least some time in a
>university environment - University of Colorado, to be exact.
>>who love Sodomy.
>Are they on record saying this as well?
Sodomy is all over university campuses.
>>>>This is nonsense. There is no question that skin color is genetic
>>>>and is very predictable
>>>No there isn't, but that's not what I said. Cameron demands a single
>>>gene for homosexuality - why should there be one? There's no single
>>>gene for skin colour, it's a product of epistasis - multiple genes
>>>influencing one another's expression. In fact there are something like
>>>200 genes affecting the precise colour of someone's skin. Like skin
>>>colour, sexuality appears to fall along a spectrum, from those who are
>>>completely uninterested in the same sex to those who are completely
>>>uninterested in the opposite sex and those who have no sexual interest
>>>in either, with a range of preferences in between. It seems wholly
>>>plausible that this is the product of a complex of multiple genes, and
>>>wholly implausible that a single gene will be responsible.
>>There is no compelling evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
>It fits the pattern for genetic characters - the spectrum from one
>'extreme' to another, the fact that there are strong associations
>between homosexual individuals and a history of homosexuality in the
>family, the innate orientation towards a particular sex. Homosexuality
>has been recorded in a wide range of animal species, from butterflies
>and octopi to mammals (including chimpanzees) and birds. What's more
>the fact that heterosexuality is genetic (something few would
>reasonably doubt) implies that, in the absence of evidence to the
>contrary, the most plausible explanation is that there is a genetic
>basis. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. In any case,
>'biological', as I said before, need not imply 'genetic' - maternal
>effects are clearly at work. In any of these cases the consequence is
>the same: homosexuality is innate and is not a matter of choice. That
>is the relevant issue, not whether homosexuality is genetic (as appears
>likely) or has some other biological origin.
Again, these claims of animal homosexuality would have to be proven in a controlled
environment where Hollywood Homosexuals cannot abuse pheromones and other
chemicals to induce animal homosexual behavior which was not there before.
I call it animal abuse and if any of these Hollywood Homosexuals are caught
introducing homosexuality to animals to make their point, they should be arrested
and thrown in prison. I have never seen any animal homosexuality myself.
>> And obviously, if homosexuality was genetic, evolution would have
>>caused it to die out, since those who engage in it are unlikely to have kids.
>For anyone with more than a simplistic understanding of evolution, that
>isn't obvious - there's the possibility that homosexuals benefit their
>relatives in some way (kin selection), although the evidence suggests
>that this isn't the case, at least not in the way normally envisaged,
>and homosexuals are known to have children, as are bisexuals, which is
>enough to keep any genes coding for homosexuality in the gene pool. If
>a suite of genes rather than a single gene is responsible it may be
>hard for natural selection to act against, and there may be trade-offs
>- those genes may have benefits in non-homosexuals who carry them that
>promote their persistence in the gene pool. No one knows exactly why
>homosexuality hasn't been eliminated by natural selection, it's true,
>but the fact that it hasn't isn't evidence in itself against a genetic
>cause.
People do know. That is what the Cameron piece is about. Homosexuality is learned
behavior and could be stamped out if children were protecting from predatory behavior
and Hollywood Homosexuals telling them that Sodomy is ok in TV series like Battlestar Galactica.
>>>>given the skin colors of the parents.
>>>Usually, but it's certainly not unknown for black parents to have a
>>>child with fairer skin than either, even when both are the genetic
>>>parents. And of course there is a degree of environmental influence -
>>>hence the tanning of Caucasians in sunnier areas than those to which
>>>they are acclimatised.
>>Not without the husband demanding to know who the his wife cheated on him with.
>He can demand it, but sometimes genetic tests will show that he is the
>father - it's rare, but it isn't unknown.
The tabloid news has it that Prince Harry was tested in this way. In fact, I think both
Harry and William were tested.
>>>The document clearly does address the sources of homosexual desire.
>>>And generally it is the child's senses being tricked by a molester to
>>>accept homosexuality instead of heterosexuality
>>>and poor relations with a father figure.
>>>The document says no such thing - it is a poll of what people
>>>identified in hindsight as the (usually sexual) experience that 'got
>>>them into' homosexuality (which incidentally doesn't mention
>>>molestation let alone being 'tricked'), which does nothing to explain
>>>where that desire came from. All this assumes, of course, that Cameron
>>>wasn't misquoting his source this time, which I can't be bothered to
>>>check.
>>It does say that. It says that these kids likely would not have assumed
>>a life of Sodomy if they had not met the wrong molester early in life and/or
>>had better relations with their parents.
>It certainly doesn't say anything like that - even Cameron hasn't
>stooped to that level of distortion. Again, there's no mention of
>'molestors', and in any case all it asks is why they thought they first
>engaged in homosexual activity - not what they might have done had they
>had closer relationships with their parents or no sexual experience
>with an adult. And, as mentioned, these are old sources - very nearly
>antique by the standards of a young science, in fact. Cameron himself
>admits that even the second one took place only as the gay activism
>movement was beginning - in other words, these studies date to a time
>when homosexuals were encouraged to think of their sexuality was wrong
>and conditioned (by the theories of Freud and others) to believe that
>there was something in their upbringing that led to their
>homosexuality. Yet as I pointed out it still doesn't explain their
>sexual orientation, at most only their sexual activity. This is one of
>the reasons anecdotal evidence is poor science.
Again, homosexuality is learned behavior, like taking heroin or marijuana.
If Cameron is old hat, who have you read which has newer ideas on the causes of
homosexuality.
>>>>Some people gain sexual climax from fetishes like stamping on insects like cockroaches.
>>>>Do you think that is genetic too ?
>>>>Some have sex with dogs. Genetic ?
>>>Do you have any particular reason to believe it might not be? Not being
>>>familiar with research in thsee areas I'm not in a position to assert
>>>either way, but it's a sign of narrow-mindedness to assume one way or
>>>the other without investigation. Not that you've been shy to exhibit
>>>signs of narrow-mindedness. After all, heterosexuality almost certainly
>>>has a genetic basis; unless there's a good reason to believe that other
>>>forms of sexual behaviour have a fundamentally different underlying
>>>mechanism the most plausible explanation is that they also have a
>>>genetic basis. And looking at the statistics Cameron provides, fewer
>>>than 2% of boys exposed to homosexual experiences choose to practice
>>>homosexuality in later life - which suggests that experience is not a
>>>significant factor in determining sexuality.
>>It says 2% of the boys succumbed to the homosexual advances they received.
>Or, to put it another way, 33% (of 35% of the sampled boys) didn't -
>which would you say is the more significant figure?
Only 2% of the US population is homosexual. So these small percentages
are right on the mark.
>>And 2% of all heterosexuals claim they were homosexual at one time.
>Where did it say that? In any case how is a possible coincidence
>relevant? Homosexuals represent considerably more than 2% of the
>population, so this still suggest that only a minority are susceptible
>to changing their sexuality.
======================================================
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html
7) There are many ex-homosexuals
Whatever the mechanism, in a 1984 study (5) almost 2% of heterosexuals
reported that at one time they considered themselves to be homosexual.
It is clear that a substantial number of people are reconsidering their sexual
preferences at any given time.
=======================================================
>>>>With a vibrator. Genetic ?
>>>Nonsensical analogy - the whole point of a vibrator is to simulate the
>>>sexual experience; obviously it's intended to produce the
>>>genetically-primed response.
>>That is the point. All these deviant behaviors simulate male-female sex.
>No, the behaviours 'simulate' (indeed are) sex, not specifically that
>between males and females. I'm not in a position to compare how well
>they simulate one another - are you?
Sounds like that is a question for a bisexual-bestialist.
>>>There are two main camps spending money to put out information in this arena.
>>>[Hollywood] Homosexuals and Churches. I do not have the impression that Cameron
>>>is overwhelmingly devout; he seems to have just hooked up with the people
>>>who pay for unflattering homosexual information.
>>>It's true that he's hooked up with people who pay for his propaganda -
>>>the article I cited pointed out that he appears unable to publish
>>>anything in peer-reviewed journals, only in ones that take any
>>>submissions they're paid to. Devout or not his clear homophobic bias
>>>and chairmanship of the FRI represents a conflict of interest when he
>>>claims to make objective assertions about homosexuality.
>>He obviously has studied homsoexual behavior, encountered numerous people
>>coming into his office asking him "what is wrong with me, doc ?"
>How is that obvious? Nothing in that particular article, at any rate,
>was based on any research of his - he just collated research from
>authors writing 30+ years ago that appeared to support his preconceived
>position. In any case he isn't a psychiatrist (he isn't even officially
>a psychologist) - his job isn't to study patients to find out what's
>'wrong' with them.
Apparently, he was defrocked by the homosexual elite at the APA
(American Psychological Association).
>>>> This is not the most important issue to me
>>>Then what is? If your objection isn't even a spurious 'moral' one, what
>>>possible complaint do you have about it?
>>I already stated my objections to it being on TV in BSG.
>Which, as others have shown, it isn't.
None have refuted any of the evidence that Sodomy is in BSG.
Personal attacks and denials are not a counter-argumengt. Just a strategy which
works to discourage guys stating my views normally, but not in this case.
>>>>but it does put homosexuality in the same category with other behaviors
>>>>which are harmful to society such as drugs, gambling, prostitution,
>>>Right, this is more than tiresome. Drugs are harmful to individuals -
>>>family members and friends of abusers who suffer distress, people in
>>>the supply train who are subject to extortion, blackmail and other
>>>criminal acts by the drug cartels, people living under the regimes
>>>funded by the drugs industry, people affected by smuggling operations
>>>such as arms smuggling funded by said industry (not to mention the
>>>animal populations at risk from the trade in endangered wildlife, which
>>>is closely linked to the drugs trade), individuals attacked, brutalised
>>>or killed by the cartels propped up by the profits from drug use and so
>>>on and so forth. Prostitution and gambling (and indeed drug use as
>>>well) are social welfare issues due to the harm caused to people who
>>>find themselves forced into those situations. There is nothing in
>>>homosexuality which is even remotely equivalent to any of these.
>>>Hint: for something to be wrong, it must harm *someone*, an individual,
>>>not some half-baked distortion of discredited utilitarian ideas like
>>>some aggregate "Life".
>>When your civilization becomes extinct, I would consider that serious harm
>>to the community.
>Here's news for you - humanity isn't becoming extinct, and isn't
>anywhere close to that point. Nor are European nations with populations
>in the tens of millions with a short-term decline in birth rates. You
>still haven't explained what makes homosexuality or sodomy any
>different from other tendencies or activities that don't maximise birth
>rates.
How do you know it is short term. 1.2 fertility is outrageously low
when 2.1 is required to replaced the dead.
>>>> none of which would have the result of extinction of the human race
>>>> if everyone engaged in these other behaviors.
>>Nice tactic here of posing a argument just before its refutation.
>It's an irrelevant point - not everyone is 'engaging in these other
>behaviours' (though are you really saying that if murder were
>universalised, it wouldn't result in a rather more rapid extinction of
>the human race than sodomy?), and even if they were it doesn't follow
>that they'd be doing so to the exclusion of engaging in heterosexual
>relationships as well. Drug use, rape, murder etc. all constitute
>identifiable harm to real individuals in the real world, regardless of
>how many people carry them out. If you have to stretch to a wholly
>imaginary and implausible situation in order to justify your position,
>it hardly amounts to a refutation.
Not all murderers are successful. And only half the population (males, or the females)
would have to be homosexual to cause the population to die out.
>>>The US public voted overwhelmingly against the homosexual agenda in 11 out of 11 States
>>>just 7 months ago. You see any of those people here ?
>>It's hard to make any comment when you trot out meaningless soundbites
>>>- what precisely did they vote against? I find it very hard to believe
>>>the ballot paper asked them whether or not they supported the
>>>'homosexual agenda'. What is that agenda? And what leads you to believe
>>>that that was a deciding issue in the US election any case? I was under
>>>the impression the vote was to determine who would run the country, not
>>>a poll on their views about the candidates' attitudes towards
>>>homosexuality. As for whether or not there are people here who voted
>>>against Kerry, how should I know? I imagine there are at least some.
>>This newsgroup does not represent the public at large.
>>Somehow Hollywood Homosexuals have been able to put over this scam
>>on the Usenet through using public relations hacks to insult,
>Hmm...you posted to alt.politics.homosexuality among other groups, I
>noticed. And you're surprised that it "somehow" contained homosexuals?
Not surprised at that, but many heterosexuals are interested in communicating with
homosexuals to understand better what is going on and to discourage their activity
trying to sell Sodomy to you and your kids through TV in BSG..
I would expect heterosexuals and homosexuals tobe on that Newsgroup, assuming
that free speech exists and ISPs are not interfering customers' service.
>>threaten, intimidate people out of coming here with my opinion
>Pointing out that your comments are nothing short of moronic constitutes a 'threat'?
No, threats to stop making these statements or else, or that false complaints will
be made to my ISP etc.
>> and if that does not work making false complaints to their ISP.
>As someone else pointed out, any complaint about your spamming groups
>with multiple off-topic posts, including those intended to be
>inflammatory, does generally violate ISP rules and so any complaint
>would be valid.
Again, this is a false complaint to categorize my statements as "spam"
The truth matters.
>>>How about this - they were actually having a fight, as indeed was
>>>indicated by the script, symbolising, well, a fight? As others have
>>>alluded to on one of these threads, plenty of characters in plenty of
>>>series have been shown fighting other men and even grappling with them
>>>on the ground.
>>Not with that exact symbolism.
>>And I recognized this first time out in Bastille Day. I had no idea at the time
>>that they had used the identical imagery in Colonial Day, which aired about 6 weeks later.
>They used the word "Day" in the title of both episodes as well - does
>that indicate some sort of sinister running symbolism?
No idea. But several of the names of the episodes have homosexual overtones.
Bastille Day is a major European homosexual celebratory day.
Six Degrees of Separation was a play and Hollywood Homosexual movie in which
Will Smith played a homosexual.
>>>A series which sells Sodomy
>>The only gay character in the series is a girl... No sodomy involved.
>>and Drugs (Dracula vampire myth is about
>>Woman-woman homosexuality is used by Hollywood Homosexuals as a metaphor for Sodomy.
>Only in your mind.
A lot of minds. Strong perceptive minds.
>>>> Drugs in your Jugular vein opium injection).
>>>Vampire myths predate injected drugs by a long way - Bram Stoker just
>>>cobbled together a story from existing European folklore.
>>>Philip Bowles
>>When is the earliest vampire bite on the jugular myth that you know of ?
>I haven't found anything that specific about most, but since the
>jugular is a major source of easily-accessible blood (which is indeed
>the reason that injections are made into this blood), it would be a
>logical step for any vampire myth which involves the vampires feeding
>on the living, and such stories date back to Roman times and earlier
>(the Slavic vampires on which Dracula is based are derived directly
>from Roman stories of strix, nocturnal vampiric birds).
>Philip Bowles
Vampiric, in terms of jugular biting, or if not, what ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #158401 ] |
So, 30 Oktober 2005 01:42 |
|
The following is essentially a true tale of mine, from a few years ago.
I was not raped by a priest, but my story is no less harrowing. In
fact, had my rapists been priests, my pain might have been less
searing.
Comments? -- T
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I've been a cross-dresser since my early teens and as a guy I've often
caught a lot of torment and taunting. Probably my worst episode was
when I was 15 and stayed with my Uncle Jed and cousin Billy when my Mom
was away for a weekend. I had begged her not to stick me with my uncle
and cousin, though I couldn't bring myself to tell her it was because
they teased me about my so-called 'effeminate personality.'
I was always small, about 115 pounds at the time, light brown hair and
eyes, petite, and, yeah, I was, and still am, gay. I was also an anal
virgin, although I had urgent and persistent dreams about having sex
with a male. And today I'm not afraid to admit that when I was 12, I
sucked a second cousin off for two bottles of beer.
Anyway, that day in our town, Pontiac, Mich., Mom dropped me off at
their house Friday night and soon after
she left the two of them started in on me.
"Well, little Timmy," Uncle Jed lisped mockingly, "your eyeliner and
lip gloss look mighty pretty this evening!"
I tried to ignore this and other comments that followed, but after a
while I got fed up with his teasing and yelled, "Go to hell, will you?
Leave me alone!"
"Look you little faggot," he bellowed, "you're not gonna talk to your
uncle that way! I'm goin' to teach you a lesson, you little shit!"
He moved toward me in a threatening manner, and I turned to run but he
caught me by the back of my pullover sweater. "What you need, queerboy,
is a dick up your ass, and I'm just the one to give it to you, right
Billy!"
"Yo, Dad," said my dim-witted 18-year-old cousin.
Uncle Jed tightened his grip on my pullover but as I jerked away the
sweater was dragged up to my armpits, revealing my petite beige Bali
bra.
"Jesus, will ya look at this!" Uncle shrieked. "Looks like we DO have a
girl here!"
He pulled up the cups of the lacy bra to reveal my erect nipples, which
he flicked with his finger.
"Owwww!" I winced, as he smirked.
"Nice titties, sweety!"
Billy stood there laughing. It was embarrassing enough to be bared like
that by my uncle, but having my cousin watch was really disheartening.
Uncle Jed -- a big, burly guy, about 6 feet tall and maybe 230 pounds
-- dragged me by my pullover across the living room and sat on the
sofa, pulling me in one swoop across his lap, face up, whereupon he
proceeded to strip the sweater off over my head. Then he snapped the
button and unzipped my jeans, exposing my matching sheer bikini
panties.
"Wow, Dad," Billy said, "he's got women's underpants on!"
"Yeah, but not for long," and Uncle Jed stripped my jeans to my ankles,
pulled off my loafers, then yanked the jeans off.
By now I was developing a hard-on and my slender four-inch cut penis
was peeking above the lowered waistband of my panties.
"This little 'gal' likes to wear panties!" Uncle Jed said to Billy. "So
what do you say we help 'her' out?"
He then stripped my panties off -- but instead of casting them on the
floor with my jeans, he stretched them over my head, with the crotch
stretched right over my face. My slim hairless body (of course, I kept
my public region shaved) was now bare to their view.
With my panties covering my view, Uncle Jed turned me over on my belly
and began to pet and caress my tight, curvy little behind. He massaged
me with one hand and with the other he parted my saucy buttocks and
dragged his fingers over my exposed anus. I felt my cock tighten
underneath me.
Over my uncle's lap, my penis was nestled between his trousered thighs,
and as Uncle Jed inserted a thick finger into my butt-hole, the steady
friction on my hard dick brought me to the brink of orgasm. Sensing
this, Uncle Jed continued to knead and caress my buttocks while moving
his inserted finger in and out of my puckered rosebud.
Soon I was bucking and gyrating across his lap as I felt the sweet milk
rise in my sack. Then I began pre-cuming!
Suddenly, uncontrollably, I shot a gusher in his lap! Three, four, five
quick thrusts forced my virgin fluid from my well-teased dick.
Seeing my creamy semen soaking his pants and dripping on the rug seemed
to excite Uncle Jed, and he jabbed a second finger into my behind. He
found my prostate, then proceeded to tease and titillate my swollen
organ.
Sobbing and gasping in the wake of my orgasm and somewhat embarrassed
in my predicament over his knee, I begged my uncle to stop, but despite
my pleas he continued to work my anus, until he sensed my prick was
again swelling beneath me. (I can't deny that, in a perverted way, I
despite my plight, I experienced undeniable surges of pleasure.)
Next, turning me over, he nodded approvingly toward my tortured penis,
before unceremoniously pushing me off him onto the floor.
Well, my humiliation was complete. Butt-naked except my pushed-up
brassiere and my panties half covering my face and me inhaling my own
crotch odor from the moist bikini!
All while my penis released droplets of my spent orgasm - and with my
jerk cousin staring wide-eyed at my bare balls and cock.
"Well, Billy, I think little Timmy-boy, er, -girl, is ready for what
fairies like him really want. Grab his arms and hold 'im down."
As Billy, who was almost as large as his dad, grasped my wrists above
my head, Uncle Jed slowly took down his pants and his size extra-large
jockeys. Unfortunately for me, his reputation for being
hygienically-challenged was confirmed as his gross body reeked of
days-old sweat and grime.
His thick brown uncut dick was about 8 inches long, and by now
engorging.
He knelt at my feet and, grasping my ankles, jerked my legs above my
shoulders, as Billy maintained a grip on my wrists.
Using his shoulders to force my legs upward, Uncle Jed coated his
fingers with saliva and poked them into my exposed anus, lubricating my
sphincter area for what I knew was going to be a painful ordeal.
"No, no, c'mon, Uncle Jed, please no!" I whimpered.
"You try to squirm from me and I'll beat your ass you little pussy,"
he snarled.
With that he thrust his huge peter into the opening of my slickened
anus.
"Unh-ugh-ugh-ugh," I groaned as the pain seared my rectum.
He jammed his thick dick in-out, in-out several times, until it was
fully impaled.
I must have fainted then, because when I became conscious shortly
afterward, he was withdrawing his slimy cock from my sore heinie.
"Ohhhhhhhhhhh, Owwwwwwww!" I squealed, as I felt streamers of his jism
follow his cock out of me.
"Well, I guess that'll do for now, fag boy," Uncle Jed growled, as he
drew himself up. "How was it, Timmy? Did 'ya cum, huh?"
Billy released my wrists, and I instinctively rolled into a kind of
fetal position on the floor, moaning softly as tears washed my cheeks.
I touched my raw anal region as Uncle Jed's yellow=white sperm
driveled over my nude bottom. There was blood on my fingers and my own
juice was drying on my thin pubic hair and on my smooth belly. I felt
utterly ravished.
Well, to make a long story short, before I was allowed to clean up,
Uncle Jed made me suck Billy off - and swallow his semen-and
because I threw up, I was forced to suck Billy again!
Next day, both of them raped me and forced me to suck them off
repeatedly. Uncle Jed said that if I told my mom or anyone about what
happened, he'd waylay me and beat me silly.
The only saving feature of that weekend for me was that, Saturday
evening, after Uncle Jed had passed out drunk, Billy, who'd also been
guzzling brew, pulled me into his bedroom and, after undressing both of
us, masturbated me and finished by sucking me off! And despite my
soreness and my loathing, him, it felt sooooo good!
To this day, I can never not enjoy a blowjob, no matter who's got my
cock in his-or her-mouth!
Needless to say, when Mom picked me up I was more than ready to leave
Uncle Jed and Billy. And luckily I was able to avoid those monsters
until I left for college.
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #159966 ] |
Mo, 31 Oktober 2005 15:01 |
|
From the Collected Witterings of perryneheum [at] hotmail.com, volume 23:
> The following is essentially a true tale of mine, from a few years ago.
> I was not raped by a priest, but my story is no less harrowing. In
> fact, had my rapists been priests, my pain might have been less
> searing.
>
> Comments?
Yeah; I think you should at least have changed the names before trying to
pass off someone else's erotic fiction as your own personal experience. It
would have made Googling marginally more difficult.
Jesus, trolls are dumb.
--
Who the f--k are you calling insolent?
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 16:29:54 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04105 Sekunden |
