BSG Sodomy deviant scene again
John Shocked
diehard faithful supporters of this series' perversity.
In a scene in which Sharon-Boomer is being tortured for Cylon information by officials selected by the
sex-changed Admiral Cain, the interrogator is just about to commit the act of Sodomy Rape on this prisoner,
his flies unzipped and at the point of Sodomite entry, when he is stopped by her two bestialsex lovers.
Sodomy supporters and the Hollywood Homosexuals with a stranglehold on the script of this BSG series
must have been jumping around and slapping high fives to foist this
deviant Sodomy muck on the Science Fiction TV seeking public yet again.
Remember: if you support Sodomy, and all the other deviant right wing libertarian
Organized Crime ACLU behaviors which are aligned with Sodomy like Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution etc,
then you are smart to support this BSG series.
However, if you do not support Sodomy and the other related deviant behavior, and yet still support
this BSG series, then you are telling the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals that you are just the chump
they want you to be.
And remember, to them you are nothing more than a piece of trash, to be used, abused and/or run over.
And you will never be anything more than that to them.
And those wealthy fatcat BSG Hollywood Homosexuals make their living off
chumps/stooges. You think these wealthy fatcats are going to specially stop off their
private jet, chauffeur to your house, shake your hand and thank you for
defending their right to pervert you and your kid ? You are just another piece
of trash to be manipulated and run over as far as they are concerned.
The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) needs to step in on deviant
Hollywood Homosexual TV series like BSG and ban the deviant content outright.
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
Jim Phillips
> The current BSG episode, Pegasus, ends the season with another dose of Sodomy for the
> diehard faithful supporters of this series' perversity.
>
> In a scene in which Sharon-Boomer is being tortured for Cylon information by officials selected by the
> sex-changed Admiral Cain, the interrogator is just about to commit the act of Sodomy Rape on this prisoner,
> his flies unzipped and at the point of Sodomite entry, when he is stopped by her two bestialsex lovers.
Not all heterosexual sex is the Judaeo-Christian "Man on top get
it over with" variety. Unfortunately I can understand why you'd get all
excited at a scene like that one...
snip
--
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
Stephen Fairchild
John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
Have a nice day.
--
Stephen Fairchild
Holliston Perni
selector or an on-off switch. It's no wonder people are getting a bit tired
of these self-righteous perverts with their fixation on other peoples'
sexual practices.
Hollis,
http://www.AmericanJunta.com
"John Shocked" <jsho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MqaZe.266030$E95.154960@fed1read01...
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Tommy
her in that position doesn't mean he has to put it in the hershey highway.
"Holliston Perni" <hpe...@AmericanJunta.com> wrote in message
news:43357e87$0$6951$b9f6...@news.newsdemon.com...
John Shocked
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> The current BSG episode, Pegasus, ends the season with another dose of Sodomy for the
>> diehard faithful supporters of this series' perversity.
>> In a scene in which Sharon-Boomer is being tortured for Cylon information by officials selected by the
>> sex-changed Admiral Cain, the interrogator is just about to commit the act of Sodomy Rape on this prisoner,
>> his flies unzipped and at the point of Sodomite entry, when he is stopped by her two bestialsex lovers.
> Not all heterosexual sex is the Judaeo-Christian "Man on top get
> it over with" variety. Unfortunately I can understand why you'd get all
> excited at a scene like that one...
> snip
This is TV, where symbolism dominates. If they wanted to present normal sexual entry, they would have
chosen a different position and system of restraints on the Sharon-Boomer prisoner. Sodomy was the clear
symbolism which BSG intended with this scene.
And "normal sex" has nothing to do with religion. It is based on nature, a primal force which predates all religion.
Politics
John Shocked
Again, if you support Sodomy and the homosexual agenda, then you are smart to support
this BSG series. Weak minds are the target of this Sodomy campaign in the BSG series.
Especially minds weak enough not to have noticed the Sodomy symbolism in that scene.
Is your mind weak ?
Politics
John Shocked
> getting a bit tired of these self-righteous perverts with their fixation on other peoples' sexual practices.
> Hollis,
> http://www.AmericanJunta.com
You really think that the US people should provide you and other Hollywood Homosexual supporters
access to their kids and home to pervert their kids to Sodomy, Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution ?
You really think if the US public had a choice in the matter on a national ballot question that they
would allow this libertarian Sodomy and Organized Crime/ACLU indoctrination to continue ?
Politics
=========================================================
John Shocked
> He could go for the pink or the stink in that position. Just because he has her in that position doesn't mean he has to put it in
> the hershey highway.
This is TV, where symbolism dominates. If they wanted to present normal sexual entry, they would have
chosen a different position and system of restraints on the Sharon-Boomer prisoner. Sodomy was the clear
symbolism which BSG intended with this scene.
And "normal sex" has nothing to do with religion. It is based on nature, a primal force which predates all religion.
Politics
==========================================================
L. Michael Roberts
John Shocked wrote:
> "Jim Phillips" <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050924095258.10228D-100000@mail...
>
>>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
<snip>
> And "normal sex" has nothing to do with religion. It is based on nature, a primal force which predates all religion.
BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
By Bruce Bagemihl
St. Martin's Press,
771 pages
Sex still defies explanation. Some Darwinists think they have an answer
to the riddles of sex, though not all agree on what that answer is. But
if standard sexual behaviour is so hard to explain, then how can we
possibly fit non-standard couplings into the Darwinian system? (By
"non-standard" sexuality I mean any sexual activity the Rev. Jerry
Falwell might denounce.) Homosexual behaviour, for instance, makes no
pretence of producing any offspring at all. If it were caused by some
genetic mutation, then it should have been wiped out generations ago.
Yet despite Darwinian reasoning, non-standard sexuality persists in the
human race. According to former University of British Columbia
biologist-linguist Bruce Bagemihl, in his new book Biological
Exuberance,*zoologists have frequently reported and photographed
same-sex couplings throughout the animal kingdom*. His book contains an
account of these observations, together with his own explanatory viewpoint.
Biological Exuberance offers an extensive catalogue of animal behaviours
that fail to meet with Western civilization's religious approval, and
foil even neo-Darwinist theories. Bagemihl shows, in detail, that
ethologists worldwide have observed, in natural settings, *at least 450
species* of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and insects *engaging in
frequent non-standard romps and frolics*. He admits that the listings
are incomplete. Nonetheless, he says, these reports "expose the hidden
assumptions behind the way biology looks at natural systems." Chief
among these false assumptions seems to be the rule that sex ought to
occur for breeding only, and then only in heterosexual pairs, with the
male on top.
Bagemihl concedes at the start of his vast work, "Any book on
homosexuality and transgender in animals is necessarily unfinished."
<emphasis added>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
The Watch Dog
sex. John: sodomy (if by that you mean anal intercourse) can be
performed with one partner behind the other or the partners
face-to-face. This is true regardless of whether the partners are two
men or a man and a woman (or two women using a dildo, for that matter).
"Normal sex" (if by that you mean penile-vaginal intercourse) can be
conducted with the partners face-to-face, or with the male partner
behind the female partner.
Read an anatomy book, man! Get some education!
And symbolism doesn't rule in television. Television is absurdly
literal.
dwacôn
> Sodomy for the
> diehard faithful supporters of this series' perversity.
It ain't sodomy between a man and a woman.
--
These ain't Mentos... but they'll freshen your breath!
http://tinyurl.com/cr5ka
Dennis Kemmerer
"dwacôn" <six.m...@dollar.man> wrote in message
news:FcmZe.88825$Zp.50522@lakeread04...
>
> "John Shocked" <jsho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MqaZe.266030$E95.154960@fed1read01...
>> The current BSG episode, Pegasus, ends the season with another dose of
>> Sodomy for the
>> diehard faithful supporters of this series' perversity.
>
> It ain't sodomy between a man and a woman.
According to Merriam-Webster, sodomy can take place between opposite-sex
humans, as well as between a human and non-human animal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sodomy
manitou
> John Shocked wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber
quotes an email from a fan woh explicitly requests a gay relationship on
the show.
BTW, I've now seen the miniseries and the first six eps of S1, and the
sex seems totally hetero...
C.
Cyde Weys
L. Michael Roberts wrote:
> > And "normal sex" has nothing to do with religion. It is based on nature, a primal force which predates all religion.
>
> BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
>
> By Bruce Bagemihl
> St. Martin's Press,
> 771 pages
>
> Sex still defies explanation. Some Darwinists think they have an answer
> to the riddles of sex, though not all agree on what that answer is. But
> if standard sexual behaviour is so hard to explain, then how can we
> possibly fit non-standard couplings into the Darwinian system? (By
> "non-standard" sexuality I mean any sexual activity the Rev. Jerry
> Falwell might denounce.) Homosexual behaviour, for instance, makes no
> pretence of producing any offspring at all. If it were caused by some
> genetic mutation, then it should have been wiped out generations ago.
>
> Yet despite Darwinian reasoning, non-standard sexuality persists in the
> human race.
If you think evolution discounts homosexual activities, you've got
something else coming. I'm handing you over to the Talk.Origins Clue
Stick Bludgeoning Brigade.
Cyde Weys
> "Tommy" <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:G3jZe.32276$TA2....@fe09.lga...
> > He could go for the pink or the stink in that position. Just because he has her in that position doesn't mean he has to put it in
> > the hershey highway.
>
>
> This is TV, where symbolism dominates. If they wanted to present normal sexual entry, they would have
> chosen a different position and system of restraints on the Sharon-Boomer prisoner. Sodomy was the clear
> symbolism which BSG intended with this scene.
> And "normal sex" has nothing to do with religion. It is based on nature, a primal force which predates all religion.
This is all hypothetical ...
If you're going to rape someone and the only furniture you have is a
narrow bench, just about the only way you CAN do it is by tying them
over it. I can't think of any reasonable way to do it with them
face-up.
rja.ca...@excite.com
Cyde Weys wrote:
> Read on further.
>
>
> L. Michael Roberts wrote:
> > > And "normal sex" has nothing to do with religion. It is based on nature, a primal force which predates all religion.
> >
> > BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
> >
> > By Bruce Bagemihl
> > St. Martin's Press,
> > 771 pages
> >
> > Sex still defies explanation. Some Darwinists think they have an answer
> > to the riddles of sex, though not all agree on what that answer is. But
> > if standard sexual behaviour is so hard to explain, then how can we
> > possibly fit non-standard couplings into the Darwinian system? (By
> > "non-standard" sexuality I mean any sexual activity the Rev. Jerry
> > Falwell might denounce.) Homosexual behaviour, for instance, makes no
> > pretence of producing any offspring at all. If it were caused by some
> > genetic mutation, then it should have been wiped out generations ago.
> >
> > Yet despite Darwinian reasoning, non-standard sexuality persists in the
> > human race.
>
> If you think evolution discounts homosexual activities, you've got
> something else coming. I'm handing you over to the Talk.Origins Clue
> Stick Bludgeoning Brigade.
Leaving aside the question of "rehearsal", here's a British
conservative newspaper's mighty oversimplification -
"Homosexuality is a natural side-effect of genetic factors that help
women to have more children, a study suggests." Apparently "the
so-called 'gay gene', Xq28" is included.
This was suggested by a 15 year old school student.
At the same Web address, something else arresting. "Lesbian Japanese
monkeys challenge Darwin's assumptions." Yeah, but are they
accredited? "Homosexuality in animals - at least 300 invertebrates
practise it - was also unexplained by Darwin." Invertebrates? Is this
correct, a British / American misunderstanding thing, a mistake, it's
easier if neither of you has a back-bone to worry about, confusion
regarding the term "back-bone", or a pointer to specialist Web sites?
Not of interest to the majority of t.o: "Finger length may indicate
tendency to homosexuality." It's not the size, it's what you do with
it. Diagrams of finger length are provided. I think the most
reasonable conclusion is "Caught you looking".
"Abort babies with gay genes, says Nobel winner." Yikes. That was
James Watson, DNA discoverer, in 1997, strictly speaking for the
mother's right to choose. If he supports lesbians' right to terminate
pregnancies that /don't/ have a gay gene, then at least it's
even-handed.
John Shocked
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "Jim Phillips" <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050924095258.10228D-100000@mail...
>>>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> <snip>
>> And "normal sex" has nothing to do with religion. It is based on nature, a primal force which predates all religion.
> BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
> By Bruce Bagemihl
> St. Martin's Press,
> 771 pages
> Sex still defies explanation. Some Darwinists think they have an answer to the riddles of sex, though not all agree on what that
> answer is. But if standard sexual behaviour is so hard to explain, then how can we possibly fit non-standard couplings into the
> Darwinian system? (By "non-standard" sexuality I mean any sexual activity the Rev. Jerry Falwell might denounce.) Homosexual
> behaviour, for instance, makes no pretence of producing any offspring at all. If it were caused by some genetic mutation, then it
> should have been wiped out generations ago.
As discussed here before, claims of homosexuality amongst animals are mostly fraudulent,
created by human interference with the will of nature through chemical pheromone abuse and other inducements.
=====================================================
><pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1122192809.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>><pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1122078686.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>><pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1121912695.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>and thus even a child defaults to heterosexual until behavior demonstrates otherwise.
>>>"...and thus" implies a logical connection that is completely missing
>>>here. There's a statistical likelihood that a child will be
>>>heterosexual rather than homosexual/bisexual/asexual/etc. but that
>>>doesn't invite the assumption that the child is heterosexual in the
>>>absence of heterosexual behaviour or attraction simply because they
>>>aren't engaging in what you describe as "deviant" sexual behaviour.
>>Homosexuality is learned behavior; children are not born homosexual.
>You keep simply assuming your conclusion - you have yet to produce
>credible evidence. At the same time you have failed to find any flaw in
>the studies I cited (which are more recent than any of your citations)
>that suggest otherwise.
To which studies do you refer.
>>Any who were had no children and washed out of the genetic pool millenia ago.
>This has already been explained to you, and the Italian study suggests
>that the possession of genes related to homosexuality increases
>fertility in heterosexuals carrying them, which will promote their
>survival and produce occasional combinations that lead to
>homosexuality.
This is ridiculous. Quote the statements which support this.
>>The article clearly shows that these claims of the Sailor or the Bantu man
>>were false alarms.
>It makes no mention of the Bantu man at all. Since I'd never heard of
>the sailor before this, I don't know how credible those claims were to
>begin with.
It does mention the Bantu man.
==================================================
http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2005/0903.html
The 1959 specimen was obtained from a Bantu man living in Kinshasa, the Congo. His name and health status were not recorded. Details
of the history and testing of this specimen (later heralded as the "world's oldest HIV-positive blood sample") are recorded in The
River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS [1999], by journalist Edward Hooper who theorizes that HIV was introduced into
Africans via the polio vaccine programs in the late 1950s. Hooper claims the polio vaccine was prepared using chimp kidney cells
contaminated with the ancestor virus of HIV.
When tested for HIV in the mid-1980s, the 1959 blood sample was the only specimen out of 700 stored frozen Congo bloods that tested
positive for HIV. Originally collected by Arno Motulsky on a Rockefeller grant, the African sample was one of many sent to the
University of Washington in Seattle and used for genetic testing and included in report, "Population Genetic Studies," published in
1966.
Around 1970, the remaining 672 frozen bloods were flown to Emory University in Atlanta for further genetic tests. In 1985 the
specimens again changed hands, this time for HIV testing by Andre Nahmias, a virologist and animal researcher associated with the
Yerkes Primate Center at Emory. The Congo specimens were tested along with 500 other blood specimens taken from blacks living in
sub-Saharan Africa between the years 1959 and 1982. Initially over 90% of specimens taken in 1959 tested positive for HIV by the
ELISA test. However, these HIV-positive tests were later determined to be false-positive. After the examinations at Emory, the
specimens were shipped to Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for HIV testing in Max Essex' lab.
==================================================
>> The writer describes how 700 other contemporary Congo
>>blood samples tested negative and that there was widespread contamination of these labs
>>at the time causing false positives.
>Firstly we don't know they were contemporary - it just said 700 samples
>were tested, and that one of them was from 1959. Secondly we have no
>reason to believe the first victim's sample was among them. Thirdly
>this study was from 1966 and the BBC article referring to the Bantu man
>was from 2004 - given that the information from this study is publicly
>available, researchers in the area would be fully aware of its findings
>and would incorporate them into their understanding of the history of
>the disease.
The article does state that the initial 700 blood samples were taken in 1959
" Initially over 90% of specimens taken in 1959 tested positive for HIV by the ELISA test."
>>Nowadays, scientists hunt for "ancestor" viruses of HIV in chimps in the African wild and
>>ignore all the immunosuppressive viruses that were created in virus laboratories shortly before AIDS.
>What's more they've found said ancestor virus, as mentioned in the BBC
>article. In chimps (well, bonobos) no less.
By 2004, the final test (1959 Bantu sample now completely used up, they claim) on the Bantu man's blood had been performed by David
Ho with the latest DNA testing PCR technology and he did not find the live virus or even full evidence of the prior presence of the
whole DNA of the virus. This taken with the contaminations known to have occurred in the labs through which this sample passed
calls this test into question.
The HIV virus is claimed by these researchers to mutate, making it difficult for them to successfully falsify the exact 1959 version
of the virus. Thus it appears they contaminated it with a dead fragment of the virus, to fake it in an untraceable way.
========================================================
http://www.aidsorigins.com/glossary.shtml
GENOME Total genetic material of a cell or virus.
PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) Process involving isolation and amplification of a
specific DNA sequence which can then be studied.
VIRION Single, complete virus particle, consisting of a core of nucleic acid, within a protein envelope.
VIRUS Minute infectious agent, only able to multiply inside a living host cell.
========================================================
>>"As soon as homosexuals signed up as guinea pigs for government-sponsored hepatitis B vaccine
>>experiments, they began to die with a strange virus of unknown origin."
>This is a claim. Evidence would involve identifying whether any
>particular homosexuals given the vaccine died from the "strange virus"
>afterwards, and any evidence that that virus was in fact AIDS. This
>claim could simply mean that after one or two homosexuals in Manhattan
>volunteered for the vaccine a few on the other side of the island died,
>in which case there would be no connection at all. If Cantwell had any
>evidence of specific cases he would have presented it here.
The fact that they began to die immediately, indicates that these homosexuals may already
have contracted the AIDS virus and had reduced immune systems or had their immune systems
depleted by drugs as Cantwell described.
>>"In order to induce primates and other research animals to acquire cancer, their immune system
>>was deliberately suppressed by drugs, radiation, or cancer-causing chemicals or substances.
>>The thymus gland and/or the spleen were removed, and viruses were injected into
>>newborn animals or into the womb of pregnant animals. Some animals were injected with
>>malaria to keep them chronically sick and immunodepressed."
>So...these poor infected homosexuals were kept in laboratory conditions
>for weeks or months with their immune system being periodically
>suppressed by drugs, radiation and possibly malaria? There isn't some
>'magic bullet' you can inject someone with that then leaves their
>immune system crippled for life - this sort of study can only be
>carried out with repeated exposure to the immune suppressant.
It is obvious that immunodepression is an important factor in biological viral research.
And this research was dovetailing with 'discovery' of another virus, Ebola, which suspiciously was also 'first 'discovered' in Congo
(formerly Zaire), Africa. African governments should be very suspicious about any westerner coming to their country claiming to be
a medical researcher.
==============================================
http://www.d2ol.com/ebola.html
Ebola hemorrhagic fever (Ebola HF) is a severe, often-fatal disease in humans and nonhuman
primates (monkeys and chimpanzees) that has appeared sporadically since its initial recognition in 1976.
The disease is caused by infection with Ebola virus, named after a river in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo (formerly Zaire) in Africa, where it was first recognized.
==============================================
>>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0917211251/ref=cm_aya_a...
>>Interesting that of all the 4 Amazon reviews written by Amazon's customers, you picked the
>>only one which did not give the Cantwell book 5 stars out of 5 stars, but gave it 3 of 5 instead.
[>I 'picked' the one that came up when I typed "Alan Cantwell" + review
>into the search engine. Strangely enough, none of the other three
>review the book in any detail (comments along the lines of "Yeah! I
>knew it!" aren't really that persuasive) and none attempts a critique
>of what he writes. Again, the claim that he provides no evidence, made
>by the reviewer I cited, is a factual one open to investigation if you
>wish to dispute it. Given the citations you've provided to date, it so
>far seems a wholly accurate analysis.] -- JS did not write this
[>Cantwell seems to be describing disposal of the primates that he learnt from documentation
> and it seems there was not a standing policy to destroy any primate after 'inoculation' testing,
>which might even be illegal.] -- JS wrote this.
I am tiring of your posting text you wrote as mine with indenting indicating I wrote it
and vice versa.
What is clear is the US biological researchers were in Africa during the mid-1970's, so
there is no necessity that the primates they imported from Congo had to be returned
to Congo for US researchers to have started these diseases in Africa.
The two claims of 'discovery' of both Ebola and AIDS in Congo, Africa
is extremely suspicious.
>>Sounds like researchers cracked the case:
>>===========================================
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/460842.stm
>>Thursday, September 30, 1999 Published at 07:14 GMT 08:14 UK
>>Australian scientists have discovered the secret of attraction in frogs.
><snip>
>Wow, another first - you actually cited something interesting, accurate
>and relevant to the topic at hand that didn't contradict what you've
>claimed. Strange that this appears to have escaped Tim Halliday's
>notice when he was writing the New Encyclopedia of Reptiles and
>Amphibians, but it's quite a fascinating discovery. Of course it has
>nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality, but then we can't expect
>everything.
>Of course, since this has only been discovered in the last six years
>and only in one frog species in Australia so far it can't help your
>theory that 'gay' frogs' pheromones were manipulated by researchers to
>produce a phenomenon known long before and in species elsewhere,
>especially in areas they weren't working, but then that was a hopeless
>cause anyway.
I have seen nothing posted that any 'homosexual frog' phenomenon has been
proven or tested to determine whether manipulation of pheromones by animal abusing
Hollywood Homosexuals caused it.
>>>It is a well-documented fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young.
>>"Many many", eh? I'd be surprised to see any scientific paper using
>>that terminology. The lack of any name to attach to this piece is
>>suspicious at first glance, and looking down at the list of references,
>>what do we find? A bunch of books by therapists relating specifically
>>to those cases where homosexuals have been sexually abused when young.
>>>Nothing from a scientist regarding any link between homosexuality and
>>>child abuse. Somehow, I wouldn't regard references with names such as
>>>"Female Perversions" or "Can Gays Convert?" (the latter in the main
>>>reference list) as terribly likely to be objective on the subject in
>>>any case.
>>The writer documents the statement with a bibliography which he states backs
>>up the statement.
>He can state it all he wants, but the bibliography itself claims to do
>no such thing, being merely a list of accounts covering sexual abuse in
>homosexuals. People can state things without them actually being true,
>especially when they don't attach a name to an unpublished webpage
>article. The fact that the rest of us realise this explains why we
>aren't taken in by your own dishonesty.
Seems to be a lot of people studying different data and coming to the same conclusion.
=======================================================
http://www.geocities.com/home60515/3.html
Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?
It is a well-documented fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young.
(This paper will conclude with a list of some books which support that statement.)
In other words, there is an abundance of evidence that many many homosexuals were born
heterosexual but were disoriented by sexual abuse.
=======================================================
The following books, with page numbers, refer to the fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young:
Teen Prostitution by Joan J. Johnson (NY & Chicago: Franklin Watts Publishers, 1992), p. 53.
Female Perversions by Dr. Louise J. Kaplan (NY: Doubleday, 1991), p. 437.
Invisible Lives by Martha Barron Barrett (NY: William Morrow & Co., 1989), p. 140.
Incest and Sexuality by therapists Wendy Maltz and Beverly Holman (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1987), p. 72.
The Secret Trauma by Prof. Diane E.H. Russell (NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1986), p. 199.
The Broken Taboo: Sex in the Family by B. and R. Justice (quoted in the book Incest: a family pattern by Jean Renvoize [London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982], p. 127).
The following books refer to the fact that many young victims of sexual abuse later experience confusion over their sexual
identities:
The Consumer's Guide to Psychotherapy by Drs. Jack Engler and Daniel Goleman (NY: Simon & Schuster/Fireside, 1992), p. 414.
Desires in Conflict by Joe Dallas (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1991), p. 187.
Betrayal of Innocence by Dr. Susan Forward and Craig Buck (NY: Penguin Books, 1988), p. 96.
========================================================
>>>Logical fallacy. "Many homosexuals suffered sexual abuse" does not
>>>imply "sexual abuse is responsible for homosexuality". Many
>>>heterosexuals suffer sexual abuse - are we to take it that they
>>>wouldn't otherwise be heterosexual? Nor are we given any objective
>>>figure as to the actual proportion of homosexuals who were abused or
>>>any comparison with the numbers of heterosexuals who were sexually
>>>abused.
>>The writer states that those figures are stated in several of the books in his bibliography.
>Yet in their review they lack the objectivity to present these figures
>for public consumption, thus risking giving a possibly misleading
>impression that sexual abuse is more common among homosexuals than
>heterosexuals to the majority who won't read those books. Of course if
>the figures *did* support that idea, it's curious that the author
>didn't cite them when citing the figures for homosexuals as evidence
>for his or her case. Very suspicious.
===============================================
http://www.geocities.com/home60515/3.html
Skilled psychologists and psychiatrists like Masters and Johnson, Charles Socarides,
Joseph Nicolosi, Benjamin Kaufman, Elizabeth Moberly, Jeffrey Satinover, and
Gerard van den Aardweg, have had much success changing homosexuals into heterosexuals.
(They have been successful because most if not all homosexuals were probably born heterosexual.)
===============================================
>>It does, because the will of practically all people, especially after a certain age is the
>>continuation of the species, thus they would be hurt if this eventuality does not or
>>appears not to be about to occur.
>If it's the will of those people to continue the species (in which case
>most are unlikely to be homosexual) they're perfectly free to do so, in
>which case the situation wouldn't arise in any case. If you're
>postulating a future in which most of the population is homosexual,
>there's a good chance that most people in that society won't have any
>desire to continue the species. In any case, how are people hurt if it
>"appears not to be about to occur"?
People have a general interest in continuation of the whole species, as evidenced
by monies spent on others issues like national defense, but also continuation of their
own sub-species, specifically the married couple's own DNA.
[>>1. A person can personally disapprove of homosexuality on the basis
>>that they regard it as unpleasant/disgusting or whatever. This is not
>>homophobic. If that person attempts to criticise homosexuality in
>>others based on that personal dislike, or attempts to claim that it is
>>wrong, that is homophobic. You have done both; Cameron has done the
>>former in the paper I read.
>>These statements are false.]
Again, this crap is not indented properly, confusing who wrote what.
Reedit it and/or change your News Reader.
These statements are false. I have stated that Sodomy is disgusting and should
not be shown on TV. What I have stated is that Sodomy is behavior, not birth,
and thus is in the same category with all libertarian right wing conservative issues
supported by ACLU/Organized Crime like Drugs, Prostitution and Gambling and
thus the public has a right to make laws to control or ban it.
This behavior is in no way protected by the US Constitution.
And as I have made clear, my view is that the only solution to the increasing
flood of Sodomy muck on TV is to pass laws to block it.
>This is a lie. Reread your commentary on the murder/sodomy comparison
>and your increasingly desperate attempt to pretend homosexuality causes
>harm to society, and on how people should invariably want all their
>children to have children and that this provides a reason for them to
>have those children.
Quote what you believe I stated to be untrue.
>>>2. A person can disapprove of homosexuality on the basis that their
>>>religious or other convictions lead them to regard it as immoral. This
>>>is not homophobic (yet note that I disagree with it). If that person
>>>openly condemns homosexuals as people on that basis, or if they are
>>>shown by reasoned argument that the 'moral' problem they have with it
>>>is not real and yet insist on trying to come up with ever more
>>>far-fetched and spurious justifications for their objection, that is
>>>homophobic and proves that the objection is not a genuinely moral one
>>>but a personal prejudice the homophobe is trying to support through
>>>appeal to false moral authority, and is therefore also intellectually
>>>dishonest.
>>These statements are false.
>This is a lie. Reread your commentary on the murder/sodomy comparison
>and your increasingly desperate attempt to pretend homosexuality causes
>harm to society.
>>>4. Conflating homosexual behaviour with drug abuse, rape and murder,
>>>all of which cause harm to other individuals that homosexuality
>>>doesn't, is homophobic.
>> I have stated that Sodomy is disgusting and should
>>not be shown on TV. What I have stated is that Sodomy is behavior, not birth,
>>and thus is in the same category with all libertarian right wing conservative issues
>>supported by ACLU/Organized Crime like Drugs, Prostitution and Gambling and
>>thus the public has a right to make laws to control or ban it.
>Shaving is a behaviour. Free speech is a behaviour. Does the public
>have a right to ban those? There isn't even anything in the US
>Constitution that a ban on shaving would violate. You can make your
>feeble efforts at arguing semantics if you like, but the fact is that
>you took a particular behaviour and placed it in the same category as
>drug use (and in other posts, rape and murder) rather than with, say,
>heterosexual sex, going to the bathroom, shaving or reading a book.
>That is an expression of prejudice against homosexuality whether you're
>honest enough to admit it or not.
Free speech is protected by the First Amendment. Shaving is not.
No prejudice here at all.
>>>>"In addition, considering all the solid scientific evidence that homosexuals are mentally disturbed
>>>>to one degree or another because of sexual abuse (or dysfunctional parents or other
>>>>negative developmental influences many homosexuals experienced),"
>>>Which "solid scientific evidence"? This is a lame catch-all
>>>"homosexuals are mentally disturbed for whatever reason, but they're
>>>definitely mentally disturbed". A great many people, possibly even the
>>>majority, have experienced "negative developmental influences" if you
>>>define it broadly enough, so this says nothing. Homophobic tripe once
>>>more.
>>The writer lists numerous books which he claims supports his assertions.
>>Let's see if you were honest enough to include that bibliography in this response.
>You included it last time. I responded; the bibliography consisted of
>titles from therapists referring specifically to their experiences of
>homosexuals who had been abused, there wasn't a single scientific paper
>or work relating sexual abuse to later homosexuality. This particular
>claim about "solid scientific evidence" is, I note, completely
>unreferenced, just like Cameron's opinions in his conclusion, and in
>any case a link between sexual abuse and mental illness is not in
>dispute - he could have just as easily said "considering all the solid
>scientific evidence that heterosexuals are mentally disturbed
>to one degree or another because of sexual abuse..." There isn't any
>evidence provided that homosexuals are more mentally disturbed because
>of their abuse than heterosexuals.
>"The following books, with page numbers, refer to the fact that many
>many homosexuals were sexually abused when young:"
>Note this - the fact that many homosexuals were sexual abused when
>young. They don't refer to the author's claim that sexual abuse is
>linked to homosexuality.
>"Teen Prostitution by Joan J. Johnson (NY & Chicago: Franklin Watts
>Publishers, 1992), p. 53.
>Female Perversions by Dr. Louise J. Kaplan (NY: Doubleday, 1991), p.
>437.
>Invisible Lives by Martha Barron Barrett (NY: William Morrow & Co.,
>1989), p. 140.
>Incest and Sexuality by therapists Wendy Maltz and Beverly Holman
>(Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1987), p. 72.
>The Secret Trauma by Prof. Diane E.H. Russell (NY: Basic Books, Inc.,
>1986), p. 199.
>The Broken Taboo: Sex in the Family by B. and R. Justice (quoted in the
>book Incest: a family pattern by Jean Renvoize [London:
>Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982], p. 127).
>The following books refer to the fact that many young victims of sexual
>abuse later experience confusion over their sexual
>identities:
>The Consumer's Guide to Psychotherapy by Drs. Jack Engler and Daniel
>Goleman (NY: Simon & Schuster/Fireside, 1992), p. 414.
>Desires in Conflict by Joe Dallas (Eugene, OR: Harvest House
>Publishers, 1991), p. 187.
>Betrayal of Innocence by Dr. Susan Forward and Craig Buck (NY: Penguin
>Books, 1988), p. 96. "
This is a pretty large bibliography, a big target. Disproving this requires spending a
few hours in a large library.
>>Which sheep study ? If you genuinely want something read, include the link,
>>every time you ask for it to be read.
>I posted three links - two to the Italian study, one to a study on
>sheep revealing a genetic basis for homosexuality.
>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008
Again, these claims of sheep homosexuality have yet to be replicated by anyone else.
It should also be recognized that sheep have been genetically manipulated heavily
for centuries. In many cases, these animals are impregnated with artificial insemination
injection by the sperm of a chosen ram (presumably the largest with the healthiest meat)
by the farmer, so what happens with sheep should not be considered Nature.
Most likely, male rams and female sheep are segregated from one another making
it impossible for the a sheep to be heterosexual. Thus, what these researchers claimed
to have observed, such as brain differentiation may be an effect of denial of heterosexual
activity, rather than result of a genetic cause, which they allege might also cause homosexuality.
>>Describe an example of how Cameron misrepresented the evidence.
>Already done numerous times, including the post where I analysed his
>piece - go back and read it. In particular, on several occasions I've
>mentioned that he dishonesty conflated the evidence for 2% of his
>sample with "a significant number", implying with deliberate inaccuracy
>that the evidence he cited revealed that a significant proportion of
>the sample supported his claim. There is also the link I posted a while
>ago about the researcher who uncovered details of actual misquotes and
>those taken out of context. The Court ruling cited by Secretary that
>"the only misrepresentation ... has been made by Dr. Cameron" is
>another example. You aren't going to get anywhere by trying to insist
>people go back and repost points they've already made over and over -
>it's just a dishonest delaying tactic to avoid facing up to the fact
>that your prize referee is a sham. This is Usenet; everything here is
>saved for reference purposes. Look it up on Google.
If you want a statement taken seriously, post its reference.
That way, people can read it and then agree with it or disprove it.
>>Only a Hollywood Homosexual with an agenda would continue to deny the presence
>>of Oz prison HBO (homosexual dominated US premium channel) series Sodomy symbolism
>>in Battlestar Galactica.
>No. One. Else. Knows. Anything. About. "Oz prison symbolism". No one
>else appears to have seen the series. All that's clear to us is that
>there is no obvious homosexual symbolism in Battlestar Galactica - no
>one else can draw comparisons with Oz because no one else has seen it
>and no one else has any idea what symbolism you're referring to.
Saturday Night Live has parodied the Sodomy in BSG and TV Guide made
reference to Apollo's homosexual ambiguity.
What is the point of continuing to deny this.
If anything, these continuing denials insult the public's intelligence and indicate
something even more sinister is going on that requires these denials while the public
continues to be pumped with these subliminal messages of Sodomy.
>>>There is no "collective will". We are not the Borg. At best there are
>>>majority opinions, but as others have stated a democratic society is
>>>not subject to mob rule. Many, probably most, people do indeed want
>>>grandchildren - that is not to impose that desire on those who don't or
>>>who couldn't care less.
>>Right here, you have made the case that the elites should rule, not the people.
>You really are struggling with your reading comprehension, aren't you?
>The point I made had nothing to do with who rules whom, save to the
>extent of pointing out that no one (elite or otherwise) should impose
>their desires upon those who do not share them. What you appear to want
>is mob rule, which is no more desirable than any other form of
>dictatorship.
How can a nation make laws if one tiny minority or another can veto them ?
Laws are generally not made against behaviors that are not harmful to people.
>>>Probably the majority of asexuals and most homosexuals don't want
>>>children, and many heterosexuals don't either.
>>What you describe is not real.
Again, you have truncated the point I made you are claiming to attempt to refute.
This is dishonest behavior.
Reasonable people are not going to believe anything you have to say when you truncate
my points before attacking them.
Do you think people are fools ?
>You don't see an inconsistency in this claim and the point you raise
>about falling fertility rates? Whatever your personal experiences, the
>fact is that fewer people are having children and those that do are
>having fewer of them. Plenty of people clearly do not place a
>particularly high value on having children.
Which claim ?
>>>>The proportion of the public which commits murders currently is a small
>>>>proportion of the population too.
>>>Interesting. So you're saying that murder is only wrong because it
>>>would cause extinction if everyone did it, and not because it actually
>>>involves one individual killing another? But hang on - you said that
>>>not all murders are successful, so it wouldn't cause extinction. So
>>>unless you apply a double standard, murder can't be wrong. Oops.
>>Where did I say that that was the only wrong factor of murder ?
>So what else is wrong about murder that is also wrong about
>homosexuality? No double standards in morality, remember - whatever
>criteria you use to define one thing as wrong you must also apply to
>everything else you regard as wrong. So what are your criteria for
>regarding an act as immoral?
Homosexuality harms the continuation of the species which is an interest of practically
everyone on the planet. The dying out of a species or race is a significant fear of the
people in those groups. Perhaps a smaller fear than that of their own immediate murder,
but a fear nonetheless.
Thus, it cannot be claimed that homosexuality does not harm the interests of
the public at large.
>>I never stated that homosexuals did not have an attraction to each other.
>You stated that only the act of homosexual intercourse qualified one as
>homosexual; if they aren't engaged in that, however much they express
>attraction to one another, they can't be homosexual by your twisted
>logic.
What I have said is that there is no True Love between homosexuals.
That is the ludicrous part of the Apollo-Zerak conversation in Bastille Day,
right after Apollo had been symbolically Sodomized.
That involves respect of each other and the willingness to start a family.
Homosexuality is 99% about the homosex act.
>>I think I have said that there is no "love" between these people.
>In that case you'd be wrong, but that's an irrelevant point.
It is important if you want to claim equivalence between Sodomy and heterosexual sex.
>>>>Male to male lip kissing is definitely homosexual.
>>>Direct contradiction. You've said repeatedly that only sexual activity
>>>qualifies as homosexual, and that people not engaging in it are not
>>>homosexual. Jack and the Doctor were not having a sexual relationship,
>>>so how can this be homosexual? Kissing on the lips is a sign of
>>>affection, normally romantic affection - not an invitation to bed. It
>>>is generally associated with sexual relationships to be sure, but by no
>>>means exclusively.
>>Lip kissing is sexual activity and involves the sharing of bodily fluids.
>You really do insist on making yourself look stupid, don't you? Sexual
>activity involves the genitalia of one of both parties, it does not
>include kissing. Besides which your explicit case was that only
>'sodomy' qualifies as homosexual behaviour among men. In any case as I
>understand it in this episode (which I haven't yet seen) the Doctor
>doesn't kiss back, so there is no "sharing of bodily fluids". Hence the
>character can't be bisexual, right?
Kiss back ? You mean he does not open his mouth ?
>>http://www.infohub.com/Destinations/Europe-&-Russia/France/Paris/1078...
>Ah, here we go:
>"The Bastille Day Ball (July 13, 10pm-dawn), a wild open-air dance on
>the quai de la Tournelle, 5e (Mº Pont Marie), is free for all to join in."
>I see. So a celebration that everyone is invited to is especially
>important to homosexuals because it is mentioned in a guide for
>homosexuals? You don't suppose it's mentioned in guides for
>heterosexuals too?
They are describing Bastille Day as special for homosexuals.
>>>This is the Apollo whose actor has stated in interview that the
>>>character isn't gay, right?
>>Post the URL for this interview.
>The interview was apparently in the US TV Guide, as mentioned by
>someone else earlier in the thread. In fact you presumably read it
>since you yourself referred to TV Guide referring to the character's
>sexuality. To refresh your memory based on what was said here, the
>interviewer asked "Is Apollo gay?", to which the actor responded "No."
I think someone made reference to a more recent TV Guide interview.
The one I have referred to was about March 20-26, 2005.
>>>What's 'major' about it? Both involve insertion of the 'male
>>>procreative organ' into bodily orifices, it's just the particular one
>>>most often used that is different for practical reasons. What's more,
>>>as has been pointed out many times homosexuals are not defined by
>>>carrying out anal intercourse, which some (including all lesbians) may
>>>not and which heterosexuals may do. The only difference is that
>>>homosexuals don't engage in the heterosexual style of intercourse and
>>>it seems a trivial one.
>>You are not deterred at all by one man coming in contact with another man's faeces excrement ?
>I find the idea unpleasant. So what? I find the idea of what you define
>as heterosexual sex just as unpleasant. There isn't any fundamental
>difference, and personal dislike doesn't change that fact.
>I mean, if you saw another man's faeces excrement on the table, would
>you even be inclined to put your hand in it ?
>Why always "faeces excrement", not one or the other? They mean exactly
>the same thing. In any case, while I'm no expert I was under the
>impression that what you insist on calling sodomy involved intercourse
>using the anal passage, not piles of faeces.
If you find the idea of touching another man's faeces excrement unpleasant,
how can you support the Hollywood Homosexuals determination to foist this behavior
in the face of the Science Fiction viewers who are just seeking to watch science TV ?
>>Why should parent or their kids be required to watch something like that in Sodomy TV
>>masquerading as Science Fiction TV ?
>Name a science fiction show that actually contains sodomy. Not
>symbolism that only you can see. Not imagery that might look
>superficially similar to anyone keeping a close eye out for it. The
>actual act.
As I have described in other threads like
"Hollywood Homosexuals sell Cigarettes to your kids; why not Sodomy ?",
the symbolism is more powerful than the act itself, since in many
minds of less perceptive people, this content has a powerful subliminal effect on people
and especially children's subconscious.
>>>> Intravenous drug use is the symbolism that Dracula represents.
>>>No, lust is the symbolism that Dracula represents - the neck-biting,
>>>which superficially resembles passionate kissing, is described as a
>>>sensual experience and those he has turned by biting become his
>>>"Brides". He only bites members of the opposite sex. There is also rape
>>>symbolism in that his advances are forced. This symbolism doesn't come
>>>just from the neck-biting, it comes from the context that occurs in as
>>>well, and context is critical to portraying something symbolically.
>>>This is obviously the point where you become confused, as your examples
>>>of supposed symbolism are all divorced from the story context in which
>>>they occur.
>>Philip Bowles
>>Ann Rice's Interview With The Vampire was the book and movie which integrated Sodomy
>>with the Bram Stoker Dracula legend.
>Ann Rice's vampires are homosexual? Whoever would have thought it? What
>exactly does this have to do with purported 'junkie' symbolism in Dracula?
>Philip Bowles
Elementary, Watson. Sodomy, Drugs, Prostitution, Gambling are all deviant behaviors
which have been banned by laws of the people and in some cases legalized in one way
or another by the elitist Nexus I have talked about:
US Supreme Court, Hollywood Homosexual/Neo-Conservatives, ACLU, Organized Crime.
This Nexus poses the greatest danger to this country right now.
Politics
==============================================================
==============================================================
John Shocked
The ground has been good enough for most rapists over the millenia that mankind has been around.
There is no question that Sodomy symbolism was the clear intent of the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals
who control this fake science fiction TV series.
Most male on female rapes we have ever heard reported in the news and in court testimony were
frontal penetration.
Politics
John Shocked
>> The current BSG episode, Pegasus, ends the season with another dose of Sodomy for the diehard faithful supporters of this series'
>> perversity.
> It ain't sodomy between a man and a woman.
As mentioned here before, homosexuality involving women is used in Hollywood as
a metaphor for Sodomy between two men.
Hollywood Homosexuals realize that the bringing of the male procreative organ in contact with the
faeces excrement of another man is about the most disgusting thing of which many of us are aware.
They hope that by involving a woman in the symbolism, they can bring it closer to palatability for
you and your kids in your home tonight. Sounds like they have succeeded in the case of you and your kids.
Politics
John Shocked
How many times have you ever heard of a recounting of a rape, for instance in trials shown on TV or
described in the newspaper where the rapist took the dirty back road (thank you B-52's).
Most rapes of women by men are face to face. That is part of the whole dominance power component of the act.
Rear vaginal entry is rare, rape or not, except in the area of right wing libertarian Organized Crime Prostitution,
and Hollywood Homosexual TV and Movie make-believe.
Politics
John Shocked
> Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>> John Shocked wrote:
> [snip]
>> John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
> Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber quotes an email from a fan woh explicitly requests a gay
> relationship on the show.
Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has been aggressively campaigning
for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science fiction TV series for the past 20 years.
They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap.
> BTW, I've now seen the miniseries and the first six eps of S1, and the sex seems totally hetero...
> C.
You deserve the truth.
======================================================================
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
The Watch Dog
> > It ain't sodomy between a man and a woman.
>
> As mentioned here before, homosexuality involving women is used in Hollywood as
> a metaphor for Sodomy between two men.
By "homosexuality involving women," JS means "heterosexuality involving
women."
ToolPackinMama
> 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.
Not that what you say is true, but if it is, so what? Why is it OK for
hundreds of TV shows to shove the heterosexual lifestyle down our
throats? That's offensive to many people too, you know.
So what if Gays want one or two shows that promote a homo-friendly view?
Why should Hets have a monopoly on lifestyle-propaganda in the media?
Seriously: when you consider all the pro-het propaganda, it should make
you wonder if heterosexuality is actually "natural".
BYTE ME!
> "manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:ecGdnR3LheO...@rogers.com...
>
>>Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>>
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
>>
>>Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber quotes an email from a fan woh explicitly requests a gay
>>relationship on the show.
>
>
> Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has been aggressively campaigning
> for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science fiction TV series for the past 20 years.
> They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
> and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
> genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap.
>
There is no homosexual lobby campaigning for homosexual characters in
scifi except in your imagination. Do seek help you are getting
progressively worse.
>
>>BTW, I've now seen the miniseries and the first six eps of S1, and the sex seems totally hetero...
>>C.
>
>
> You deserve the truth.
>
> ======================================================================
> I reprise some of the facts here:
>
>
Since it was not facts at all, just paranoid ramblings from a freak, I
snipped the crap out.
--
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called
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
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or
hereafter. –Thomas Paine
N2
> Hollywood Homosexuals
> who control this fake science fiction TV series.
Fake? How so? It seems like it really was on my TV, and was really
produced, and I really watched it.
> Most male on female rapes we have ever heard reported in the news and in
> court testimony were
> frontal penetration.
Source?
John Shocked
I do not know if you have noticed this over the past decade, but there are a lot of explicit scenes
of 2 women engaging in homosexual acts on TV, especially on stations like
HBO (Homosexual Box Office -- US based homosexual dominated premium channel).
Politics
The Watch Dog
But not in BSG.
I know about the scenes on HBO, of course. But consider the possibility
that they're using sex between two women to represent bigamy.
John Shocked
That is as sensible a sensible a statement as saying that when people who have a fetish
to eat canine faeces excrement watch TV and see people eating normal food,
citing their offense as a reason not to show people eating normal food.
How can someone engaging in unnatural deviant activity tell people engaging in normal behavior
that they cannot watch normal behavior on TV ?
Politics
Herschorn Phineas McCaullkin Jr.
John Shocked
>John Shocked wrote:
>> "manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:ecGdnR3LheO...@rogers.com...
>>>Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>>John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
>> Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has been aggressively campaigning
>> for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science fiction TV series for the past 20 years.
>> They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
>> and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
>> genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap.
>There is no homosexual lobby campaigning for homosexual characters in scifi except in your imagination. Do seek help you are
>getting progressively worse.
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%20Trek.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."
=======================================================================
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.
>>>BTW, I've now seen the miniseries and the first six eps of S1, and the sex seems totally hetero...
>>>C.
>> You deserve the truth.
>> ======================================================================
>> I reprise some of the facts here:
>Since it was not facts at all, just paranoid ramblings from a freak, I snipped the crap out.
You failed to respond to the account of Sodomy in Battlestar Galactica aqnd then insult the writer, ad hominem.
You think readers are stupid enough not to recognize that ?
Politics
John Shocked
>> There is no question that Sodomy symbolism was the clear intent of the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals
>> who control this fake science fiction TV series.
> Fake? How so? It seems like it really was on my TV, and was really produced, and I really watched it.
BSG is not science fiction. As Saturday Night Live put it, it is "Gays In Space.
They performed 3 skits on this subject, starting 3 weeks after the first US airing of
BSG Bastille Day episode.
>> Most male on female rapes we have ever heard reported in the news and in court testimony were frontal penetration.
> Source?
As mentioned, this is anecdotal, based on actual reports of rapes which we have heard about
in the news and court case testimony.
I doubt such entry-specific statistics are kept.
Politics
FDR
Yep. All the time there are subliminal messages on tv shows promoting
heterosexual relations. I think it's a heterosexual hollywood agenda that
they promote against our will. And on top of that, they have supporters of
this heterosexual hollywood group coming here and defending such shows.
But this will go over John's head.
John Shocked
BSG has subliminal Sodomy symbolism. They obviously believe this will have more impact on the
masses who watch these shows than more explicit representations of Sodomy.
"bigamy" -- marriage or coupling of one person with 2 spouses.
How does two women on HBO (Homosexual Box Office -- US based homosexual dominated premium channel)
represent bigamy ?
=================================================
Again, the symbolism in the BSG Sodomy scenes in Bastille Day and Colonial Day has only predated
by the Oz HBO prison Sodomy rape scenes.
This Sodomy symbolism was the clear intent of the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals, who are
determined to sell Sodomy to you and your kids.
=================================================
The customer sees it as is the case with all subliminal visual stimuli, but does not notice the product
specifically as being specifically presented as an advertisement. It is just present in the picture.
The full quote from the document transcribed:
================================================
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=rnw85d00&fmt=gif&ref=results&title=ACTIVITY%20REPORT.&bates=503579378/9381
"August 26, 1981
CONFIDENTIAL
-------------------
To: Laurence M.Wassong [vice-president William Esty Company
in New York, publicity man of R.J. Reynolds,
concerning promotion activities
From: Warren Cowan [of Rogers and Cowan public relations firm]
Re: Activity Report
"We have been waiting for production to resume full-speed
ahead in Hollywood for more than a year, and, now, with
the writers, actors and directors all working and not threaten-
ing to strike, we are pleased to report that Hollywood is back
in the movie business.
With that in mind, we are making a concentrated effort to be
very selective about the kinds of productions in which we place
the products. Our goal is "pleasant situations,"and we have
evaluated many scripts which do not meet our criteria for products.
There are some films we have approached which we believe could
be very beneficial to our "subliminal" product campaign.
I. MOTION PICTURES
--------------------------
A) Sharkey's Machine -- Burt Reynolds stars in this Orion Pictures
contemporary action drama. As you can see by the attached stills from
the film (attachments 1-3), we arranged for Burt Reynolds to enjoy Camels
throughout the film. Sharkey's Machine will be distributed by
Warner Brothers on December 18."
[...numerous other movies' product placements...] "
[later in same Activity Report...]
"We are also continuing our contacts with top photographers and
providing them with product, so that when the proper situation
arises, our product can be included in photo sessions.
There are many other areas that we are exploring, as well. Due
to the necessity of confidentiality of this project, we are doing
this very quietly, on a one-on-one basis. "
=================================================
Here is some more information on the types of psychologists who work
at advertising companies like William Esty Agency, and their interest in
controlling the future behavior of your kids.
http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/watson.htm
====================================================
[John B. Watson (1878 - 1958)]
After leaving Johns Hopkins University, Watson went into the advertising business
. He wanted to use his scientific theories of behaviorism and the emotions
of fear, rage, and love to improve the effects of advertising on the "animal"
or what we know as consumers. Watson began his training at
J Walter Thompson Agency with Stanley B. Resor. He became an ambassador
and in 1924 he stepped up to become vice president of the company.
While he was there he also wrote and sold books about the control over
human emotions. Later he moved onto work for William Esty Agency
until he retired in 1945. In 1920 he published his most famous conditioning
experiment; the "Little Albert" study in which he produced, in a small child,
conditioned fear of a white rat by repeatedly presenting it paired with the
loud "clanging" of a metal bar. This conditioned fear was then shown to generalize
to other white furry objects, including a Santa mask and Watson's own white hair
(Watson & Rayner, 1920). In another well-known article (Watson, 1920),
he argued that thinking -- a mental activity that seems to involve no overt behavior
-- is nothing more than subvocal speaking. He later retracted this extreme view,
however (Watson & McDougall, 1929).
Although Watson's academic star burned brightly, it was destined to be short-lived.
Like his predecessor, Baldwin, he was forced to resign his chair at Hopkins
because of a sex scandal involving his assistant, Rayner. He continued to publish
books on psychology--Behaviorism (1924) and The Psychological Care of
Infant and Child (1928)--but by the 1930s his main career interest had shifted
to the advertising business, and he ended his scholarly pursuits.
=====================================================
Cigarette companies have by far the biggest advertising budgets and thus can afford to hire the best
psychologists to sell Cigarettes to you and your kids.
===============================================
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/20785-6.asp
Although cigarette commercials have been banned from television for 30 years,
the tobacco industry remains the country's largest advertiser.
According to the American Lung Association, the tobacco industry spent
an estimated $5.7 billion on advertising in 1997, up 10.8% or $552 million
from 1996. In 1982, when cigarette sales peaked, the industry spent an
estimated $1.8 billion for advertising. Cigarette sales dropped from
632.5 billion in 1982 to 478.6 billion in 1997. Tobacco company ads
are everywhere
===============================================
Politics
rja.ca...@excite.com
So I see, hard as it is to believe. I also see that this is appearing
in a wide range of newsgroups, so hi everybody. Who is this freak who
apparently believes that whenever a movie or a TV show portrays romance
or sexuality between a man and a woman, in the mind of some fag writer
and producer it is really a man and another man? Well, as Joe Brown
said to Jack Lemmon in _Some Like It Hot_, "Nobody's perfect."
manitou
> "manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:ecGdnR3LheO...@rogers.com...
>
>>Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>>
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
>>
>>Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber quotes an email from a fan woh explicitly requests a gay
>>relationship on the show.
>
>
> Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has been aggressively campaigning
> for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science fiction TV series for the past 20 years.
> They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
> and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
> genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap.
How do you know Berman is gay?
According to www.IMDb.com he's been married to the same woman since 1980.
C.
ANIM8Rfsk
manit...@rogers.com wrote on 9/25/05 8:40 AM:
If he didn't have an unnatural love for Braga, they surely had some sort of
Satanic pact.
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
Jim Phillips
> "Jim Phillips" <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050924095258.10228D-100000@mail...
> > On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> >> The current BSG episode, Pegasus, ends the season with another dose of Sodomy for the
> >> diehard faithful supporters of this series' perversity.
> >> In a scene in which Sharon-Boomer is being tortured for Cylon information by officials selected by the
> >> sex-changed Admiral Cain, the interrogator is just about to commit the act of Sodomy Rape on this prisoner,
> >> his flies unzipped and at the point of Sodomite entry, when he is stopped by her two bestialsex lovers.
> > Not all heterosexual sex is the Judaeo-Christian "Man on top get
> > it over with" variety. Unfortunately I can understand why you'd get all
> > excited at a scene like that one...
> > snip
>
> This is TV, where symbolism dominates.
Your sodomy-soaked mind gives TV too much credit. Most TV is
rather straightforward, since most people don't pay that much attention.
And no, that doesn't mean that most people are susceptible to subliminal
messages since it's been demonstrated that subliminal messages have no
effect on human behavior.
If they wanted to present normal sexual entry, they would have
> chosen a different position and system of restraints on the Sharon-Boomer prisoner.
So you have a binary view of intercourse: it's either normal sexual
entry or it's sodomy, is that right? In your mind, is oral sex sodomy?
> Sodomy was the clear symbolism which BSG intended with this scene.
Nonsense--it revealed the bestial nature of the man doing it.
> And "normal sex" has nothing to do with religion. It is based on nature,
> a primal force which predates all religion.
Almost all mammals mate with each other with the male mounting the
female from behind. Doesn't that mean that such a position is more natural
than how some humans do it?
--
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
BYTE ME!
>>"BYTE ME!" <donot...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:fMrZe.33083$Fp4....@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>"manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:ecGdnR3LheO...@rogers.com...
>>>
>>>>Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
>>>>
>>>>Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber quotes an email from a fan who explicitly requests a gay
>>>>relationship on the show.
>>>
>>>Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has been aggressively campaigning
>>>for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science fiction TV series for the past 20 years.
>>>They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
>>>and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
>>>genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap.
>>
>>There is no homosexual lobby campaigning for homosexual characters in scifi except in your imagination. Do seek help you are
>>getting progressively worse.
>
>
> 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.
>
Snippped since there was nothing there of any substance. There is no
homosexual hollywood agenda, just the paranoid rantings of a loon.
>>>
>>>You deserve the truth.
>>>======================================================================
>>>I reprise some of the facts here:
>>
>>Since it was not facts at all, just paranoid ramblings from a freak, I snipped the crap out.
>
>
> You failed to respond to the account of Sodomy in Battlestar Galactica aqnd then insult the writer, ad hominem.
> You think readers are stupid enough not to recognize that ?
>
> Politics
>
>
Since there is no sodomy in battlestar galactica, there was no way to
respond to it. There is only your imagination of sodomy, nothing else.
John Shocked
>John Shocked wrote:
>>>"BYTE ME!" <donot...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:fMrZe.33083$Fp4....@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>"manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:ecGdnR3LheO...@rogers.com...
>>>>>Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
>>>>>Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber quotes an email from a fan who explicitly requests a gay
>>>>>relationship on the show.
>>>>Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has been aggressively campaigning
>>>>for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science fiction TV series for the past 20 years.
>>>>They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
>>>>and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
>>>>genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap.
>>>There is no homosexual lobby campaigning for homosexual characters in scifi except in your imagination.
>>>Do seek help you are getting progressively worse.
>> 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.
>Snippped since there was nothing there of any substance. There is no homosexual hollywood agenda, just the paranoid rantings of a
>loon.
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%20Trek.htm
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.
>>>>You deserve the truth.
>>>>======================================================================
>>>>I reprise some of the facts here:
>>>Since it was not facts at all, just paranoid ramblings from a freak, I snipped the crap out.
>> You failed to respond to the account of Sodomy in Battlestar Galactica aqnd then insult the writer, ad hominem.
>> You think readers are stupid enough not to recognize that ?
>> Politics
>Since there is no sodomy in battlestar galactica, there was no way to respond to it. There is only your imagination of sodomy,
>nothing else.
There is widespread Sodomy symbolism in BSG. There is no question about it.
Gradualism is their goal. Then, soon enough, they will be playing the whole disgusting Sodomy act
in front of you and your kids in your living room.
Politics
John Shocked
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:ecGdnR3LheO...@rogers.com...
>>>Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>>John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
>>>Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber quotes an email from a fan
>> Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has been aggressively campaigning
>> for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science fiction TV series for the past 20 years.
>> They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
>> and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
> How do you know Berman is gay?
> According to www.IMDb.com he's been married to the same woman since 1980.
> C.
I did not say Berman was a homosexual. As I have stated several times here, most but not all
Hollywood Homosexuals are homosexual. However, it is obvious from the IMDB listing that he has
no children after 25 years with this one women.
Most wealthy and committed heterosexuals would have sought fruits from a relationship
with another woman by now.
Politics
John Shocked
That Berman marriage from IMDB has children. That looks like yet another fake Hollywood Marriage.
Berman and his wife probably meet once a year to exchange pleasantries and take public pictures
for appearances.
Politics
The Watch Dog
> "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com> wrote in message > > > But consider the possibility
> > that they're using sex between two women to represent bigamy.
>
> How does two women on HBO represent bigamy ?
>
That one's pretty obvious, isn't it? Any normal man who sees two women
together in a sexual situation naturally imagines (even against his own
moral code, because men react to visual stimulation) himself as part of
it. One man, two women - bigamy.
Frankly, considering your close look at the sexual symbolism in BSG, I
am very surprised that you haven't seen the constant advertisements for
bigamy that are included in it - far more, and far more explicit, than
any gay male sex imagery. Some examples:
- Boomer is in love with both Helo and the Chief, and has had sex with
both. Bigamy with the sexes reversed.
- Baltar has one beloved woman always in his mind, but is constantly
chasing after (and sometimes having sex with) other women as well. He
yearns to be a man with more than one female sex partner, and he
succeeds. He'd be a bigamist if it were legal in the Fleet.
- Baltar again. Did you see the way he was trying to charm and warm up
the Pegasus' Cylon prisoner? She's the same model as his beloved, so it
makes sense to him that both of them would love him. A perfect bigamy:
a man with two beautiful twins.
- The infamous scene in which Boomer encounters her group of naked
"sisters." Any normal man would respond to the nudity by imagining
himself there with them (and most BSG watchers are men, so the
conclusion's unavoidable). The show is tempting men into wanting a
harem of wives (which is an Arabic concept!), an extreme form of
bigotry.
- Starbuck has sex with Baltar but says Apollo's name (Lee). She
obviously would rather be in a relationship with two men, not one.
Bigamy with the sexes reversed, again.
- Dualla, the girlfriend of the President's assistant Billy, getting
"very friendly" with Apollo while they're working out together. That
scene was a thinly-disguised sex scene, almost pornographic, which ends
only when her "current husband" comes to the door. She greets him
warmly; she doesn't want to give him up for Apollo, but she wants
Apollo too! Need I say more?
I could give you another dozen examples, but I'm sure you can think
them up yourself. The message is absolutely unmistakable. BSG is
pushing constant images designed to make bigamy seem natural and
desirable.
Your mistake is in focusing on the Hollywood Homosexual lobby. The REAL
secret masters of Hollywood don't want anyone to know who they are, and
they're powerful enough that they can pull it off. There is a small but
immensely rich and powerful group of ex-Mormons (ex, because the
Mormons no longer allow bigamy, but many splinter Mormon groups are in
favor of it) who influence the content of every TV show and movie you
see. Witness this: despite the fact that there are millions of Mormons
in this country, almost NO movies are made about Mormons, and there are
almost NO Mormon characters on TV. This is for two reasons: (1) the
Hollywood Mormons don't want anyone to see presentations of "normal,
modern Mormons," who are against bigamy, and (b) the Hollywood Mormons
don't want to draw unwanted attention to themselves. Movies and TV
shows about Mormons would lead to questions and articles like "Who's
Mormon in Hollywood?", and the Hollywood Mormons might be recognized
for what they are: a fanatical group with an agenda of overthrowing the
American family by introducing bigamy to the country.
If you look at the vast amount of wealth that Mormons command
(including secret ex-Mormons, who sometimes pose as real Mormons), you
would understand how much power they have. Start by looking at Utah
politics, and then follow the money! A lot of leads right to Hollywood.
With all the attention you pay to BSG, I'm surprised you haven't
noticed how much it symbolically pushes the bigamy theme. For a while I
thought that you yourself were pro-bigamy, and trying to throw people
off the scent. That's one of the reasons I've hesitated to mention all
this here, in case you were somehow in contact with the Hollywood
Mormons. But I really don't think that's true. Is it? Anyway, you
should look at the show again with this new evidence in mind. You will
see bigamy, bigamy, bigamy!
BYTE ME!
is nonexistant in battlestar galactica
John Shocked
============================================================
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1121319360....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1121296637....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> ><nut...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1121262711.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> So John, to summarize, you're saying you're gay, right? That explains
>>>>> your fixation on the topic.
>>>>This is a common habit of Hollywood Homosexuals. Accuse falsely people who
>>>>disagree with them, like J. Edgar Hoover and Alexander The Great of being
>>>>homosexuals.
>>> So Alexander is on record as disagreeing with homosexuality? And the
>>> perception that he was bisexual has nothing at all to do with his
>>> relationship with Hephaeston?
>>The only known commentary of Alexander The Great on homosexuality was a letter
>>he sent to a local governor in which he criticized the practice.
> Interesting. I'll have to look that up to check the context.
I want you to present an Internet URL address for any documentation
which documents that any of these people engaged in homosexuality.
This must be based on writings from historians of those times, not
a writer of today paid by Hollywood Homosexuals to falsify the life of
someone who is long Dead.
None of what Hollywood Homosexuals are saying today is true about
homosexuality, or about Arabs/Moslems, whom they constantly portray
as terrorists, when in fact Israel started the terrorism in the Middle East
in 1947-1948 when the Arabs in the region had laid down their arms and were
willing to abide by the UN Partition decision which gave Israel a chunk of land.
Hollywood Homosexuals are not credible about anything, including these
life and death issues.
What makes you think they will tell the truth about some respectable guy
long Dead who they want to use to advertise Sodomy ?
Politics
BYTE ME!
> "manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:U9GdnWJB_Io...@rogers.com...
>
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>"manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:ecGdnR3LheO...@rogers.com...
>>>
>>>>Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
>>>>
>>>>Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber quotes an email from a fan
>>>>who explicitly requests a gay relationship on the show.
>>>
>>>Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has been aggressively campaigning
>>>for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science fiction TV series for the past 20 years.
>>>They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
>>>and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
>>>genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman [actress] Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap.
>>
>>How do you know Berman is gay?
>>According to www.IMDb.com he's been married to the same woman since 1980.
>>C.
>
>
> I did not say Berman was a homosexual. As I have stated several times here, most but not all
> Hollywood Homosexuals are homosexual.
Now this makes no sense at all. But then neither does any of your other
spiels. Either they are homosexuals or they are not.
However, it is obvious from the IMDB listing that he has
> no children after 25 years with this one women.
> Most wealthy and committed heterosexuals would have sought fruits from a relationship
> with another woman by now.
>
How do you know it was a choice? You just pull shit out of the air to
suit your paranoid imaginings.
> Politics
The Watch Dog
>
> However, it is obvious from the IMDB listing that he has
> > no children after 25 years with this one women.
> > Most wealthy and committed heterosexuals would have sought fruits from a relationship
> > with another woman by now.
> >
>
> How do you know it was a choice? You just pull shit out of the air to
> suit your paranoid imaginings.
You miss his point. Any "wealthy and committed heterosexual" should
ABANDON HIS WIFE if she proves unable to have children, and seek out
"fruits" with another woman. Although in this case the man MAY have
illegitimate children we don't know about, so that would be all right.
By the way, if a couple can't have children, it's always the woman's
fault, unless the husband isn't REALLY a "committed heterosexual."
The Watch Dog
> They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
> and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Your timeline of events is way off. The very first Trill story, in ST:
TNG, featured a Trill who started off in a male body, had a
relationship with the ship's female doctor, then came back in a female
body.
manitou
>
> As I have stated several times here, most but not all
> Hollywood Homosexuals are homosexual.
How is it possible to be a 'Hollywood Homosexual' and not be 'homosexual'?
C.
Andrealphus
LOL! I see Shocked is making these same stupid arguments. Some things
never change.
manitou
>
> 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.
Well...
I watched this earlier this evening and found this scene pretty routine.
OTOH, I didn't watch it in shot-by-shot freeze frame.
If anything, I'd expect gay viewers (closeted and non-closeted,
repressed and non-repressed) were more interested in Apollo's topless
scene in the locker room with Starbuck, his mannish female comrade. [It
_is_ a surprise when she appears later in the episode in a cocktail dress.]
C.
ANIM8Rfsk
Dog at tir...@aol.com wrote on 9/25/05 6:30 PM:
And Crusher, incompetent fool that she is, had never heard of a trill and
knew nothing of their symbiotes, even though they'd been hanging around the
Federation for hundreds of years.
John Shocked
"Herschorn Phineas McCaullkin Jr." <Squi...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:21536-433...@storefull-3214.bay.webtv.net...
> One Tracked shock strikes again.
It is one tracked BSG. I just report what is true about the BSG script and production.
They want you and your Son to engage in Sodomy.
What are you going to say when our Son comes and tells you he is a homosexual, is about to be homosexual married
and that his main reason or making that life choice was when you and he sat down together and watched
Battlestar Galactica and Apollo was that great homosexual and Baltar was a great patriot ?
You think one of these BSG Hollywood Homosexual wealthy fatcats is going to take the time to stop off on his
New York to Los Angeles private jet flight, chauffeur to your house and tell you he is sorry ?
Politics
John Shocked
>John Shocked wrote:
>> "manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:U9GdnWJB_Io...@rogers.com...
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>"manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:ecGdnR3LheO...@rogers.com...
>>>>>Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
>>>>>Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber quotes an email from a fan
>>>>>who explicitly requests a gay relationship on the show.
>>>>Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has been aggressively campaigning
>>>>for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science fiction TV series for the past 20 years.
>>>>They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
>>>>and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
>>>>genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman [actress] Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap.
>>>How do you know Berman is gay?
>>>According to www.IMDb.com he's been married to the same woman since 1980.
>>>C.
>> I did not say Berman was a homosexual. As I have stated several times here, most but not all
>> Hollywood Homosexuals are homosexual.
>Now this makes no sense at all. But then neither does any of your other spiels. Either they are homosexuals or they are not.
Hollywood Homosexuals support Sodomy on TV and in Movies and support anti-Arab/Moslem Hate and Mass Murder.
Most engage in Sodomy either because they enjoy it or because they realize that Sodomy is the Rite Of Passage
or Coin Of The Realm in Hollywood.
Some of them pass the Rite Of Passage by playing homosexuals in TV or movies.
>> However, it is obvious from the IMDB listing that he has no children after 25 years with this one women.
>> Most wealthy and committed heterosexuals would have sought fruits from a relationship
>> with another woman by now.
>> Politics
>How do you know it was a choice? You just pull shit out of the air to suit your paranoid imaginings.
=================================================================
As I have mentioned, Hollywood Homosexuals took control of Hollywood somewhere around 1992.
Let us look at the biggest male Hollywood stars who have arisen since that takeover. (the
list of major Hollywood female stars who had been in homosexual scenes on screen during
this period is simply too long to list here).
Six Degrees of Separation is the name of a Battlestar Galactica episode but it was also the
name of a movie in which Will Smith plays a homosexual hustler. This was the movie that
Will Smith had to do for the Hollywood Homosexuals who control Hollywood before they would
then allow him to obtain the big roles which followed. After this homosexual movie Six
Degrees of Separation (1993), Smith's next Hollywood movies were the following (f. IMDB):
Enemy of the State (1998) .... Robert Clayton Dean
Men in Black (1997) .... James Edwards/Agent J (Jay)
... aka MIB (USA: promotional abbreviation)
Independence Day (1996) .... Captain Steven 'Steve' Hiller
... aka ID4 (USA: promotional abbreviation)
Bad Boys (1995) .... Det. Mike Lowrey
Huge money straight movies. In fact, the reports from the set of Six Degrees of Separation
are the Will Smith refused to do a scene in which he was to kiss another man and the scene
was faked. That indicates Smith was not committed to the Sodomy subject matter of this
movie and was coerced into doing the movie. Leonard DiCaprio did the homosexual movie Total
Eclipse (1995), in which there were explicit naked bed scenes. (One of the last things I
saw on homosexual dominated HBO, around 2000-2001 before canceling the service).
The following are the acting jobs he received next:
The Man in the Iron Mask (1998) .... King Louis XIV/Philippe
Titanic (1997) .... Jack Dawson
Marvin's Room (1996) .... Hank
Romeo + Juliet (1996) .... Romeo
At the time of the 1992 takeover of Hollywood by Hollywood Homosexuals, Tom Hanks was an
actor with mediocre success who made his name playing a transvestite in the Bosom Buddies
TV series (1980-1982). Obviously, for the Hollywood Homosexuals this guy was way, way, way
ahead of his time and he had to be made a star. This is what happened to his career once
Hollywood Homosexuals took control:
Apollo 13 (1995) .... Jim Lovell
... aka Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience (USA: IMAX version)
Forrest Gump (1994) .... Forrest Gump
Vault of Horror I (1994) (TV)
Philadelphia (1993) .... Andrew Beckett
Sleepless in Seattle (1993) .... Sam Baldwin
A League of Their Own (1992) .... Jimmy Dugan
Russell Crowe was an Australian regional actor (born in New Zealand) making Australian
movies until he made the 1994 Australian movie The Sum Of Us, in which he portrayed a
homosexual. It was then that he received the call from Hollywood to appear in his first
Hollywood movie with Sharon Stone "The Quick and the Dead" Here is Crowe's Sodomy rise
to stardom:
Gladiator (2000) .... Maximus
The Insider (1999) .... Dr. Jeffrey Wigand
Mystery, Alaska (1999) .... Sheriff John Biebe
Breaking Up (1997) .... Steve
Heaven's Burning (1997) .... Colin
L.A. Confidential (1997) .... Officer Wendell 'Bud' White
Rough Magic (1995) .... Alex Ross
... aka Miss Shumway jette un sort (France)
Virtuosity (1995) .... SID 6.7
No Way Back (1995) .... FBI Agent Zack Grant
The Quick and the Dead (1995) .... Cort
The Sum of Us (1994) .... Jeff Mitchell
Ashton Kutcher is rumored to be a homosexual although his public relations people link him
to 'an older woman'. (Special thank you to Ashton Kutcher for appearing in the Gays In
Space II episode on Saturday Night Live 03/19/2005)
Keanu Reeve has long been rumored to be a homosexual. His name Neo in the huge money movie
series Matrix was "Neo", an abbreviation for Neo-Conservative, the group of people we have
talked about who Love Sodomy, and Hate Arabs/Moslems but otherwise despise the Left groups
of The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women, just like any other regular (paleo-) Conservative.
Mostly huge money movies. Again, the homosexual background was his Rite Of Passage.
This follows the pattern of Jonathan King and other music managers who had their Sodomy rite of
passage for young boys who wanted to become music stars. This Sodomy Rite Of Passage was
portrayed in the Roger Daltrey (of The Who rock and roll music band) movie Like It Is (1998)
and it has also been talked about by Pete Townshend of The Who in interviews.
Fortunately, Jonathan King went to prison for buggering young boys. When are some of these
Hollywood Homosexuals going to be caught and go to prison themselves ? No wonder so many
entertainers support Sodomy, when in many cases they were forced to taste some of it before
they were allowed their big break.
There has to be some element of criminal rape, extortion and racketeering associated with
this Sodomy promotion activity going on in Hollywood.
Politics
BYTE ME!
>>"BYTE ME!" <donot...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:W4HZe.110173$in2....@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>"manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:U9GdnWJB_Io...@rogers.com...
>>>
>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"manitou" <manit...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:ecGdnR3LheO...@rogers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber quotes an email from a fan
>>>>>>who explicitly requests a gay relationship on the show.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has been aggressively campaigning
>>>>>for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science fiction TV series for the past 20 years.
>>>>>They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
>>>>>and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
>>>>>genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman [actress] Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap.
>>>>
>>>>How do you know Berman is gay?
>>>>According to www.IMDb.com he's been married to the same woman since 1980.
>>>>C.
>>>
>>>I did not say Berman was a homosexual. As I have stated several times here, most but not all
>>>Hollywood Homosexuals are homosexual.
>>
>>Now this makes no sense at all. But then neither does any of your other spiels. Either they are homosexuals or they are not.
>
Bullshit snipped. All you did was dodge. So are they homosexuals or not?
>
>
>>>However, it is obvious from the IMDB listing that he has no children after 25 years with this one women.
>>>Most wealthy and committed heterosexuals would have sought fruits from a relationship
>>>with another woman by now.
>>>Politics
>>
>>How do you know it was a choice? You just pull shit out of the air to suit your paranoid imaginings.
>
Snipped a whole bunch of paranoid rantings. Get help you idiot. By the
way, you ignored the question as usual and went on ranting.
BYTE ME!
Because it is the truth, unlike your paranoid rantings about bsg.
The Watch Dog
The Trill as presented in TNG and the Trill as presented in DS9 were
prety different (without any explanation at all). Although I haven't
seen the TNG episode for a while, I don't think it stated that the
Trill and the Federation had been allies for a long time. DS9 implied
that, to give Jadzia more of a backstory, but I think the detail was
invented for DSG.
Also, in TNG, the Trill's mind and personality seemed to be entirely
the symbiote's; the humanoid host bodies they lived in seemed to act as
just vessels or puppets. (I did wonder, at the time, just how those
bodies were created, aged, and maintained.) In DS9, each host body had
its own personality, training, family, etc., before any symbiote was
implanted, and that personality seemed dominant, although the symbiote
allowed memories of each life to be carried to the next one.
They looked different, too.
There are ways - well established in fiction, particularly science
fiction - to explain differences like this, and even get story hooks
out of the explanations. (For example: two different branches of the
race, called the Trill and the NaTrill, who differ on how they manage
the relationship between the symbiote and the host. They've lived on
separate planets for a few centuries now, and do not get along AT ALL .
. . .) But in this case the writers didn't bother.
The Watch Dog
>
> It is one tracked BSG. I just report what is true about the BSG script and production.
> They want you and your Son to engage in Sodomy.
Bigamy. They want your son and daughter to engage in bigamy. Get it
right.
John Shocked
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com> wrote in message > > > But consider the possibility
>> > that they're using sex between two women to represent bigamy.
>> How does two women on HBO represent bigamy ?
> That one's pretty obvious, isn't it? Any normal man who sees two women
> together in a sexual situation naturally imagines (even against his own
> moral code, because men react to visual stimulation) himself as part of
> it. One man, two women - bigamy.
>
> Frankly, considering your close look at the sexual symbolism in BSG, I
> am very surprised that you haven't seen the constant advertisements for
> bigamy that are included in it - far more, and far more explicit, than
> any gay male sex imagery. Some examples:
> - Boomer is in love with both Helo and the Chief, and has had sex with
> both. Bigamy with the sexes reversed.
> - Baltar has one beloved woman always in his mind, but is constantly
> chasing after (and sometimes having sex with) other women as well. He
> yearns to be a man with more than one female sex partner, and he
> succeeds. He'd be a bigamist if it were legal in the Fleet.
There is no question that these couplings are used in the series to cheapen the idea of heterosexual sex
and the relationships from which such sex originates.
Meanwhile, Apollo and Zerak are not constantly hot to trot to jump into bed with anyone.
You see, the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals want you to know that this relationship between Apollo and Zerak
ain't that YMCA, bathhouse or bushes off the highway kind of homosexual thing you may have heard about.
Heck, this thing between Apollo and Zerak is True Love, purer than the driven snow.
But most importantly, purer than any heterosexual relationship ever could be.
> - Baltar again. Did you see the way he was trying to charm and warm up
> the Pegasus' Cylon prisoner? She's the same model as his beloved, so it
> makes sense to him that both of them would love him. A perfect bigamy:
> a man with two beautiful twins.
I would not characterize the relationship presented by the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals
that Baltar has with the non-human "6" as "love". It is strictly lust on his side and manipulation on her side.
Clearly Baltar is willing to blur the difference between these two discrete non-humans who share no memories
(since they have not been within range) to pursue bestialsex tail.
> - The infamous scene in which Boomer encounters her group of naked
> "sisters." Any normal man would respond to the nudity by imagining
> himself there with them (and most BSG watchers are men, so the
> conclusion's unavoidable). The show is tempting men into wanting a
> harem of wives (which is an Arabic concept!), an extreme form of bigotry.
This is nonsense and BSG Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives would never allow Arab/Moslem
concepts into a Hollywood created show, unless it was framed to encourage you to Mass Murder Arabs/Moslems
or at least look the other way while your country did engaged in such a policy.
> - Starbuck has sex with Baltar but says Apollo's name (Lee). She
> obviously would rather be in a relationship with two men, not one.
> Bigamy with the sexes reversed, again.
> - Dualla, the girlfriend of the President's assistant Billy, getting
> "very friendly" with Apollo while they're working out together. That
> scene was a thinly-disguised sex scene, almost pornographic, which ends
> only when her "current husband" comes to the door. She greets him
> warmly; she doesn't want to give him up for Apollo, but she wants
> Apollo too! Need I say more?
What that scene made clear is that Apollo was not interested in heterosexual sex.
At that very moment, it is clear that the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals wanted to present
Apollo and remaining true to Zerak.
> I could give you another dozen examples, but I'm sure you can think
> them up yourself. The message is absolutely unmistakable. BSG is
> pushing constant images designed to make bigamy seem natural and desirable.
The scene in which they display Starbuck discovering a whole factory or "Farm" of women
captured and being connected to machines for the purposes of childbirth showed the true
Hollywood Homosexual colors of the BSG chieftains. Homosexuals have a basic resentment
for the whole idea of childbirth, marriage and the whole degree of respect with which these
concepts are held in moral society.
> Your mistake is in focusing on the Hollywood Homosexual lobby. The REAL
> secret masters of Hollywood don't want anyone to know who they are, and
> they're powerful enough that they can pull it off. There is a small but
> immensely rich and powerful group of ex-Mormons (ex, because the
> Mormons no longer allow bigamy, but many splinter Mormon groups are in
> favor of it) who influence the content of every TV show and movie you
> see. Witness this: despite the fact that there are millions of Mormons
> in this country, almost NO movies are made about Mormons, and there are
> almost NO Mormon characters on TV. This is for two reasons: (1) the
> Hollywood Mormons don't want anyone to see presentations of "normal,
> modern Mormons," who are against bigamy, and (b) the Hollywood Mormons
> don't want to draw unwanted attention to themselves. Movies and TV
> shows about Mormons would lead to questions and articles like "Who's
> Mormon in Hollywood?", and the Hollywood Mormons might be recognized
> for what they are: a fanatical group with an agenda of overthrowing the
> American family by introducing bigamy to the country.
The problem with this argument is that there are no known Mormons in Hollywood.
The only known religion which is over-represented in Hollywood is judaism.
That would mean that jews and Mormons would have to work out some sort of power sharing relationship
in Hollywood which would no doubt have come to light by now.
> If you look at the vast amount of wealth that Mormons command
> (including secret ex-Mormons, who sometimes pose as real Mormons), you
> would understand how much power they have. Start by looking at Utah
> politics, and then follow the money! A lot of leads right to Hollywood.
> With all the attention you pay to BSG, I'm surprised you haven't
> noticed how much it symbolically pushes the bigamy theme. For a while I
> thought that you yourself were pro-bigamy, and trying to throw people
> off the scent. That's one of the reasons I've hesitated to mention all
> this here, in case you were somehow in contact with the Hollywood
> Mormons. But I really don't think that's true. Is it? Anyway, you
> should look at the show again with this new evidence in mind. You will
> see bigamy, bigamy, bigamy!
Let us all hear the evidence you have of the Mormon penetration into the
power corridors and boardrooms of Hollywood.
Politics
John Shocked
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> "Jim Phillips" <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050924095258.10228D-100000@mail...
>> > On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> >> The current BSG episode, Pegasus, ends the season with another dose of Sodomy for the
>> >> diehard faithful supporters of this series' perversity.
>> >> In a scene in which Sharon-Boomer is being tortured for Cylon information by officials selected by the
>> >> sex-changed Admiral Cain, the interrogator is just about to commit the act of Sodomy Rape on this prisoner,
>> >> his flies unzipped and at the point of Sodomite entry, when he is stopped by her two bestialsex lovers.
>> > Not all heterosexual sex is the Judaeo-Christian "Man on top get
>> > it over with" variety. Unfortunately I can understand why you'd get all
>> > excited at a scene like that one...
>> > snip
>> This is TV, where symbolism dominates.
> Your sodomy-soaked mind gives TV too much credit. Most TV is
> rather straightforward, since most people don't pay that much attention.
People who do not notice the target of the Sodomy symbolism in fake science fiction series like BSG
are the weak minds that represent the prey to predatory Sodomites who control Hollywood today.
> And no, that doesn't mean that most people are susceptible to subliminal messages since it's been
> demonstrated that subliminal messages have no effect on human behavior.
Rubbish. The William Esty advertising company has been paying top dollar to the crooks in Hollywood who control
the moviues you see to advertise various product, including tobacco cigarettes, in the content of the movie
they present to you. These hidden advertisements are known to be extremely powerful.
>> If they wanted to present normal sexual entry, they would have chosen
>> a different position and system of restraints on the Sharon-Boomer prisoner.
> So you have a binary view of intercourse: it's either normal sexual
> entry or it's sodomy, is that right? In your mind, is oral sex sodomy?
If a Tv show or movie wanted to symbolize heterosexual sex, they would not utilize the primary position used by
Sodomites to commit their horrific acts to present heterosexual sex. These screenwriters make millions of dollars
on these series. They are extremely experienced at symbolisms.
>> Sodomy was the clear symbolism which BSG intended with this scene.
> Nonsense--it revealed the bestial nature of the man doing it.
"bestial". That is a good word in reference to BSG and any coupling between human and non-human
bestial sexual partners. However, one of the goals of BSG Hollywood Homosexuals is to present Sodomy as
being either superior to normal sex or at least comparable to it.
>> And "normal sex" has nothing to do with religion. It is based on nature, a primal force which predates all religion.
> Almost all mammals mate with each other with the male mounting the
> female from behind. Doesn't that mean that such a position is more natural
> than how some humans do it?
BSG Hollywood Homosexuals would love this. There you go confusing or conflating animal bestial sex
with human sex. That is part of the whole reason this show received Hollywood Homosexual funding:
to hear you utter such a horrific point.
After all, if heterosexual sex is comparable to bestial sex, then what could be so wrong with a little Sodomy...
Politics
John Shocked
For a second, I thought you were about to say: "get it straight".
That would have been a novel idea, would it not.
"Herschorn Phineas McCaullkin Jr." <Squi...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:21536-433...@storefull-3214.bay.webtv.net...
> One Tracked shock strikes again.
It is one tracked BSG. I just report what is true about the BSG script and production.
They want you and your Son to engage in Sodomy.
John Shocked
Sodomy symbolism in BSG is widespread.
========================================================"Anathema" <tiredo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425848d4$0$15386$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Bozo the Evil Klown wrote:
>> Gaius Baltar is a more complex, three-dimensional character.
> This seems true to me too. It's made Baltar more interesting.
>> He *isn't* evil at heart, but he's weak enough to be seduced into being accomplice to evil deeds. Finding out his guilt over the
>> massacre of mankind after the fact, he's now driven to protect himself from exposure- not out of evil or malice, but simple
>> self-preservation.
>I'm not so sure here. I don't want to get into definitions of evil, but I do believe that Baltar is a
>sociopath. (For those interested in quibbling over the difference between psychopath and sociopath, here're the
>definitions I use. A psychotic is divorced from reality. He hears voices that aren't there.
This guy Baltar definitely hears a voice, but that voice is there.
What is missing is moral compunctions in these dialogues
with "6" on the part of Baltar himself.
>He can be paranoid when it's in appropriate. Whatever. He lives in a separate reality. He's crazy. A
>sociopath is sane. He is rational and is in touch with reality. What makes him different is that he has no
>empathy for others. He doesn't understand or care about other people's feelings including their pain. This
>reduces people to mere objects which must be manipulated for his good. To him, the only thing that matters in
>the universe is what' good for him. To him, it makes sense to use, steal or cause any kind of damage as long as
>it provides something good for him.)
There are points at which he claims "I repent" after being chided by the "6" chip but it clearly rings hollow
and is bereft of any empathy for the people he murdered.
>I think the opening minutes of the miniseries defined Baltar's character as a sociopath. When Six told him that
>the Colonies' defenses had been compromised and the Cylons were about to attack, his first and only concern was
>how he could save his reputation. The death of millions didn't affect him, so it wasn't an issue for him. He
>has no guilt about his role in the Cylon attack, nor for the death of Amarak, because he was able to come out of
>those situations without being harmed.
If anything, the "6" chip is more compassionate than the Baltar portion of his mentality.
>All his actions since the attack have seemed consistent with this, I believe.
>He's a sociopath and that makes him dangerous.
>A
And the weird thing is that the writers have a lot of people supporting and cheering for Baltar. Claims that he
"complex" and "three-dimensional" abound. How have the writers been able to achieve this amazing marketing
effect ? And are the gullible people who could respond to the hidden marketing signals and symbolisms from the
writers about Baltar, themselves weak and dangerous people ?
Politics
John Shocked
If you refer to the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode The Outcast, the records show that that episode first
aired 03/16/1992, which was right in the middle of the Clinton campaign for President which I have previously
discussed as the real turning point when Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives took control in Hollywood
and in the country.
And it works right into the timeline of being 5 months after the 10/24/1991 Death of Gene Roddenberry and the
takeover of the Star Trek franchise by Rick Berman. Suddenly, the Star Trek:The Next Generation (TNG) actors
were being asked to read scripts which expanded on the idea of Sodomy being 'just another life choice' and
Stewart it seems, to his credit, reacted against this.
Politics
Wilmer Terwilliger Huntingdon 3rd
pretty scary. Witness shocked and his buggery/hollywood homo trip. I
wonder if HE is not the most simplistic Cylon drone there is. A machine
only capable of spewing the same old røte lines out over and over. Do
you ever notice him posting on any other thread that relates to other
aspects of BSG? No. Are you incapable of the concept of unblindered
thought, johnshocked? On any idea or concept beyond your consuming,
single minded obsession? I doubt it.
Diane L
Because, of course, in your world no one marries for love. People marry only
to have children who can then give them grandchildren. Anyone who is
unmarried or married without children is obviously a homosexual (although
this does not necessarily involved having sex with or even being attracted
to members of their own sex).
BTW, how many children do you have, John?
Diane L.
Anthony Cerrato
"Diane L" <di...@lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message
news:4338376f$0$16335$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
Who the hell is this moron that keeps polluting this thread
with idiotic anti-gay nonsense? And why do people keep
answering or arguing with him instead of ignoring him and
letting the thread die a natural death? What a waste of
bandwidth on a purely OT subject!!! (I'm only posting here
because I have ignored the thread a long time but it never
goes away, and I just couldn't stand it anymore.)
...tonyC (A _real_ SF fan!)
pl...@quentincrisp.com
> which has been aggressively campaigning for homosexual
> characters to be cast specifically in science fiction TV series
> for the past 20 years.
Tell me you aren't serious. Nobody can be that stupid, can they?
Obviously the heterosexual lobby is better funded, since 99% of the
characters on television are hetero. If the gays were aggressive, what
must these folks have been like? People, we're got to take a stand and
stop the hetero agenda!
John Shocked
The purpose of marriage is child procreation and child nurturing. This intent of marriage predates
all forms of religion. If that is not a couple's intent, then they should not besmirch the idea of marriage
with their behavior. Why should society consecrate two people, or a person and an animal, who are
merely intent on having sex, homosex, or bestialsex ?
> BTW, how many children do you have, John?
> Diane L.
I do not answer personal questions.
Politics
Kweeg
news:F%WZe.33519$TA2....@fe09.lga...
> Who the hell is this moron that keeps polluting this thread
> with idiotic anti-gay nonsense? And why do people keep
> answering or arguing with him instead of ignoring him and
> letting the thread die a natural death? What a waste of
> bandwidth on a purely OT subject!!! (I'm only posting here
> because I have ignored the thread a long time but it never
> goes away, and I just couldn't stand it anymore.)
> ...tonyC (A _real_ SF fan!)
Indeed, and cross posted to a bunch of other groups where it is also OT.
"John Shocked" is a loon! Ignore or killfile him, I wouldn't even know he's
posting except for the people that can't leave him alone. He's not gonna
change his views just because someone says something clever of beats him in
a battle of logic.
DON'T FEED THE TROLL!
--
Qa'pla
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
John Shocked
Simple. Sodomy is not Off Topic to Battlestar Galactica, and everyone who has watched
this fake science fiction series knows that in spades.
The intent of BSG Hollywood Homosexuals is to sell Sodomy to you and your kids,
not present creative science fiction ideas and visuals.
Most people because of the marketing of Sodomy in the News Media are afraid to criticize
Sodomy on TV. Thus they rely on guys like me to do their talking for them.
Politics
John Shocked
were being asked to read scripts which expounded on the idea of Sodomy being 'just another life choice' and
Stewart it seems, to his credit, reacted against this.
>"Wilmer Terwilliger Huntingdon 3rd" <Squi...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:524-4338...@storefull-3217.bay.webtv.net...
Again, your post is dishonest. If you disagree with my point of view, it is your responsibility to attempt
to prove me wrong, not attempt to prey on the weak minds of others who are not aware that this message
of yours is merely a tactic to interfere with the speech of others.
Politics
N2
"John Shocked" <jsho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yvwZe.267302$E95.235088@fed1read01...
> "N2" <no...@nunya.com> wrote in message
> news:cBtZe.50397$ct5.4116@fed1read04...
>>> There is no question that Sodomy symbolism was the clear intent of the
>>> BSG Hollywood Homosexuals
>>> who control this fake science fiction TV series.
>> Fake? How so? It seems like it really was on my TV, and was really
>> produced, and I really watched it.
>
> BSG is not science fiction. As Saturday Night Live put it, it is "Gays In
> Space.
> They performed 3 skits on this subject, starting 3 weeks after the first
> US airing of
> BSG Bastille Day episode.
>
You'd be correct, if you weren't so wrong. Just because SNL makes a skit,
that doesn't make it NOT science fiction. That's like saying you are gay
because my neighbors dog eats cat food.
>>> Most male on female rapes we have ever heard reported in the news and in
>>> court testimony were frontal penetration.
>> Source?
>
> As mentioned, this is anecdotal, based on actual reports of rapes which we
> have heard about
> in the news and court case testimony.
> I doubt such entry-specific statistics are kept.
So, that's your way of saying you have no evidence to support your
assertion.
The Watch Dog
> The intent of BSG Hollywood Homosexuals is to sell Sodomy to you and your kids,
> not present creative science fiction ideas and visuals.
John - your reluctance to even CONSIDER THE OBVIOUS EVIDENCE that BSG
is pushing bigamy, not sodomy, makes me wonder if you are in the employ
of the Hollywood (ex-) Mormons who are pushing this agenda. You are
certainly doing a great job of giving the "silent treatment" to my
thesis, despite all the scenes that support it.
If you are not shilling for the pro-Bigamy crowd (and I hope you are
not), please go back to my post and read over the evidence for bigamy
imagery in BSG. I feel sure you will find it compelling.
John Shocked
You have to support the Sodomy cause in Hollywood before you will be allowed to work there.
So it is a self-selecting bunch of people.
rja.ca...@excite.com
Was it a male symbiote or a female symbiote? And anyway, isn't this
another case of bigamy?
Jenn
"John Shocked" <jsho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The purpose of marriage is child procreation and child nurturing.
According to whom?
> This intent
> of marriage predates
> all forms of religion. If that is not a couple's intent, then they should
> not besmirch the idea of marriage
> with their behavior.
My uncle and aunt are besmirching marriage? Who knew.
pl...@quentincrisp.com
> 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.
The Watch Dog
Ohyes. Oh yes indeed.
The Watch Dog
>
> Again, your post is dishonest. If you disagree with my point of view, it is your responsibility to attempt
> to prove me wrong, not attempt to prey on the weak minds of others who are not aware that this message
> of yours is merely a tactic to interfere with the speech of others.
You wouldn't respond if someone did. You have yet to respond to my
clear and obvious proof that BSG is pushing bigamy, not sodomy. Wy
"attempt to prove you wrong," when you'd just skip over such a post
anyway?
BYTE ME!
> "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1127719353.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>It is one tracked BSG. I just report what is true about the BSG script and production.
>>>They want you and your Son to engage in Sodomy.
>>
>>Bigamy. They want your son and daughter to engage in bigamy. Get it right.
>
>
> For a second, I thought you were about to say: "get it straight".
> That would have been a novel idea, would it not.
>
> "Herschorn Phineas McCaullkin Jr." <Squi...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:21536-433...@storefull-3214.bay.webtv.net...
>
>>One Tracked shock strikes again.
>
>
> It is one tracked BSG. I just report what is true about the BSG script and production.
> They want you and your Son to engage in Sodomy.
> What are you going to say when our Son comes and tells you he is a homosexual, is about to be homosexual married
> and that his main reason or making that life choice was when you and he sat down together and watched
> Battlestar Galactica and Apollo was that great homosexual and Baltar was a great patriot ?
First, there is no sodomy portrayed in BSG. Second it just doesn't work
that way. Nobody watches a tv show and decides to be gay.
>
> You think one of these BSG Hollywood Homosexual wealthy fatcats is going to take the time to stop off on his
> New York to Los Angeles private jet flight, chauffeur to your house and tell you he is sorry ?
>
They have nothing to be sorry for other than crappy shows.
> Politics
manitou
Um......,
I'm guessing there are quite a few headshrinkers (especially the ones
who are no good at athletics) who regard wrestling as unconscious
homosexual activity.
And I can imagine what a shrink would say about a man who describes
wrestling's 'ground face down' position as "sunny side up".
C.
Velvet Elvis
surprised by subliminal sodomy. Thank you.
manitou
> could you add a spoiler warning to these threads? I like to be
> surprised by subliminal sodomy. Thank you.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(You might like to check out Jamie Bamber in "Hornblower"...)
C.
John Shocked
> "John Shocked" <jsho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:yvwZe.267302$E95.235088@fed1read01...
>> "N2" <no...@nunya.com> wrote in message news:cBtZe.50397$ct5.4116@fed1read04...
>>>> There is no question that Sodomy symbolism was the clear intent of the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals
>>>> who control this fake science fiction TV series.
>>> Fake? How so? It seems like it really was on my TV, and was really produced, and I really watched it.
>> BSG is not science fiction. As Saturday Night Live put it, it is "Gays In Space".
>> They performed 3 skits on this subject, starting 3 weeks after the first US airing of BSG Bastille Day episode.
> You'd be correct, if you weren't so wrong. Just because SNL makes a skit, that doesn't make it NOT science fiction. That's like
> saying you are gay because my neighbors dog eats cat food.
This is a silly statement evidencing weakness in your case.
>>>> Most male on female rapes we have ever heard reported in the news and in court testimony were frontal penetration.
>>> Source?
>> As mentioned, this is anecdotal, based on actual reports of rapes which we have heard about
>> in the news and court case testimony.
>> I doubt such entry-specific statistics are kept.
> So, that's your way of saying you have no evidence to support your assertion.
Sounds like a reading comprehension problem here. I stated that I based the statement
on anecdotal news reports and court testimony I had seen or read.
I do not believe any such statistics have been kept from the interviews that occur
with rape victims.
========================================================
"Anathema" <tiredo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425f5a1f$0$3205$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "Anathema" <tiredo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>He seems to be saying that promoting any kind of homosexuality promotes all homosexual activity. By that logic, showing
>>>>>lesbians on-screen will persuade weak-minded boys/men to desire sex with other men.
>>>>Why so afraid to own these views yourself ? Say "I". Go on, try it.
>>>They're not my views. So "I" would be inappropriate.
>> How do your views differ from mine ?
> I have viewed the entire "Battlestar Galactica" mini-series and first season and don't see any homosexual references in the
> episodes.
That cracked me up. You have an excellent sense of humor.
> Specifically, the scenes you have mentioned repeatedly don't show any homosexual content in which I am able to observe (Boomer and
> her naked twins; Apollo and Zarek). I have known a few homosexual individuals in the past, and because of my acquaintance with
> them, I believe I'm pretty good at spotting homosexual content when I see it. I just don't see it here.
As I have said, the Hollywood Homosexuals behind the series have to be
subtle. They do not want to gross out the majority of the audience to the
point that no one is watching. Then who could they proselytize to ?
> I don't believe there is a wealthy coterie of Republican Homosexuals who control the content of the entertainment. If there were
> a conspiracy of such homosexuals, I really don't believe they'd be republicans.
No, they are Republicans and should be Republicans. The Sodomy issue, along
with similar ACLU issues like the Legalization of Drugs, is one of those
selfish issues that generally come under the title "civil liberties". These
are 'leave me alone', 'let me do what I want to do', selfish issues that are
not just conservative, but libertarian in nature. "keep the government out
of my life".
Heck, if not for the federal government, Unions would not exist. If not for
the federal government, Blacks and Women would not have Civil Rights. If
not for the federal government, there would be no 60's Great Society
programs for The Poor, or what is left of those programs since Clinton (a
big homosexual rights Gays In The Military supporter) rolled them back.
The federal government passed the Defense Of Marriage Act which was
anti-homosexual marriage rights.
The response of homosexuals ? Try to negate the federal government laws in
the Courts by playing up this crap that the Federal Courts can negate the
laws created by the will of the people (Judicial Review, they call it).
The same US Supreme Court that ruled in Plessy vs Ferguson in 1896 in the
"Separate But Equal" decision that Blacks were second class citizens and that
segregation was ok.
It was only in the 1950's, when the US Supreme Court was dominated by
non-Judges (only one of the 9 judges then had a judicial background -- the
Chief Justice was Governor of California immediately before joining the US
Supreme Court in 1953), that Brown vs Board of Education (1954) reversed
the corrupt Plessy decision.
And I should mention that the 14th Amendment passed right after the US Civil
War which ended Slavery, banned any kind of segregation, so the 1896
decision was unconstitutional, on its face.
The truth is that Homosexuals have nothing in common with the Left, which
comprises The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women). They should and do want
opposite solutions in government policy. The Homosexual Agenda is
intensely unpopular with the people of the US: it has not passed a law in
any statewide election yet. They lost 11 straight states in the 2004
elections and they just lost last week in Kansas. Thus, it is in the
interests of homosexuals to prop up the US and State Courts as being
superior in power to the Congress. and state Legislatures. However, that is
opposite to the Constitutions of the US and the States and is definitely
opposite to the will of the people. Homosexuals are in the position where
they have to oppose the will of the people. And that means paying off
Corrupt Judges to make progress. And Hollywood Homosexuals definitely have
the money to pay off crooked judges.
The Little Guy on The Left is totally opposed to this and certainly could
not afford that route.
> I believe you are possibly a high functioning, schizophrenic. I
Again, personal insults from the self-claimed magnanimous sycophants
that represent Hollywood Homosexuals on these forums.
Ouch I'm so hurt.
> think you're intelligent and at times quite perceptive. You've made a number of observations about things which impressed me.
> But you're misinterpreting some of the things you see. You're seeing homosexual references where they don't exist. You're
> imagining a controlling clique of homosexual masters which is not something that makes much sense. Your beliefs about
> homosexuals recruiting and converting people to sodomy by using very subtle clues is paranoid. Your views of what
Again, personal insults from the self-claimed magnanimous sycophants
that represent Hollywood Homosexuals on these forums.
Ouch I'm so hurt.
> "damages" a woman and how the sanctity of marriage works is out of touch with the way things are in today's society. You can't
> distinguish the difference in tone between a romance such as "Titanic" and a hard-boiled, film noir(ish) tale like "Battlestar
> Galactica." You make unfounded assumptions and make unreasonable leaps of logic. The SNL skit seems to be an example of this.
> I haven't seen those skits, but I looked at the link you posted. There is nothing in the picture there which suggests a
> similarity to "Battlestar Galactica," and yet you insist the skits parody it. It's a bit odd to rely on those cocaine-sodden
> writers and comedians as true seeking investigative journalists.
Again you rely on a sick parade of personal insults, this time directed
at the whole staff of Saturday Night Live. Where will your insults end ?
I do not rely on them. They spotted the same thing I saw. And I saw
it and addressed it on the Internet before they started running those skits.
> At times you reason quite well and it's interesting exchanging ideas with you. But your reasoning is impaired when discussing
> homosexuals and certain social interactions. For example, you stated you believe heterosexual men enjoy looking at nude females,
> but are not turned on by lesbian sex scenes. That is incorrect in most men. And you are way too confident that your opinions in
> these areas are correct. You're a little too sure that you have supporters who agree with you reading these posts. This kind of
> super-confidence is a sign of irrational thinking.
Others on these forums have posted messages which evidence that
others even on this Homosexual dominated forum agree with my point
of view in the titles of the Newsgroup Topics they have posted.
> I've also known a few crazy people in my past, and I realize that your
Again, personal insults from the self-claimed magnanimous sycophants
that represent Hollywood Homosexuals on these forums.
Ouch I'm so hurt.
> beliefs are impervious to any logic or persuasion attempted by other people. So I am not attempting to convince you otherwise.
> You asked what my views are and so I've stated them.
I have not seen anything but a parade of wild accusations and insults.
You got anything else ?
>>>So you believe that only the audience can't distinguish them as separate individuals?
>> Again, at least to their subconscious, there is the same woman involved
>> in concurrent heterosexual affairs.
>> And I am sure some people watching the show believe them in fact to be
>> the exact same character.
> Here is an unreasonable assumption. Every message I've read in this newsgroup about the Boomer Cylons have shown a clear
> understanding that they are separate individuals. Most have followed the impromptu convention of labeling the Boomers so they
> are easily distinguished, e.g., Boomer-C and Boomer-G. The typical audience member is probably more intelligent and perceptive
> that you credit.
People who come to Internet forums generally are more interested
in the show and thus are watching the show more closely than the
average viewer at home. They are more likely to recognize the
difference since they have been following the script more closely.
However, some people watching this series may not even have
seen all the episodes, and some may have seen them out of order.
>>>>No, there was a homosexual couple portrayed in the movie American Beauty, and they were the only respectful, legal and
>>>>monogamous relationship in the movie. (Obviously, this movie was fiction).
>>>
>>>I guess I don't remember them. I remember the repressed gay next-door neighbor (the soldier type guy) who was worried about his
>>>son. I don't recall that he had sex with anyone. I think I recall that he was a widower. Were there other gay characters in
>>>the movie?
>>>A
>> I saw it once years back but lots was written about the movie so it should be able to be Google-ed. For example:
>> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/04-10-2000/vo16no08_american_depravity.htm
> Congratulations. For once, you've provided a link to something which actually supports what you're saying. It does refer to a
> monogamous,
I have been doing that throughout these discussions.
> homosexual couple in the movie. Clearly, I'd forgotten them. One thing troubles me though. This "New American" magazine/web
> site. It's clearly a conservative republican publication. Wouldn't that make them homosexuals?
I Google-ed to find numerous sources for that same information. That one
came up first.
> In any event, I think they offer something you should adopt. That "Hollywood Homosexual masters" thing is long and awkward. The
> "New American" called them the "Velvet Mafia." Much snappier appellation. What do you think?
> A
Both serve a purpose, but mine is more direct as to the source of the
problem.
Maybe Liberace wore Velvet way back, but I doubt the Village People down
at the local YMCA are strutting regal with velvet adornments.
Politics
lensm...@hotmail.com
> No, they are Republicans and should be Republicans. The Sodomy issue, along
> with similar ACLU issues like the Legalization of Drugs, is one of those
> selfish issues that generally come under the title "civil liberties". These
> are 'leave me alone', 'let me do what I want to do', selfish issues that are
> not just conservative, but libertarian in nature. "keep the government out
> of my life".
> Heck, if not for the federal government, Unions would not exist. If not for
> the federal government, Blacks and Women would not have Civil Rights. If
> not for the federal government, there would be no 60's Great Society
> programs for The Poor, or what is left of those programs since Clinton (a
> big homosexual rights Gays In The Military supporter) rolled them back.
Did the Federal Government do all these wonderful things of its own
volition or did Blacks, Women and the poor have to march, demonstrate
and generally stand on their heads and spit wooden nickels before the
government would take them seriously?
> The federal government passed the Defense Of Marriage Act which was
> anti-homosexual marriage rights.
Pandering to fear mongering!
Jongo III
Just remember the Cylons use a different name on that show - they're
called "The French".
--
J3.
Remove STARBUCK'S EMBRYOS to respond.
Jim Phillips
> "Jim Phillips" <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050925124630.22040A-100000@mail...
> > On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> >> "Jim Phillips" <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050924095258.10228D-100000@mail...
> >> > On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> >> >> The current BSG episode, Pegasus, ends the season with another dose of Sodomy for the
> >> >> diehard faithful supporters of this series' perversity.
> >> >> In a scene in which Sharon-Boomer is being tortured for Cylon information by officials selected by the
> >> >> sex-changed Admiral Cain, the interrogator is just about to commit the act of Sodomy Rape on this prisoner,
> >> >> his flies unzipped and at the point of Sodomite entry, when he is stopped by her two bestialsex lovers.
> >> > Not all heterosexual sex is the Judaeo-Christian "Man on top get
> >> > it over with" variety. Unfortunately I can understand why you'd get all
> >> > excited at a scene like that one...
> >> > snip
> >> This is TV, where symbolism dominates.
> > Your sodomy-soaked mind gives TV too much credit. Most TV is
> > rather straightforward, since most people don't pay that much attention.
>
> People who do not notice the target of the Sodomy symbolism in fake science fiction series like BSG
> are the weak minds that represent the prey to predatory Sodomites who control Hollywood today.
That's right, John--only intellectual titans such as yourself are
able to notice vast amounts of sodomy that no one else can see...
> > And no, that doesn't mean that most people are susceptible to subliminal messages since it's been
> > demonstrated that subliminal messages have no effect on human behavior.
>
> Rubbish. The William Esty advertising company has been paying top dollar to the crooks in Hollywood who control
> the moviues you see to advertise various product, including tobacco cigarettes, in the content of the movie
> they present to you. These hidden advertisements are known to be extremely powerful.
There's no evidence to back up that statement (rigorous testing of
such claims have demonstrated they are nonsense).
> >> If they wanted to present normal sexual entry, they would have chosen
> >> a different position and system of restraints on the Sharon-Boomer prisoner.
> > So you have a binary view of intercourse: it's either normal sexual
> > entry or it's sodomy, is that right? In your mind, is oral sex sodomy?
>
> If a Tv show or movie wanted to symbolize heterosexual sex, they would not utilize the primary position used by
> Sodomites to commit their horrific acts to present heterosexual sex. These screenwriters make millions of dollars
> on these series. They are extremely experienced at symbolisms.
Is that a "yes" or "no"? Are heterosexual couples that engage in
intercourse in any other way besides the missionary position engaging in
sodomy?
> >> Sodomy was the clear symbolism which BSG intended with this scene.
> > Nonsense--it revealed the bestial nature of the man doing it.
>
> "bestial". That is a good word in reference to BSG and any coupling between human and non-human
> bestial sexual partners. However, one of the goals of BSG Hollywood Homosexuals is to present Sodomy as
> being either superior to normal sex or at least comparable to it.
Not surprisingly, you've managed to contradict yourself--why did
they have such a repugnant character preparing to engage in sodomy rape if
they want to make sodomy seem "superior" or "comparable" to your personal
definition of "normal" sex?
> >> And "normal sex" has nothing to do with religion. It is based on nature, a primal force which predates all religion.
> > Almost all mammals mate with each other with the male mounting the
> > female from behind. Doesn't that mean that such a position is more natural
> > than how some humans do it?
>
> BSG Hollywood Homosexuals would love this. There you go confusing or conflating animal bestial sex
> with human sex.
Not all human cultures view the missionary position (man on top get
it over with) as "normal" sex. Are they deviant sodomites?
> That is part of the whole reason this show received Hollywood Homosexual
> funding: to hear you utter such a horrific point.
How is pointing out that almost all mammals mate in a different way
than humans "horrific"?
> After all, if heterosexual sex is comparable to bestial sex,
> then what could be so wrong with a little Sodomy...
I've never seen you actually come up with a good reason that sodomy
is wrong (your personal repugnance doesn't count as a good reason, nor does
its condemnation in some holy book).
--
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
Jim Phillips
Are childless couples married? What if a married couple is
incapable of having children and don't want to adopt--are they married?
> This intent of marriage predates
> all forms of religion. If that is not a couple's intent, then they should not besmirch the idea of marriage
> with their behavior. Why should society consecrate two people, or a person and an animal, who are
> merely intent on having sex, homosex, or bestialsex ?
I take it that the concept of "love" is beyond you? How sad.
BTW, sex between a person and an animal is animal abuse (since the
animal cannot give consent). Why do anti-gay types always seem to throw
bestiality into the mix--does it secretly turn you on the way sodomy does?
David Chapman
> John Shocked says:
> Get thee to a psychiatrist, quick.
There's no point to him going to a psychiatrist, because he isn't sick. He
doesn't believe a single word he says; he's just saying it for the
attention.
--
Who the f--k are you calling insolent?
rja.ca...@excite.com
David Chapman wrote:
> From the Collected Witterings of pl...@quentincrisp.com, volume 23:
> > John Shocked says:
>
> > Get thee to a psychiatrist, quick.
>
> There's no point to him going to a psychiatrist, because he isn't sick. He
> doesn't believe a single word he says; he's just saying it for the
> attention.
A sane person would not derive satisfaction from this activity. Crave
attention he may, but I sincerely believe he is also a genuine loony
and probably is, or should be, on medication, or other treatment.
Doesn't the name "Shocked" suggest electro-convulsive therapy? While
this has fallen out of favour, someone who's been looney-tunes for a
long time may have experienced it.
Anthony Cerrato
You are a moron!
PLONK!
...tonyC
manitou
> manitou wrote:
>>Velvet Elvis wrote:
>>
>>>could you add a spoiler warning to these threads? I like to be
>>>surprised by subliminal sodomy. Thank you.
>>
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>(You might like to check out Jamie Bamber in "Hornblower"...)
>
> Just remember the Cylons use a different name on that show - they're
> called "The French".
They're usually called "The Frogs" on that show!
John Shocked should check out "The Duchess And The Devil" from the first
series, when Bamber's presumed-dead character, Archie Kennedy, is
discovered when Horatio and his crew are taken prisoner.
Think 18th century "OZ"......
C.
manitou
>From the Collected Witterings of pl...@quentincrisp.com, volume 23:
>>John Shocked says:
>
>>Get thee to a psychiatrist, quick.
>
> There's no point to him going to a psychiatrist, because he isn't sick. He
> doesn't believe a single word he says; he's just saying it for the
> attention.
Whenever the DSM-V is published, you can expect _this_ will be some form
of cyber-personality disorder. Probably already listed on the website.
C.
manitou
Mr. Shocked may also be interested to hear that on the DVD bonus
features, when Jamie Bamber discusses his American accent for the show
he says it's impossible for a Brit to pronounce "bugger" with a Yank accent.
And when Bamber mentions the net-fan request for a gay character, he
turns to James Callis and makes a prolonged ultra-friendly smile!
C.
David Chapman
> David Chapman wrote:
>> From the Collected Witterings of pl...@quentincrisp.com, volume 23:
>>> John Shocked says:
>>
>>> Get thee to a psychiatrist, quick.
>>
>> There's no point to him going to a psychiatrist, because he isn't sick.
>> He doesn't believe a single word he says; he's just saying it for the
>> attention.
>
> A sane person would not derive satisfaction from this activity.
Untrue - only crazy people *don't* like getting some attention. Shocked is
just desperate, and he's likely focused on sodomy because gay people always
seem to draw attention. Probably he bought some Homosexuality once and they
wouldn't give him a refund when it didn't work.
N2
>>>>> BSG Hollywood Homosexuals
>>>>> who control this fake science fiction TV series.
>>>> Fake? How so? It seems like it really was on my TV, and was really
>>>> produced, and I really watched it.
>>> BSG is not science fiction. As Saturday Night Live put it, it is "Gays
>>> In Space".
>>> They performed 3 skits on this subject, starting 3 weeks after the first
>>> US airing of BSG Bastille Day episode.
>> You'd be correct, if you weren't so wrong. Just because SNL makes a skit,
>> that doesn't make it NOT science fiction. That's like saying you are gay
>> because my neighbors dog eats cat food.
>
> This is a silly statement evidencing weakness in your case.
Hardly. Take "Logic 101" and get a clue.
>
>>>>> Most male on female rapes we have ever heard reported in the news and
>>>>> in court testimony were frontal penetration.
>>>> Source?
>>> As mentioned, this is anecdotal, based on actual reports of rapes which
>>> we have heard about
>>> in the news and court case testimony.
>>> I doubt such entry-specific statistics are kept.
>> So, that's your way of saying you have no evidence to support your
>> assertion.
>
> Sounds like a reading comprehension problem here. I stated that I based
> the statement
> on anecdotal news reports and court testimony I had seen or read.
> I do not believe any such statistics have been kept from the interviews
> that occur
> with rape victims.
So, you made a statement based on evidence that you clearly state that you,
yourself, do not believe? Who, exactly, has the comprehension problem here?
Good lord man, give it up.
John Shocked
This is another guy who agrees with my point of view.
A lot of people really want a genuine science fiction TV series on their TV.
Politics
John Shocked
> In article <7zYZe.282094$E95.66971@fed1read01>,
> "John Shocked" <jsho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The purpose of marriage is child procreation and child nurturing.
> According to whom?
The whole course of history, worldwide.
>> This intent of marriage predates all forms of religion. If that is not a couple's intent,
>> then they should not besmirch the idea of marriage with their behavior.
> My uncle and aunt are besmirching marriage? Who knew.
It is rare that a man and woman marry without any intention of children being in their home.
Politics
John Shocked
They certainly had the intent to have children so they were simply unlucky.
>> This intent of marriage predates
>> all forms of religion. If that is not a couple's intent, then they should not besmirch the idea of marriage
>> with their behavior. Why should society consecrate two people, or a person and an animal, who are
>> merely intent on having sex, homosex, or bestialsex ?
> I take it that the concept of "love" is beyond you? How sad.
> BTW, sex between a person and an animal is animal abuse (since the
> animal cannot give consent). Why do anti-gay types always seem to throw
> bestiality into the mix--does it secretly turn you on the way sodomy does?
Why not. Unnatural is unnatural. The main difference between the two is that there has yet to be
a major TV campaign proselytizing that "Bestial sex with animals is OK."
What does childless claims of "love" have to do with the state and society ?
Politics
John Shocked
I responded to the post about bigamy.
Politics