Gay bashers are wife bashers...
PErTHgUY.mmv
their wifes they're be in trouble (but the bibles words can be twisted to
support wife bashing too.)it's looked down upon by society as they know you
don't hit women. So, they transfer their aggression on feminine gays as
they are "Like women" and it would be just like hitting your wife to them,
and its alright to hit men isn't it.
Jude
"PErTHgUY.mmv" <Ramsest...@Egypt.com> wrote in message
news:42ac6...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Most thought provoking idea I've heard in a LONG time! I DO suspect that,
for some men, this would be true as well as the old tried and true notion
that their aggression is toward men who act like women and have thus given
up the perceived "superior" role of man in favor of a "inferior" role of
woman.
Jude
"PErTHgUY.mmv" <Ramsest...@Egypt.com> wrote in message
news:42ac6...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> Most thought provoking idea I've heard in a LONG time! I DO suspect
that,
>> for some men, this would be true as well as the old tried and true notion
>> that their aggression is toward men who act like women and have thus
given
>> up the perceived "superior" role of man in favor of a "inferior" role of
>> woman.
I closed my post too soon. Another thing I'd like to add is that I read an
excellent article years ago that made a clarifying statement which was that
raging people many times claim they can't control or stop their anger thus
giving them variable levels of excuse for their destructive behaviors.
However, the author went on, it is SIGNIFICANT that when these people are
"out of control" they RARELY pick on the big guy but nearly EXCLUSIVELY pick
on somebody that can't defend themselves either by weight ratio or any other
way in which the "muscle" is heavily weighted to the aggressor's side, i.e.
using gun vs. someone with only their fists. This relates to what you've
said. These guys TYPICAL attack the more feminine of men and not the
so-called butch types of gay men. So, not only are they haters but they are
cowards as well, many times going in groups of 3 or more looking to bash
some probably non-offensive living (iows, a fairly sweet guy) gay man.
Adrian Miles-Davros
news:Hj_qe.91647$8S5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Beyond "homophobia": Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the
twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,"
touches on this idea to some extent, where he looks at the history of
Homophobia, it is also interesting to note that he consistently finds that
the least homophobic people are:-
"in predominantly White samples, respondents were more likely to express
favorable attitudes (to LBTG group) if they were highly educated, unmarried,
politically liberal, registered to vote, not religious, and if they included
Blacks in their concept of gay men. In addition, respondents reported more
favorable attitudes if they had experienced personal contact with gay men or
lesbians, but this was not a significant predictor of attitudes when other
variables were statistically controlled. "
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bibabs.html
While instances of domestic vilence are also less likely to occur in this
group:-
http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/position/social/scviol.htm
It also seems that if you look across the various newsgroups, you can see
that those who are more vocal in posting anti-gay posts, are also vehemently
anti-feminist. (Last comment was totally off the "top of my head" and I
haven't actually checked it, although several posters do spring to mind.)
Jude
"Adrian Miles-Davros" <dav...@tmaggotpunks.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11186587...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
Read ever last one of them and they were all interesting but ESPECIALLY the
one re: religious, racism, homophobia at the end.
> While instances of domestic vilence are also less likely to occur in this
> group:-
>
> http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/position/social/scviol.htm
>
> It also seems that if you look across the various newsgroups, you can see
> that those who are more vocal in posting anti-gay posts, are also
vehemently
> anti-feminist. (Last comment was totally off the "top of my head" and I
> haven't actually checked it, although several posters do spring to mind.)
I've seen that coorelation with "ordinary folk," but it exists even on a
greater level among Fundamentalists.
Thanks for the links. After replying to several stupid posts from Fundies
it was a pleasure to see yours.
Jude
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pqlra1te4kbl4ahgn...@4ax.com...
> Super Bowl Sunday... You homophiles are so gullible.
Calling me a homo-lover reminds me of the "good ole days" here in America
when they called people like me nigger-lovers! Thanks for the compliment,
bonehead!
Jenn
w...@privacy.net wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:12:46 +0100, "Adrian Miles-Davros"
> <dav...@tmaggotpunks.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Beyond "homophobia": Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the
> >twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,"
> >
> >touches on this idea to some extent, where he looks at the history of
> >Homophobia, it is also interesting to note that he consistently finds that
> >the least homophobic people are:-
> >
> >"in predominantly White samples, respondents were more likely to express
> >favorable attitudes (to LBTG group) if they were highly educated, unmarried,
> >politically liberal, registered to vote, not religious, and if they included
> >Blacks in their concept of gay men. In addition, respondents reported more
> >favorable attitudes if they had experienced personal contact with gay men or
> >lesbians, but this was not a significant predictor of attitudes when other
> >variables were statistically controlled. "
> >
> >http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bibabs.html
> >
> >While instances of domestic vilence are also less likely to occur in this
> >group:-
> >
> >http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/position/social/scviol.htm
> >
> >It also seems that if you look across the various newsgroups, you can see
> >that those who are more vocal in posting anti-gay posts, are also vehemently
> >anti-feminist. (Last comment was totally off the "top of my head" and I
> >haven't actually checked it, although several posters do spring to mind.)
>
> Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured
>
> Vol. 16 No. 8
> Dec 2001
>
<snip for the sake of brevity>
By whom was this written? Whomever it is, they make leaps of "logic"
that anyone with just one semester of graduate level research methods
can see though instantly. I'll point out just one example now, as that
is all that time allows: The author states that a quarter of those in
prison may be homosexual. That this "stat" is given without footnote or
source is revealing.
Jude
"Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jennconducts-6FD2...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
Boy, do you EVER give credit to people. I have met some of the stupidest
people in grad programs. They could be just smart in one arena. Perhaps,
you're not that way and just project your own intelligence onto others.
Believe me, I have many a grad from many fields who were social misfits,
socially unaware, maybe bright in 1 or 2 subjects but not very much depth to
them, etc. etc.
Also, I'm not aware of which article from the link you're referring to,
since there were a number of articles. I don't remember any of the articles
talking about prison inmates. Perhaps, I missed it.
Jenn
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote:
All of that can be true, of course, but anyone who has taken an
introductory grad level course in research methods would fail an
assignment that had as many holes as the one posted, an example of which
I gave.
>
> Also, I'm not aware of which article from the link you're referring to,
> since there were a number of articles. I don't remember any of the articles
> talking about prison inmates. Perhaps, I missed it.
It was in the last long piece; parenthetical statement at the end of a
paragraph, without, of course, footnote, reference, etc.
Jude
Hey, Jenn,
We are talking about two different links. The one I read was
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bibabs.html. Which link are you
talking about. It couldn't be the one about nurses training to be able to
see domestic abuse so I'm totally in the dark about which link you're
referring to. Could you supply it, please.
Jenn
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote:
It wasn't a link. It was a post by wbt... "Still, it is clear that
those actively engaged in homosexuality are a
tiny portion of the non-institutionalized population certainly no more
than 2% (although homosexuals may make up as much as a quarter of
those in prisons and jails). " It was part of a piece by an unnamed
author called "Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured"
Jenn
w...@privacy.net wrote:
> It correlates well with the recent CDC report on the high crime rate
> among homosexuals. You people are loosing it, Uglee.
Again, Tiny, we wait to see just what the CDC report contains. That is
the reasonable thing to do, given Camerloon's well-earned reputation for
misstating research findings, and his awful research methods, which are
verified in, among other places, graduate level texts on research
gathering.
Jeff North
<jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>| In article <LElre.3543$zm....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
>| "Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote:
[snip]
>| > Hey, Jenn,
>| >
>| > We are talking about two different links. The one I read was
>| > http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bibabs.html. Which link are you
>| > talking about. It couldn't be the one about nurses training to be able to
>| > see domestic abuse so I'm totally in the dark about which link you're
>| > referring to. Could you supply it, please.
>|
>| It wasn't a link. It was a post by wbt... "Still, it is clear that
>| those actively engaged in homosexuality are a
>| tiny portion of the non-institutionalized population certainly no more
>| than 2% (although homosexuals may make up as much as a quarter of
>| those in prisons and jails). " It was part of a piece by an unnamed
>| author called "Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured"
This explains it all.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html
Family Research Institute
Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnor...@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
No One
> >| It wasn't a link. It was a post by wbt... "Still, it is clear that
> >| those actively engaged in homosexuality are a
> >| tiny portion of the non-institutionalized population certainly no more
> >| than 2% (although homosexuals may make up as much as a quarter of
> >| those in prisons and jails). " It was part of a piece by an unnamed
> >| author called "Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured"
>
> This explains it all.
>
> http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html
>
> Family Research Institute
> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
Even funnier, that URL states,
For men, 29% of victimizations were attributed to their wife,
16.5% to their ex-wife (or one from whom he was separated),
9.7% to boyfriends or ex-boyfriends, and 44.4% to girlfriends
or former girlfriends.
So, overall, gays accounted for 10% of male victims (i.e.,
13,740/142,290) and lesbians for 2% of female victims (i.e.,
16,900/902,240). Altogether, homosexual partners accounted for
30,640 of the projected 1,044,530 annual victims, or 3% of the
total.
3% of the total? That's approximately the size of the purely gay and
lesbian population. The data (if at all accurate) seem to indicate
that men are far more likely to be responsible for domestic violence
than women. In a male-male relationship, you double count, and if you
take the 9.7% and divide by 2, you are fairly close to the fraction
of men that are gay (about 3 or 4 percent, excluding bisexual men).
So, the actual conclusion should be that (a) men are more likely
to be the perpetrator of domestic violence than women, and (b)
gay and bisexual men are no different from straight men in this
regard.
Even funnier,
The Massachusetts Psychological and American Psychological
Associations very recently assured the Massachusetts Supreme
Court that homosexual contacts are no more dangerous and
medically contraindicated than heterosexual contacts. Why? To
get the Massachusetts anti-sodomy law declared
unconstitutional. On what planet are these psychologists
living? Or is it just more convenient to lie?
The facts: a mouth is a mouth and an ass is an ass, and it doesn't
matter if it is a male mouth or a female mouth, or a male ass or a
female ass, that a guy inserts his you know what into. So, if gay sex
is bad for you, some types of straight sex are bad for you too. Your
choice is to believe the crackpots or to believe health-care
professionals.
Dick Foot
news:42ac6...@news.iprimus.com.au:
> So, they transfer their aggression on feminine gays
> as they are "Like women" and it would be just like
> hitting your wife to them, and its alright to hit men
> isn't it.
Completely the wrong idea again.
BASH - Baptists Are Saving Homosexuals, is simply the British arm of
CASH - Christians Are Saving Homosexuals.
--
Rev Dr Pastor Dick F Foot MA, DD, FFD
The Guardian of English Christianity
Broomleigh Baptist Church AG (Zürich)
111 Lime Walk, Chelmsford CM2 9NJ, Great Britain
http://www.broomleigh.com/
Natalie Clifford Barney
Jeff North wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:00:31 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality Jenn
> <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >| In article <LElre.3543$zm....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> >| "Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >| > Hey, Jenn,
> >| >
> >| > We are talking about two different links. The one I read was
> >| > http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bibabs.html. Which link are you
> >| > talking about. It couldn't be the one about nurses training to be able to
> >| > see domestic abuse so I'm totally in the dark about which link you're
> >| > referring to. Could you supply it, please.
> >|
> >| It wasn't a link. It was a post by wbt... "Still, it is clear that
> >| those actively engaged in homosexuality are a
> >| tiny portion of the non-institutionalized population certainly no more
> >| than 2% (although homosexuals may make up as much as a quarter of
> >| those in prisons and jails). " It was part of a piece by an unnamed
> >| author called "Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured"
>
> This explains it all.
>
> http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html
>
> Family Research Institute
> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
I do loathe bad sience, pseudo science and religious propaganda posing as science.
Natalie Clifford Barney
--
"A woman without a touch of bitchery is like milk without Vitamin D."
Caresse Crosby
Bonnie B.
On the bright side, who knew that
actor-turned-born-again-Christofascist Kirk Cameron had time to pick
up a mail-order MD?
Ein Prosit der Gemütlichkeit --
Bonnie Bitch
Jude
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:veura1dm9msbiugr4...@4ax.com...
> some what surprised that you would equate homosexual with nigger.
> Perhaps you agenda is not exactly what you would like us to believe.
Duh. Are you THAT dense? If there's a pet scapegoat out there today (vs.
40 years ago) it's gays (vs. blacks 40 years ago). Straight people who take
up for homosexuals as call homophiles or homo lovers vs. 40 years ago when
people took up for black were call nigger lovers. I can't explain it more
clearly than that! Get it now?
Andrealphus
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote in message
Why yes, yes he is.
Jude
"Jeff North" <jnor...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:k8qsa156o403ocs95...@4ax.com...
OMG, Family Research Institute. This guy Cameron is a FUNDAMENTALIST!!! ha
ha ha
Link to Cameron's biography! Stupid pig has been at homosexuals since the
80s!
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
Jude
Okay, I found the post. It's just one more way in which the sickos can
justify their love of hating homosexuals.
The absolute bs within that post is incredible and since we can't access
these "studies" what are left to comment on or truly debate about. We're
left just taking all this negative information without any means for
rebuttal.
Since I have a gay sister, I have met literally thousands of gay people over
the past years, mostly women. I so completely don't believe that gay people
have more occurrences of violence.
Another thing, what definition of violence are we talking about. Very
suspect to say the least that it is NOT described. One disconcerting fact
that I've discovered about domestic violence is that there is NO distinction
within the legal charge of domestic violence between a 5'2", 120 lb. woman
slapping up and at a 6'-0" 250 lb, man VS that same 6'0", 250 lb. man taking
a couple of full punches/swings at the face of a 5'2" 120 lb woman!!!
Perhaps the same bs can be said for these "studies." Are we saying that if
a gay woman, in anger pushes at the shoulder of another woman, that this
constitutes domestic violence. At a gathering once, I saw 2 women that were
in an argument and one of them gave a single punch on the top part of her
partner's arm with her fist straight at right angles to the arm (which
couldn't be that hard a punch because to punch with force one doesn't hit
like that) and that was the end of it, not a whole lot of force to it but I
guess it hurt a bit??? In these studies, would THAT be construed as domestic
violence? Is a slap the same as a free for all? All suspect!
Jude
"Bonnie B." <456e...@emas.org> wrote in message
news:qh0ta1hlvmnd9376m...@4ax.com...
>
> Bonnie Bitch
I really am stunned. I didn't make the connection between Kirk Cameron,
Editor and Kirk Cameron, actor. Do you know he finally apologized on tv for
making himself such a nuisance with his "Christianity" to members of his
fellow actors and that he had settled down, to the best of my memory. Yet,
here he is endorsing and editor such evil.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction. ---Blaise Pascal
Natalie Clifford Barney
"Bonnie B." wrote:
Probably a faux doctorate in public health--sewage management
>
>
> Ein Prosit der GemŸtlichkeit --
>
> Bonnie Bitch
--
Adrian Miles-Davros
news:42AEE37E...@20RueJacob.fr...
No! Sewage Management people are far too ethical to allow that. With what
they have to deal with every day, they do not want their standards lowering.
Jenn
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote:
Exactly.
<snip>
Adrian Miles-Davros
issue:-
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/husbands.html
And this article, though brief I thought was excellent:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8772014
Death
Good, the air is fresher when you pull your
head out of your ass.
Jude
I didn't record the study, so I can't pass it on, but I read another
professional article that studied women's response to masculine vs.
non-so-masculine males. Masculine was described as taller than average,
very but not overly muscular, square jaws, large shoulders, etc. etc. while
the non=so masculine males were more of average heights with no sign of
musculature but then again not flabby, with softer faces. Most women choose
the more masculine looking men as more provocative sexually (who's the
sexier guy kind of thing) but when picking (from pictures only - no bio
attached to each photo) men they thought would be husband material the same
women picked the less masculine looking males.
> And this article, though brief I thought was excellent:-
>
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Ab
stract&list_uids=8772014
I'm MUCH aware of this study. The more a person was homophobic, the more
they reacted to homosexual porn. It just about seems that all disenters
PRIOR to that study question the study's validty. YET, it was done by a
PROFESSIONAL group vs. this disgusting Family Research Center with shameful
Cameron at it's helm!
Well, guess what? I tend to like to keep things simple and reduce complex
ideas to the simpliest expression I can possibly and. THEREFORE, when the
member reacts, imo, there "something" going on. One can only excuse the
sexual arousal of these men as so much coincidence. The loudest naysayers
are the Fundies (Surprised?). They can't STAND anything that puts
homosexuals in ANY good light OR that validates what homosexuals have
reported because it doesn't line up with their religious bigotry.
Btw, I have been nursing a thought all morning regarding Fundies saying that
homosexuality is a sin, and they seem to relish pointing out all the
biblical text that call homosexuals abominations to God. Vile is another
often used words when Fundamentalists talk about homosexuals. YET, do they
use use words to describe other "sinners?" The ONLY other group of people
which have been leveled such negativity is child molesters. In fact, most
homosexuals and PFLAGers are aware that "these types" incredibly often say
homosexual and pedophile in the same sentence as if there is little or no
distinction between the two.
As far a Fundies are concerned, anything other than male/female with man
dominating in ALL areas of their lives are sexual criminals. For
sex-panicked Fundies, those who follow MOST of the sexual laws of the Old
Testament homosexuals have become an obsession unlike any other. They
typically excuse this obsession as they are ONLY responding to the recent
push of homosexual agenda but we ALL know this is NOT the truth. THAT has
only increased the already outweighted attentions that Fundies level toward
homosexuals!
Jude
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:gmfua1hhrv9ig6iii...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:02:21 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
> <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>
science.
>
> authors -- they are universally biased and have taken a solemn oath to
> uphold the teaching of the Big Book of Homosexual Dogma (BBHD.)
This is how bigots think. ALL others that oppose the bigot are of a
completely negative nature, incapable of good or honesty, commonly called
demonization. Of course, some homosexuals as well as heterosexuals are
biased people, dopey... duh. Funny, that you would make up a Freudian
projection of a book called the BIG Book of Homosexual Dogma, when IN FACT,
it's those bigoted heterosexuals that believe in the what has FOR MANY YEARS
called the BIG Book, the bible, FULL of heterosexism and bigoted dogma
against ALL that don't believe as they do and that God hates his
creations!!! Freud would have been ABSOLUTELY delighted to read your
post!!!
Jenn
w...@privacy.net wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:02:21 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
> <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>
> >> Family Research Institute
> >> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
> >> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
>
>
> Addressing the claims of homosexuals against Dr. Cameron:
>
> * "he is the architect of unreliable 'surveys' that purport to show
> strains of violence and depravity in gay life."
This is true. Look at how he comes to his conclusions about the life
spans of gay people. If you don't see anything wrong with just that one
(of many) example, you aren't too bright.
>
> Response: Gays create myths for their political and psychological
> comfort. They want to be seen as "shocked by any claim that we are
> other than kind, gentle people." One homosexual contends that "gays
> are an experiment by nature in an attempt to create a human nature
> more compatible with the requirements of civil society."1
>
> But the gay life is a life of violence and depravity:
>
> - FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that
> suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact at least
> once in their life. Such unhealthy and unsanitary practice is
> commonplace among homosexuals.
>
> - 40% of 4,808 Canadian gays in 1991-1992 admitted to oral-anal sex in
> the last 3 months, according to a government funded study run by gays
> representing the largest survey of homosexuals in Canada.3
>
> - In the largest-ever study of homosexuals, completed just this year
> by The Advocate, the national weekly gay magazine, 13,000 readers
> responded to the questionnaire. The Advocate said that 45% of
> respondents "loved" anal/oral sex. Additionally, 20% said that they
> had engaged in bondage and discipline and 10% in sadomasochism in the
> past 5 years. And, most tellingly, among those who knew that they had
> the AIDS virus, "11% have said or implied that they were HIV-negative
> in order to have sex." (8/23, p. 23)
>
> FRI 2 found that about 13% of gays said that they had been raped, and
> a third had participated in sadomasochism.5
>
> A study of 930 English gays asked whether they had ever been "sexually
> molested or raped?" 28% answered "yes." In half (47%) of these cases
> the victim was either forcibly anally penetrated or an attempt to do
> so was made. Of men over 21 years of age, 52 cases (66% of the total
> reported) "were assaulted by regular or casual sexual partners."
>
> The authors of the English study (who appear to be homosexuals
> themselves) note that "Fantasies of the sexually forceful man, the
> pleasure of 'being taken;' and the excitement of power-driven sex are
> very common in gay culture and pornography. All these collective
> sexual fantasies normalize sexual abuse and rape of gay men by gay
> men, providing motivation, justification, and normalization for the
> assault. It is difficult to see how a climate of intolerance towards
> sexual aggression can be achieved when sexual aggression is one of the
> mainstays of collective sexual fantasies." (p. 293)
>
> * "Although thousands of heterosexuals allegedly responded to his
> survey, Cameron could get only 41 gay men and 24 lesbians to respond.
> The extremely small sample size should have invalidated any
> conclusions about the sexual behavior of the gay population."
>
> Response: There are two problems with this criticism: 1) Pietrzyk
> didn't accurately report how many gays and lesbians were in our
> sample; 2) he fails to understand modern statistical sampling theory.2
>
> We reported all our comparisons between those who were exclusively
> heterosexual v the combined group of bisexuals and homosexuals. We had
> approximately 85 gays and 70 lesbians for each comparison though, as
> in all such studies, not every respondent answered each question.
> Combining bisexuals and homosexuals has become rather typical because
> their distinguishing characteristic is having same-sex relations. The
> new U. Chicago sex survey also combined bisexuals and homosexuals. It
> captured only 43 bi/homosexual men and 27 bi/homosexual women in its
> sample.6
>
> The reason for these seemingly low numbers is that FRI, unlike Kinsey
> and the bulk of studies in the sexological literature, utilized random
> area cluster sampling techniques. Because homosexuals make up only a
> tiny fraction of the population, they show up in small numbers in any
> survey that randomly draws from the places people live. However, it is
> possible to have a fair degree of confidence in the generalizability
> of our results to "urban homosexuals-in-general," at least for the
> time we did the survey.
>
> Kinsey had 2,000 volunteer homosexuals. But our findings, based on a
> random sample a twelfth the size of his, are far more apt to be
> representative of homosexuals-in-general. With more money and time, we
> would have drawn a larger sample and our results would be more certain
> still. Having said that, however, as the studies about gays
> accumulate, the parameters we published look "solid."
>
> For instance, we reported that 4% of men and 16% of women claimed that
> they had been "raped." The U. Chicago survey did not ask about rape,
> per se. Instead it reported that 22% of women and 2% of men were
> "forced to do something sexually at some time." (p. 223)4
> 9 In his counter reply, Pietrzyk says he'd "sure like to know the
> source for Cameron's claim that 'one third of American men have served
> in the Armed Forces."'
>
> Response: On p. 343 of the Statistical Abstract of the United States
> 1990, we find that over 27,000,000 men have served. Since there were
> under 79,000,000 men over the age of 18 in 1990, the math is
> straightforward.
>
> We can only report what our respondents tell us. It is noteworthy that
> Pietrzyk considers "preposterous" that " 13 percent have served time
> in prison." Since FRI actually asked "Have you ever been jailed or
> imprisoned for a crime?" Pietrzyk demonstrates his inability to get
> the facts straight. By comparison, the U. Chicago sex survey6 reports
> that "about 13%" of its respondents (both men and women) had "ever
> spent the night in jail." (p. 219) It actually asked if respondents
> had ever "spent one night or more" "in (a military jail), jail,
> prison, reform school or detention center." (p. 612)
>
> *Pietrzyk rails about our utilizing obituaries from gay journals and
> calls it "a methodology that would not pass an undergraduate
> statistics course."
>
> Response: Our methodology was good enough for the Eastern
> Psychological Assn convention in 1993. Dr. Charles Smith of SUNY at
> Buffalo, chair of the session, publicly commended our novel approach
> and said he was going to warn the gays at his institution about the
> hazards of their ways. Further, it was good enough for the refereed
> scientific journal Omega in 1994, a journal specifically devoted to
> studies of death and dying.
>
>
> The U. Chicago study provides grist for FRI's mill as well. Note p.
> 305:
> age % men gay % women lesbian
> 18-29 2.9 1.6
> 30-39 4.2 1.8
> 40-49 2.2 1.3
> 50-59 0.5 0.4
>
> These results should have given the authors a clear warning that
> homosexuals were much less apt to be old, yet they chose not to
> comment. Our lifespan study offers a plausible reason for the paucity
> of older homosexuals in the U. Chicago study: they die young. Other
> explanations for these findings require much more convoluted logic.
> For example, note that the proportions of homosexuals do not top out
> in the youngest age group. Therefore, it would be difficult to
> attribute the distribution of findings solely to the growth of the gay
> movement. Another plausible explanation would be that older
> homosexuals simply drop out of the lifestyle (if they don't die
> first). However, if proved true, this would simultaneously argue that
> gays can and do change, as well as suggest that the gay lifestyle
> offers scant long-term satisfaction.
>
> *Pietrzyk repeatedly questions Dr. Cameron's scholarly credentials and
> "conveniently" avoids using his professional title of "Dr."
>
> Response: Pietrzyk is a political science graduate student at George
> Washington University. He has failed numerous times to get his facts
> straight in this brief article in the New Republic. Dr. Cameron has
> published over 60 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and
> has written several books. How does being a member of a gay club
> qualify Pietrzyk to engage in scholarly critique?
>
> *Pietrzyk complains that we have analyzed only "sexual mass murder"
> and found homosexuals responsible for about half of these sprees.
>
> Response: He doesn't deny the facts about sexually- motivated murders,
> he merely tries to divert attention toward serial and other non-sexual
> mass murders.
>
> *Pietrzyk claims that we have "distorted" the evidence for
> disproportionate child molestation by gays.
>
> Response: He cites our 1987 pamphlet on child molestation. It was
> updated in 1993. With new information our estimate of the proportion
> of homosexuals has dropped from 4% to between "1% to 3%" and our
> estimate of the proportion of homosexual molestations to "between a
> fifth and a third." Thus the relative proportion of homosexual
> molestation has remained about the same ("the risk of a homosexual
> molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a
> heterosexual").
>
> *Pietrzyk claims that Cameron advocated the "extermination of male
> homosexuals."
>
> Response: The Forum interviewer remarked that many societies have
> considered homosexuality a capital crime. Noting that it would be
> cheaper to kill homosexuals in primitive societies than jail or
> quarantine them is hardly an endorsement. In fact, Cameron is quoted
> in the same article as saying that such an idea is "not politically,
> ethically or socially acceptable" today. Where former Surgeon General
> Koop got his information is mystifying. He never asked Dr. Cameron
> whether he advocated such a policy.
>
> *Pietrzyk calls "extreme" and "absurdly high" FRI's estimate that
> lesbians are "nineteen times more apt to have syphilis than straight
> women and four times more apt to have had scabies."
>
> Response: Pietrzyk finally has it right. That's just what we reported
> in the Nebraska Medical Journal in 1985.7 We also p. 6 reported that
> lesbians were three times as apt to have had a genital discharge, and
> twice as apt to have sores on their genitals.
>
> The new U. Chicago6 survey does not report its sexually transmitted
> disease findings for lesbians. However, it reports that lesbians had
> about 4 times as many sexual partners as heterosexual women, were
> considerably more apt to engage in 11 unusual sexual practices," and
> that a larger number of partners was associated with higher STD rates.
> It is probable that it found essentially what we found but was
> reluctant to publish the findings. [see 'New Sex Survey: Dishonest
> Science' in this issue of Family Research Report]
>
> *Pietrzyk calls our 1983 national sex survey "discredited."
>
> Response: Since results from the FRI survey have been published in a
> number of scientific journals (e.g., Nebraska Medical Journal,
> Psychological Reports, Lancet, and Science), and have formed the basis
> for a number of scientific papers presented to the Eastern
> Psychological Assn, it would appear that it is "discredited" by gay
> activists, not by scientists.
>
> FRI's sex survey was one of the first national sex surveys to be drawn
> on a random sample. Random samples are supposed to give representative
> samples. Theory aside, however, proof is always in whether the
> technique "works;" that is, whether FRI's results stack-up against
> other well-done surveys. For instance, how do FRI's results compare to
> the recent U. Chicago effort?
>
> FRI, in attempting to interview people from age 18 through the end of
> adulthood, ran into a buzzsaw of high rejection rates in people aged
> 50 or above. Overall, almost half of our potential respondents refused
> to fill out our questionnaire. But the median age of those who
> rejected was 55, meaning we got high rates of compliance for those in
> their 20s and 30s and miserable rates of compliance for those in their
> 60s, 70s, and 80s.
>
> The lore that has developed from doing Gallup polls and similar
> surveys is "those who don't respond are generally much like those who
> do." So FRI reported its rejection-rate and then ignored the
> nonresponders when reporting results - just as the U. Chicago study
> did. We assumed that a person who initially rejected the survey would
> not be worth the effort and cost of a follow-up appeal. So we put our
> limited resources (about $100,000) toward fattening the size of the
> sample rather than re-visiting rejecters. All told, we got usable
> responses from almost 5,200 adults.
>
> U. Chicago paid its respondents $25 to $35 apiece and apparently
> repeatedly called-back its rejecters, offering them more money to get
> them to cooperate. It got almost 3,200 adults for $2,400,000. Still,
> 20% of their respondents refused to take the survey though offered
> considerable sums of money. So their findings, like ours, could be way
> off if those who rejected were quite different from those who
> cooperated. No one will ever know. But since they found "no relation
> between respondent fee [up to $100] and quality of the information
> provided" (p. 56), it fits the model that such pursuit is probably
> unwarranted.
>
> Beside detail about sampling theories, what proof emerges from the
> empirical pudding? How do the results of these two surveys, one
> greased with high levels of effort on the part of a few highly-trained
> and closely supervised interviewers while essentially ignoring
> refusals, the other with over 200 interviewers and the willingness to
> expend significant time and money to reduce the rejection rate,
> compare? They were very close. 6,7
>
> Where both surveys asked similar questions, similar point estimates
> were generated. Comparing the two samples:
>
> - ever syphilis in life?
> FRI men - 2.4%, women - 0.9%
> U C men - 0.9%, women - 0.7%.
>
> - ever gonorrhea in life?
> FRI men - 11.2%, women - 3.7%
> U C men - 9%, women - 4.7%
>
> - ever genital warts in life?
> FRI men 5.0%, women - 4.3%
> U C men 3.3%, women - 5.9%
>
> - ever hepatitis in life?
> FRI men - 3.6%, women - 2.4%
> U C men - 1.3%, women - 0.9%
>
> The lower figures on hepatitis for the U. Chicago study may be related
> to their claim that "hepatitis A is not sexually transmitted but
> hepatitis B is." Subsequently they "eliminated the cases that were
> evidently type A from the counts." (p. 380) More generally, the FRI
> study was only done in urban areas compared to the broader geographic
> coverage of the U. Chicago study. Still, examination of the unweighted
> comparisons above suggests that all the differences were within one or
> two percentage points.
>
> Furthermore, about 21% of FRI females reported having "obtained an
> abortion" while 19% of the U. Chicago women said that they had ever
> "had an abortion." (p. 457)
>
> 9% of gays and 5% of lesbians in the U. Chicago effort reported that
> they were heterosexual virgins. (p. 311) 8% of FRI's gays and 5% of
> our lesbians reported that they were heterosexual virgins. Since few
> homosexuals in either survey were over age 50, where rejecters became
> a significant problem, we could expect high levels of agreement
> between both methodologies.
>
> *Associated Press: The AP article (click here to view...) was carried
> by the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph on 9/16/94. FRI called AP on
> 10/12 about the falsehoods that Cameron: 1), "is barred from
> practicing psychology in Nebraska" and 2) had falsified data about
> homosexuals. AP was faxed a copy of Cameron's license and a copy of
> the Bangor Daily News correction (see above). The Gazette Telegraph
> published the AP correction on 10/26/94 after FRI informed it of its
> existence.
>
> * The Advocate wrote on 11/1/94 that "Cameron, who contends that gays
> and lesbians are sexual deviants, was expelled from the American
> Psychological Association in 1983 for falsifying research data about
> gays. He was also barred from practicing in Nebraska, the only state
> in which he had been licensed." (p. 16)
>
> * The Bangor Daily News, 10/10/90, had the following as part of its
> story of a Cameron visit to Maine: "The APA, however, said that
> Cameron was dropped from the membership because of a violation of the
> APA's code of ethics involving the misuse of colleagues' research." It
> published the correction. Maine has a constitution which permits suits
> for libel irrespective of their proven economic impact. Newspapers in
> Maine publish corrections with dispatch.
>
> References: 1. Harry J. (1982) Gay children grown up. NY: Praeger, p.
> 168. 2. Cameron P, Cameron K., & Proctor, K. (1989) Effect of
> homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychological
> Reports, 64, 1167-1179. 3. Doing it in the 90s. Canadian AIDS Society,
> May 1993.4. Michael, RT, Gagnon, JH, Laumann, EO, & Kolata G. (1994)
> NY:Little, Brown. 5. Hickson, F.C.I., et al. (1994) Gay men as victims
> of nonconsensual sex. Archives Sexual Behavior, 23, 281-294. 6.
> Laurnarm, EO, Gagnon JH, Michael, RT, Michaels, S. (1994) The social
> organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States.
> Chicago: U. Chicago Press. 7. Cameron, P, et al. (1985) Sexual
> orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Medical
> Journal, 70, 292-299.
>
> http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_APA-rebuttal.html
swoozie
> >
> > And don't forget that the most "Domestic Violent" day of the year is
> > Super Bowl Sunday... You homophiles are so gullible.
>
> when they called people like me nigger-lovers! Thanks for the compliment,
> bonehead!
I was called nigger-lover several times during my
stint in West Texas, working for a fine, upstanding
Christian family. I had objected to the dad calling
a black accounting consultant "boy". A 30-something,
college-degreed, suit-wearing man: "boy"!
(FWIW, I objected after the account had completed his
work and left.)
~swooz (homo-lover) ;-)
Jenn
"swoozie" <swoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > And don't forget that the most "Domestic Violent" day of the year is
> > > Super Bowl Sunday... You homophiles are so gullible.
> >
> > Calling me a homo-lover reminds me of the "good ole days" here in America
> > when they called people like me nigger-lovers! Thanks for the compliment,
> > bonehead!
>
> I was called nigger-lover several times during my
> stint in West Texas, working for a fine, upstanding
> Christian family. I had objected to the dad calling
> a black accounting consultant "boy". A 30-something,
> college-degreed, suit-wearing man: "boy"!
Was the Dad named Bill?
swoozie
"Billie", actually, but close enough!
~swooz
Jenn
Jude
"swoozie" <swoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118786107.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >
> > > And don't forget that the most "Domestic Violent" day of the year is
> > > Super Bowl Sunday... You homophiles are so gullible.
> >
> > Calling me a homo-lover reminds me of the "good ole days" here in
America
> > when they called people like me nigger-lovers! Thanks for the
compliment,
> > bonehead!
>
> I was called nigger-lover several times during my
> stint in West Texas, working for a fine, upstanding
> Christian family. I had objected to the dad calling
> a black accounting consultant "boy". A 30-something,
> college-degreed, suit-wearing man: "boy"!
Good man.
> (FWIW, I objected after the account had completed his
> work and left.)
lol Dumbo me, I've objected BEFORE the client and I were finished. I've
told 3 builders NOT to call me anymore (and I DO need the work!) because of
their ignorance, usually concerning ethics. Once there was a builder that I
was working for that was trying to hoodwink a poor and old black couple to
build this HUGE addition onto their pitifully small house so they could have
a den. I saw immediately that they could take down a wall between their
existing living room that they NEVER used and the dining room they never
used and combine them as a bigger den and then just add half the the square
footage for a new eating area beside the kitch. They would get the results
they wanted at HALF the $. He and I had words later over the phone, and I
did NOT do the project and I told him why. Do you know what the igmo said,
"I need to put my son in college." The smuck was driving a $30,000 truck
and I own a 10 year old car. He ACTUALLY admitted that he knew they didn't
need a big old addition.
Jude
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:dggua19ndq2737iqs...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:02:21 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
> <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>
> >> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
> >> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
>
>
>
> * "he is the architect of unreliable 'surveys' that purport to show
> strains of violence and depravity in gay life."
>
> comfort. They want to be seen as "shocked by any claim that we are
> other than kind, gentle people." One homosexual contends that "gays
> are an experiment by nature in an attempt to create a human nature
> more compatible with the requirements of civil society."1
TRUTH: It's HETEROSEXUALS who have created myths regarding homosexuals for
MILLENIUM and most of the background, whether the speak is religious or not,
HAS been from religious teachings as there were many societies in which
homosexuals were not only tolerated but admired for their dual spirituality
of male and female.
> But the gay life is a life of violence and depravity:
...and the straight life isn't? Bwahhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaa
> - FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that
> suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact at least
> once in their life. Such unhealthy and unsanitary practice is
> commonplace among homosexuals.
>
> - 40% of 4,808 Canadian gays in 1991-1992 admitted to oral-anal sex in
> the last 3 months, according to a government funded study run by gays
> representing the largest survey of homosexuals in Canada.3
>
> - In the largest-ever study of homosexuals, completed just this year
> by The Advocate, the national weekly gay magazine, 13,000 readers
> responded to the questionnaire. The Advocate said that 45% of
> respondents "loved" anal/oral sex. Additionally, 20% said that they
> had engaged in bondage and discipline and 10% in sadomasochism in the
> past 5 years. And, most tellingly, among those who knew that they had
> the AIDS virus, "11% have said or implied that they were HIV-negative
> in order to have sex." (8/23, p. 23)
>
> FRI 2 found that about 13% of gays said that they had been raped, and
> a third had participated in sadomasochism.5
FRI is a FUNDAMETALIST groups that is ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS biased to begin
with!!!! Show me a true Fundie that doesn't think gays are vile and
abominations! Can't do it.
> A study of 930 English gays asked whether they had ever been "sexually
> molested or raped?" 28% answered "yes." In half (47%) of these cases
> the victim was either forcibly anally penetrated or an attempt to do
> so was made. Of men over 21 years of age, 52 cases (66% of the total
> reported) "were assaulted by regular or casual sexual partners."
Number coincide, plus or minus, with women being sexually molested or raped.
Sounds like there are MALE problem with control/anger within the sexual
arena, be it homosexual or heterosexual!!! Funny how straight men love to
talk about homosexual rape but if somebody points out the rape statistics
re: straight rape, they yell "Man hater" if it's a woman or if it's a man
they yell "Traitor."
> The authors of the English study (who appear to be homosexuals
> themselves) note that "Fantasies of the sexually forceful man, the
> pleasure of 'being taken;' and the excitement of power-driven sex are
> very common in gay culture and pornography. All these collective
> sexual fantasies normalize sexual abuse and rape of gay men by gay
> men, providing motivation, justification, and normalization for the
> assault. It is difficult to see how a climate of intolerance towards
> sexual aggression can be achieved when sexual aggression is one of the
> mainstays of collective sexual fantasies." (p. 293)
It's funnier as we go alone. Fantasies of the sexually forceful man is
COMMON stuff in the porn business for some of us heterosexual men!
> * "Although thousands of heterosexuals allegedly responded to his
> survey, Cameron could get only 41 gay men and 24 lesbians to respond.
> The extremely small sample size should have invalidated any
> conclusions about the sexual behavior of the gay population."
Surprised that ANY homosexual would talk to a slim pit like Cameron! Those
41 and 24 need some person to take them aside and inform them they're
talking to an enemy.
(Snipped the rest of the long-winded self-serving bs that you cut and paste
from an internet site.) A link would have sufficed with a summary in your
own words. I doubt you are capable of summarizing though.
BYTE ME!
> In article <dggua19ndq2737iqs...@4ax.com>,
> w...@privacy.net wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:02:21 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
>><SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Family Research Institute
>>>>Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
>>>>Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
>>
>>
>>Addressing the claims of homosexuals against Dr. Cameron:
>>
>>* "he is the architect of unreliable 'surveys' that purport to show
>>strains of violence and depravity in gay life."
>
>
> This is true. Look at how he comes to his conclusions about the life
> spans of gay people. If you don't see anything wrong with just that one
> (of many) example, you aren't too bright.
>
You are 100% correct, he ain't too bright.
L. Michael Roberts
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:02:21 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
> <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>
>>>Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
>>>Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
<snip>
> - FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that
> suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact
And of course... heterosexual would *never* do such a thing?
Apparently you have missed out on http://www.toss-my-salad.com/
<snip>
--
+==================== 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"
+================================================================+
Andrealphus
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ukmva1tab29679r71...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:05:27 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> You fail to note (as you always do when telling lies) that on a per
> capita basis homosexual domestic abuse is 10 times that of
> heterosexuals. Sorry to spoil your story, boy.
More bullshit from the failed artist.
Sword of Baal @truthonly.com RamRod Sword of Baal
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ukmva1tab29679r71...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:05:27 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> >| It wasn't a link. It was a post by wbt... "Still, it is clear that
>>> >| those actively engaged in homosexuality are a
>>> >| tiny portion of the non-institutionalized population certainly no
>>> >more
>>> >| than 2% (although homosexuals may make up as much as a quarter of
>>> >| those in prisons and jails). " It was part of a piece by an unnamed
>>> >| author called "Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured"
>>>
>>> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
>>> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
>>
>>
>> For men, 29% of victimizations were attributed to their wife,
>> 16.5% to their ex-wife (or one from whom he was separated),
>> 9.7% to boyfriends or ex-boyfriends, and 44.4% to girlfriends
>> or former girlfriends.
>>
>> So, overall, gays accounted for 10% of male victims (i.e.,
>> 13,740/142,290) and lesbians for 2% of female victims (i.e.,
>> 16,900/902,240). Altogether, homosexual partners accounted for
>> 30,640 of the projected 1,044,530 annual victims, or 3% of the
>> total.
>>
>>3% of the total? That's approximately the size of the purely gay and
>>lesbian population. The data (if at all accurate) seem to indicate
>>that men are far more likely to be responsible for domestic violence
>>than women. In a male-male relationship, you double count, and if you
>>take the 9.7% and divide by 2, you are fairly close to the fraction
>>of men that are gay (about 3 or 4 percent, excluding bisexual men).
>>
>>So, the actual conclusion should be that (a) men are more likely
>>to be the perpetrator of domestic violence than women, and (b)
>>gay and bisexual men are no different from straight men in this
>>regard.
>>
>>Even funnier,
>>
>> The Massachusetts Psychological and American Psychological
>> Associations very recently assured the Massachusetts Supreme
>> Court that homosexual contacts are no more dangerous and
>> medically contraindicated than heterosexual contacts. Why? To
>> get the Massachusetts anti-sodomy law declared
>> unconstitutional. On what planet are these psychologists
>> living? Or is it just more convenient to lie?
>>
>>The facts: a mouth is a mouth and an ass is an ass, and it doesn't
>>matter if it is a male mouth or a female mouth, or a male ass or a
>>female ass, that a guy inserts his you know what into. So, if gay sex
>>is bad for you, some types of straight sex are bad for you too. Your
>>choice is to believe the crackpots or to believe health-care
>>professionals.
>
> You fail to note (as you always do when telling lies) that on a per
> capita basis homosexual domestic abuse is 10 times that of
> heterosexuals. Sorry to spoil your story, boy.
Funny how you people almost always make unsupported quotes, and if (rarely)
it is supported, it is by some bigot organization or person, never anything
resembling an official Government site or say the AMA or APA.
The other things one notices in the bigots posts are the all to regular "In
a recent survey" of course the survey is never quoted, or 'quotes' from
books one can not get hold of to check the legitimacy of that so called
quote.......
So here is your big chance, let us see where this earth shattering
information you quoted "On a per
capita basis homosexual domestic abuse is 10 times that of heterosexuals"
came from.
If it came from the defrocked Paul Cameron or his site, well do not bother.
No One
The numbers (provided in the article) quite obviously disagree with
you, your use of your redneck patois notwithstanding.
Andrealphus
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:oc11b1pcf8qb042ak...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:26:31 GMT, "Andrealphus"
> <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
>
>>More bullshit from the failed artist.
>
Yes, really. You're a failed artist spewing bullshit.
James Riske
> w...@privacy.net wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:02:21 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
>> <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>> Family Research Institute
>>>> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
>>>> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> - FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that
>> suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact
>
>
> And of course... heterosexual would *never* do such a thing?
> Apparently you have missed out on http://www.toss-my-salad.com/
>
> <snip>
>
And naturally Liar Michael Roberts forgets to mention that faggots only
make up 2 percent of the population even though 80% of them eat shit,
what percentage of heteros eat shit Liar M.R.?
Oh wait, this doesn't go in favor of faggots so I will expect a complete
evasion from Liar M.R.
--
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing."--Edmund Burke
Jenn
James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
> L. Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> > w...@privacy.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:02:21 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
> >> <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Family Research Institute
> >>>> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
> >>>> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> - FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that
> >> suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact
> >
> >
> > And of course... heterosexual would *never* do such a thing?
> > Apparently you have missed out on http://www.toss-my-salad.com/
> >
> > <snip>
> >
>
>
> And naturally Liar Michael Roberts forgets to mention that faggots only
> make up 2 percent of the population even though 80% of them eat shit,
> what percentage of heteros eat shit Liar M.R.?
LOL I can't wait to hear this: where did you dig up this particular
lie? Lordy you're a great story teller!
Jude
I THINK he gets it from Cameron. Watched a show the other day and during
the middle ages many people gargled with their own urine to whiten their
teeth. Unfortunately, they didn't know that what whitened their teeth also
ate away at their enamel! Ingredients? Ammonia.
Jenn
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote:
He probably thinks that he got it from that loon, but IIRC, not even
Cameron has told that whopper. Leave it to him to add a lie on top of a
lie! LOL
L. Michael Roberts
James Riske wrote:
> L. Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>> w...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:02:21 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
>>> <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Family Research Institute
>>>>> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
>>>>> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> - FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that
>>> suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact
>>
>> And of course... heterosexual would *never* do such a thing?
>> Apparently you have missed out on http://www.toss-my-salad.com/
>>
>> <snip>
>
> And naturally Liar Michael Roberts forgets to mention that faggots only
> make up 2 percent of the population even though 80% of them eat shit,
Naturally you have a valid citation from the recent, mainstream, peer
reviewed scientific journals to back up your 80% assertion?
No One
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:38:35 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >w...@privacy.net writes:
> (...)
> >> You fail to note (as you always do when telling lies) that on a per
> >> capita basis homosexual domestic abuse is 10 times that of
> >> heterosexuals. Sorry to spoil your story, boy.
> >
> >The numbers (provided in the article) quite obviously disagree with
> >you, your use of your redneck patois notwithstanding.
>
>
> Per Capita, boy! PER CAPITA! Look it up!
The numbers in the URL cited (which someone else provided) were on a
per capita basis and indicated that the rates are comparable when
you compare gay men to straight men on a per-capita basis. They
gave, after all, percentages.
If you don't like the URL
<http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html>, or the auther
(Paul Cameron, who is not reliable), then I trust you won't cut and
paste anything Cameron writes.
He mostly puts out anti-gay propaganda, but this time he blew it
and provided numbers that contradicted the point he thought he
was making. I thought that was kind of funny.
James Riske
>
> James Riske wrote:
>
>> L. Michael Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> w...@privacy.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:02:21 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
>>>> <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Family Research Institute
>>>>>> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
>>>>>> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> - FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that
>>>> suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact
>>>
>>>
>>> And of course... heterosexual would *never* do such a thing?
>>> Apparently you have missed out on http://www.toss-my-salad.com/
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> And naturally Liar Michael Roberts forgets to mention that faggots
>> only make up 2 percent of the population even though 80% of them eat
>> shit,
>
>
> Naturally you have a valid citation from the recent, mainstream,
> peer reviewed scientific journals to back up your 80% assertion?
>
> <snip>
>
Your hilarious challenge is flawed faggot since your criteria is hardly
any basis for what humans know as fact or logic.
BYTE ME!
> L. Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>>
>> James Riske wrote:
>
> Your hilarious challenge is flawed faggot since your criteria is hardly
> any basis for what humans know as fact or logic.
>
But you are a subhuman so you know no logic or fact.
L. Michael Roberts
James Riske wrote:
> L. Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>> James Riske wrote:
>>
>>> L. Michael Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>> w...@privacy.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:02:21 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
>>>>> <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Family Research Institute
>>>>>>> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
>>>>>>> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> - FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that
>>>>> suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact
>>>>
>>>> And of course... heterosexual would *never* do such a thing?
>>>> Apparently you have missed out on http://www.toss-my-salad.com/
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> And naturally Liar Michael Roberts forgets to mention that faggots
>>> only make up 2 percent of the population even though 80% of them eat
>>> shit,
>>
>> Naturally you have a valid citation from the recent, mainstream,
>> peer reviewed scientific journals to back up your 80% assertion?
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Your hilarious challenge is flawed faggot since your criteria is hardly
> any basis for what humans know as fact or logic.
IOW you have *no* citation to back up your claims.
Bonnie B.
w...@privacy.net wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:20:39 GMT, No One(likes me) <noone@isuckbilltaylor's.scrotum>
>wrote:
>
>>Buttmuncher Bill Taylor w...@privacy.net writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:38:35 GMT, No One(likes me) <noone@isuckbilltaylor's.scrotum>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Buttmuncher Bill Taylor w...@privacy.net writes:
Rent a room already.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie Bitch
Jude
"33% [of gays surveyed] ingested feces via anal/oral contact"-Paul Cameron
quoted at http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron2.html
Jude
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:dmg1b11fb8bt7u1eb...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:26:04 GMT, Jenn <jennco...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote:
>
> >> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >> > > >>Natalie Clifford Barney <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>
>
> >He probably thinks that he got it from that loon, but IIRC, not even
> >Cameron has told that whopper. Leave it to him to add a lie on top of a
> >lie! LOL
>
> jerk.
Twit, I'm a hetero married man (member PFLAG - look it up, hater, if you
want to know what it is!) with a gay sister and I don't post on your
disgusting ng. Somebody in YOUR ngs crossposts to
alt.christnet.christianlife! THAT'S where I post.
Jenn
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote:
Yep. While I think that this figure is high, Riske just went ahead and
more than doubled the figure. What a loon.
BTW, thank you for supporting your sister :-)
Scythe
Death wrote:
>
> Good, the air is fresher when you pull your
> head out of your ass.
They seem to have their heads in the ground like ostriches.
Not all bashers of gays are necessarily bashers of wives.
They like to think so with their homosexual brains the way
they operate, they cannot help their behavior.
Bonnie B.
>I am an AKA DOG FUCKER
>To watch me, call:
>http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolios/w/wilhelm/
Jude
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:v833b1pldi9rn557t...@4ax.com...
> sister came out first.
Huh? lol Am I supposed to go into fits of rage or something because my
iddy biddy feelings were hurt??? LOL You'll have to troll a LOT better
than THAT! People, I give WBT a trolling grade of only 1 out of a possible
4. Sorry, couldn't do better than that for the guy. I gather he needs to
take a few more hate classes to get a better grade out of me.
BYTE ME!
>
> Huh? lol Am I supposed to go into fits of rage or something because my
> iddy biddy feelings were hurt??? LOL You'll have to troll a LOT better
> than THAT! People, I give WBT a trolling grade of only 1 out of a possible
> 4. Sorry, couldn't do better than that for the guy. I gather he needs to
> take a few more hate classes to get a better grade out of me.
>
>
You were far too generous with that grade. He rates a -3.
BYTE ME!
> scrawny ass kick by Wild Bill (many have and many more will)
> and get on with your life.
>
Have you completely run out of drugs or do you always live in a fantasy
world.
Jeff North
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote:
Don't worry, wbt is a complete failure at anything he attempts.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnor...@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jude
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:6ne4b1pa044bf23on...@4ax.com...
> scrawny ass kick by Wild Bill (many have and many more will)
> and get on with your life.
You're describing your own dream of a hater/troll, something you wake up
especially refreshed each morning to do, to send the object of their hatred
into spasms of painful fits.
An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord and hatred on
the Internet. He finds nothing more delightful than upsetting people and
starting arguments.
Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their
bizarre game of hatred. To them, the object of their hatred are not quite
human and feel no remorse or sorrow for any of the pain they hopefully
inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their
'achievement' (as they see it). Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism
(constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot
cause them to feel shame, compassion or remorse, and once cannot reason with
them.
Affirmation is the troll's goal, believe it or not! Trolls CRAVE
attention, and they care not that it is negative attention. They see the
Internet as a mirror into which they can gaze in narcissistic rapture.
Jude
Thanks for the thanks. :) I've seen others even misinterpret his
incredibly suspect % to say that gay men actual are nibbling on feces. It's
loony enough coming up with such a HIGH figure in relationship to anal/oral
contact but when it has been interpreted as literally eating feces, it makes
you wonder at their levels of honesty. I think the other statistic, that I
can't find the source to, which is so awful is that a high % of gay men put
gerbils up their behinds! Of course, they are plenty of homophobes who jump
on ANY thing that reflects negatively on ANY gay or lesbian person(s), and
NEVER question the source or the scientific methods to come to their
conclusions.
Heck, gotta run 'cause I have an appointment.
PErTHgUY.mmv
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pqlra1te4kbl4ahgn...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:07:04 -0500, "Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Adrian Miles-Davros" <dav...@tmaggotpunks.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:11186587...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> >> "Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote in message
> >> news:Hj_qe.91647$8S5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >> >
> >> > "PErTHgUY.mmv" <Ramsest...@Egypt.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:42ac6...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> >> >> Because they pick weak feminine guys and they know if they started
> >> >> bashing
> >> >> their wifes they're be in trouble (but the bibles words can be
twisted
> >to
> >> >> support wife bashing too.)it's looked down upon by society as they
know
> >> > you
> >> >> don't hit women. So, they transfer their aggression on feminine
gays
> >as
> >> >> they are "Like women" and it would be just like hitting your wife to
> >> >> them,
> >> >> and its alright to hit men isn't it.
> >> >
> >> >>> Most thought provoking idea I've heard in a LONG time! I DO
suspect
> >> > that,
> >> >>> for some men, this would be true as well as the old tried and true
> >> >>> notion
> >> >>> that their aggression is toward men who act like women and have
thus
> >> > given
> >> >>> up the perceived "superior" role of man in favor of a "inferior"
role
> >of
> >> >>> woman.
> >> >
> >> > I closed my post too soon. Another thing I'd like to add is that I
read
> >> > an
> >> > excellent article years ago that made a clarifying statement which
was
> >> > that
> >> > raging people many times claim they can't control or stop their anger
> >thus
> >> > giving them variable levels of excuse for their destructive
behaviors.
> >> > However, the author went on, it is SIGNIFICANT that when these people
> >are
> >> > "out of control" they RARELY pick on the big guy but nearly
EXCLUSIVELY
> >> > pick
> >> > on somebody that can't defend themselves either by weight ratio or
any
> >> > other
> >> > way in which the "muscle" is heavily weighted to the aggressor's
side,
> >> > i.e.
> >> > using gun vs. someone with only their fists. This relates to what
> >you've
> >> > said. These guys TYPICAL attack the more feminine of men and not the
> >> > so-called butch types of gay men. So, not only are they haters but
they
> >> > are
> >> > cowards as well, many times going in groups of 3 or more looking to
bash
> >> > some probably non-offensive living (iows, a fairly sweet guy) gay
man.
> >> >
> >> I think George Herek in:-
> >>
> >> "Beyond "homophobia": Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the
> >> twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,"
> >>
> >> touches on this idea to some extent, where he looks at the history of
> >> Homophobia, it is also interesting to note that he consistently finds
that
> >> the least homophobic people are:-
> >>
> >> "in predominantly White samples, respondents were more likely to
express
> >> favorable attitudes (to LBTG group) if they were highly educated,
> >unmarried,
> >> politically liberal, registered to vote, not religious, and if they
> >included
> >> Blacks in their concept of gay men. In addition, respondents reported
more
> >> favorable attitudes if they had experienced personal contact with gay
men
> >or
> >> lesbians, but this was not a significant predictor of attitudes when
other
> >> variables were statistically controlled. "
> >>
> >> http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bibabs.html
> >
> >Read ever last one of them and they were all interesting but ESPECIALLY
the
> >one re: religious, racism, homophobia at the end.
> >
> >> While instances of domestic vilence are also less likely to occur in
this
> >> group:-
> >>
> >> http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/position/social/scviol.htm
> >>
> >> It also seems that if you look across the various newsgroups, you can
see
> >> that those who are more vocal in posting anti-gay posts, are also
> >vehemently
> >> anti-feminist. (Last comment was totally off the "top of my head" and I
> >> haven't actually checked it, although several posters do spring to
mind.)
> >
> >I've seen that coorelation with "ordinary folk," but it exists even on a
> >greater level among Fundamentalists.
> >
> >Thanks for the links. After replying to several stupid posts from
Fundies
> >it was a pleasure to see yours.
>
>
> And don't forget that the most "Domestic Violent" day of the year is
> Super Bowl Sunday... You homophiles are so gullible.
>
PErTHgUY.mmv
news article.
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ukmva1tab29679r71...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:05:27 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Jeff North <jnor...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> >
> >
> >> >| It wasn't a link. It was a post by wbt... "Still, it is clear that
> >> >| those actively engaged in homosexuality are a
> >> >| tiny portion of the non-institutionalized population certainly no
more
> >> >| than 2% (although homosexuals may make up as much as a quarter of
> >> >| those in prisons and jails). " It was part of a piece by an
unnamed
> >> >| author called "Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured"
> >>
> >> This explains it all.
> >>
> >> http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html
> >>
> >> Family Research Institute
> >> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
> >> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
> >
> >Even funnier, that URL states,
> >
> > For men, 29% of victimizations were attributed to their wife,
> > 16.5% to their ex-wife (or one from whom he was separated),
> > 9.7% to boyfriends or ex-boyfriends, and 44.4% to girlfriends
> > or former girlfriends.
> >
> > So, overall, gays accounted for 10% of male victims (i.e.,
> > 13,740/142,290) and lesbians for 2% of female victims (i.e.,
> > 16,900/902,240). Altogether, homosexual partners accounted for
> > 30,640 of the projected 1,044,530 annual victims, or 3% of the
> > total.
> >
> >3% of the total? That's approximately the size of the purely gay and
> >lesbian population. The data (if at all accurate) seem to indicate
> >that men are far more likely to be responsible for domestic violence
> >than women. In a male-male relationship, you double count, and if you
> >take the 9.7% and divide by 2, you are fairly close to the fraction
> >of men that are gay (about 3 or 4 percent, excluding bisexual men).
> >
> >So, the actual conclusion should be that (a) men are more likely
> >to be the perpetrator of domestic violence than women, and (b)
> >gay and bisexual men are no different from straight men in this
> >regard.
> >
> >Even funnier,
> >
> > The Massachusetts Psychological and American Psychological
> > Associations very recently assured the Massachusetts Supreme
> > Court that homosexual contacts are no more dangerous and
> > medically contraindicated than heterosexual contacts. Why? To
> > get the Massachusetts anti-sodomy law declared
> > unconstitutional. On what planet are these psychologists
> > living? Or is it just more convenient to lie?
> >
> >The facts: a mouth is a mouth and an ass is an ass, and it doesn't
> >matter if it is a male mouth or a female mouth, or a male ass or a
> >female ass, that a guy inserts his you know what into. So, if gay sex
> >is bad for you, some types of straight sex are bad for you too. Your
> >choice is to believe the crackpots or to believe health-care
> >professionals.
PErTHgUY.mmv
You've got a foul mind. Jaimie. (or is it Tom?)
"James Riske" <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118872279.2ee9851505724e440fa1d0380f63d217@teranews...
> L. Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> > w...@privacy.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:02:21 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
> >> <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Family Research Institute
> >>>> Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
> >>>> Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> - FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that
> >> suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact
> >
> >
> > And of course... heterosexual would *never* do such a thing?
> > Apparently you have missed out on http://www.toss-my-salad.com/
> >
> > <snip>
> >
>
>
> And naturally Liar Michael Roberts forgets to mention that faggots only
> make up 2 percent of the population even though 80% of them eat shit,
> what percentage of heteros eat shit Liar M.R.?
>
> Oh wait, this doesn't go in favor of faggots so I will expect a complete
> evasion from Liar M.R.
No One
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:20:39 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> Only in the AIDS addled mind of a homosexual.
Name calling won't change the fact that you are wrong.
No One
Just out of curiosity, "Bonnie", are you and WBT in some sort of
contest to see which of you two is the more childish? Both of
you sound like little boys in the 7th grade who just learned
their first "dirty words" and are trying them out as much as
possible.
Let me give you a simple word of advise. Try acting like an
adult. (WBT needs the same advise as well but has shown repeatedly
that he is incapable of listening.)
B. Bitch
me)<no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>Bonnie B. <456e...@emas.org> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 06:46:51 GMT, Buttmuncher Bill Taylor
>> w...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:20:39 GMT, No One(likes me) <noone@isuckbilltaylor's.scrotum>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Buttmuncher Bill Taylor w...@privacy.net writes:
>> >>
>> >>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:38:35 GMT, No One(likes me) <noone@isuckbilltaylor's.scrotum>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Buttmuncher Bill Taylor w...@privacy.net writes:
>>
>> Rent a room already.
>
>Just out of curiosity, "Bonnie", are you
... really a nice person underneath it all? Why yes, precious, I am.
But humans have to earn their preciousness with me.
You're automatically disqualified.
Now run along and go pimp some more for your (butt-)buddy Bill
Taylor--
Tschüßi, Mädel --
Bonnie Bitch
PS -- Try acting like an adult **HUMAN** anytime ever.
The Doctor
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
nk.ca started 1 June 1995
Jenn
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> More like from the politically corect. Such is the Homosexual Agenda.
Since you don't quote, no one knows what you're speaking of, which is
probably for the best.
No One
Looks like Bonnie has some serious issues and needs some professional
help. Might I suggest a course in anger management?
B. Bitch
wrote:
>B. Bitch <some...@overthe.rainbow> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:53:21 GMT, No One(likes
>> me)<no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> >Buttmuncher Bill Taylor w...@privacy.net writes:
>> >>
>> >> Rent a room already.
>> >
>> >Just out of curiosity, "Bonnie", are you
>>
>> ... really a nice person underneath it all? Why yes, precious, I am.
>> But humans have to earn their preciousness with me.
>> You're automatically disqualified.
>>
>> Now run along and go pimp some more for your (butt-)buddy Bill
>> Taylor--
>
>Looks like
Have fun pimping some more.
You might want to consult a professional about your current
obsessions, too.
No One
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:51:18 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
> >Looks like
>
> Have fun pimping some more. You might want to consult a
> professional about your current obsessions, too.
People like you who snip midsentence so people not following a thread
will not notice what was actually said are, as they say, "integrity
challenged." Or are you simply too embarassed to make it obvious that
you can't write your own material and have been "borrowing" with minor
modifications?
BYTE ME!
B. Bitch
wrote:
>B. Bitch <some...@overthe.rainbow> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:51:18 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>> >Looks like
>>
>> Have fun pimping some more. You might want to consult a
>> professional about your current obsessions, too.
>
>People like you who
... call out scumbags (that's be you, princess) who get their kicks
denigrating others for standing up to assloaves (that'd be Bill
Taylor) after years of harassment and abuse are justified in telling
you to fuck right off, even if that means pointing out how you're
behaving like a common street pimp.
And given your penchant for encasing yourself behind your Acme
Ignorance Shield ś on other topics, it's no surprise that you don't
have the balls to look at your own shitty behavior.
Have fun pimping some more for Bill Taylor --
Hugs (gimme a sec to don my Hazmat suit) --
Bonnie Bitch
No One
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:39:07 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >B. Bitch <some...@overthe.rainbow> writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:51:18 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Looks like
> >>
> >> Have fun pimping some more. You might want to consult a
> >> professional about your current obsessions, too.
> >
> >People like you who
>
> ... call out scumbags (that's be you, princess) who get their kicks
> denigrating others for standing up to assloaves (that'd be Bill
> Taylor) after years of harassment and abuse are justified in telling
> you to fuck right off, even if that means pointing out how you're
> behaving like a common street pimp.
First of all, I've told "Bill Taylor" off a large number of times,
although in terms not nearly as crude as the ones you regularly use,
and from what I can gather, he really hates me. I have not, however,
stooped to printing his alleged home address and telephone number as
you have repeatedly, and I'll note that you refused to justify how you
determined that the address was accurate - a reasonable question since
some of us would want to be extremely careful to not have an innocent
party harassed.
Your behavior in general shows a tendency toward unreasonable personal
vendettas. I'd suggest for your own good that you really do try to
get some professional help for that problem.
> And given your penchant for encasing yourself behind your Acme
> Ignorance Shield <unrecognized character> on other topics, it's no
> surprise that you don't have the balls to look at your own shitty
> behavior.
This is a classic case of projection. And an "Acme Ignorance Shield"
is not a synonym for diasgreeing with you on some obscure topic. If
you must make up terminology, at least try to do it accurately.
What you don't realize, however, is how much you are acting like
"Bill Taylor" (minus the homophobia he exhibits.) You are certainly
as crude as he is, and your posts have been as dishonest (although
usually only when you get upset).
Andrealphus
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3psukt...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> B. Bitch <some...@overthe.rainbow> writes:
> .... "Acme Ignorance Shield"
Did you ever that if that coyote could affort all that neat Acme hardware,
why didn't he just go and buy his self some dinner?
No One
Because the Wiley Coyote had a deep emotional need to "get" the
Road Runner - kind of like someone whose initials are currently B.B.? :-)
B. Bitch
<NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
>
>B. Bitch <some...@overthe.rainbow> writes:
>
>> .... "Acme Ignorance Shield"
>
>Did you ever that if that coyote could affort all that neat Acme hardware,
>why didn't he just go and buy his self some dinner?
He was broke from buying all the Acme hardware?
Andrealphus
"B. Bitch" <some...@overthe.rainbow> wrote in message
news:0k47b1haeoo47s5qd...@4ax.com...
That's what I mean though. He could have sold all that crap and went to a
nice resturant.
B. Bitch
<NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
>
>"B. Bitch" <some...@overthe.rainbow> wrote in message
>news:0k47b1haeoo47s5qd...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 03:03:34 GMT, "Andrealphus"
>> <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>B. Bitch <some...@overthe.rainbow> writes:
>>>
>>>> .... "Acme Ignorance Shield"
>>>
>>>Did you ever that if that coyote could affort all that neat Acme hardware,
>>>why didn't he just go and buy his self some dinner?
>>
>> He was broke from buying all the Acme hardware?
>>
>>
>
>That's what I mean though. He could have sold all that crap and went to a
>nice resturant.
But would he have been able to afford clothes? I mean, most places do
require shoes and shirt. And Mr. Coyote was a notorious nudist.
Ein Prosit der Gemütlichkeit --
Bonnie Bitch
Andrealphus
"B. Bitch" <some...@overthe.rainbow> wrote in message
Yeah, but since he wasn't drawn with any genitalia, it hardly mattered.
B. Bitch
<NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
>
>"B. Bitch" <some...@overthe.rainbow> wrote in message
>news:ss67b11uu8bjilb5m...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 03:39:42 GMT, "Andrealphus"
>> <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"B. Bitch" <some...@overthe.rainbow> wrote in message
>>>news:0k47b1haeoo47s5qd...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 03:03:34 GMT, "Andrealphus"
>>>> <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>B. Bitch <some...@overthe.rainbow> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> .... "Acme Ignorance Shield"
>>>>>
>>>>>Did you ever that if that coyote could affort all that neat Acme
>>>>>hardware,
>>>>>why didn't he just go and buy his self some dinner?
>>>>
>>>> He was broke from buying all the Acme hardware?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's what I mean though. He could have sold all that crap and went to a
>>>nice resturant.
>>
>> But would he have been able to afford clothes? I mean, most places do
>> require shoes and shirt. And Mr. Coyote was a notorious nudist.
>>
>
>Yeah, but since he wasn't drawn with any genitalia, it hardly mattered.
He had a hoohah. It was just covered by all the fur.
Plus, I think that Wyle E. Coyote and Mr. R. Runner were having a
clandestine affair off-screen.
Just ask John Shocked -- he knows all about it. <g>