|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2
| Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #139133] |
Do, 29 September 2005 17:44 |
|
===================================
News Bulletin from www.scifi.com :
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue390/news.html
==========search 2/3 down page==========
Gaylactic Awards Presented
Organizers announced the winners of the Gaylactic Spectrum Awards,
created by the Gaylactic Network, an organization for gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender fans of SF, fantasy and horror.
The awards honor works that deal positively with gay characters,
themes and issues.
The Gaylactic Spectrum Awards Foundation was created in 2002 to
manage and further the mission of the awards to educate and raise
awareness of such content in SF&F. Awards were presented in three
categories for works originally released in 2003.
The 2004 Gaylactic Spectrum Awards were presented at the World
Science Fiction Convention in Boston on Sept. 5. A list of winners follows.
Best Novel
.. The Salt Roads by Nalo Hopkinson
Best Short Fiction
.. "Lark Till Dawn, Princess" by Barth Anderson
Best Other Work
.. Angels in America, by Tony Kushner, HBO, et al.
.. Gotham Central: Half a Life (issues 6-10), by Greg Rucka and Michael Lark
=====================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #139139 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 04:09 |
|
In article <7ZT_e.304066$E95.266148 [at] fed1read01>, John Shocked
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Organizers announced the winners of the Gaylactic Spectrum Awards
You're slipping, John.
You missed out on "Gaylactic RECTUM Awards"
Very poor performance. Ten points from Slytherin.
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #139153 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 10:38 |
|
They're just dirty ugly queers. Nobody's going to take anything they do
seriously. It's just the thought of them doing that dick-to-azzhole
act, man. And them swooning all over each other when they think they've
found the perfect prostrate wand. Nobody can stomach even the thought
of it. This and this alone will forever doom the faggot community from
being mainstream and accepted in a positive anything!
Here's to the future of normalcy in Sci-Fi.
IBen
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141301 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 14:07 |
|
If it offends, change the channel or turn the tube off but don't impose
your personal convictions on others.
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141310 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 20:27 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141312 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 21:52 |
|
On 30 Sep 2005 01:38:16 -0700, "IBen Getiner" <Lappcatt [at] aol.com>
wrote:
>They're just dirty ugly queers. Nobody's going to take anything they do
>seriously. It's just the thought of them doing that dick-to-azzhole
>act, man. And them swooning all over each other when they think they've
>found the perfect prostrate wand. Nobody can stomach even the thought
>of it. This and this alone will forever doom the faggot community from
>being mainstream and accepted in a positive anything!
>
Didn't just read that a gay republican is taking over for Delay
temporarily?
Zeligg
"Prayer has no place in the public schools,
just like facts have no place in organized religion."
- Superintendent Chalmers, The Simpsons
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141315 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 00:56 |
|
Red Shirt wrote:
> If it offends, change the channel or turn the tube off but don't impose
> your personal convictions on others.
No, no, no... We intend to continue to 'impose our personal convictions
on others' whether you like it or not. Because if we don't do it to
you, you'll do it to us in the long run. One day, we'll turn on our TVs
and we won't be able to find a channel without you mentally ill freaks
on it. Best to keep the power once you get it. The 1960s 'sexual
revolution' taught us that. The said the same things your saying now.
The mistake we made was giving them that first inch. They then took a
mile. Now you can't get away from the sex angle. It's on every
commercial, TV show, movie and magazine shelf. Chances are today that
your own 12 year old daughter is sexually active. You see, she has
heard of the sexual revolution, too.
Nope. We intend to CONTINUE to press our views on you. Just move to
another country if you don't like it.
IBen Getiner
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141322 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 05:01 |
|
The "sex angle" is hard-wired into humans along with the rest of the
animal kingdom so it pre-dates unmonitored media during thje 1960s, so
of course its all over the media, its also all over our genome. Sexual
revolution? Nah, more like expression revolution or the end of
suppressed expression.
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141339 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 16:44 |
|
We should be ignoring John Shocked. He's the internet equivalent of a
man shouting in a theater or restaurant. He's DISRUPTIVE and should be
ignored, not encouraged.
troy
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141343 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 19:43 |
|
<electrictroy [at] gmail.com> wrote in message news:1128177878.829501.103940 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> We should be ignoring John Shocked. He's the internet equivalent of a
> man shouting in a theater or restaurant. He's DISRUPTIVE and should be
> ignored, not encouraged.
> troy
This guy supports Sodomy on TV in BSG as per his instructions from Hollywood Homosexuals public relations headquarters.
If you agree with him that Sodomy is great and must be included in the BSG series, then work with him
to bring this goal to fruition.
If you do not agree with this goal, you should be offended that this guy thinks you are such a piece of trash that
he wants to con you into not listening to important information.
Remember, to this guy, you are nothing but a piece of trash to be manipulated, used, abused and/or run over.
This is how amoral, libertarian Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives operate.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141347 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 20:34 |
|
Yes, but we aren't animals. We are created in the image of God, whether you
like it or not.
Kees
"Red Shirt" <joseleslie [at] starpower.net> wrote in message
news:1128135678.385230.198960 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The "sex angle" is hard-wired into humans along with the rest of the
> animal kingdom so it pre-dates unmonitored media during thje 1960s, so
> of course its all over the media, its also all over our genome. Sexual
> revolution? Nah, more like expression revolution or the end of
> suppressed expression.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141353 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 03:26 |
|
Kees Boer wrote:
> Yes, but we aren't animals. We are created in the image of God, whether you
> like it or not.
..
Not me. I was created in the image of Zeus. Watch me throw lightening
bolts. (Point - Your God is no more real than my Zeus. Both are
man-made creations...like Santa Claus.)
troy
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141355 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 06:02 |
|
What are you talking about? God created the heavens and the earth and
everything that is in there in there in 6 days. He also created mankind,
including you.
Kees
<electrictroy [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128216381.611381.123240 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Kees Boer wrote:
>> Yes, but we aren't animals. We are created in the image of God, whether
>> you
>> like it or not.
>
> .
>
> Not me. I was created in the image of Zeus. Watch me throw lightening
> bolts. (Point - Your God is no more real than my Zeus. Both are
> man-made creations...like Santa Claus.)
>
> troy
>
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141357 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 07:36 |
|
"Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
news:wZI%e.82610$Sj1.38734 [at] okepread04...
> What are you talking about? God created the heavens and the earth and
> everything that is in there in there in 6 days. He also created mankind,
> including you.
>
>
Bull shit
speaking of which, even bull shit takes longer than six days to make
fozzi
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141362 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 08:38 |
|
"Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:
> What are you talking about? God created the heavens and the
> earth and everything that is in there in there in 6 days. He also
> created mankind, including you.
Sez who?
Oh, wait...I forgot. Sez a book that was written long after the events
in question allegedly happened. Not to the mention without the
accounts of any eyewitnesses, because, well, God hadn't invented
eyewitnesses yet.
Oh, wait...God must've told someone the story. But then, without
a corroborating eyewitness, how do we know that God wasn't
just telling a self-aggrandizing tall tale?
-- jayembee
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141364 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 08:58 |
|
Lappcatt [at] aol.com wrote:
> Red Shirt wrote:
> > If it offends, change the channel or turn the tube off but don't impose
> > your personal convictions on others.
>
> No, no, no... We intend to continue to 'impose our personal convictions
> on others' whether you like it or not. Because if we don't do it to
> you, you'll do it to us in the long run. One day, we'll turn on our TVs
> and we won't be able to find a channel without you mentally ill freaks
> on it. Best to keep the power once you get it. The 1960s 'sexual
> revolution' taught us that. The said the same things your saying now.
> The mistake we made was giving them that first inch. They then took a
> mile. Now you can't get away from the sex angle. It's on every
> commercial, TV show, movie and magazine shelf. Chances are today that
> your own 12 year old daughter is sexually active. You see, she has
> heard of the sexual revolution, too.
> Nope. We intend to CONTINUE to press our views on you. Just move to
> another country if you don't like it.
>
Are conservative parents so inept that they fear their kids will be
influenced more by TV?
>
>
> IBen Getiner
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141365 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 08:59 |
|
Kees Boer wrote:
> Yes, but we aren't animals. We are created in the image of God, whether you
> like it or not.
>
We are mammals, like it or not.
> Kees
>
> "Red Shirt" <joseleslie [at] starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:1128135678.385230.198960 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The "sex angle" is hard-wired into humans along with the rest of the
> > animal kingdom so it pre-dates unmonitored media during thje 1960s, so
> > of course its all over the media, its also all over our genome. Sexual
> > revolution? Nah, more like expression revolution or the end of
> > suppressed expression.
> >
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141370 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 11:16 |
|
"E.L. Chamberlain" <indexai [at] gmail.com> wrote in message news:1128236307.360294.147760 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Lappcatt [at] aol.com wrote:
>> Red Shirt wrote:
>> > If it offends, change the channel or turn the tube off but don't impose
>> > your personal convictions on others.
>> No, no, no... We intend to continue to 'impose our personal convictions
>> on others' whether you like it or not. Because if we don't do it to
>> you, you'll do it to us in the long run. One day, we'll turn on our TVs
>> and we won't be able to find a channel without you mentally ill freaks
>> on it. Best to keep the power once you get it. The 1960s 'sexual
>> revolution' taught us that. The said the same things your saying now.
>> The mistake we made was giving them that first inch. They then took a
>> mile. Now you can't get away from the sex angle. It's on every
>> commercial, TV show, movie and magazine shelf. Chances are today that
>> your own 12 year old daughter is sexually active. You see, she has
>> heard of the sexual revolution, too.
>> Nope. We intend to CONTINUE to press our views on you. Just move to
>> another country if you don't like it.
> Are conservative parents so inept that they fear their kids will be
> influenced more by TV?
>> IBen Getiner
All good parents are concerned about anything that could influence their child,
especially people on the neighborhood sex offender list.
The Scifi Channel should be put on that list.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141371 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 11:22 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message news:zuSdneBplrm0GaLeRVn-3w [at] comcast.com...
> PLEASE remove alt.startrek from all follow-ups. This is off topic for our NG.
Stop posting this crap in these threads. If you disagree with what is stated, state your disagreement or be quiet.
There is no question that these debates involve Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
and Gene Roddenberry, who had to deal with an aggressive campaign to sell Sodomy in his TV series
which eventually occurred after his Death in 1991, when Rick Berman, a determined Hollywood Homosexual,
took over.
And which resulted in the ratings going from a 13 (ST:TNG) to a 2. The 2 rating is now considered a science fiction hit.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141372 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 11:26 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message news:s5qdnSvL-I7hwaLeRVn-vw [at] comcast.com...
> Why is anybody still talking to John?
Simple. I am telling the truth and everyone here knows it.
You would be surprised how many people who watch Science fiction TV who really want
to see science fiction in the TV series they watch.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141375 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 13:06 |
|
Red Shirt wrote:
> The "sex angle" is hard-wired into humans along with the rest of the
> animal kingdom so it pre-dates unmonitored media during thje 1960s, so
> of course its all over the media, its also all over our genome. Sexual
> revolution? Nah, more like expression revolution or the end of
> suppressed expression.
Yes. But the only problem with your reasoning is... we are not animals.
God has created us in His image. But you don't believe in God, do
you..? That much, as far as organized atheism goes, DID come out of the
60s. And because of this shallow view of your own humanity, THAT is all
that sex is in your mind; An animal instinct. It is the same with every
other carnal impulse that happens down the pike.... Your lack of a
belief in a higher power makes it imperative that you also see nothing
as inherently evil. Hence your acceptance of vile and unnatural things
such as homosexuality.
It is only natural then, that you can't see the danger in exposing
children to something that powerful as sex. First you drag them away
from a belief in a higher power so they'll be no accounting to do...
Then you couple something as powerful as sex with the good ol' TV set,
and you gotta big hit on your hands. And you know it.
In that context (the pornographic context in which you live your
lives), the desire for sex is indeed nothing more that an appeal to a
person's base instincts. And THAT is where God comes in. He helps a
believer to weed out those nasty, hurtful little things before they
cause:
Divorce
Murder
Rape
Incest
Thievery
Lasciviousness
Self-abuse
Slander
The bearing of false witness
Jealousy
Gossip
Hatred
Strife
Greed
Envy
Evil ambitions
Bitterness
Unnatural desires
Etc., Etc., Etc.
You see, we understand your kind very well. Don't think that we can't
see you. You're as transparent as crystal. You are easy to spot because
of the way you live your lives (by your base instincts... something
totally reprehensible to the righteous). They make your path stand out
like a snail-trail on a salt slick.
To hell in a hand-basket is just where you're going. That much is for
certain. Just don't try to take the rest of us with you, please. We
won't hear of it!
IBen
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141376 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 13:13 |
|
jayembee wrote:
> "Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:
>
> > What are you talking about? God created the heavens and the
> > earth and everything that is in there in there in 6 days. He also
> > created mankind, including you.
>
> Sez who? Oh, wait...I forgot. Sez a book that was written long after
> the events in question allegedly happened. Not to the mention without the
> accounts of any eyewitnesses, because, well, God hadn't invented
> eyewitnesses yet.
..
You're both wrong. It was Zeus who created it. Prove me wrong. ;-)
troy
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141386 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 16:56 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JIN%e.322155$E95.122686 [at] fed1read01...
| "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:s5qdnSvL-I7hwaLeRVn-vw [at] comcast.com...
| > Why is anybody still talking to John?
|
| Simple. I am telling the truth and everyone here knows it.
| You would be surprised how many people who watch Science fiction TV who
really want
| to see science fiction in the TV series they watch.
|
| Politics
Actually, you're a humor-lacking dumbass with an obsession with
homosexuality that has surpassed normality into pathological insanity.
You see sodomy where none exists and invent sodomy where none occurs.
Anyone this obessed with seeing sodomy where none actually is even
hinted at puts you in the promotion crowd or the sales crowd or the lunatic
crowd. Given that you are a non-dynamic personality I suspect insanity
first and foremost.
--
Postscript: In a June, 1992 exclusive and published interview granted by
President George H. W. Bush to Sarah McClendon, the grand dame of the White
House press corps at the time:
"George Bush, what will the people do if they ever find out the truth about
Iraq-gate and Iran contra?"
"Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will
chase us down the streets and lynch us."
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141388 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 17:07 |
|
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
> What are you talking about? God created the heavens and the earth and
> everything that is in there in there in 6 days. He also created mankind,
> including you.
That's not the real god (would the real god contradict himself in
just the first 2 sections of genesis like that?).
--
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: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141390 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 17:21 |
|
On 2 Oct 2005 Lappcatt [at] aol.com wrote:
>
> Red Shirt wrote:
> > The "sex angle" is hard-wired into humans along with the rest of the
> > animal kingdom so it pre-dates unmonitored media during thje 1960s, so
> > of course its all over the media, its also all over our genome. Sexual
> > revolution? Nah, more like expression revolution or the end of
> > suppressed expression.
>
> Yes. But the only problem with your reasoning is... we are not animals.
By any reasonable definition of animals, humans are animals. Why
is that idea so offensive to some people?
> God has created us in His image.
So god has breasts and a penis? Kinky.
> But you don't believe in God, do you..?
I don't believe in the monstrous deity described in the bible.
That much, as far as organized atheism goes, DID come out of the
> 60s. And because of this shallow view of your own humanity, THAT is all
> that sex is in your mind; An animal instinct. It is the same with every
> other carnal impulse that happens down the pike.... Your lack of a
> belief in a higher power makes it imperative that you also see nothing
> as inherently evil. Hence your acceptance of vile and unnatural things
> such as homosexuality.
Not believing in your version of god doesn't make someone an
atheist.
> It is only natural then, that you can't see the danger in exposing
> children to something that powerful as sex.
What do you see as more dangerous: exposing children to hatred
and violence, or exposing them to sex?
> First you drag them away
> from a belief in a higher power so they'll be no accounting to do...
I find it very interesting that bible-worshipers such as yourself
apparently only believe in god because they're afraid of punishment. If
only you tried to teach your children empathy rather than fear...
> Then you couple something as powerful as sex with the good ol' TV set,
> and you gotta big hit on your hands. And you know it.
> In that context (the pornographic context in which you live your
> lives), the desire for sex is indeed nothing more that an appeal to a
> person's base instincts. And THAT is where God comes in. He helps a
> believer to weed out those nasty, hurtful little things before they
> cause:
> Divorce
> Murder
> Rape
> Incest
> Thievery
> Lasciviousness
> Self-abuse
> Slander
> The bearing of false witness
> Jealousy
> Gossip
> Hatred
> Strife
> Greed
> Envy
> Evil ambitions
> Bitterness
> Unnatural desires
Are you aware that pretty much all of those things are more common
in the most "godly" states in the union, i.e. the South?
> You see, we understand your kind very well. Don't think that we can't
> see you. You're as transparent as crystal. You are easy to spot because
> of the way you live your lives (by your base instincts... something
> totally reprehensible to the righteous). They make your path stand out
> like a snail-trail on a salt slick.
> To hell in a hand-basket is just where you're going. That much is for
> certain. Just don't try to take the rest of us with you, please. We
> won't hear of it!
Such hatred and intolerance--I bet if Jesus saw you saying such
things, he'd cry.
--
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: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141391 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 17:22 |
|
On 2 Oct 2005 electrictroy [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> jayembee wrote:
> > "Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:
> >
> > > What are you talking about? God created the heavens and the
> > > earth and everything that is in there in there in 6 days. He also
> > > created mankind, including you.
> >
> > Sez who? Oh, wait...I forgot. Sez a book that was written long after
> > the events in question allegedly happened. Not to the mention without the
> > accounts of any eyewitnesses, because, well, God hadn't invented
> > eyewitnesses yet.
>
> .
>
> You're both wrong. It was Zeus who created it. Prove me wrong. ;-)
I haven't seen a good smiting of an unbeliever in a long time. If
Zeus is still around, he's retired.
--
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: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141393 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 18:12 |
|
"Beth Smarr" <beth.smarr [at] verizon.net> wrote in message news:1kQ%e.1851$ka6.1531 [at] trnddc03...
> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>> PLEASE remove alt.startrek from all follow-ups. This is off topic for our NG.
> It is off topic for all sensible folks on or off line.
> Beth
============================================================ ===========
============================================================ ===========
There is no question Sodomy symbolism is pervasive in BSG. But they want it subtle, just like
this guy Gerrold was trying to sneak into the Star Trek script. Gene Roddenberry caught the
Sodomy reference at the last minute and fired him.
Here is an account of how one homosexual activist scriptwriter working in Hollywood fought
to pressure Gene Roddenberry into putting Sodomy into Star Trek.
Mostly in his own words, so much of it may not be true.
============================================================ =========
http://www.omnivore.org/jon/orwell/2001/Gay%20Trek/Gay%20Tre k.htm
A few months later, in late 1986, Gerrold began work on "Blood and Fire," his first -- and, as things turned
out, only -- "Next Generation" script. In the story, Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his Enterprise D answer a call
from a distressed medical research vessel. When the mission team beams over, it finds that the ship's crew is
infected with "Regulan blood worms," an apparently incurable pathogen so deadly that Starfleet Command has
ordered its officers to destroy any ship they contaminate.
Aside from its obvious reference to AIDS, the script also contained a casual nod to homosexuality. "How long
have you been together?" Commander Will Riker asks a pair of male officers who accompany him to the
blood-worm-stricken ship.
"Since the academy," one replies.
"This was during one of the worst parts of the AIDS crisis," Gerrold says. "Before protease inhibitors, before
AZT. AIDS was not a treatable condition; it was a fatal disease. And the fear of it was widespread, so much so
that blood donorship had reached critically low levels.
"On a more personal note, Michael Minor [art director for 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan'] and Merritt Butrick
[who played Kirk's son in the 'Star Trek' movies] were also infected."
In Gerrold's script, curing the disease required a complete blood transfusion. To treat the infected, the
worried Enterprise D crew was asked to donate blood. "I felt this plot point would raise the consciousness of 20
million 'Star Trek' fans overnight," says Gerrold. "In fact, I was hoping that we could put a card at the end of
the episode encouraging people to donate blood."
Gerrold never got a chance to lobby for that card. After a series of arguments with Roddenberry's underlings,
Gerrold quit the show, and the episode was permanently shelved. Gerrold says, half-joking, that the script got
caught up in "orifice politics."
The breakup was bitter. Roddenberry, who had sent Gerrold a telegram congratulating him on "Blood and Fire"
("Everybody loves your script"), now began badmouthing his work at "Star Trek" conventions.
"A large part of the problem was that Gene's health was failing," Gerrold says. "He didn't have the physical
strength he needed -- and he was experiencing mental lapses as well."
============================================================ ===========
Note how this last statement this homosexual activist scriptwriter makes about Gene Roddenberry after his death falls
into the category of "speaking ill of the dead" and is considered immoral. However, this is a clear cut calling card
of those supporting the homosexual agenda. I know of no other group of people which engages in that
commonly agreed upon to be immoral behavior anywhere near as often as Hollywood Homosexuals.
============================================================ ============
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141395 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 18:33 |
|
"George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message news:11jvt9hh1hfm965 [at] corp.supernews.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:JIN%e.322155$E95.122686 [at] fed1read01...
> | "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
> news:s5qdnSvL-I7hwaLeRVn-vw [at] comcast.com...
> | > Why is anybody still talking to John?
> | Simple. I am telling the truth and everyone here knows it.
> | You would be surprised how many people who watch Science fiction TV
> | who really want to see science fiction in the TV series they watch.
> | Politics
> Actually, you're a humor-lacking dumbass with an obsession with
> homosexuality that has surpassed normality into pathological insanity.
More personal attacks.
It is BSG which has the obsession with homosexuality. They are determined to sell that
subtext to you and your kids as 'OK'.
> You see sodomy where none exists and invent sodomy where none occurs.
> Anyone this obsessed with seeing sodomy where none actually is even
> hinted at puts you in the promotion crowd or the sales crowd or the lunatic
> crowd. Given that you are a non-dynamic personality I suspect insanity
> first and foremost.
More personal attacks, veiled advertisements for the psychiatric industry and the drugs
they sell, which are gateway drugs to the drugs sold by Organized Crime.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141398 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 19:44 |
|
"Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
news:EEA%e.82593$Sj1.25098 [at] okepread04...
> Yes, but we aren't animals. We are created in the image of God, whether
> you like it or not.
>
> Kees
>
> "Red Shirt" <joseleslie [at] starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:1128135678.385230.198960 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> The "sex angle" is hard-wired into humans along with the rest of the
>> animal kingdom so it pre-dates unmonitored media during thje 1960s, so
>> of course its all over the media, its also all over our genome. Sexual
>> revolution? Nah, more like expression revolution or the end of
>> suppressed expression.
God only exists in your tiny little head.
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141403 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 21:35 |
|
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 13:44:23 -0400, "Nog" <nognog [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>God only exists in your tiny little head.
That statement assumes a self-sustaining universe. One that is not
self-sustaining requires a Sustainer for everything else that dwells
therein.
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141404 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 21:12 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cZT%e.322184$E95.141358 [at] fed1read01...
| "George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message
news:11jvt9hh1hfm965 [at] corp.supernews.com...
| > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:JIN%e.322155$E95.122686 [at] fed1read01...
| > | "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
| > news:s5qdnSvL-I7hwaLeRVn-vw [at] comcast.com...
| > | > Why is anybody still talking to John?
| > | Simple. I am telling the truth and everyone here knows it.
| > | You would be surprised how many people who watch Science fiction TV
| > | who really want to see science fiction in the TV series they watch.
| > | Politics
| > Actually, you're a humor-lacking dumbass with an obsession with
| > homosexuality that has surpassed normality into pathological insanity.
|
| More personal attacks.
Because *YOU ARE NUTSO*.
Whom else should I attack for your failings of character, personality,
and education?
| It is BSG which has the obsession with homosexuality. They are determined
to sell that
| subtext to you and your kids as 'OK'.
|
| > You see sodomy where none exists and invent sodomy where none occurs.
| > Anyone this obsessed with seeing sodomy where none actually is even
| > hinted at puts you in the promotion crowd or the sales crowd or the
lunatic
| > crowd. Given that you are a non-dynamic personality I suspect insanity
| > first and foremost.
|
| More personal attacks, veiled advertisements for the psychiatric industry
and the drugs
| they sell, which are gateway drugs to the drugs sold by Organized Crime.
|
| Politics
Given that *I* did not mention drugs whatsoever in the last post proves
my point.
You alone mentioned drugs, assumed them as a bludgeon, and tried to
whack off with it. *ONLY YOU*
Your fucked up brain creates connections to things that weren't even
mentioned or hinted at in the previous post.
--
Postscript: In a June, 1992 exclusive and published interview granted by
President George H. W. Bush to Sarah McClendon, the grand dame of the White
House press corps at the time:
"George Bush, what will the people do if they ever find out the truth about
Iraq-gate and Iran contra?"
"Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will
chase us down the streets and lynch us."
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141412 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 05:27 |
|
"George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message news:11k0jvocpmsfna7 [at] corp.supernews.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cZT%e.322184$E95.141358 [at] fed1read01...
> | "George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message
> news:11jvt9hh1hfm965 [at] corp.supernews.com...
> | > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:JIN%e.322155$E95.122686 [at] fed1read01...
> | > | "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
> | > news:s5qdnSvL-I7hwaLeRVn-vw [at] comcast.com...
> | > | > Why is anybody still talking to John?
> | > | Simple. I am telling the truth and everyone here knows it.
> | > | You would be surprised how many people who watch Science fiction TV
> | > | who really want to see science fiction in the TV series they watch.
> | > | Politics
> | > Actually, you're a humor-lacking dumbass with an obsession with
> | > homosexuality that has surpassed normality into pathological insanity.
> | More personal attacks.
> Because *YOU ARE NUTSO*.
> Whom else should I attack for your failings of character, personality, and education?
Why attack anyone, when the fact is that all my statements here are the truth and if you dispute the
accuracy of the statements, you are free to state those claimed errors and seek redress.
> | It is BSG which has the obsession with homosexuality. They are determined
> to sell that
> | subtext to you and your kids as 'OK'.
> | > You see sodomy where none exists and invent sodomy where none occurs.
> | > Anyone this obsessed with seeing sodomy where none actually is even
> | > hinted at puts you in the promotion crowd or the sales crowd or the lunatic
> | > crowd. Given that you are a non-dynamic personality I suspect insanity
> | > first and foremost.
> | More personal attacks, veiled advertisements for the psychiatric industry and the drugs
> | they sell, which are gateway drugs to the drugs sold by Organized Crime.
> | Politics
> Given that *I* did not mention drugs whatsoever in the last post proves my point.
> You alone mentioned drugs, assumed them as a bludgeon, and tried to whack off with it. *ONLY YOU*
> Your fucked up brain creates connections to things that weren't even
> mentioned or hinted at in the previous post.
Are you a psychiatrist, and if not how could you make a diagnosis of "insanity" unless that was your
public relations and sales job here to throw around these terms in order
to encourage use of psychiatrists and sales of psychiatric drugs.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141417 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 06:34 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
> "Beth Smarr" wrote...
>> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>> PLEASE remove alt.startrek from all follow-ups. This is off topic for
>>> our NG.
>> It is off topic for all sensible folks on or off line.
>> Beth
Removing alt.startrek (or any other group) from the newsgroups or followups
lines doesn't work -- he just puts it back in again in his replies, and he
replies to everything. He's a really *determined* troll/k00k...
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
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: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141419 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 07:45 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051002110908.7769I-100000 [at] mail...
> On 2 Oct 2005 Lappcatt [at] aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Red Shirt wrote:
>> > The "sex angle" is hard-wired into humans along with the rest of the
>> > animal kingdom so it pre-dates unmonitored media during thje 1960s, so
>> > of course its all over the media, its also all over our genome. Sexual
>> > revolution? Nah, more like expression revolution or the end of
>> > suppressed expression.
>>
>> Yes. But the only problem with your reasoning is... we are not animals.
>
> By any reasonable definition of animals, humans are animals. Why
> is that idea so offensive to some people?
>
Well, in some ways, if you look at it purely biologically, we are like
animals. But then there is a huge difference between an animal and a human.
We have spirits and animals don't.
>> God has created us in His image.
>
> So god has breasts and a penis? Kinky.
No, we are made of three parts, body, soul, and spirit. God is a Triune
Being. God, The Father, God, The Son, and God, the Holy Spirit.
>
>> But you don't believe in God, do you..?
>
> I don't believe in the monstrous deity described in the bible.
Have you ever read the entire Bible? Also, what part of a Biblical God do
you not believe in?
>
> That much, as far as organized atheism goes, DID come out of the
>> 60s. And because of this shallow view of your own humanity, THAT is all
>> that sex is in your mind; An animal instinct. It is the same with every
>> other carnal impulse that happens down the pike.... Your lack of a
>> belief in a higher power makes it imperative that you also see nothing
>> as inherently evil. Hence your acceptance of vile and unnatural things
>> such as homosexuality.
>
> Not believing in your version of god doesn't make someone an
> atheist.
That's true.
>
>> It is only natural then, that you can't see the danger in exposing
>> children to something that powerful as sex.
>
> What do you see as more dangerous: exposing children to hatred
> and violence, or exposing them to sex?
>
Both of them are dangerous. Sex is made to be used in the confides of
marriage as a Sacred union between a husband and wife. Not to be flaunted
about.
>> First you drag them away
>> from a belief in a higher power so they'll be no accounting to do...
>
> I find it very interesting that bible-worshipers such as yourself
> apparently only believe in god because they're afraid of punishment. If
> only you tried to teach your children empathy rather than fear...
>
Where did you get that idea from?
>> Then you couple something as powerful as sex with the good ol' TV set,
>> and you gotta big hit on your hands. And you know it.
>> In that context (the pornographic context in which you live your
>> lives), the desire for sex is indeed nothing more that an appeal to a
>> person's base instincts. And THAT is where God comes in. He helps a
>> believer to weed out those nasty, hurtful little things before they
>> cause:
>> Divorce
>> Murder
>> Rape
>> Incest
>> Thievery
>> Lasciviousness
>> Self-abuse
>> Slander
>> The bearing of false witness
>> Jealousy
>> Gossip
>> Hatred
>> Strife
>> Greed
>> Envy
>> Evil ambitions
>> Bitterness
>> Unnatural desires
>
> Are you aware that pretty much all of those things are more common
> in the most "godly" states in the union, i.e. the South?
>
Where did you hear that? And even if so, I'm not sure that you can really
say that the South consists out of the most "Godly" states in the Union.
>> You see, we understand your kind very well. Don't think that we can't
>> see you. You're as transparent as crystal. You are easy to spot because
>> of the way you live your lives (by your base instincts... something
>> totally reprehensible to the righteous). They make your path stand out
>> like a snail-trail on a salt slick.
>> To hell in a hand-basket is just where you're going. That much is for
>> certain. Just don't try to take the rest of us with you, please. We
>> won't hear of it!
>
> Such hatred and intolerance--I bet if Jesus saw you saying such
> things, he'd cry.
>
Jesus gave His life for you, so that you wouldn't go to Hell. It is not
God's desire for you to spend an eternity seperated from Him. He wants all
to be saved, that's why He gave His Son. There is no gloating over any one
going to Hell. The facts are clear though. You have sinned. If you were to
pay for your sin, you'd have to spend an eternity in hell. To go to heaven,
you must be perfect, hence your own efforts and good works can never get you
there. God wants you in heaven, but your sin is the problem. Thus God send
His Son, Jesus Christ to die on a cross for you, so that if you simply trust
Him as the One, Who paid for your sin, you can be totally forgiven and be
assured that you are going to heaven after you die.
Kees
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141420 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 08:28 |
|
"Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:
>>> Yes. But the only problem with your reasoning is... we are not animals.
>>
>> By any reasonable definition of animals, humans are animals. Why
>> is that idea so offensive to some people?
>>
> Well, in some ways, if you look at it purely biologically, we are like
> animals.
No, we are not "like" animals. We *are* animals. If you look at it purely
biologically, life is divided into two Kingdoms: Animal and Vegetable.
Humans are part of the Animal Kingdom.
> But then there is a huge difference between an animal and a human.
> We have spirits and animals don't.
How do you know they don't?
-- jayembee
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141421 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 08:46 |
|
"jayembee" <jayembeenospam [at] snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:9mj1k1t58072h1ctbhq22cc6ergttl1p8t [at] 4ax.com...
> "Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes. But the only problem with your reasoning is... we are not animals.
>>>
>>> By any reasonable definition of animals, humans are animals. Why
>>> is that idea so offensive to some people?
>>>
>> Well, in some ways, if you look at it purely biologically, we are like
>> animals.
I could kind of accept that. I actually wrote that before. But man is so
much more than just the Biological part of him/her.
>
> No, we are not "like" animals. We *are* animals. If you look at it purely
> biologically, life is divided into two Kingdoms: Animal and Vegetable.
> Humans are part of the Animal Kingdom.
>
>> But then there is a huge difference between an animal and a human.
>> We have spirits and animals don't.
>
> How do you know they don't?
Humans have the capability of worship. Take for instance this newsgroup,
devoted to a show, where people come discuss it and say what they like about
it. You don't see that with animals. The Bible describes us as having a
body, soul, and spirit.
Kees
>
> -- jayembee
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141436 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 17:03 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Vy10f.322245$E95.269053 [at] fed1read01...
[clipped]
| > | More personal attacks, veiled advertisements for the psychiatric
industry and the drugs
| > | they sell, which are gateway drugs to the drugs sold by Organized
Crime.
| > | Politics
| > Given that *I* did not mention drugs whatsoever in the last post
proves my point.
| > You alone mentioned drugs, assumed them as a bludgeon, and tried to
whack off with it. *ONLY YOU*
| > Your fucked up brain creates connections to things that weren't even
| > mentioned or hinted at in the previous post.
|
| Are you a psychiatrist, and if not how could you make a diagnosis of
"insanity" unless that was your
| public relations and sales job here to throw around these terms in order
| to encourage use of psychiatrists and sales of psychiatric drugs.
|
| Politics
Aha, so *YOU HAVE OUTTED YOURSELF AS A SCIENTOLOGIST*!
An ordinary person can easily see that you are pathologically obsessive,
making up fantastic claims with zero proof to back up those claims,
inventing crap to justify your insanity, and generally being an asshole all
around.
You alone are the dumbass so knock it off.
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141441 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 18:46 |
|
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 13:44:23 -0400, "Nog" <nognog [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >God only exists in your tiny little head.
>
> That statement assumes a self-sustaining universe. One that is not
> self-sustaining requires a Sustainer for everything else that dwells
> therein.
Why do you think the universe isn't self-sustaining?
--
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: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141442 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 18:56 |
|
It couldn't be selfsustaining.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics demands that everything goes down from
order to disorder.
Thus there is an indirect relationship between time and order, or if you
were to graph it, you would have a continual negative slope. This demands
that in eternity past, it had to come from something eternally perfect and
full of order.
Otherwise, we're left to a one time event, which created it. Either way, the
universe had to come from Something Perfect, which is true. God created the
heavens and the earth.
Kees
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051003124550.7769R-100000 [at] mail...
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 13:44:23 -0400, "Nog" <nognog [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> >God only exists in your tiny little head.
>>
>> That statement assumes a self-sustaining universe. One that is not
>> self-sustaining requires a Sustainer for everything else that dwells
>> therein.
>
> Why do you think the universe isn't self-sustaining?
>
> --
> 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: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #141443 ] |
Mo, 03 Oktober 2005 18:55 |
|
It couldn't be selfsustaining.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics demands that everything goes down from
order to disorder.
Thus there is an indirect relationship between time and order, or if you
were to graph it, you would have a continual negative slope. This demands
that in eternity past, it had to come from something eternally perfect and
full of order.
Otherwise, we're left to a one time event, which created it. Either way, the
universe had to come from Something Perfect, which is true. God created the
heavens and the earth.
Kees
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051003124550.7769R-100000 [at] mail...
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 13:44:23 -0400, "Nog" <nognog [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> >God only exists in your tiny little head.
>>
>> That statement assumes a self-sustaining universe. One that is not
>> self-sustaining requires a Sustainer for everything else that dwells
>> therein.
>
> Why do you think the universe isn't self-sustaining?
>
> --
> 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
>
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 05:11:02 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,20764 Sekunden |
