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
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80454 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 09:05
John Shocked  
"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" <nfitz [at] sentex> wrote in message news:42d845cb$1 [at] news.sentex.net...
> In article <3rTBe.30057$Qo.12171 [at] fed1read01>,
> John Shocked <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Another Hollywood Homosexual threat.
>>What 'nice', 'gentile' 'shrinking violets' these people are.
> ?? Never been to Hollywood. Or California. I keep out of the
> USA as much as possible ... too weird. But hang on, I didn't
> read most of your diatribe ... but you claim BSG plotting
> is in response to events that happened in November 2004? That
> doesn't make much sense, does it. The movie was aired in 2003,
> and Season 1 started in October 2004. By November 2004, it was
> pretty much all in the can ...
> I don't know what your problem is ... apart from being a bigot, but
> perhaps you could could post your bigotry eleswhere ... like
> alt.kukluxklan or something.
> Nick

Again, it is the Hollywood Homosexuals who are intolerant.
They are trying to force their disgusting homosexual habits on the rest of the public.
It all come down to personal character though.
Take this thread. Each of your messages is specially addressed so that responses
to your messages redirects the response to some other Newsgroup and than those
specified in my original posts.
You are so smart and crafty. You figured out the method to steal an advantage over others.
And when you figured out a way to steal, did you steal ? Or did you reply normally
and allow responses to your messages to the same Newsgroup ?

I and numerous other people here know how to redirect messages to some other
oblivion Newsgroup just like you do. But I never do anything like that.
It is a difference in personal character between us.
And when you extrapolate your demonstrated character to the sexual habits you support
here, what would make you think your personal sexual character is any different than that
which you have demonstrated in this thread ?

Politics
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80460 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 11:37
Snake  
"tim gueguen" <tgueguen [at] shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:U3%Be.1962312$Xk.1504102 [at] pd7tw3no...
>
> "Bob" <spam [at] uce.gov> wrote in message
> news:42d6cdde.352876578 [at] news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On 14 Jul 2005 11:50:11 -0700, depeche_road [at] yahoo.ca wrote:
>>
>>>People like you make society realize how normal gay people are compared
>>>to the raving lunatics.
>>
>> Believe me, normal society realizes that gay people are not normal.
>> Sodomy is not a normal practice among normal people.
>>
> Really? The last time I looked around online about such things the figure
> I came up was that 25% of American heterosexuals had tried anal
> intercourse at least once, and given the attitudes of many people about
> the practice I suspect it was underreported.
>
> Beats me why people get so upset about gays.

Because they are so sexual insecure the thought of somebody finding them
attractive, in a different way than they are used to, scares the shit out of
them. Plain, simple truth.
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80462 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 11:48
John Shocked  
I reprise some of the facts here:

1) This Battlestar Galactica series seems to have a continuing Homosexual
agenda and determination to sell Homosexuality to the masses, by hook or by
crook. Back in the 3rd episode (Bastille Day) the whole Zerak relationship was
the producers trying to put Apollo and Zerak in bed together.

The producers feinted with a heterosexual rape, then hit their true target
which was to show Apollo being dragged to the ground face down in an Oz- like
prison attack. Throughout this episode there is verbal imagery of Apollo
"choosing sides". That is, choosing the homosexual lifestyle.

Oz (1997-2003) was a prison based TV series shown on HBO (homosexual dominated
US premium station) which was which regularly showed prison homosexual rape
and sex.

Bastille Day is known in Europe to be a major celebratory day for European
homosexuals. Apparently, in the next episode, Zerak returns and you better
believe that the producers will be determined to reestablish and develop the
possible Homosexual relationship between Apollo and Zerak.

Why do you think that the statements "You Can Bet Your Ass (arse)" and "The Back Door
is Open" when such prominent parts of this weeks script (The Hand Of God),
both in reference to Apollo ?

So if you do not want to be sold Homosexuality by this series or if you have
kids you do not want to be sold Homosexuality by this series, watch out.

2) Again in the Colonial Day episode the Battlestar producers show us the side
of Apollo they showed us in episode 3 Bastille Day: Apollo being pulled down to
the ground face down, sunny side up in an Oz-like grappling with another man.
It should be clear now to everyone watching this series that there is a pattern
in showing these Oz-like scenes where it appears that Apollo is about to be
raped by another man. 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.
In addition, in the grappling with this other man is a freeze frame in which
Apollo and this same man are arm in arm, as if walking down the street or from
the altar, man and man.

3) In the BSG last episode of the season, Kobol's Last Gleaming Part II, the
Hollywood Homosexuals in control of BSG were able to crowbar yet another
Homosexual Rape symbolism scene into the show in the scene in which Boomer is
approached and surrounded by what appears to be around 5 semi-nude sister
Boomer-copies who appear to be just about to forcibly undress and rape her.

Her response is "oh no, this is not happening". Many Homosexuals just love to
be the first one to turn someone, maybe your son, perhaps in that Catholic
Church rectory, onto that special secret intimacy they promote, for the first
time. They are absolutely loving this scene. They respond to Boomer: "you're
confused and scared... but it's ok", as they forcibly take off her helmet and
start caressing her without her permission. It appears that she is in the
process of being homosexual gang raped.

You can just imagine this scene in some women's prison or even some sororities
on some campuses with a new inductee. Anyone seen Reform School Girls with
Wendy O. Williams " ? USA Network used to show it regularly.

Boomer says: "I am not a Cylon". Right there, the obvious implication was that
she was about to say "I am not a Homosexual". She then says her parents are a
man and a woman: "My parents were Katherine and Abraham Valerii."

The Boomer-copies then feed her the normal Homosexual promotional crap that we
have heard here, over and over again, that deep inside, everyone is a
homosexual: "You can't fight destiny, Sharon. It catches up with you... no
matter what you do. Don't worry about us. We'll see you again. We love you,
Sharon. And we always will."

If you listen to these Hollywood Homosexual fatcats behind BSG, everyone is
eventually going to engage in Homosexual Sex. So Why fight the feeling. Do it
now. Call of the wild, sort of thing.

As these lines were delivered over cable TV, you better believe that the
Hollywood Homosexual fatcats behind this series were jumping around slapping
high fives. I can just imagine a new Saturday Night Live Gays In Space episode
based on this content, except what SNL is doing does not appear to have been
approved by the Hollywood Homosexuals fatcats so they are being a little
careful about how close they mirror the show.

One of the problems with Hollywood Homosexual scenes like this being crowbar-ed
into the script is: Should we the viewers draw assumptions from this scene
about the direction of the overall story, or take it for what it is -- the
writers' penance to their Hollywood Homosexual masters for putting up the money
for the production. For example, some here have assumed that in this scene
Boomer is programmed, or re-programmed to assassinate William Adama, by this
contact with her Boomer-copy sisters. Some have even claimed that the taking
off of the helmet was significant in that it further exposed her brain to the
telepathic communications wavelengths being sent to her.

But how can we know for sure when this scene already serves a totally ulterior
motive of the writers and their Hollywood Homosexual fatcat masters.

Politics


==========================================================
"Matty" <kaiwai.gardiner$NOSPAM$ [at] $NOSPAM$gmail$NOSPAM$com> wrote in message
news:200507161831078930%kaiwaigardinerNOSPAM [at] NOSPAMgmailNOSPAMcom...
> On 2005-07-16 01:08:49 +1200, "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> said:
>
>>> As for the Republicans policy, it will be interesting if they eventually push through the idea of removing income tax, and
>>> simply going for a nation-wide GST in its place - yes, this has been discussed, both by think tanks and advisors in the white
>>> house. Be prepared over the next three years for some radical reform; the first term was simply a way of milking some support,
>>> this term will be when all the big guns and radical ideas come out of the wood work.
>>> Matty
>>
>> I doubt anything is going to happen to the Income Tax. Republicans just like to talk
>> about some nonsensical issues like a Constitutional Flag Amendment (against burning it)
>> just to keep weak minds who do not recognize what is going on, busy.
>>
>> Politics
>
> Please, who do you think would benefit the most if there was a flat 25% GST on all goods and services, and income tax was removed
> (along with many other taxes)?
>
> Matty
>
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80463 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 12:35
Framester  
On 15 Jul 2005 15:47:46 -0700, pbowles [at] aol.com wrote:

>>>>
>>>> Oh, by the way, what does Hollywood have to gain from 'selling' us
>>>> sodomy? More ad revenue? No. Increase in viewership? No. That Spongebob
>>>> will convert heteros into homos? No.
>>>> Maybe Disney owns KY, Westing House owns Trojan, and General Electric
>>>> owns Dolce & Gabbana.
>>>
>>>
>>>No way do they make any extra viewership or money. In fact, they lose money.
>>>But they are so determined to sell Sodomy to you and your kids during this TV era that
>>>they do not care how much of their money and their investors' money they waste.
>>>I can tell you, if I were an investor in BSG, and they took my money and wasted it
>>>selling Sodomy to the science fiction viewers out there, which guarantees reduced
>>>viewership. I would be steaming and would pull my money immediately.
>>>
>>>
>>>Politics
>>
>>
>>
>>First of all, the new BG is not a kids show and not something I would
>>let my children watch. Second, there is no gay sex that I can see on
>>that show, and even if there was some kind of subliminal message, it's
>>more than offset by the overt heterosexuality in every episode.
>
>Didn't he claim that all the relationships between humans and Cylons
>were examples of 'bestiality'? So that covers Baltar/Number Six (when
>*is* she going to get a proper name like all the other Cylons?),
>Boomer/Tyrol, Boomer/Helo and most likely Tigh/Helen. Is there anyone
>left in a heterosexual relationship apart from Billy/Dee?
>
>Hang on ... even that's *one more than all the homosexual relationships
>in the series put together*. That's the secret after all - BSG isn't
>promoting homosexuality, it's promoting sex with robots.
>
>Philip Bowles

I really don't understand all this obsession with gay sex, and this is
coming from someone who has detested for the most part the gay
references and other sexual references in new Who. Why do people care
what others do and why do they think just anyone can be influenced to
engage in gay sex by what they see on TV? Are people's true sexuality
and sexual identity that fragile?
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80470 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 15:20
Jim Phillips  
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, John Shocked wrote:

> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050715074649.3935A-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> >> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050714075536.22877B-100000 [at] mail...
> >> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> >> >> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050713080213.10410C-100000 [at] mail...
> >> >> > These are the same tired claims, so the title is a lie (no real
> >> >> > surprise there). Stop lying, John--it's bad for your soul.
> >> >> It is the truth. Prove me wrong.
> >> > Already done--your denial of your proven lies is not my problem.
> >> Show this proof here so that everyone here can bask in your great vision and victory.
> > Again, already done--your willful ignorance notwithstanding.
>
> False, you have no such evidence.
>
> >> >> I reprise some of the facts here:
> >> > Simply reposting your discredited claims does not make them any more
> >> > legitimate, John. Your claims boil down to 2 things: Apollo's supposed rape
> >> > symbolism and Boomer's potential lesbianism. In the former case you haven't
> >> > explained why similar scenes involving James T. Kirk, Jim Rockford and Matt
> >> > Dillon aren't also homosexual, demonstrating that you have a sevee bias
> >> > towards BSG. In the latter case, Boomer's lesbianism is not sodomy as you
> >> > have defined it (anal sex between men), so it is not evidence of sodomy in
> >> > BSG. Stop lying, John.
> >> > large snip - same nonsense, different post.
> >> There are no scenes anything like the Battlestar Galactica Oz homosexual rape
> >> symbolism scenes anywhere else on TV that I have seen.
> > Your willful ignorance is not support of your position, John.
>
> If you can identify other TV scenes which use this sam BSG/Oz-HBO
> Sodomy symbolism, post it here.

Already done--you ignored it then, you'll ignore it now.

> >> The scenes in Bastille Day and Colonial Day jumped off the screen
> >> to any perceptive viewer of TV.
> > And yet you are the *only* one who sees them. If you were honest
> > with yourself you would jump to the more likely conclusion...
>
> As has already been established here, Saturday Night Live saw it,

Sorry, but the SNL "Gays In Space" skits are clearly aimed at UFO
abductees who claim to have been anally probed.

> TV Guide saw it.

This is based on a single question posed to the actor who plays
Apollo: Is Apollo gay? That hardly equates with agreement; since several
other characters in his age group had been shown in intimate relationships
it was a fair question to ask. You conveniently forget that the answer to
the question was "No".

> Lot of experienced culture experts saw it and SNL parodied it about 2 weeks
> after I started talking about it on the Internet.

Again, SNL is *not* parodying BSG with their "Gays In Space" skits.

--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"Geez, if you're going to get *this* upset whenever I do something stupid,
then I guess I'll just have to stop doing stupid things!"
-- Homer Simpson
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80474 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 16:24
manitou  
John Shocked wrote:

> I reprise some of the facts here:
>
> 1) This Battlestar Galactica series seems to have a continuing Homosexual
> agenda..........



Hate to break it to you, John, but don't you realize quite a few people
at these groups who _don't_ watch "B-G" likely are going to start
watching the show, just out of curiosity, as a result of your ongoing
blizzard of posts?












C.
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80477 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 16:39
George Peatty  
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:37:06 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:

>Because they are so sexual insecure the thought of somebody finding them
>attractive, in a different way than they are used to, scares the shit out of
>them. Plain, simple truth.

Don't presume to speak for me about my sexuality or any issue related
thereto. Arrogant bastard ..
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80479 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 17:02
joey the lemur  
In article <U3%Be.1962312$Xk.1504102 [at] pd7tw3no>, tgueguen [at] shaw.ca says...
>
> "Bob" <spam [at] uce.gov> wrote in message
> news:42d6cdde.352876578 [at] news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > On 14 Jul 2005 11:50:11 -0700, depeche_road [at] yahoo.ca wrote:
> >
> >>People like you make society realize how normal gay people are compared
> >>to the raving lunatics.
> >
> > Believe me, normal society realizes that gay people are not normal.
> > Sodomy is not a normal practice among normal people.
> >
> Really? The last time I looked around online about such things the figure I
> came up was that 25% of American heterosexuals had tried anal intercourse at
> least once, and given the attitudes of many people about the practice I
> suspect it was underreported.
>
> Beats me why people get so upset about gays.
>
> tim gueguen 101867
>
>
>
trolls get excited by anything that appears to get them the attention
that they belive has been denied them; by feigning outrage they attempt
to disprove all the otherwise conclusive evidence they face throughout
their lives, that all they deserve is the total indifference of others.
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80481 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 17:06
SuperFaggot  
It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality, when George
Peatty wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:37:06 GMT, "Snake" wrote:
>
>>Because they are so sexual insecure the thought of somebody finding them
>>attractive, in a different way than they are used to, scares the shit out
>>of
>>them. Plain, simple truth.
>
> Don't presume to speak for me about my sexuality or any issue related
> thereto. Arrogant bastard ..

Tell that to John "Easily" Shocked...

--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80483 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 17:12
Diane L  
manitou wrote:
> John Shocked wrote:
>
>> I reprise some of the facts here:
>>
>> 1) This Battlestar Galactica series seems to have a continuing
>> Homosexual agenda..........
>
>
>
> Hate to break it to you, John, but don't you realize quite a few
> people at these groups who _don't_ watch "B-G" likely are going to
> start watching the show, just out of curiosity, as a result of your
> ongoing blizzard of posts?

That's why he's doing it. He's obviously been paid by the BSG
producers to drum up publicity for their show by spamming
other newsgroups with tales of how BSG is full of sex.

Diane L.
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80484 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 17:50
doctor  
In article <P62Ce.31310$Qo.22721 [at] fed1read01>,
John Shocked <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" <nfitz [at] sentex> wrote in message
>news:42d846a4$1 [at] news.sentex.net...
>> In article <gwTBe.30058$Qo.21297 [at] fed1read01>,
>> John Shocked <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" <nfitz [at] sentex> wrote in message
>>>news:42d7e5d8$1 [at] news.sentex.net...
>>>> ... After many years of being in the red, the series is
>>>> now safely in the black; resulting in a 2-year renewal!! Isn't it great!
>>>Sounds like they have cut production costs ...
>> No, once again you are wrong. The budget is huge compared to what it
>> used to be. And appears to be going up.
>> Nick
>
>So what are the ratings for the show. How many people are watching
>this new incarnation of Dr. Who, compared to the competition ?
>
>Politics
>
>

OT in this case Troll.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Better to serve in Heaven that to Rule in Hell.
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80485 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 19:04
Snake  
"George Peatty" <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote in message
news:bu6id1521ra3ob67u969a7oq91m4tk8prb [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:37:06 GMT, "Snake"
> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>
>>Because they are so sexual insecure the thought of somebody finding them
>>attractive, in a different way than they are used to, scares the shit out
>>of
>>them. Plain, simple truth.
>
> Don't presume to speak for me about my sexuality or any issue related
> thereto. Arrogant bastard ..

Tough shit. The reason I gave is the predominant acknowledged psychological
profile of homophobia in the medical world. Here is an essay which sums up
the current situations regarding the study of the phenomena:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/ freud.html

Next time FIND OUT THE FACTS before you //attempt// to insult someone as not
knowing the information. If you cannot deal with the clinical foundation of
your homophobia then that is not my problem.
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80486 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 19:53
George Peatty  
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:04:59 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:

>Here is an essay which sums up
>the current situations regarding the study of the phenomena:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/ freud.html
>
>Next time FIND OUT THE FACTS before you //attempt// to insult someone as not
>knowing the information. If you cannot deal with the clinical foundation of
>your homophobia then that is not my problem.

From the very essay you cite:

BEGIN EXCERPT:

"Although negative attitudes and behaviors toward gay individuals have been
assumed to be associated with rigid moralistic beliefs, sexual ignorance,
and fear of homosexuality, the etiology of these attitudes and behaviors
remains a puzzle.

Although the causes of homophobia are unclear,

Whereas these notions are vague, psychoanalytic theories

Another explanation of these data is found in Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck's (
1983) theory of the role of anxiety and attention in sexual responding. It
is possible that viewing homosexual stimuli causes negative emotions such as
anxiety "

END EXCERPT

I'd hardly call this essay definitive .. Note the phrase "the etiology of
these attitudes and behaviors remains a puzzle."
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80488 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 21:12
nfitz  
In article <WumdnaeOsK0YhETfRVn-gg [at] rogers.com>,
manitou <manitou910 [at] rogers.com> wrote:
>John Shocked wrote:
>
>Hate to break it to you, John, but don't you realize quite a few people
>at these groups who _don't_ watch "B-G" likely are going to start
>watching the show, just out of curiosity, as a result of your ongoing
>blizzard of posts?

And so they should. It is absolutely excellent television. And
great sci-fi! (well, unless you don't like your plot lines including
emotion and feeling ... in which case, I'd stick to reruns of Lost
in Space!).

Nick
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80489 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 21:22
nfitz  
In article <P62Ce.31310$Qo.22721 [at] fed1read01>,
John Shocked <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>So what are the ratings for the show. How many people are watching
>this new incarnation of Dr. Who, compared to the competition ?

They have been very good. There's a good summary at:
http://www.gallifreyone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36275

The audience varied between 10.8 million at the start of the season, to
just under 7 million at the end. That in itself sounds negative, but
in the UK the television audience itself gets smaller into late June
as they take advantage of the good weather on a Sunday early evening.

What's most impressive is the share. They started with 45% (yes
that's 45% of the TV's in the UK tuned to Doctor Who), and ended
the season with 44%. These are absolutely incredible audiences in this
multi-channel age. Needless to say, it won it's timeslot, and
in the weekly ratings, it was only being beaten by the UK prime-time
soaps (Coronation Street, East Enders, Casualty, etc.).

It's a huge hit in the UK. Here is the announcement for Season 3, before
Season 1 finished airing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/409827 0.stm
"The announcement comes days before the current series - a huge ratings success for BBC One - reaches its end."

Nick
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80490 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 21:25
nfitz  
In article <bu6id1521ra3ob67u969a7oq91m4tk8prb [at] 4ax.com>,
George Peatty <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:37:06 GMT, "Snake"
><fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>
>>Because they are so sexual insecure the thought of somebody finding them
>>attractive, in a different way than they are used to, scares the shit out of
>>them. Plain, simple truth.
>
>Don't presume to speak for me about my sexuality or any issue related
>thereto. Arrogant bastard ..

Oh my ... that's funny. Come on, your posted both of those right?
The timing is too good.

Nick
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80491 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 21:27
nfitz  
In article <bl2Ce.31492$Qo.4294 [at] fed1read01>,
John Shocked <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>It is a difference in personal character between us.
>And when you extrapolate your demonstrated character to the sexual
>habits you support
>here, what would make you think your personal sexual character is any
>different than that
>which you have demonstrated in this thread ?

If I actually understood what you have written, I'd reply ... but I can't
parse it ... but I thought it would be rude of me not to say anything.

Nick
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80492 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 21:51
Elvis Gump FASTMAIL P  
in article bu6id1521ra3ob67u969a7oq91m4tk8prb [at] 4ax.com, George Peatty at
pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net wrote on 7/16/05 9:39 AM:

> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:37:06 GMT, "Snake"
> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>
>> Because they are so sexual insecure the thought of somebody finding them
>> attractive, in a different way than they are used to, scares the shit out of
>> them. Plain, simple truth.

> Don't presume to speak for me about my sexuality or any issue related
> thereto. Arrogant bastard ..

George probably is some closet case queer anyway given all the bile he seems
to have on the subject. Terrible thing for poor old George having an itch he
can never scratch...

Probably all started when he misread the penis mightier than the sword.
--
"You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi, you can leave in a huff.
If that's too soon, leave in a minute and a huff."
-- Groucho Marx
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80493 ] Sa, 16 Juli 2005 22:11
rgorman  
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:46:34 -0700, "John Shocked"
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

>"David Johnston" <rgorman [at] telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:42d66007.9239473 [at] news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:10:56 -0700, "John Shocked"
>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Framester" <chrisframe1 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h6bad1hpo7s3ejcndnnl8puj9ooht49vib [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:44:19 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Snipped boring stuff.
>>>> People like you will find menice in their own shadow.
>>>> Doctor Who had many more homosexual references and they weren't
>>>> cloaked in the least, that's if you buy what you said, which I don't.
>>>> Get a grip on yourself... or don't...
>>>Since what year has Dr. Who had this homosexual content ?
>> Well, this year. Captain Jack sees no reason to limit himself.
>
>So how are the English people reacting to this perversion of the Dr. Who storyline ?

It is getting record breaking ratings, although probably Captain
Jack's sexuality is not a significant factor.
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80495 ] So, 17 Juli 2005 00:39
pbowles  
>>Hang on ... even that's *one more than all the homosexual relationships
>>in the series put together*. That's the secret after all - BSG isn't
>>promoting homosexuality, it's promoting sex with robots.
>>
>>
>>Philip Bowles
>
>
>
>I really don't understand all this obsession with gay sex, and this is
>coming from someone who has detested for the most part the gay
>references and other sexual references in new Who. Why do people care
>what others do and why do they think just anyone can be influenced to
>engage in gay sex by what they see on TV? Are people's true sexuality
>and sexual identity that fragile?

>From the imagery Shocked uses it's clear he's trying to evoke emotions
of disgust as an 'argument' - or to put it another way, he thinks the
idea of homosexuality is disgusting, which he equates with making it
wrong, and therefore so should everyone else. As to why he's chosen to
thump his bible by holding up a show with absolutely no homosexual
subtext as an example rather than, say, one that actually features
homosexuality or references thereto is anyone's guess.

Philip Bowles
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80499 ] So, 17 Juli 2005 01:00
The Secretary of HomI  
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when Nicholas Fitzpatrick wrote:
> John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>It is a difference in personal character between us.
>>And when you extrapolate your demonstrated character to the sexual
>>habits you support
>>here, what would make you think your personal sexual character is any
>>different than that
>>which you have demonstrated in this thread ?
>
> If I actually understood what you have written, I'd reply ... but I can't
> parse it ... but I thought it would be rude of me not to say anything.

He's trying to be subtle about calling you "FAAAAAAAG!" I suppose, for an
American homophobe, he didn't do too badly.

--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80526 ] So, 17 Juli 2005 06:29
Framester  
On 16 Jul 2005 15:39:35 -0700, pbowles [at] aol.com wrote:

>>>Hang on ... even that's *one more than all the homosexual relationships
>>>in the series put together*. That's the secret after all - BSG isn't
>>>promoting homosexuality, it's promoting sex with robots.
>>>
>>>
>>>Philip Bowles
>>
>>
>>
>>I really don't understand all this obsession with gay sex, and this is
>>coming from someone who has detested for the most part the gay
>>references and other sexual references in new Who. Why do people care
>>what others do and why do they think just anyone can be influenced to
>>engage in gay sex by what they see on TV? Are people's true sexuality
>>and sexual identity that fragile?
>
>>From the imagery Shocked uses it's clear he's trying to evoke emotions
>of disgust as an 'argument' - or to put it another way, he thinks the
>idea of homosexuality is disgusting, which he equates with making it
>wrong, and therefore so should everyone else. As to why he's chosen to
>thump his bible by holding up a show with absolutely no homosexual
>subtext as an example rather than, say, one that actually features
>homosexuality or references thereto is anyone's guess.
>
>Philip Bowles

That boggles my mind as well.
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80538 ] So, 17 Juli 2005 15:46
doctor  
+----------+

| PLEASE |

| DO NOT |

| FEED THE |

| TROLLS |

+----------+

| |

| |

.\|.||/..

--
Member - Liberal International
This is doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Better to serve in Heaven that to Rule in Hell.
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80541 ] So, 17 Juli 2005 16:49
Framester  
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:46:50 +0000 (UTC), doctor [at] doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:

>+----------+
>
>| PLEASE |
>
>| DO NOT |
>
>| FEED THE |
>
>| TROLLS |
>
>+----------+
>
> | |
>
> | |
>
> .\|.||/..

We don't want you to starve Dave... ;)
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80544 ] So, 17 Juli 2005 17:13
joey the lemur  
In article <1121553575.736937.291530 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
pbowles [at] aol.com says...
> >>Hang on ... even that's *one more than all the homosexual relationships
> >>in the series put together*. That's the secret after all - BSG isn't
> >>promoting homosexuality, it's promoting sex with robots.
> >>
> >>
> >>Philip Bowles
> >
> >
> >
> >I really don't understand all this obsession with gay sex, and this is
> >coming from someone who has detested for the most part the gay
> >references and other sexual references in new Who. Why do people care
> >what others do and why do they think just anyone can be influenced to
> >engage in gay sex by what they see on TV? Are people's true sexuality
> >and sexual identity that fragile?
>
> >From the imagery Shocked uses it's clear he's trying to evoke emotions
> of disgust as an 'argument' - or to put it another way, he thinks the
> idea of homosexuality is disgusting, which he equates with making it
> wrong, and therefore so should everyone else. As to why he's chosen to
> thump his bible by holding up a show with absolutely no homosexual
> subtext as an example rather than, say, one that actually features
> homosexuality or references thereto is anyone's guess.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
>
Apparently there are ideas that he needs to believe are "facts", and
there are what the rest of the world knows are just unproven ideas; they
do not even qualify as theories since they cannot be, and are never
scientifically tested.

Although he insists on stating what he wants to believe, or needs to
believe is The Truth, I cam unable to recall any instance where he has
referred to one true, generally accepted fact. When presented with
alternative ideas he lapses into pseudo bibical references and
inferences to cloud his beligerance and intentional ignorance.

he really should be ignored, or at least stop using his name in our
rebuttals as he probably gets off reading his name in print - using his
name legitimizes his existance and his otherwise fanatical views. Not
using his name equates to denying he exists, and probably causes him
great frsutrations.
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80545 ] So, 17 Juli 2005 17:25
John Shocked  
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote in message news:%6bCe.2199$YD3.1392 [at] trndny03...
> "George Peatty" <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote in message news:bu6id1521ra3ob67u969a7oq91m4tk8prb [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:37:06 GMT, "Snake"
>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>>>Because they are so sexual insecure the thought of somebody finding them
>>>attractive, in a different way than they are used to, scares the shit out of them. Plain, simple truth.
>> Don't presume to speak for me about my sexuality or any issue related
>> thereto. Arrogant bastard ..
> Tough shit. The reason I gave is the predominant acknowledged psychological profile of homophobia in the medical world. Here is
> an essay which sums up the current situations regarding the study of the phenomena:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/ freud.html
> Next time FIND OUT THE FACTS before you //attempt// to insult someone as not knowing the information. If you cannot deal with the
> clinical foundation of your homophobia then that is not my problem.

More facts:

================================================
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03071405.html

Homosexual Unions Last Only 1.5 Years, Says New Study
AMSTERDAM, July 14, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As Canada and several U.S.
states move toward the legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage," a new study
has found that homosexual partnerships last, on average, only one-and-a-half years.

The study is based on the health records of young Dutch homosexuals by Dr. Maria Xiridou
of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service and published in the May issue of the
journal AIDS. It also found that men in homosexual relationships have an average of
eight partners a year outside their main partnership, adding more evidence to the
"stereotype" that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous.

The findings are "proof positive that these relationships ... will never be as stable as a
normal heterosexual relationship regardless of what institutions or laws are changed,"
said Pete LaBarbara, senior policy analyst at Concerned Women for
America's Culture and Family Institute, who predicts that homosexual promiscuity
will remain "rampant."
================================================

Politics
Re: Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica -- some of the case #2 [message #80554 ] So, 17 Juli 2005 21:17
doctor  
In article <50skd1hhmom1ngrh009075ec6kdn9qrqgq [at] 4ax.com>,
Framester <chrisframe1 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:46:50 +0000 (UTC), doctor [at] doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>(The Doctor) wrote:
>
>>+----------+
>>
>>| PLEASE |
>>
>>| DO NOT |
>>
>>| FEED THE |
>>
>>| TROLLS |
>>
>>+----------+
>>
>> | |
>>
>> | |
>>
>> .\|.||/..
>
>We don't want you to starve Dave... ;)

HA!HA!
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor [at] nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Better to serve in Heaven that to Rule in Hell.
Vorheriges Thema:OT: Intro to "Lost" For Star Trek Fans :-)
Nächstes Thema:OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 17:14:34 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,12879 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered