alt.society.conservatism open for business
Jason Christian
>alt.society.conservatism is now a newsgroup. hope you're all seeing it.
>if not, contact your sysadmin and harass him. (that's what i did. 8-)
>
>looking forward to some awesome discussion.
YO-HO-HO!
Garr-it, anchors-aweigh! Pope, utter an incantation to the Dhanesh.
Paul, break out the skewers. Paul? Oh, Paul's probably already there.
Now, where's that cat-o'-nine-tails go to? Train? running... Cool-edge?
sharp...
Evil Michael! Where is he? Someone catch that lad, gag his, and lock
him in the hold...
A POEM! Someone consecrate the raid with some verse! Liz?
SAIL HO! RUN UP THE JOLLY DANNY!
... now who were we supposed to harass? }d-Q
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian Agricultural Economics
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu University of California, Davis
Office:(916)752-1357 FAX:(916)752-5614 Davis, CA 95616
gar...@ingres.com
>In article <1tu06c...@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> pear...@RoseVC.Rose-Hulman.Edu writes:
>>alt.society.conservatism is now a newsgroup. hope you're all seeing it.
>>if not, contact your sysadmin and harass him. (that's what i did. 8-)
>>looking forward to some awesome discussion.
>
>YO-HO-HO!
>
>Garr-it, anchors-aweigh! Pope, utter an incantation to the Dhanesh.
>Paul, break out the skewers. Paul? Oh, Paul's probably already there.
>Now, where's that cat-o'-nine-tails go to? Train? running... Cool-edge?
>sharp...
>
a barrage of statistical broadsides, and torturing a few prisoners. A
pirate's work is never done, ya' know swabby.
>SAIL HO! RUN UP THE JOLLY DANNY!
>
>Jason Christian Agricultural Economics
>ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu University of California, Davis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." - Thoreau Garrett Johnson
"The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people Gar...@Ingres.com
say you connot do." - Walter Bagehot
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
Here comes conservatism:
FROM
THE RUSH LIMBAUGH FANS AT NCSU!
gar...@ingres.com
>
>Here comes conservatism:
>
> FROM
> THE RUSH LIMBAUGH FANS AT NCSU!
We are about to be attacked! Man your battlestations! Helmsman, tack upwind.
Load the grapeshot. Look lively men (and women).
Jason Christian
This is Communications, calling Commander Dan Cool-edge. We have a
strange message coming in. They seem to have their CAPS-LOCK set.
(bzzzzt. crackle) That's Don, you idiot.
Sorry Commander. May I spell that with an "e", as in Dane? That's how
you always leave your victims (well ...)
(bzzzzt. crackle) Activate detecting devices. CYNIC! are your skewers
honed? Chill the cyroslicer. Vectorize the vegematic. Communications:
send a message to the CAPSLOCKean entity:
Yo! YoHoHo! Where are y'all? Alt.fan.dan-quayle is looking for you.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian Agricultural Economics
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu University of California, Davis
Paul Havemann
...where? I don't see any of either.
Well, Jason, I guess it's up to you: a shot across the bow like that
must be returned ASAP!
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com)
Clinton's tax package was approved by 50.7 percent of the House.
Who dares to be the first to call it a "mandate"?
dks
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) writes:
> pear...@RoseVC.Rose-Hulman.Edu writes:
> >alt.society.conservatism is now a newsgroup.
> >hope you're all seeing it. if not, contact
> >your sysadmin and harass him. (that's what i did. 8-)
> >
> >looking forward to some awesome discussion.
>
> YO-HO-HO!
>
> Garr-it, anchors-aweigh! Pope, utter an incantation to the Dhanesh.
> Paul, break out the skewers. Paul? Oh, Paul's probably already
> there. Now, where's that cat-o'-nine-tails go to? Train?
> running... Cool-edge? sharp...
>
> lock him in the hold...
>
> A POEM! Someone consecrate the raid with some verse! Liz?
>
>
Zounds! I'm only glad we're on the same side, lads and lasses!
Singe their hair, gang, make 'em weep. And if you take prisoners, make
'em beg on bended knee for the liberal mercies of the Geneva Convention.
Cheers, me hearties!
Dhanesh
It is my duty, as a pirate, to tell you that you are too tender-hearted.
Maddi Hausmann
Phasers locked on target.
Neutron torpedoes at the ready.
Commencing communications jamming sequence.
RUSH LIMBAUGH BLOWS DEAD BUFFALOE!!!!
There. This ought to be fun.
Awaiting further orders, Captain Cool-edge.
--
Maddi Hausmann mad...@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
Kids, please don't try this at home. Remember, I post professionally.
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
*sewa...@eos.ncsu.edu (STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes:
*>
*>
*>Here comes conservatism:
*>
*> FROM
*>
*> THE RUSH LIMBAUGH FANS AT NCSU!
*
*
*Phasers locked on target.
*Neutron torpedoes at the ready.
*Commencing communications jamming sequence.
* RUSH LIMBAUGH BLOWS DEAD BUFFALOE!!!!
*
*There. This ought to be fun.
*Awaiting further orders, Captain Cool-edge.
"Buffalo" doesn't have an "e" at the end where
I come from, Dan Quayle.
Stephanie :)
pat walsh
>*Phasers locked on target.
>*Neutron torpedoes at the ready.
>*Commencing communications jamming sequence.
>* RUSH LIMBAUGH BLOWS DEAD BUFFALOE!!!!
>*
>*There. This ought to be fun.
>*Awaiting further orders, Captain Cool-edge.
>
>
>"Buffalo" doesn't have an "e" at the end where
>I come from, Dan Quayle.
Arrgghhh, Pirate Maddi! I don't think they got the joke. Looks like ye'll
be needin' to fly the Jolly Roger Danoe Smiley a tad more often.
}d-Q
- Pirate Pat Walsh
University of Virginia Department of Physics
p...@virginia.bitnet, p...@virginia.edu, p...@gomez.phys.virginia.edu
dks
It's about time. I was beginning to think you people expected me to
defend Mr. Quayle by myself. These fools in a.f.d-q are so darned
short-sighted it's ridiculous. I bet they laughed at Columbus. I bet
they laughed at Fulton. And I bet they laughed at the Wright brothers.
Dhanesh
[ Then again, I bet they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. ]
Maddi Hausmann
sewa...@eos.ncsu.edu (STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes: >*>
>*>Here comes conservatism:
>*>
>*> FROM
>*>
>*> THE RUSH LIMBAUGH FANS AT NCSU!
>*
>*Phasers locked on target.
>*Neutron torpedoes at the ready.
>*Commencing communications jamming sequence.
>* RUSH LIMBAUGH BLOWS DEAD BUFFALOE!!!!
>*
>*There. This ought to be fun.
>*Awaiting further orders, Captain Cool-edge.
>
>"Buffalo" doesn't have an "e" at the end where
>I come from, Dan Quayle.
>
> Stephanie :)
Conservative (adj.) 1. Preserving the status quo; avoiding
sudden changes in society or institutions 2. Marked by
inability to recognize humor or parody 3. Characterized
by overuse of capital letters 4. Showing neural disorder
that destroys ability to think critically or question
leaders and authorities 5. Of a member of the RRTWN.
Stephanie has shown us definitions 2, 4, and 5.
Paul J. Sanchez
>
>Conservative (adj.) 1. Preserving the status quo; avoiding
> sudden changes in society or institutions 2. Marked by
> inability to recognize humor or parody 3. Characterized
> by overuse of capital letters 4. Showing neural disorder
> that destroys ability to think critically or question
> leaders and authorities 5. Of a member of the RRTWN.
>
>Stephanie has shown us definitions 2, 4, and 5.
>
>--
>Maddi Hausmann mad...@netcom.com
Gee, and I always thought a conservative was someone who thought nothing
should ever be done for the first time.
--paul
David Allen
|> sudden changes in society or institutions 2. Marked by
|> inability to recognize humor or parody 3. Characterized
|> by overuse of capital letters 4. Showing neural disorder
|> that destroys ability to think critically or question
|> leaders and authorities 5. Of a member of the RRTWN.
LOOK EVERYTHING WAS FINE WHEN REAGAN (GOD) WAS PRESIDENT!
( hint: ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> )
--
__
|>/\\/ (TM)
David Allen dal...@wv.mentorg.com all...@xanth.cs.orst.edu
These comments do not reflect the opinions of Mentor Graphics Corporation,
Oregon State University, or the President of the United States, they are mine
and that of Integrated Learning alone.
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING POST:
*******************************************************
Annoying (adj.) Causing vexation or irritation;
troublesome... ex. Mr. Hausmann, radical, from
San Jose California.
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
--
************************************************************************
Stephanie E. Watson North Carolina State University
P.O. Box 87 Marching Band
Kenly, NC 27542 TROMBONE
919-284-4845
(summer address)
***\
* **\
* ***********\ sewa...@eos.ncsu.edu
*********=O *** I * sophomore CSC
\**************************/
***********************************************************************
Maddi Hausmann
[big deletion here; Stephanie ought to learn to
quote articles properly]
[My "definition" of conservatism deleted]
>*******************************************************
>Annoying (adj.) Causing vexation or irritation;
>troublesome... ex. Mr. Hausmann, radical, from
>San Jose California.
>*******************************************************
Hmmm. Here we see another good example of what
passes for "humor" among conservatives. Stephanie,
unwilling to admit that that she'd been sent on a
snipe hunt, plays a simple game of "I'm rubber and
you're glue" rather than laughing politely, or at
least coming up with an original comment.
Stephanie, dearest, here's a little tip, just between
us girls, okay? Firstly, you are way, way, WAY out
of your league. You don't even have a clue how
badly you are going to get trounced if you don't
cease your prattle immediately. Reading your posts
reminds me of a tyke with a pea-shooter going after
the _Enterprise_ (either one, the battleship or the
starship). You don't have a chance, and you don't
even realize you don't have a chance. In a way, it's
good dramatic tension because your coming loss is so
obviously preordained, but some might root for you
since you're so clearly outgunned, much as the world
rooted for the Chinese student dissidents.
Secondly, honey, it is most important, in USENET
discourse, to know something about your opponent
when entering a flamefight. I realize that you only
brought your pea-shooter and are a bit surprised to
see the missile launchers (and unlike Dan Quayle,
whose newsgroup this is, we DO hold them business
end forwards!), but do try to pay attention before
spitting that .03 caliber sunflower seed at me.
I'm a female, sweetie, so I don't know who this
"Mr. Hausmann, radical, from San Jose California"
is. Assuming that you WERE referring to me, I do
suggest you find out a LITTLE more about my politics
before placing inaccurate labels upon my person. I
view your little mistake as sort of sadly charming,
like the two-year-old who thinks she'll be magically
protected from the big, bad monster if she only waves
her Sparkly Wand and applies the correct Rainbow Brite
Sticker; nonetheless, you have made not one but two
errors in your evaluation of me. Two errors in two
sentences is pretty poor. That's a zero, Stephanie.
I know that in your kindergarten, everyone gets
green ribbons just for showing up, but it's time to
join the Real World, where you have to say something
useful and accurate if you want some positive
response.
Now, be a good little girl and either learn a bit
about this newsgroup (alt.fan.dan-quayle), or admit
that you really weren't ready for this grade and we'll
have you held back another year. It's really okay. By
the time you apply to college no one will really care
about this little incident. It WILL stay on your
Permanent School Record, but no one will see that
except your future employers. And I'm pretty sure
they won't make TOO big a deal about it, although
they might send you on another snipe hunt or two if
you actually ever get hired anywhere.
Oh, and have a My Little Pony set of stickers, on me.
It's look great stuck over Rush's mouth.
Love & Kisses,
Your Friend in radical San Jose, California
PS Note to Dhanesh: Was I taking undue advantage
of this one? I needed the practice, honest!
Dana Harris
>passes for "humor" among conservatives. Stephanie,
>unwilling to admit that that she'd been sent on a
>snipe hunt, plays a simple game of "I'm rubber and
>you're glue" rather than laughing politely, or at
>least coming up with an original comment.
Actually, Maddi dear, we conservatives have a hell of a
sense of humor. We have to in order to not burst into
tears as the liberal agenda is propigated (sp) throughout
the land. And after seeing your idea of what is funny
in rec.humor, it's not surprising you feel this way.
(Savage attack on little Stephanie deleted in part)
>
>Now, be a good little girl and either learn a bit
>about this newsgroup (alt.fan.dan-quayle)
This is cross-posted to alt.society.conservatism,
where we take flaming our junior members somewhat
more seriously. I have conversed with Stephanie in the
past, and while she does suffer a little bit from youthful
enthusiasm, at least she isn't one of the mindless souls
who depend on MTV and CBS to tell her how to think.
She is on the right path as far as I'm concerned, and
in time she'll become more informed.
>Oh, and have a My Little Pony set of stickers, on me.
>It's look great stuck over Rush's mouth.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh. I see. A Rushphobe (tm). By the way, who taught you
grammar?
>PS Note to Dhanesh: Was I taking undue advantage
>of this one? I needed the practice, honest!
Keep practicing.
>Maddi Hausmann mad...@netcom.com
>Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
>
>Kids, please don't try this at home. Remember, I post professionally.
>
DDDDDD AA N N AA da...@rex.uokhsc.edu
D D A A NN N A A University of Oklahoma
D D AAAAAA N N N AAAAAA Health Sciences Center
DDDDDD A A N N A A (405) 271-2202
Vote Democratic... It's easier than getting a job.
Jason Christian
>
> [big deletion here; Stephanie ought to learn to
> quote articles properly]
>
> [My "definition" of conservatism deleted]
>
>>*******************************************************
>>Annoying (adj.) Causing vexation or irritation;
>>troublesome... ex. Mr. Hausmann, radical, from
>>San Jose California.
>>*******************************************************
>Stephanie, dearest, here's a little tip, just between
>us girls, okay? Firstly, you are way, way, WAY out
>of your league. You don't even have a clue how
>badly you are going to get trounced if you don't
>cease your prattle immediately. Reading your posts
>reminds me of a tyke with a pea-shooter going after
>the _Enterprise_ (either one, the battleship or the
>starship). You don't have a chance, and you don't
Uh, Maddi, do you really think that a vessel sailing under the authority
of the forces of law, order, and bad taste is an appropriate analogy for
that which flies the Jolly Danoe?
>even realize you don't have a chance.
etc., etc., vicious flamage mercifully deleted...
>
>Now, be a good little girl and either learn a bit
>about this newsgroup (alt.fan.dan-quayle), or admit
>that you really weren't ready for this grade and we'll
>have you held back another year.
Maddi, be nice. She had mumps (or mump, right -side only) the day they
covered ``Verifying and Editing the Newsgroup Line'').
> ... It's really okay. By
>the time you apply to college no one will really care
>about this little incident. It WILL stay on your
>Permanent School Record, but no one will see that
>except your future employers. And I'm pretty sure
>they won't make TOO big a deal about it, although
>they might send you on another snipe hunt or two if
>you actually ever get hired anywhere.
>
>Oh, and have a My Little Pony set of stickers, on me.
>It's look great stuck over Rush's mouth.
\begin{RRWTRN}
CAN'T YOU SPELL!!! YOU LEFTIES ARE ALL THE SAME!!! YOU MAKE JOKES ABOUT
DANE QUAYLE AND THEN YOU SAY THINGS LIKE
>It's look great stuck over Rush's mouth.
THAT'S AWFUL. BESIDES, HOW CAN YOU TELL WHICH END IS WHICH???
\end{RRWTRN}
>
>Love & Kisses,
>Your Friend in radical San Jose, California
... SJ is a Great Big Freeway; lose your way and you can lose your
mind....
>
>PS Note to Dhanesh: Was I taking undue advantage
>of this one? I needed the practice, honest!
>--
>Maddi Hausmann mad...@netcom.com
>Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
>
>Kids, please don't try this at home. Remember, I post professionally.
>
gar...@ingres.com
>In article <madhausC...@netcom.com> mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>>
>>Hmmm. Here we see another good example of what
>>passes for "humor" among conservatives. Stephanie,
>>unwilling to admit that that she'd been sent on a
>>snipe hunt, plays a simple game of "I'm rubber and
>>you're glue" rather than laughing politely, or at
>>least coming up with an original comment.
>
>Actually, Maddi dear, we conservatives have a hell of a
>sense of humor.
I agree. I listened to a Rush radio show for the first time last weekend
and I can see that in order to listen to a whole show you need an INCREADIBLE
sense of humor.
His show consists of talking to one listener (and those listeners
were so dense that they actually made Limbaugh look smart) for a minute
or two, and then three or four minutes of commercials. And some of the
commercials were pitched by, guess who, Rush.
This sense of humor is far too subtle for me.
> We have to in order to not burst into
>tears as the liberal agenda is propigated (sp) throughout
>the land. And after seeing your idea of what is funny
>in rec.humor, it's not surprising you feel this way.
>
Illegal flame! Maddi monitors rec.humor.FUNNY. Nobody censors rec.humor.
You will be penalized with free-form-flaming (FFF for short).
>(Savage attack on little Stephanie deleted in part)
>>Maddi Hausmann mad...@netcom.com
>>Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
>>
>
> DDDDDD AA N N AA da...@rex.uokhsc.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When people are least sure, they are often most Garrett Johnson
dogmatic." - John Galbraith Gar...@Ingres.com
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism, it's just
the opposite." - John Galbraith
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Kepley
>I agree. I listened to a Rush radio show for the first time last weekend
>and I can see that in order to listen to a whole show you need an INCREADIBLE
>sense of humor.
> His show consists of talking to one listener (and those listeners
>were so dense that they actually made Limbaugh look smart) for a minute
>or two, and then three or four minutes of commercials. And some of the
>commercials were pitched by, guess who, Rush.
I swear the biggest fan of Rush Limbaugh (I confess that I cannot listen
to him long, not because of his message but just because I get bored with
talk radio) is a guy who voted for Clinton and is always defending him
against attacks. The first time I heard him mention Rush Limbaugh (and
he calls him "Rush") I thought he was going to flame but he was just
cracking up at things that Limbaugh was saying and not sarcastically.
He listens every day now.
--
| "The natural progress of things is for government |
| to gain ground and for liberty to yield" |
| Thomas Jefferson |
| Brad Kepley kep...@photon.phys.unca.edu 704-252-8330/Voice-Days |
Herbert Rutledge
|> This is cross-posted to alt.society.conservatism,
|> where we take flaming our junior members somewhat
|> more seriously. I have conversed with Stephanie in the
|> past, and while she does suffer a little bit from youthful
|> enthusiasm, at least she isn't one of the mindless souls
|> who depend on MTV and CBS to tell her how to think.
|> She is on the right path as far as I'm concerned, and
|> in time she'll become more informed.
^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
As soon as her brain comes back from the laundry.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Herbert Rutledge, aka Train | |
| Paramax Systems Corporation | "To post is human; to flame, divine." |
| Valley Forge Labs, M/S GVL-3 | |
| P.O. Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301 | ---Alexander Pope |
| Internet: tr...@vfl.paramax.com | |
|_________________________________|_______________________________________|
dks
mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
> sewa...@eos.ncsu.edu (STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes: >
> >
> >
>
> Hmmm. Here we see another good example of what
> passes for "humor" among conservatives. Stephanie,
> unwilling to admit that that she'd been sent on a
> snipe hunt, plays a simple game of "I'm rubber and
I like the "rubber/glue game" comparison. But who is which?
> Stephanie, dearest, here's a little tip, just between
> us girls, okay?
Here's something I've accepted but never understood:
How come it's OK for youse guys to call yourselves "girls" but
never (i.e., not ever) OK for us guys to call y'all the same?
I realise it's not a matter of Humongous Political Importance to
you in the a.f.d-q context, Maddi (such an attitude being usually
incompatible with a sense of humor), so I expect that if you have
a response, it won't be the usual "political correctness" theory
that the Lamebots churn out every morning [ NOTE: implied warning
to any Lamebot tempted to post such trash in response. ]
And, Maddi, I might not use the diminutive even if it were
suddenly OK for me to do so. Just as I *usually* leave "Jewish"
jokes to be told by Jewish comedians and Jewish friends, who
usually tell them best anyway.
But when the less stoic (male-type) guys among us are driven in
retreat to the comfort of the fire-lit and wolf-ringed circle,
where each beats on drums, chants odd chants, and greets the
other's "Inner Man" with relief and, yes, with commiseration,
do the more enlightened (female-type) guys see why it ain't
really funny? I think it's more of a pathetic statement on
the way our respective genders have treated each other in
the dominant "culture" (if that's the word I want).
Then again, wasn't it Kipling who said that the female of the
species is more deadly than the male? If Kipling was
right -- a debatable proposition -- then the state of things
must be YOUR fault, you {gals, girls, guys, people, etc.}!
Comments? And, please, don't say you can see me at one of
those "Inner Man" shin-digs! It ain't so!
> Reading your posts
> reminds me of a tyke with a pea-shooter going after
> the _Enterprise_ (either one, the battleship or the
> starship).
Someone else -- Paul? -- compared these brave assaults to that
of a Pekinese attacking an Abrams tank. To which one might say
that, after Waco, the tank probably isn't as willing to "fire"
as we are.
> You don't have a chance, and you don't
> even realize you don't have a chance. In a way, it's
> good dramatic tension because your coming loss is so
> obviously preordained, but some might root for you
> since you're so clearly outgunned, much as the world
> rooted for the Chinese student dissidents.
Now here's a comparison I find intriguing. When I rooted for
the Chinese student dissidents, it wasn't *only* because they
were the under-dogs (or as Mao might have put it: the vile,
rabble-rousing, running-under-dog lackeys of Yankee capitalism).
But in the case at hand, I must admit, mere "under-dog" status,
and I do mean status rather than behavior, was sufficient to
provoke in me some tragic sympathy for the young Stephanie.
It's just more of my disgusting Liberal(TM) hypocrisy, I guess.
> Secondly, honey, it is most important, in USENET
> discourse, to know something about your opponent
> when entering a flamefight.
Grin! I *was* wondering if you'd go after the "gender issue."
> I view your little mistake as sort of sadly charming,
> like the two-year-old who thinks she'll be magically
> protected from the big, bad monster if she only waves
> her Sparkly Wand and applies the correct Rainbow Brite
> Sticker;
What? WHAT? You mean it doesn't work? I thought all
such OldDemocrat(TM) tricks were assured to work. Maybe
that "Dave" thing was right after all. Maybe they fail.
I've been had.
But wait! Why was a Lamebot using an OldDemocrat(TM) trick?
Hah! I bet you can't explain THAT one, eh, Maddi? But go
ahead and ignore the question -- "liberals" always avoid the
difficult questions. Or hadn't you heard?
> Now, be a good little girl and either learn a bit
> about this newsgroup (alt.fan.dan-quayle), or admit
> that you really weren't ready for this grade and we'll
> have you held back another year. It's really okay. By
> the time you apply to college no one will really care
> about this little incident.
Slight quibble, Maddi. I know you were kidding, but she
might not. I think I saw a very personal ".sig" of hers
which suggested that she had already applied to college,
and had already been admitted, and was indeed a sophomore.
Which sophomoric status (not behavior -- damn, there's that
tricky distinction again), I concluded, proved the point that
stereotypes don't come from heaven, but are, sometimes, based
on extrapolation from small (not to mention puny) samples.
> Oh, and have a My Little Pony set of stickers, on me.
> It's look great stuck over Rush's mouth.
Allow me, Maddi, to paraphrase a smart and mutual acquaintance:
".GIF! .GIF! .GIF!"
What? You mean you don't have pictures because the event hasn't
happened (yet)? Damn. Maybe we could figure out the clever
Reaganapologist(R) technique of "remembering" counterfactuals?
> Love & Kisses,
> Your Friend in radical San Jose, California
Only for her? I trust it's just platonic love and kisses, then.
Or else your "militant" career is at stake, Maddi! Your wisest
words, your bravest deeds, could all be as nothing, against the
transgression of an ancient (and therefore infallible) code.
Then again, I hear the Greek islands are at their best this time
of the year.
> PS Note to Dhanesh: Was I taking undue advantage
> of this one? I needed the practice, honest!
Ages and ages will pass before I answer that question. I'm not
too sharp on the uptake, but even I can recognize decisions that
speak for themselves.
Cheers,
Dhanesh
Funny that it never stopped me from answering before, huh?
dks
da...@rex.uokhsc.edu (Dana Harris) writes:
> mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
> >Hmmm. Here we see another good example of what
> >passes for "humor" among conservatives. Stephanie,
> >unwilling to admit that that she'd been sent on a
> >snipe hunt, plays a simple game of "I'm rubber and
> >least coming up with an original comment.
>
> Actually, Maddi dear, we conservatives have a hell of a
> tears as the liberal agenda is propigated (sp) throughout
> the land. And after seeing your idea of what is funny
> in rec.humor, it's not surprising you feel this way.
Yeah, rite (sp.). [ See below for justification of spelling-taunt. ]
And, anyway, what is (are, if you're into Latin) THE "liberal agenda"?
Care to tell us? We sure as hell don't have a clue here on a.f.d-q,
and we sure as hell want to do our share of propagating, so TELL US
what to propagate, and we'll get right on it.
And if you were kidding, then so am I.
> (Savage attack on little Stephanie deleted in part)
And as I said before, my own muted reactions to her were more
in sorrow than in anger. Call it condescension if you want, but
it isn't. And you agree it isn't, by talking below about your
altruistic concern that she stay "on the right path."
> This is cross-posted to alt.society.conservatism,
> where we take flaming our junior members somewhat
> more seriously. I have conversed with Stephanie in the
> past, and while she does suffer a little bit from youthful
> enthusiasm, at least she isn't one of the mindless souls
> who depend on MTV and CBS to tell her how to think.
> She is on the right path as far as I'm concerned, and
> in time she'll become more informed.
If so, then it's a good thing. *I* have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at all
against Stephanie. Her young enthusiasm was obvious, and I encourage
it. In fact, I posted an "encouraging" response! Not that you give
a damn what I encourage, of course, but if she's open-minded, and
you're really as altruistic as you imply, then it's wonderful. And
if Stephanie does, in fact, end up on the "Right" path (as opposed
to the "Left" path, and the THOUSANDS of other paths that she can,
presumably, find for herself, without my assistance or yours), well,
so be it. I'm happy to watch her learn and let the chips fall where
they may. In fact, there's a name for the process that both you and
I are (loosely) describing. It's called a "liberal education" (look
it up if you don't see what I mean).
Also, why would you imply that "Liberals"(TM) would care about
television any more or less than "Conservatives"(TM) do? Evidence?
Or do I misunderstand you? Was it just a non-political comment on
the utter stupidity that is available in all mass media in a free
market? If the latter, I agree with you. I sure as hell hope that
it doesn't automatically, ipso facto, make me a "Conservative"(TM).
[ Aside to Stephanie, if she's reading: You may or may
not believe me, but your *mind* is as precious to me
as it is to you. Can you believe a statement as empty
of ideological garbage as that? I hope so. ]
> >Oh, and have a My Little Pony set of stickers, on me.
> >It's look great stuck over Rush's mouth.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Oh. I see. A Rushphobe (tm). By the way, who taught you
> grammar?
Had you not done sunk this low in your response to Maddi, I wouldn't
have pulled the "rite (sp.)" on you (yes, this is the justification
advertised above -- take it or leave it, I don't care.).
> >PS Note to Dhanesh: Was I taking undue advantage
> >of this one? I needed the practice, honest!
>
> Keep practicing.
Good thing Maddi didn't ask you, Dana. But thanks for
the opinion. I'm sure Maddi will cherish it forever.
Then, in a ponderous ".sig":
>
> Vote Democratic... It's easier than getting a job.
Yep. Especially after Reaganbushquayle wrecked the place, jobs sure
are hard to find for lots of people. Or don't you agree?
Cheers!
Dhanesh
I've never, ever *STARTED* a spelling or grammar flame, EVER.
Maddi Hausmann
>Actually, Maddi dear, we conservatives have a hell of a
>sense of humor. We have to in order to not burst into
>tears as the liberal agenda is propigated (sp) throughout
>the land. And after seeing your idea of what is funny
>in rec.humor, it's not surprising you feel this way.
Propagated. Just thought you'd like to know.
Ah, so you'll resort to "I'll get my big sister to
beat you up" and all you can come up with is another
round of ad hominem? You know, I keep hearing you
guys insist that you have a sense of humor, but
that's the only funny thing you ever say.
>>Now, be a good little girl and either learn a bit
>>about this newsgroup (alt.fan.dan-quayle)
>
>This is cross-posted to alt.society.conservatism,
>where we take flaming our junior members somewhat
>more seriously.
That's correct. Two points for stating the obvious.
Perhaps Stephanie would care to explain why she
included a.f.d-q in her original post, why she couldn't
understand my original response, and then drop the whole
thing? I mean, hey, is that too much to ask?
>I have conversed with Stephanie in the
>past, and while she does suffer a little bit from youthful
>enthusiasm, at least she isn't one of the mindless souls
>who depend on MTV and CBS to tell her how to think.
>She is on the right path as far as I'm concerned, and
>in time she'll become more informed.
So you define "right path" as "agreeing with Dana"
rather than "showing evidence of a positive EEG."
You Just Don't Get It, do you Dana? I really
respect people with a brain who disagree with me.
I have complete respect for conservatives like George
Will and William Safire, because, even if I don't agree
with them, I have to think about what they say.
You, however, are another story. So far all you've
demonstrated is that 1. You also missed the point of
my "savage flame" 2. You had an opportunity to show
me that there are thinking conservatives in your group
and you failed miserably, and 3. The theory held in
a.f.d-q that conservatives are only capable of invective
rather than ideas has been given another supporting
data point.
>>Oh, and have a My Little Pony set of stickers, on me.
>>It's look great stuck over Rush's mouth.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Oh. I see. A Rushphobe (tm). By the way, who taught you
>grammar?
Obviously the typo fairy. That was a long post; bet
you must have pored over it for hours to find that one.
Two more points.
And I'm certainly not a Rushphobe. It is to laugh.
Why would I be afraid of something so comical? The
biggest joke is all you fools who think that Rush
believes a word of his spiel. He's laughing all the
way to the bank on your offerings.
Another hint: To avoid being seen as a complete fool,
trim your .sig a bit. Just some helpful advice from
your friend, the Radical From San Jose California.
--
Maddi Hausmann
> > Hmmm. Here we see another good example of what
> > passes for "humor" among conservatives. Stephanie,
> > unwilling to admit that that she'd been sent on a
> > snipe hunt, plays a simple game of "I'm rubber and
> > you're glue" [...]
>
>I like the "rubber/glue game" comparison. But who is which?
For some reason I have this image of substituting Elmer's
for Nonoxyl-9. Maybe it's all the Switzer jokes lately.
> > Stephanie, dearest, here's a little tip, just between
> > us girls, okay?
>
>Here's something I've accepted but never understood:
>
> How come it's OK for youse guys to call yourselves "girls" but
> never (i.e., not ever) OK for us guys to call y'all the same?
Ah, but my dear Dip Danish (I so LOVE that misnomer; is it like
a Dunkin Donut?), whoever said that you guys cannot ever call us
that? Intent is everything. There do exist some testosterone-
challenged humans who have trouble addressing Vagino-Americans
without being, ooooh, how shall I say this, uh, well, just a
teensy little bit patronizing.
It is to these individuals that the Uniform Code of Male Behavior
has been written. Enlightened folks like you ought to just go
with whatever feels right, because you'll do just fine. And if
you end up with some humorless lesbian feminazi, I guess that's
her tough luck, huh?
Personally, I never had any trouble being referred to as a "girl"
provided that the Ovary-Deprived also used parallel construction
and referred to himself as a "boy", or at worst, a "guy." But,
oh, do my hackles itch when said Estrogenless Entity constructs
a sentence with "men" and "girls." Ooh, the inequality! Ooh,
the audicity! The Attitude, teeming with Expectations of Priviledge!
Well, any male who tries that around me shouldn't be too surpised
when I cut him off later on the freeway, Just To Prove I Can Do It.
(Yes, it's true, I do so enjoy racing Primeval Male Pond Scum just
because they HATE losing to a G-G-G-G-Girl! And it gives me such
pleasure to deliver their inadequacies in a way they can't help but
face up to them.)
>I realise it's not a matter of Humongous Political Importance to
>you in the a.f.d-q context, Maddi (such an attitude being usually
>incompatible with a sense of humor), so I expect that if you have
>a response, it won't be the usual "political correctness" theory
>that the Lamebots churn out every morning [ NOTE: implied warning
>to any Lamebot tempted to post such trash in response. ]
Further deponent sayeth not. I assume the Limboteers will
mangle your words however it suits their purposes; truth and
content being far less important than invective and assault.
Note to Limboteers: Of course, when we assault, you deserve
it, and all our observations are correct, so nya-nya-nya.
>And, Maddi, I might not use the diminutive even if it were
>suddenly OK for me to do so. Just as I *usually* leave "Jewish"
>jokes to be told by Jewish comedians and Jewish friends, who
>usually tell them best anyway.
Oh, go ahead. Make my day. Can your sedan do 0 to 60 in 9.1
seconds? How about 60 to 120?
>But when the less stoic (male-type) guys among us are driven in
>retreat to the comfort of the fire-lit and wolf-ringed circle,
>where each beats on drums, chants odd chants, and greets the
>other's "Inner Man" with relief and, yes, with commiseration,
>do the more enlightened (female-type) guys see why it ain't
>really funny? I think it's more of a pathetic statement on
>the way our respective genders have treated each other in
>the dominant "culture" (if that's the word I want).
Gee, and I thought you did that woo-woo chanting because the
best you could aspire to in Wicca was Consort of the Goddess.
Tough luck being reduced to a mere Sex Object, ain't it?
>Then again, wasn't it Kipling who said that the female of the
>species is more deadly than the male? If Kipling was
>right -- a debatable proposition -- then the state of things
>must be YOUR fault, you {gals, girls, guys, people, etc.}!
>
>Comments? And, please, don't say you can see me at one of
>those "Inner Man" shin-digs! It ain't so!
No, I see you with your copy of _Fire in the John_, the
parody of the whole movement. Hell, I see you WRITING the
damned parody.
> > Reading your posts
> > reminds me of a tyke with a pea-shooter going after
> > the _Enterprise_ (either one, the battleship or the
> > starship).
>
>Someone else -- Paul? -- compared these brave assaults to that
>of a Pekinese attacking an Abrams tank. To which one might say
>that, after Waco, the tank probably isn't as willing to "fire"
>as we are.
And you don't even follow up on my metaphor of Quayle-aimed
rocket launchers. Pity.
> > You don't have a chance, and you don't
> > even realize you don't have a chance. In a way, it's
> > good dramatic tension because your coming loss is so
> > obviously preordained, but some might root for you
> > since you're so clearly outgunned, much as the world
> > rooted for the Chinese student dissidents.
>
>Now here's a comparison I find intriguing. When I rooted for
>the Chinese student dissidents, it wasn't *only* because they
>were the under-dogs (or as Mao might have put it: the vile,
>rabble-rousing, running-under-dog lackeys of Yankee capitalism).
>
>But in the case at hand, I must admit, mere "under-dog" status,
>and I do mean status rather than behavior, was sufficient to
>provoke in me some tragic sympathy for the young Stephanie.
>
>It's just more of my disgusting Liberal(TM) hypocrisy, I guess.
I thought about this analogy, and I realize it has its flaws.
The Chinese student dissidents were totally outgunned, but
they were also Questioning Authority. Stephanie, I'm afraid, only
gets our pity because of the former. A better analogy could
be the attack schnauzer against the tank; rather than being fired
upon, it's simply rolled over because it was too stupid to get
the heck out of the way.
> > Secondly, honey, it is most important, in USENET
> > discourse, to know something about your opponent
> > when entering a flamefight.
>
>Grin! I *was* wondering if you'd go after the "gender issue."
Gender issue? What Gender issue? I was flaming her for
calling me a radical! Now, you can call me a lot of things,
but that one just ain't so. I'm about as eclectic as one
can get when it comes to politics, and radicals are not
ecelectic.
They also have as little a sense of humor as Stephanie's buddies.
Note to Limboteers: Actually, I did indeed flame Stephanie for
the Gender issue, but since I'm admitting the truth here, you
can hardly get all bent out of shape about it. 120 Tax Increases!
[17 lines deleted so the evil Tom Hinson doesn't call me
all sorts of rude names]
> > Now, be a good little girl and either learn a bit
> > about this newsgroup (alt.fan.dan-quayle), or admit
> > that you really weren't ready for this grade and we'll
> > have you held back another year. It's really okay. By
> > the time you apply to college no one will really care
> > about this little incident.
>
>Slight quibble, Maddi. I know you were kidding, but she
>might not. I think I saw a very personal ".sig" of hers
>which suggested that she had already applied to college,
>and had already been admitted, and was indeed a sophomore.
Well, of course I knew that, but you see, you Dip Danish, you
were Quoting Out of Context! It all makes so much more sense
if you had left in the part about getting a green ribbon for
showing up to Kindergarten. See, this is an Evil Liberal
Teknique called Extending the Metaphor. But you knew that,
didn't you?
> > Oh, and have a My Little Pony set of stickers, on me.
> > It's look great stuck over Rush's mouth.
>
>Allow me, Maddi, to paraphrase a smart and mutual acquaintance:
>
> ".GIF! .GIF! .GIF!"
>
>What? You mean you don't have pictures because the event hasn't
>happened (yet)? Damn. Maybe we could figure out the clever
>Reaganapologist(R) technique of "remembering" counterfactuals?
Hmmm. I'd much prefer Rush bound and gagged with the QuayleQuotes (TM).
But the My Little Pony sticker would be so C-U-U-UUUTE! And I bet
Rush would turn the most DARLING shade of blue.
> > Love & Kisses,
> > Your Friend in radical San Jose, California
>
>Only for her? I trust it's just platonic love and kisses, then.
>Or else your "militant" career is at stake, Maddi! Your wisest
>words, your bravest deeds, could all be as nothing, against the
>transgression of an ancient (and therefore infallible) code.
>
>Then again, I hear the Greek islands are at their best this time
>of the year.
Hey, Roberta's IN! Hear that, you scalawag conservative harridans?
She's IN! And she's as OUT as you can take it! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
Excuse me.
> > PS Note to Dhanesh: Was I taking undue advantage
> > of this one? I needed the practice, honest!
>
>Ages and ages will pass before I answer that question. I'm not
>too sharp on the uptake, but even I can recognize decisions that
>speak for themselves.
[evil snipping done again]
> Funny that it never stopped me from answering before, huh?
How profound, huh? Never thought I could leave The Master
speechless.
Spencer PriceNash
>In article <C8Czy...@rex.uokhsc.edu>, Dana Harris writes:
>
>|> where we take flaming our junior members somewhat
>|> more seriously. I have conversed with Stephanie in the
>|> past, and while she does suffer a little bit from youthful
>|> enthusiasm, at least she isn't one of the mindless souls
>|> who depend on MTV and CBS to tell her how to think.
>|> She is on the right path as far as I'm concerned, and
>|> in time she'll become more informed.
>
> As soon as her brain comes back from the laundry.
I guess after passing that brain around enough, one has to wash it now
and then. Actually, that makes sense.
> _________________________________________________________________________
>| Herbert Rutledge, aka Train | |
>| Paramax Systems Corporation | "To post is human; to flame, divine." |
>| Valley Forge Labs, M/S GVL-3 | |
>| P.O. Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301 | ---Alexander Pope |
>| Internet: tr...@vfl.paramax.com | |
>|_________________________________|_______________________________________|
--
Spencer PriceNash spe...@spencer.ann-arbor.mi.us spe...@umcc.umich.edu
The Official Internet Quayle quote files are available via anon ftp.
ftp to umcc.umich.edu, cd to pub/quayle, and pick up the 2 files.
dks
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) writes:
> Uh, Maddi, do you really think that a vessel sailing under the
> authority of the forces of law, order, and bad taste is an
> appropriate analogy for that which flies the Jolly Danoe?
Well, I don't know what Maddi thinks, but when you put it that
way, Jason, I see your point. If anything, our vessel sails
under the authority of the forces of anarchy and good taste.
Which, given a sufficiently narrow conception of anarchy,
and a sufficiently broad conception of good taste, may not
be a bad prescription for government, either.
> >Oh, and have a My Little Pony set of stickers, on me.
> >It's look great stuck over Rush's mouth.
>
> \begin{RRWTRN}
> CAN'T YOU SPELL!!! YOU LEFTIES ARE ALL THE SAME!!! YOU MAKE
> JOKES ABOUT DANE QUAYLE AND THEN YOU SAY THINGS LIKE
> >It's look great stuck over Rush's mouth.
> THAT'S AWFUL. BESIDES, HOW CAN YOU TELL WHICH END IS WHICH???
> \end{RRWTRN}
Shhh, Jason. Don't give away the store, man. You saw one
clown who tried (f)laming this thing already. Why show
others how to do it? You want the spelling (f)lames to
flicker on for a life-time? I mean, what was that business
Quayle said about fishing for a day? Or was it dashing into
the fray? Or something. I forget.
Cheers,
Dhanesh
If you give a person a fish, they'll fish for a day.
But if you train a person to fish, they'll fish for a lifetime.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 10/13/92, at a job-training
center in Atlanta; celebrating the tenth anniversary
of the Job Training Partnership Act, which Quayle
co-sponsored with ... Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Jim Shirreffs
> a.f.d-q that conservatives are only capable of invective
> rather than ideas has been given another supporting
> data point.
I have an idea, take this thread to private mail?
jim shirreffs
dks
From: mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: alt.society.conservatism open for business
Date: 10 Jun 93 01:51:59 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Lines: 224
mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >
> d...@MIT.EDU (dks) writes: > >
>
> > How come it's OK for youse guys to call yourselves "girls" but
> > never (i.e., not ever) OK for us guys to call y'all the same?
>
> Ah, but my dear Dip Danish (I so LOVE that misnomer; is it like
> a Dunkin Donut?), whoever said that you guys cannot ever call us
> that? Intent is everything. There do exist some testosterone-
> challenged humans who have trouble addressing Vagino-Americans
> without being, ooooh, how shall I say this, uh, well, just a
> teensy little bit patronizing.
1. I wear their scorn like a Badge of Honor. You should
see my collection.
2. As for "whoever said...," you're right, thank the gods, but
that's because the girls I hang out with are all civil
libertarians (card-carrying members of the ACLU, in fact).
But *my* good luck doesn't mitigate the general problem.
3. If intent were everything, Clinton would be at +99% in the polls.
> It is to these individuals that the Uniform Code of Male Behavior
> has been written. Enlightened folks like you ought to just go
> with whatever feels right, because you'll do just fine. And if
> you end up with some humorless lesbian feminazi, I guess that's
> her tough luck, huh?
4. Now, now, be nice. She Who Must Be Obeyed actually reads
these articles once in a while, under protest. And then she
tells me I'm a lunatic, and what the hell is she doing spending
her dying days with me, but that's a different story. The
point here is, don't give her any ideas!
5. As for the UCMB, it's the first I've heard of it. And
judging by some of the bastards out there, they've probably
never heard of it, either. Y'all need a better "leftist
propaganda" machine. Begala and Carville are tied up right
now (no, that's just your dirty mind), but *I* still have
a few weeks before the NH primary, and my rates are
considerably ... more affordable!
> Personally, I never had any trouble being referred to as a "girl"
> provided that the Ovary-Deprived also used parallel construction
> and referred to himself as a "boy", or at worst, a "guy." But,
> oh, do my hackles itch when said Estrogenless Entity constructs
> a sentence with "men" and "girls." Ooh, the inequality! Ooh,
> the audicity! The Attitude, teeming with Expectations of Priviledge!
> Well, any male who tries that around me shouldn't be too surpised
> when I cut him off later on the freeway, Just To Prove I Can Do It.
6. Actually, Maddi, I didn't think *you* would have any trouble
being called *anything*, which is exactly why I asked *you*
the question. Think what might have happened had I asked
some bimbo who thought the Tail-Hook thing was sorta cute,
wou know, just Boys being Boys.
7. As for your high crimes and misdemeanors on the freeway,
all I can say is: I thought I knew what the "MADD" stands for,
but I didn't think too much about the "I" before.
> (Yes, it's true, I do so enjoy racing Primeval Male Pond Scum just
> because they HATE losing to a G-G-G-G-Girl! And it gives me such
> pleasure to deliver their inadequacies in a way they can't help but
> face up to them.)
8. How do you tell the Primeval Male Pond Scum from the
Primeval Female Pond Scum? Or is this one of those
touchy questions I'm going to regret in the morning?
> Further deponent sayeth not. I assume the Limboteers will
> mangle your words however it suits their purposes; truth and
> content being far less important than invective and assault.
> Note to Limboteers: Of course, when we assault, you deserve
> it, and all our observations are correct, so nya-nya-nya.
9. Actually, if they *could* mangle words to suit their purposes,
they'd be easier to understand, for their purposes are
nothing if not obvious. No, they mangle words to no
apparent purpose, and that's why they present a challenge
to earnest parsers everywhere.
10. And as for the "nya-nya-nya" part, I couldn't have said
it better myself. In fact, you may be quoting me without
acknowledging it, you Intellectually Dishonest Floozie, you.
> >Just as I *usually* leave "Jewish"
> >jokes to be told by Jewish comedians and Jewish friends, who
> >usually tell them best anyway.
>
> Oh, go ahead. Make my day. Can your sedan do 0 to 60 in 9.1
> seconds? How about 60 to 120?
11. In *my* Rust-Barely-Mobile(TM)? You've gotta be kidding.
I'll shut up with the "Jewish" jokes already. They aren't
that funny anyway, so there.
> >But when the less stoic (male-type) guys among us are driven in
> >retreat to the comfort of the fire-lit and wolf-ringed circle,
> >where each beats on drums, chants odd chants, and greets the
> >other's "Inner Man" with relief and, yes, with commiseration,
> >do the more enlightened (female-type) guys see why it ain't
> >really funny? I think it's more of a pathetic statement on
> >the way our respective genders have treated each other in
> >the dominant "culture" (if that's the word I want).
>
> Gee, and I thought you did that woo-woo chanting because the
> best you could aspire to in Wicca was Consort of the Goddess.
> Tough luck being reduced to a mere Sex Object, ain't it?
12. If I said "I wouldn't know," which way would you take it?
13. You ignored my difficult question, you Goddam Liberal(TM).
Do you more enlightened (female-type) guys see why it ain't
really funny? Or maybe it is and I'm too worried about the
evolutionary future of the species to see it?
> >Comments? And, please, don't say you can see me at one of
> >those "Inner Man" shin-digs! It ain't so!
>
> No, I see you with your copy of _Fire in the John_, the
> parody of the whole movement. Hell, I see you WRITING the
> damned parody.
14. And posting it for the "Dave" to analyze again? You know,
that's not a bad idea, the more I think about it...
> And you don't even follow up on my metaphor of Quayle-aimed
> rocket launchers. Pity.
15. Jeeze, give me a break, Maddi! My band-width quota ran out.
Or, at least, that's what everyone keeps telling me.
> >Now here's a comparison I find intriguing. When I rooted for
> >the Chinese student dissidents, it wasn't *only* because they
> >were the under-dogs [...]
>
> I thought about this analogy, and I realize it has its flaws.
16. If you think your analogy was flawed, you didn't read Dana's
follow-up to it. Then again, Dana didn't read the follow-up
either, so I think we're all back to square one now. Gads,
what a thought.
> A better analogy could
> be the attack schnauzer against the tank; rather than being fired
> upon, it's simply rolled over because it was too stupid to get
> the heck out of the way.
17. Better or not, I liked it enough to check, and I was right:
it *was* our good Paul who first saw the resemblance to
heel-nipping poodle-type creatures engaged in tank warfare.
> >Grin! I *was* wondering if you'd go after the "gender issue."
>
> [...]
>
> Note to Limboteers: Actually, I did indeed flame Stephanie for
> the Gender issue, but since I'm admitting the truth here, you
> can hardly get all bent out of shape about it. 120 Tax Increases!
18. Watch them.
> [17 lines deleted so the evil Tom Hinson doesn't call me
> all sorts of rude names]
19. Watch him. [ Just kidding! ]
> Well, of course I knew that, but you see, you Dip Danish, you
> were Quoting Out of Context!
20. No, I wasn't. And I'm not doing it now, either.
> Hey, Roberta's IN! Hear that, you scalawag conservative harridans?
> She's IN! And she's as OUT as you can take it! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
> Excuse me.
21. One wonders what Kommandant Helms thinks of it all now.
Presumably, he's mellowed out, now that he might need
her help slicing up his share of the pork-pie. Jerk.
Anyway, that was fun. Thanks.
Dhanesh
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING POST:
Hmmm. Here we see another good example of what
passes for "humor" among conservatives. Stephanie,
unwilling to admit that that she'd been sent on a
snipe hunt, plays a simple game of "I'm rubber and
you're glue" rather than laughing politely, or at
least coming up with an original comment.
* *polite laugh*
Stephanie, dearest,
* honestly?
here's a little tip, just between
us girls, okay? Firstly, you are way, way, WAY out
of your league. You don't even have a clue how
badly you are going to get trounced if you don't
cease your prattle immediately. Reading your posts
reminds me of a tyke with a pea-shooter going after
the _Enterprise_ (either one, the battleship or the
starship).
* more like David and Goliath
You don't have a chance, and you don't
even realize you don't have a chance.
* for what? I am not looking chances
* except where my classes are concerned
In a way, it's
good dramatic tension because your coming loss is so
obviously preordained, but some might root for you
since you're so clearly outgunned, much as the world
rooted for the Chinese student dissidents.
* ever been to North Carolina, Babe?
* You should try it! Just once!
Secondly, honey,
* oh, please!
it is most important, in USENET
discourse, to know something about your opponent
when entering a flamefight. I realize that you only
brought your pea-shooter and are a bit surprised to
see the missile launchers (and unlike Dan Quayle,
whose newsgroup this is, we DO hold them business
end forwards!), but do try to pay attention before
spitting that .03 caliber sunflower seed at me.
* I only subscribe to alt.society.conservatism,
* not to alt.fan.dan-quayle
I'm a female, sweetie, so I don't know who this
"Mr. Hausmann, radical, from San Jose California"
* Well, I'd never heard of the name "Maddi,"
* so please excuse me.
is. Assuming that you WERE referring to me, I do
suggest you find out a LITTLE more about my politics
before placing inaccurate labels upon my person.
* Now look who's talking!
I
view your little mistake as sort of sadly charming,
like the two-year-old who thinks she'll be magically
protected from the big, bad monster if she only waves
her Sparkly Wand and applies the correct Rainbow Brite
Sticker;
* What's rainbow brite?
* ...and I am 20 years old and a
* sophomore at North Carolina State University
* in Raleigh, NC. I believe in the preservation
* of a society in which no woman or man has
* to accept anything as "right" just because
* the law allows it, ie. homosexuality or
* abortion.
nonetheless, you have made not one but two
errors in your evaluation of me. Two errors in two
sentences is pretty poor. That's a zero, Stephanie.
* Good thing I majored in Computer Science
* instead of mindreading, eh?
I know that in your kindergarten, everyone gets
green ribbons just for showing up, but it's time to
join the Real World, where you have to say something
useful and accurate if you want some positive
response.
* Okay, this is useful and accurate:
* alt.society.conservatism is open for
* business... I believe that was my initial
* post to this followup series.
Now, be a good little girl and either learn a bit
about this newsgroup (alt.fan.dan-quayle)
* I don't think I have to repeat myself
* about that comment.
, or admit
that you really weren't ready for this grade and we'll
have you held back another year. It's really okay. By
the time you apply to college no one will really care
about this little incident.
* Too, late, ma'am.
It WILL stay on your
Permanent School Record, but no one will see that
except your future employers. And I'm pretty sure
they won't make TOO big a deal about it, although
they might send you on another snipe hunt or two if
you actually ever get hired anywhere.
* "Yes, Mommy! I will write on the
* blackboard 100 times "I will never
* post a conservative opinion again."
Oh, and have a My Little Pony set of stickers, on me.
It's look great stuck over Rush's mouth.
* I guess you'll need them more than I, then.
Love & Kisses,
* I'll stick with my boyfriend for that.
PS Note to Dhanesh: Was I taking undue advantage
of this one? I needed the practice, honest!
* Sorry about your being a newcomer.
* I've been posting in various groups for
* over two years now.
--
* Please mail the remainder of your insults
* to me personally. I feel it will be more
* productive since I don't read the mxrn
* (newsreader) but a once or twice a week.
* BTW, the definition I posted was quoted directly
* from the dictionary in our operators' office
* here at NCSU, and I failed to reference it.
*
* Sincerely,
*
* Stephanie
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
IN RESPONSE TO ALL
POSTS REFERRING TO MADDI'S FLAME:
*gentle, friendly laugh*
Isn't she funny!
Thanks to all the conservatives for
making me feel welcome to posting in this
group. I have never seen a group so
intense with responses, and I must admit
I am glad to be a part of it!
I must admit about myself personally,
so that you all will know, I am twenty
and a rising junior here at NC State, and
until I got to college, I supported a
Democratic point of view. However, when
I began to open my mind to the way things
are and how they may end up in the future,
I realized that a consevative route was
the right thing for me, personally.
I am not a member of any active conservative
groups. The only activists around here are
extreme radicals, and that's why I mislabeled
Maddi as being of that type, I suppose, esp.
since the majority around here are conservatives,
so I am not up to date on the latest "change"
made by the liberals on a local standpoint.
Still, I hope I will continue to be able to post
and have my views expressed, hopefully more
maturely and with less a hostile and personal
response. Please e-mail me personally with
responses to this post so that I may understand
the people and their views to whom I am addressing.
Thanks again,
Stef
Brad Kepley
>Thanks to all the conservatives for
>making me feel welcome to posting in this
>group. I have never seen a group so
>intense with responses, and I must admit
>I am glad to be a part of it!
Glad to have you with us Stephanie, speaking for myself and others I trust.
Let us know how things go at NC State and good luck with your studies.
Herbert Rutledge
|> * I only subscribe to alt.society.conservatism,
|> * not to alt.fan.dan-quayle
...and introduces herself:
|> * ...and I am 20 years old and a
|> * sophomore at North Carolina State University
|> * in Raleigh, NC.
...and adds:
|> * Good thing I majored in Computer Science
This was posted before I went to lunch. After I returned from lunch,
I noticed that Stephanie is actually on the accelerated track when I
read her next post:
|> I must admit about myself personally,
|> so that you all will know, I am twenty
|> and a rising junior here at NC State
She may have already graduated by the time this hits a.f.d-q.
Therefore, I'm happy that Stephanie will be starting graduate
school sometime next week. Among the graduate-level courses
in the N.C. State Computer Science department that she might
consider taking is this one:
COMP SCI 261: Editing the Newsgroups line.
--
Tom Hinson
> mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >
> > [17 lines deleted so the evil Tom Hinson doesn't call me
> > all sorts of rude names]
>
> 19. Watch him. [ Just kidding! ]
Maddi, you, you, you %#@\!$&*!
Sorry. I just couldn't resist. Seventeen lines was not enough.
-- Tom
[...]
Jim Shirreffs
>making me feel welcome to posting in this
>group. I have never seen a group so
>intense with responses, and I must admit
>I am glad to be a part of it!
Welcome aboard Stephanie!
jim shirreffs
i speak for myself and only myself
norman nithman
>so that you all will know, I am twenty
>
That must be quite a sight!
>************************************************************************
>
>Stephanie E. Watson North Carolina State University
>P.O. Box 87 Marching Band
>Kenly, NC 27542 TROMBONE
>919-284-4845
>(summer address)
> ***\
> * **\
> * ***********\ sewa...@eos.ncsu.edu
> *********=O *** I * sophomore CSC
> \**************************/
>
>***********************************************************************
--
Norman Nithman n...@chinet.chi.il.us || n...@delphi.com
Box 4654 VMB +1-312-509-6412
Chicago, IL 60680-4654 FAX +1-312-789-6564
"Left-wing SOB and proud of it" BBS +1-312-275-0848
Hard to Read
>sewa...@eos.ncsu.edu (STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes:
>>
>>I must admit about myself personally,
>>so that you all will know, I am twenty
>>and a rising junior here at NC State, ...
>>
>
>That must be quite a sight!
But still sophomoric after all these years.
Teemu Leisti
> ...and I am 20 years old and a
> sophomore at North Carolina State University
> in Raleigh, NC. I believe in the preservation
> of a society in which no woman or man has
> to accept anything as "right" just because
> the law allows it, ie. homosexuality or
> abortion.
Dear STEPHANIE,
I am 26 years old and a 7th-year student at the University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland. I believe in the preservation of a society in which
people's individual rights over their own lives and bodies are
respected, and no religious codes may be allowed to rule over people who
wish to have no traffic with religion.
The fact that the law allows you and your compatriots the right to
freely attempt to regulate other people's private lives and who they
choose to go to (or not go to) bed with, does not mean that your
positions are morally or intellectually defensible.
I hope that age and experience will broaden your mind and allow you a
different perspective on the world around you.
Yours sincerely,
-- Teemu Leisti / U. of Helsinki, Finland / lei...@cc.helsinki.fi
"It is astonishing how many different recognition techniques have been
tried in all seriousness by researchers.... Some of the less obvious
schemes have tried to use head bumps (machine phrenology), lip prints,
prints from the soles of feet, vein patterns in the hand or wrist and
even the response of the skeleton to a physical stimulus.... The
mechanical response of the skeleton to a calibrated stimulus implies
that a controlled kick must be applied to some part of the body -- again
not likely to achieve easy acceptance."
-- Davies and Price, Security for Computer Networks, 2nd Ed., 1989
Maddi Hausmann
learned to handle rn, trn, nn, tin or ANY useful newsreader: >
>
>Thanks to all the conservatives for
>making me feel welcome to posting in this
>group. I have never seen a group so
>intense with responses, and I must admit
>I am glad to be a part of it!
I'm going to cut to the chase here...
>I am not a member of any active conservative
>groups. The only activists around here are
>extreme radicals, and that's why I mislabeled
>Maddi as being of that type, I suppose, esp.
>since the majority around here are conservatives,
>so I am not up to date on the latest "change"
>made by the liberals on a local standpoint.
That's PROGRESSIVE, you ignorant slut!*
*This is a literary reference to old Saturday Night Live
Sketches performed back in 1975, rather than an actual
insult about your morals. I realize conservatives are
usually slow on the uptake so I am pointing this out
for you.
>Still, I hope I will continue to be able to post
>and have my views expressed, hopefully more
>maturely and with less a hostile and personal
>response. Please e-mail me personally with
>responses to this post so that I may understand
>the people and their views to whom I am addressing.
OK, here is the heart of the matter, Steffie-pooh.
You posted that "alt.politics.conservatism was open
for business." Nothing wrong with the content of
the post, just the distrubution.
Stephanie, my little ignoramus, I tried sarcasm,
I tried irony, and I tried parody. However, you
weren't able to get the point through these channels,
so here we go in PLAIN ENGLISH...
WHY THE HELL DID YOU POST THAT MESSAGE TO
ALT.FAN.DAN-QUAYLE, HUH?
I don't read your group, I don't care about your
group, and I don't go around joining groups I don't
agree with with intent to torment its readers. It
is YOU, Stephanie, You Ignorant Slut*, who posted
the message to OUR group. I have told you this,
but you keep ignoring the point.
NOW, answer my question. Why did you post your
message to our group? You have thirty minutes to
respond. No looking at your neighbors' papers.
After explaining WHY you did so, then apologize
to the a.f.d-q'ers for being offended that we
deigned to answer you when YOU were trespassing.
Kids today. Hmmphh.
Brad Kepley
>That's PROGRESSIVE, you ignorant slut!*
>
>OK, here is the heart of the matter, Steffie-pooh.
>Stephanie, my little ignoramus, I tried sarcasm,
>I tried irony, and I tried parody.
Why don't you try taking it to EMAIL?
Jason K. Schechner
>
>In article <madhausC...@netcom.com> mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>
>>That's PROGRESSIVE, you ignorant slut!*
>>
>>OK, here is the heart of the matter, Steffie-pooh.
>
>>Stephanie, my little ignoramus, I tried sarcasm,
>>I tried irony, and I tried parody.
>
>Why don't you try taking it to EMAIL?
>
that many of us on a.f.d-q were wondering the exact same thing and
instead of asking Stephanie via e-mail then having to post she decided
to let us get it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. So,
lesson 1: If the post is of interest the the whole newsgroup, post it,
don't e-mail it, otherwise e-mail away.
Second: Why don't you practice what you preach? Your post
and any possible response are of interest to only you and Maddi.
That's it. I realize that neocons, in general, tend to live by the old
adage "do as I say, not as I do" but you could, just once, try
following your own advice. It's fun, it's educational, and it may
actually gain your posts some respect around here! Then again, that
is a tall order.
Now, you may ask why I'm posting, not e-mailing. Well,
I'll tell you (bet you didn't expect that!). I think that this
information (especially the first paragraph) is applicable to LOTS of
usenet readers and if they would actually think about that as they
post the S/N ratio here would go way up.
-Jason
--
Minds are like parachutes. They only work when open.
Spencer PriceNash
>
>>OK, here is the heart of the matter, Steffie-pooh.
the heart of the matter]
>
>Why don't you try taking it to EMAIL?
Because of the question Maddi asked [which you deleted, Brad], I'd like
to see an answer in the newsgroup. I'm 100% certain I'm not alone.
>| "The natural progress of things is for government |
>| to gain ground and for liberty to yield" |
>| Thomas Jefferson |
>| Brad Kepley kep...@photon.phys.unca.edu 704-252-8330/Voice-Days |
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
IN RESPONSE TO Teemu Leisti in article 658:
>The fact that the law allows you and your compatriots
>the right to
>freely attempt to regulate other people's private lives
>and who they
>choose to go to (or not go to) bed with, does not mean
>that your
>positions are morally or intellectually defensible.
>
*I am NOT trying to regulate OTHERS!* I just
don't want OTHERS saying I have to, for
example, teach my children that such ways
of life are appropriate. I would rather
they hear how I feel and make the decision
for themselves rather than being forced to
accept these "ways of life."
>I hope that age and experience will broaden your mind
>and allow you a
>different perspective on the world around you.
I think I am of an age and level of experience
inwhich my perspective is broad and open-minded
without sacrificing my personal beliefs. Lord
knows how much accepting of my own friends'
lifestyles I have had to do.
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
Xref: taco alt.fan.dan-quayle:11763
alt.society.conservatism:666
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.society.conservatism
Path:
taco!hsdndev!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!o
olivea!hal.com!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!madhaus
From: mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: alt.society.conservatism open for business
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other
Things
<1993Jun10....@ncsu.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 93 20:23:20 GMT+5:00
Lines: 69
Kids today. Hmmphh.
***************************************************
Some people never learn any respect for others opinion,
eh? Seems like that's what would reveal maturity,
rather than going off on someone publically for
no apparent reason!
Stephanie
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
In article <madhausC...@netcom.com>
mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>That's PROGRESSIVE, you ignorant slut!*
>
>OK, here is the heart of the matter, Steffie-pooh.
>Stephanie, my little ignoramus, I tried sarcasm,
>I tried irony, and I tried parody.
Why don't you try taking it to EMAIL?
***********************************************
I tryied to tell her that, but I think she just
needs an alibi to attack me personally... and
she seems to need seeking some moral support.
A liberal with HER attitude is always looking
to express her most extreme insults publically...
but then, I want to hear HER answer to that question!
Stephanie
Rumpleteazer
Please keep SOME modicum of good taste when slamming conservatives. I
HATE having to agree with them on anything...but I have to say that some
of the stuff going through here lately has given "liberals" or even us
plain "non-conservatives" a bad name.
Cat
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ | c...@access.digex.com
_/ _/ _/ _/ | "The way to a woman's heart is through
_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ | her cat -- among other things."
_/ _/ _/ _/ | -- Rob Abramson
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ |
gar...@ingres.com
>A plea to the posters of alt.fan.dan-quayle:
>
>Please keep SOME modicum of good taste when slamming conservatives. I
>HATE having to agree with them on anything...but I have to say that some
>of the stuff going through here lately has given "liberals" or even us
>plain "non-conservatives" a bad name.
>
ones. Not the other way around. A witty turn of a phrase, a creative comeback,
a faux confusion at an illogical conservative post, these are the most
effective ways to burn a conservative. A soft broil, rather than a flame-
thrower. Besides, if you go straight to nuclear flame, there won't be
anything left for the rest of us.;^)
BTW, Maddi. Chill on the newbie. The young ones can be "turned".:)
>Cat
> _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ | c...@access.digex.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved Garrett Johnson
by understanding." A. Einstein Gar...@Ingres.com
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired
by age eighteen." A. Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan H. Williams
In article <madhausC...@netcom.com>, mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes...
This kind of childishness has to stop.
>I'm going to cut to the chase here...
Oh, please do.
Stephanis makes a simple request:
>>Still, I hope I will continue to be able to post
>>and have my views expressed, hopefully more
>>maturely and with less a hostile and personal
>>response. Please e-mail me personally with
>>responses to this post so that I may understand
>>the people and their views to whom I am addressing.
>
which you ignore by posting to the net instead of listening to her request.
The Pot calls the kettle black:
>OK, here is the heart of the matter, Steffie-pooh.
>You posted that "alt.politics.conservatism was open
>for business." Nothing wrong with the content of
>the post, just the distrubution.
Ok, now to the heart:
>Stephanie, my little ignoramus, I tried sarcasm,
>I tried irony, and I tried parody. However, you
>weren't able to get the point through these channels,
>so here we go in PLAIN ENGLISH...
>
>WHY THE HELL DID YOU POST THAT MESSAGE TO
>ALT.FAN.DAN-QUAYLE, HUH?
blah blah blah.
>I don't read your group, I don't care about your
>group, and I don't go around joining groups I don't
>agree with with intent to torment its readers. It
>is YOU, Stephanie, You Ignorant Slut*, who posted
>the message to OUR group. I have told you this,
>but you keep ignoring the point.
>
>NOW, answer my question. Why did you post your
>message to our group? You have thirty minutes to
>respond. No looking at your neighbors' papers.
Not to preempt Stephanie, but this idiocy must be addressed.
One just MIGHT think by looking at the NAME of the newsgroup that Dan Quayle
MIGHT be a conservative, and that PERHAPS some portion of the readership of
a.f.d-q MIGHT be interested in the fact that a newsgroup catering to
conservatives has started. I think it's a reasonable assumption on her part.
If it wasn't, then some polite email would have been in order to explain that
to her would be appropriate. Note the word POLITE (Add it to your vocabulary),
and note the part about email.
>After explaining WHY you did so, then apologize
>to the a.f.d-q'ers for being offended that we
>deigned to answer you when YOU were trespassing.
Trespassing? I wasn't aware that the readership of a.f.d-q owned a portion of
the bandwith of the Internet/Usenet and had reserved exclusive rights. Again,
if she made a real mistake, polite email is all that's necessary. Compared with
some of the other crossposting abuse that happens on the net, this is very
mild.
>Kids today. Hmmphh.
Yeah. Particuarly ones that can't type more than 48 or so characters in a line.
Throw away that Apple II and buy a real computer, willya? :-)
rhat...@fnala.fnal.gov
>
> IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING POST:
>
>
> Hmmm. Here we see another good example of what
> passes for "humor" among conservatives. Stephanie,
> unwilling to admit that that she'd been sent on a
> snipe hunt, plays a simple game of "I'm rubber and
> you're glue" rather than laughing politely, or at
> least coming up with an original comment.
>
> * *polite laugh*
[deletia....]
> * Now look who's talking!
> I
> view your little mistake as sort of sadly charming,
> like the two-year-old who thinks she'll be magically
> protected from the big, bad monster if she only waves
> her Sparkly Wand and applies the correct Rainbow Brite
> Sticker;
>
> * What's rainbow brite?
> * ...and I am 20 years old and a
> * sophomore at North Carolina State University
> * in Raleigh, NC. I believe in the preservation
> * of a society in which no woman or man has
> * to accept anything as "right" just because
> * the law allows it, ie. homosexuality or
> * abortion.
Ohhhh .... By this logic, Stephenie dearest, why don't
we go back a few more years to the age where *men* didn't
have to accept anything as "right" just because..
You know... in the good ol' days when women and children
stayed in their places, were seen and never heard. That
sort of thing. Alas, you harken back for a time that never was.
Stephie is all of 20 (wow!) and a sophomore (hint: check a
dictionary and look up the roots of the word "sophomore" --
in your case they seem to apply better than average).
Are we supposed to be impressed? Sorry, but no one
here if forcing to to engage in homosexuality or an
abortion; though many of us "liberals" do wish you
keep you nose out of our bedrooms / doctor's offices.
Tolerance of other viewpoints is the key. You can
keep you -opinions- as long as you don't try to impose
them on the rest of us.
Ah, hell, what am I doing having a serious discussion
as a follow up to Maddi's wonderful article. Damn,
that disk crash the other day must have taken out my
humor instinct as a side effect.
ObDanQualye: Yesterday, I was slogging through a.f.d-q
(I'd gotten a little behind while doing "realP work) and
listening to that bastion of liberal media-elite: NPR.
At too my surprise what should come on but a -long-
report about the opening of the d-q museum.
-robert "overuser of the liberal ellipses..." hatcher
Robert W. Hatcher | 256D Physics-Astronomy | hatcher@msupa (Bitnet)
Software Tzar, Hunchback | Michigan State University | msuhep::hatcher (HEPnet)
(517) 353-3008,-5180 | East Lansing, MI 48824 | hat...@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Jason Christian
>
>In article <madhausC...@netcom.com>, mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes...
>>NOW, answer my question. Why did you post your
>>message to our group? You have thirty minutes to
>>respond. No looking at your neighbors' papers.
>
>Not to preempt Stephanie, but this idiocy must be addressed.
>
>One just MIGHT think by looking at the NAME of the newsgroup that Dan Quayle
>MIGHT be a conservative, and that PERHAPS some portion of the readership of
>a.f.d-q MIGHT be interested in the fact that a newsgroup catering to
>conservatives has started. I think it's a reasonable assumption on her part.
As an economist, I know all too well about heroic assumptions. Alas,
this one runs contrary to the First Rule of Usenet Flame-Avoidance:
scan the newsgroup a bit before posting in it. Then young Stef might
have found out that a.f.d-q could just as well be called
alt.flame.dumb-conservatives.zap.zap.zap
But in a way, your suggestion that a.f.d-q would be interested in the
new newsgroup is almost correct. Just replace the nice culinary term
``catering [to]'' with ``serving fresh''. Presumably that's why one of
the a.f.d-q coast-watchers sent the first alt.society.cluelessism note
over here, as the a.f.d-q corsairs were still hungry, after their
transformation of the newly-captured a.f.ronald-reagan into a forum for
the critical, facts-based review of 1980s Presidential Politics.
Fact is, the pickings are a little slim these days. The atmosphere in
a.f.rush-limbaugh is noxious, except for those who thrive on the product
of elephantine flatulence. a.f.liddy is just plain dangerous: the
inhabitants there talk about sticking their heads in flames (swizerian
heads? one hopes not) to prove their manhood, and in general seem more
concerned with male bondage^H^H^Hing within their own clan, while the
name of alt.society.c_ism suggests cocktail-party chit-chat, perhaps
with Wayne Newton crooning in the background (and Our Hero doing
the Indianapolis Hustle with his old army, er National Guard, buddies in
a side room). They'd call it the Boring Old Party, except for the
dangerous implications of the acronym: Dizzy would not be amused.
Of course, I may be misinterpreting the hierarchy of the a.s.c. name.
Perhaps you mean society, not Society? Sorry, I thought this was like
one of those Frat Parties during the days of the Awful Resurgence
(Berkeley, late 70s), raided by the brothers of Lambda Sigma Delta in
successful search of brides. YoHoHo. Perhaps Stef and her pals had
more serious purpose than a place for their ideological kin to gather
for idle chitchat (alpha.sigma.kappa). Perhaps they seek to promote a
Conservative Society. If that is so, then I apologize for my flippant
attitude.
Then all I can say is, if your intention is to preach intolerance, to
punish the schools, as you suggest, Stephanie, for teaching my children
that there are many differences between people, and that a spirit of
tolerance contributes to a peaceful society, if you intend to require
teachers to follow and promote your morals, since you and your pals are
incapable of teaching them in your own homes and churches, if you intend
to censor the ideas to which my children and my childrens' friends are
exposed; if you think that society, rather than individuals, should be
conservative, then I say you are sanctimonious hypocrites, and I wish
Sam Clemens were here to skewer and roast you, with mint sauce.
But Sam isn't here, and we don't really know whether you are the Frat
Party of the jolly Danoe, or the BuCannon Party, so we'll turn down the
flame a tad, so as not to burn the sauciety.
}d-Q
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian Agricultural Economics
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu University of California, Davis
Office:(916)752-1357 FAX:(916)752-5614 Davis, CA 95616
dks
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) writes:
> As an economist, I know all too well about heroic assumptions.
> Alas, this one runs contrary to the First Rule of Usenet
> Flame-Avoidance: scan the newsgroup a bit before posting in it.
> Then young Stef might have found out that a.f.d-q could just
> as well be called
>
> alt.flame.dumb-conservatives.zap.zap.zap
To be fair, I'd make some use of the hierarchical convention and say:
alt.flame.conservatives.dumb.zap.zap.zap
But, as I've said before, the difference may be strictly academic.
> [...] as the
> a.f.d-q corsairs were still hungry, after their transformation
> of the newly-captured a.f.ronald-reagan into a forum for the
> critical, facts-based review of 1980s Presidential Politics.
Are you reporting that a.f.r-r has actually been transformed? Amazing!
> Fact is, the pickings are a little slim these days. The
> atmosphere in a.f.rush-limbaugh is noxious, except for those
> who thrive on the product of elephantine flatulence.
Not only do they thrive on it, they pay for the privilege.
> a.f.liddy
> is just plain dangerous: the inhabitants there talk about
> sticking their heads in flames (swizerian heads? one hopes
> not) to prove their manhood, and in general seem more
> concerned with male bondage^H^H^Hing within their own clan,
I requested a synopsis of alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy and never received
one. Can I take these colorful lines as a fair representation?
> while the name of alt.society.c_ism suggests cocktail-party
> chit-chat, perhaps with Wayne Newton crooning in the background
> (and Our Hero doing the Indianapolis Hustle with his old army,
> er National Guard, buddies in a side room). They'd call it the
> Boring Old Party, except for the dangerous implications of the
> acronym: Dizzy would not be amused.
I used Wayne Newton's name once last week, with malice aforethought,
so I suppose it's only fair that I should be similarly victimized.
> Then all I can say is, if your intention is to preach
> intolerance [...] if you think that society, rather than
> individuals, should be conservative, then I say you are
> sanctimonious hypocrites, and I wish Sam Clemens were here to
> skewer and roast you, with mint sauce.
The report of Clemens' death was an exaggeration. He lives. In a
recent appearance on the after-dinner speech circuit, he referred
to Our Boy as follows:
God made the Idiot for practice,
and then He made Dan Quayle.
And then he referred to Rush Limbaugh as follows:
An experienced, industrious, ambitious,
and quite often picturesque liar.
Do not fear for Mr. Clemens. He is alive and well, wise as ever.
Cheers!
Dhanesh
There are things I stretch, but mainly I tell the truth.
dks
> > * [...] I believe in the preservation
> > * of a society in which no woman or man has
> > * to accept anything as "right" just because
> > * the law allows it, ie. homosexuality or
>
> Ohhhh .... By this logic, Stephenie dearest, why don't
> we go back a few more years to the age where *men* didn't
> have to accept anything as "right" just because..
>
> You know... in the good ol' days when women and children
> stayed in their places, were seen and never heard. That
I'm really curious to see if Robert's challenge is answered.
And if it is, I'm really curious to see how...
> ObDanQualye: Yesterday, I was slogging through a.f.d-q
> (I'd gotten a little behind while doing "realP work) and
> listening to that bastion of liberal media-elite: NPR.
> At too my surprise what should come on but a -long-
> report about the opening of the d-q museum.
Robert, since you caught the -long- report, can you tell us
(or at least me) what you remember of it, and what your
reactions were.
Thanks,
Dhanesh
rhat...@fnalo.fnal.gov
>
> rhat...@fnala.fnal.gov writes:
> > sewa...@eos.ncsu.edu (STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes:
> > > *
> > > * [...] I believe in the preservation
> > > * of a society in which no woman or man has
> > > * to accept anything as "right" just because
> > > * the law allows it, ie. homosexuality or
> > > * abortion. [...]
> >
> > Ohhhh .... By this logic, Stephenie dearest, why don't
> > we go back a few more years to the age where *men* didn't
> > have to accept anything as "right" just because..
> >
> > You know... in the good ol' days when women and children
> > stayed in their places, were seen and never heard. That
> > sort of thing. [...]
>
> I'm really curious to see if Robert's challenge is answered.
> And if it is, I'm really curious to see how...
I wouldn't put money on it ... Stefie-po sent me e-mail ...
one LONG message of my entire post with lots of the lines reformatted
(by simple line breaks) down to < 60 char. I was all very weird
looking; anyway I kept waiting and waiting for there to be
something ... and there it was, at the very end:
WHO CARES?
Followed by her usual obnoxious tugboat .sig file.
Guess, Stefie-po just can't take the heat. Didn't answer the
question, just avoided it yet again. Because (drum roll, please)
there IS no logically consistent answer to my challenge. That
is not one that doesn't involve putting herself out of business
(where "little ladies" should stay :-). She want's rights for
herself that she then (hypocritically) turns around and attempts
to deny to other people. Sad.
> > ObDanQualye: Yesterday, I was slogging through a.f.d-q
> > (I'd gotten a little behind while doing "realP work) and
> > listening to that bastion of liberal media-elite: NPR.
> > At too my surprise what should come on but a -long-
> > report about the opening of the d-q museum.
>
> Robert, since you caught the -long- report, can you tell us
> (or at least me) what you remember of it, and what your
> reactions were.
Let's see ... I guess I was sorta playing a Ronald Reagan
and I'll have to say "I don't remember". For the most part
is was pretty much "fluff"; no hard hitting journalism on
NPR, so sir-ree bob. Anyway the mentioned the Quayle Trail(e)
around town, and how people are swamping them with requests
for trinkets. Oh, an how it isn't supposed to be a "shrine"
to our boy, but just a regular museum "documenting" his life.
-robert "still waiting ... and waiting ... for Stephie's real reply" hatcher
> Thanks,
> Dhanesh
Teemu Leisti
(STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes:
>IN RESPONSE TO Teemu Leisti in article 658:
Stephanie,
> > The fact that the law allows you and your compatriots the right to
> > freely attempt to regulate other people's private lives and who they
> > choose to go to (or not go to) bed with, does not mean that your
> > positions are morally or intellectually defensible.
>
> *I am NOT trying to regulate OTHERS!*
Well, that is good to hear, at least.
> >I hope that age and experience will broaden your mind
> >and allow you a
> >different perspective on the world around you.
>
> I think I am of an age and level of experience
> inwhich my perspective is broad and open-minded
> without sacrificing my personal beliefs.
OK, I admit that it must sound condescending of me to say that "I hope
that age and experience will broaden your mind...", especially coming
from someone who's reached the ripe old age of 26. If someone said it
to me, I'd probably consider it condescending, too. So let me try
another tack.
By the way, I know you have been flamed pretty badly by some denizens of
alt.fan.dan-quayle. I'm not asking you to forgive them, but try to
forget the flames at least for the duration of my argument. I'm trying
to conduct a conversation here, not to flame you.
> I just
> don't want OTHERS saying I have to, for
> example, teach my children that such ways
> of life are appropriate. I would rather
> they hear how I feel and make the decision
> for themselves rather than being forced to
> accept these "ways of life."
I believe you objected to abortion and homosexuality. I think I'll just
leave abortion out of the argument for the time being, though we
probably differ on that, too. But on to homosexuality, which is what I
believe you are referring to above.
Let us make a little thought experiment. Assume, for the sake of the
argument, that you and your boyfriend decide to get married and to have
one or more children. Further assume that one of the children is a
girl, and that for some odd reason, you decide to name her Satu. (It is
an appropriate name for the purposes of this hypothetical situation,
since in Finnish, Satu (pronounced SAH-too), while being a female given
name, also means "fairy tale" or "story".)
Let's say that Satu grows up to be a fairly normal American teenager.
She's not a genius, but not a total dork, either; all in all, a nice,
normal kid. She's 14 or 15. She likes approximately the same things as
other Americans of her age: cheeseburgers, Steven Spielberg movies,
giggling at silly daytime soaps, listening to Janet Jackson, etc. (or
whatever the equivalent of these are at the time we're talking about).
She has a couple of teachers whom she absolutely detests, but all in all
she's doing all right in school. She's a member of a couple of clubs,
visits her friends after school, and she even has something of a crush
on a girl in the same English class....oops. Back up.
Yes, let us further assume, purely for the sake of the argument, that
Satu is lesbian. Yes, one of *those* people. The people whose
"lifestyles" you want your children to hear nothing about, lest they get
any ideas.
Now, the way homo- or bisexual people become what they are is not known.
Why people have a certain sexual orientation may depend on many factors,
among them genetics, pre-natal hormonal concentrations, upbringing, or,
quite likely, a combination of the above. The point is, a normal, nice,
healthy heterosexual couple can have a child who grows up to discover
that he or she is not heterosexual, no matter how well he or she has
been treated in childhood. Some people *just are that way*. Blaming
themselves is the last thing parents should do (not least because there
isn't anything to blame on anyone, at least in my opinion!).
However, it isn't so easy for a teenager living in a constant hormone
flux. It isn't easy for heterosexuals, and it sure as hell ain't easy
for non-heterosexuals. Let us assume here, just to make the point
perfectly clear, that Satu is not bisexual to any degree: that she feels
just as much revulsion about intimacy with men as you probably do about
intimacy with women.
But there she is, having a crush on *another girl*. But it isn't a nice
crush: She doesn't know much anything about these sorts of things, and
she thinks she's weird or different: maybe even the only person of that
sort in the world. No one has ever told her about these sorts of
feelings: not at home, not at school. In an attempt to protect her from
the "lifestyles" of "those people".
Or, if the people around her have talked about "those people", it will
have been in a purely derogatory manner: "those lezzies", "will you look
at that goddam faggot there". She doesn't know ANYTHING about what she
is feeling except that it's wrong, it's immoral, it's ridiculous, it's
different, it's shameful, and she doesn't want it to go on. She may
even try to date boys in order to hide her difference and shame, but it
never works out. Every time, she just ends up feeling even more
disgusted with herself than before. Those feelings just won't go away,
but she doesn't dare tell anyone, least of all the object of her
emotions, about it, for fear of ridicule and ostracization. Neither
does she dare tell her teachers or her parents, who may even themselves
have ridiculed non-straights within her hearing.
Eventually, she becomes desperate enough to attempt suicide. She
succeeds. You find her, your own child, dead.
It's possible. I've read that a largish percentage of all teenage
suicides in America (help me out here with the number, someone?) are
committed because the person in question had problems dealing with their
non-heterosexual identity. An environment totally non-supportive of
non-straights naturally increases the odds.
Now ask yourself: What is it exactly that you want to protect your
children from?
Don Coolidge
(Teemu Leisti) wrote:
...a sober and fair parable to hopefully help educate some people who just
haven't thought things through.
> Eventually, she becomes desperate enough to attempt suicide. She
> succeeds. You find her, your own child, dead.
>
> It's possible. I've read that a largish percentage of all teenage
> suicides in America (help me out here with the number, someone?)
The exact number escapes me, but I recently heard it on NPR, and it's
certainly over 50%.
> are committed because the person in question had problems dealing with their
> non-heterosexual identity. An environment totally non-supportive of
> non-straights naturally increases the odds.
> Now ask yourself: What is it exactly that you want to protect your
> children from?
>
>
> -- Teemu Leisti / U. of Helsinki, Finland / lei...@cc.helsinki.fi
Well said. Thanks, Teemu.
I might add that a recent survey of American attitudes towards
homosexuality showed that something like 85% of people who believe
homosexuality is either genetic or genetically influenced (includes
in-utero hormone exposure) know at least one homosexual person quite well.
Conversely, the same study showed that 95% of all people who believe that
homosexuality is a lifestyle choice aren't to their knowledge acquainted
with any gay people at all.
- Don Coolidge
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
IN RESPONSE TO Teemu's article:::
Yes, let us further assume, purely for the sake of the
argument, that
Satu is lesbian. Yes, one of *those* people. The
people whose
"lifestyles" you want your children to hear nothing
about, lest they get
any ideas.
*****************************************************
If she is raised a good christian child she will
not BE a lesbian. There is no such thing as a
Chirstian lesbian, and I plan to teach her the
values of Christianity throughout her life.
*****************************************************
Blaming
themselves is the last thing parents should do (not
least because there
isn't anything to blame on anyone, at least in my
opinion!).
*****************************************************
I would not blame myself of any particular person for
her decisions. If she really feels that way, all I
can do is let her know I will not support her views,
BUT I wouldn't disown her or anything. I would treat
her as if she was straight, and love her until I die.
Still, if she wants my approval for one of her
lesbian girlfriends, I will have to refuse to allow it,
especially in her home.
*****************************************************
However, it isn't so easy for a teenager living in a
constant hormone
flux. It isn't easy for heterosexuals, and it sure as
hell ain't easy
for non-heterosexuals. Let us assume here, just to make
the point
perfectly clear, that Satu is not bisexual to any
degree: that she feels
just as much revulsion about intimacy with men as you
probably do about
intimacy with women.
*******************************************************
Good, because bisexuality is frankly admitting a
lifestyle of fornication with more than one partner.
*******************************************************
But there she is, having a crush on *another girl*. But
it isn't a nice
crush: She doesn't know much anything about these sorts
of things, and
she thinks she's weird or different: maybe even the
only person of that
sort in the world. No one has ever told her about these
sorts of
feelings: not at home, not at school. In an attempt to
protect her from
the "lifestyles" of "those people".
******************************************************
Well, I would teach her as she is growing up that
these feelings for the same sex do exist, but it is
the work of the devil putting them there and that she
should pray about it and resist such evil temptations.
I will tell her she should not feel ashamed for having
those feelings, but she should feel ashamed if she
claims that it is not un-Christianlike activity and
proceeds to go through with them.
******************************************************
Neither
does she dare tell her teachers or her parents, who may
even themselves
have ridiculed non-straights within her hearing.
******************************************************
I hope that I will be able to allow my children to
feel secure talking to me or their father about any
thoughts, no matter how sinful, they have on their
mind. I am open-minded, but also moralistic. In
other words, I will accept their feelings, but tell
them that they should resist as much as possible for
their own sakes.
******************************************************
Eventually, she becomes desperate enough to attempt
suicide. She
succeeds. You find her, your own child, dead.
******************************************************
If it comes to that, I can't blame anyone but the devil
himself. It's a cruel world he creates for us to live
in.
******************************************************
It's possible. I've read that a largish percentage of
all teenage
suicides in America (help me out here with the number,
someone?) are
committed because the person in question had problems
dealing with their
non-heterosexual identity. An environment totally
non-supportive of
non-straights naturally increases the odds.
******************************************************
Well, it's good to have a conservative feeling on life.
There just needs to be more education in the HOMES of
these teens so that they are aware of what these feelings
mean and are able to take action on them before it's too
late.*************************************************
Now ask yourself: What is it exactly that you want to
protect your
children from?
******************************************************
People who say that homosexuality is accpetable in
a Christian way of life.
I want her to be aware that in being homosexual is
denying her Christianity, and therefore, she must choose.
All teens must choose their own identity, and hopefully
I won't have to worry about my children becoming
homosexuals or bi's.
Brad Kepley
>I might add that a recent survey of American attitudes towards
>homosexuality showed that something like 85% of people who believe
>homosexuality is either genetic or genetically influenced (includes
>in-utero hormone exposure) know at least one homosexual person quite well.
>Conversely, the same study showed that 95% of all people who believe that
>homosexuality is a lifestyle choice aren't to their knowledge acquainted
>with any gay people at all.
The vast majority of conservative writers that I read believe that
homosexuality is indeed genetically determined. They refer to the
pure homosexuals, those who have always been attracted to their own sex.
They also believe that bisexuals and those who "change their minds" about
their preference (and it does happen) are not part of that minority of
homosexuals that are purely homosexual throughout their lives. They are
not necessarily "genetically predetermined" homosexuals. Society might
have conservative reasons and even utilitarian reasons for wanting to
dissuade these non-genetically ruled persons from the homosexual choice.
Furthermore, a society for conservative reasons might not want to be
indifferent to homosexuality even in those who are apparently predetermined
by genetics. If it was found that adultery was predetermined, or pedophilia,
or violent behavior, or whatever undesirable activity you choose is
predetermined, you would not necessarily want to be indifferent to it although
you might deal with it differently.
It's my own opinion, and this is going to outrage every civil libertarian,
that a society has needs for it's prejudices, although they should resist
bigotry. The social prejudices that a country has are part of what holds
a country together and give it continuity. These prejudices can be outrages
and stupid and even harmful to individuals in the community. Nevertheless,
they are part of a the collective unconscious (if you will) of a country
and they perform a function in unifying people and shouldn't be dismissed
out of hand.
--
OPIRG
>
>IN RESPONSE TO Teemu's article:::
<snip>
>
>*****************************************************
>If she is raised a good christian child she will
>not BE a lesbian. There is no such thing as a
>Chirstian lesbian, and I plan to teach her the
>values of Christianity throughout her life.
>*****************************************************
Incredible. I know a number of people who wre 'raised to be good
christian children', and *are* Christian, yet are also homosexual.
<Giant Snip>
>I want her to be aware that in being homosexual is
>denying her Christianity, and therefore, she must choose.
I know a few gay ministers you may want to meet.
>All teens must choose their own identity, and hopefully
>I won't have to worry about my children becoming
>homosexuals or bi's.
What if you found out people are *born* homosexual, rather than decide
to "become" homosexual?
Well, this exchange was worthwhile if only to read Teemu's last post.
Reid Cooper
gar...@ingres.com
>In article <1993Jun16.1...@ncsu.edu> sewa...@eos.ncsu.edu (STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes:
>>
>>IN RESPONSE TO Teemu's article:::
>
><snip>
>>
>>*****************************************************
>>If she is raised a good christian child she will
>>not BE a lesbian. There is no such thing as a
>>Chirstian lesbian, and I plan to teach her the
>>values of Christianity throughout her life.
>>*****************************************************
>
>Incredible. I know a number of people who wre 'raised to be good
>christian children', and *are* Christian, yet are also homosexual.
>
><Giant Snip>
I would like to take the time to say that this doesn't have anything
to do with Danoe (unless you know something I'm missing). So pleeeze
take it to the appropriate group.
>Reid Cooper
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake." --Jeannette Rankin
"You can't say civilization don't advance...in every war Gar...@Ingres.com
they kill you in a new way." - Will Rogers Garrett Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Kepley
>I would like to take the time to say that this doesn't have anything
>to do with Danoe (unless you know something I'm missing). So pleeeze
>take it to the appropriate group.
Look at the header. This thread is being referenced to both alt.fan.
dan-quayle and alt.society.conservatism. I don't know about a.f.d-q,
I'm not a member of that group. I am a member of alt.society.conservatism
and this thread is very definitely appropriate for that group. If you
want this thread and all others from alt.society.conservatism kept
Bob Smart
(STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes:
>
> *****************************************************
> If she is raised a good christian child she will
> not BE a lesbian.
That, my dear, is absolute bullshit. She may feel guilty and unworthy
for what she is, if she is a lesbian, but no amount of guilt or shame
will change her nature. She might choose against having a same-sex
lover, based on her Christian upbringing, but no amount of lying and
denial about what she is and what she feels will make her any different
from what her Maker intended.
> There is no such thing as a Chirstian lesbian
And who are you to say who is a Christian and who isn't? I am
acquainted with several Catholic nuns who are lesbians, and they seem to
think they're Christians. Do they need to petition you to get their
Christianity properly certified? Does Jesus check with you to see who's
in and who's out?
> and I plan to teach her the values of Christianity throughout her life.
I hope she has other teachers as well, teachers who understand
Christianity and religion at a level more penetrating than "I <heart>
Jesus" bumper stickers.
> I would treat her as if she was straight,
What's praiseworthy about deliberately treating someone as something you
know full-well they aren't? Are there other areas of life in which you
think deliberate dishonesty in behavior is appropriate?
> and love her until I die.
No--love your FANTASY OF her until you die. If your daughter is a
lesbian, but you insist on "treating her as if she were straight,"
you're not relating to your daugher, you're relating to your made-up
pretend-daughter that never was. And she'll know it, too. She'll know
that her mother loves some nonexistent fantasy girl instead of her, and
she may or may not know why. I sure hope you don't have kids, if that's
how you plan to treat them.
> Still, if she wants my approval for one of her
> lesbian girlfriends, I will have to refuse to allow it,
> especially in her home.
You're going to "refuse to allow" something in your DAUGHTER's home?
That'll be funny to watch, when she has her own home. You, my dear, may
or may not be "allowed" to VISIT your daughter in her home, if you stick
to your condemnation and conditional withholding of love.
> *******************************************************
> Good, because bisexuality is frankly admitting a
> lifestyle of fornication with more than one partner.
> *******************************************************
No, you walking, talking fallacy, it isn't. Bisexuality is the state or
condition of being ATTRACTED to members of either sex, regardless of
whether one actually follows up on the attraction. Heterosexuals don't
necessarily sleep with every available member of the opposite sex, even
when they have the opportunity and feel the attraction; bisexuals are
under no greater compulsion to be sluts than anyone else. I realize
that many heterosexuals have some considerable trouble keeping their
parts under wraps, but just as it's patently silly to generalize from
scandals like the Tailhook to all heterosexuals, it's just as
nonsensical to think that bisexuals or homosexuals are by nature any
more licentious than anyone else.
> ******************************************************
> Well, I would teach her as she is growing up that
> these feelings for the same sex do exist, but it is
> the work of the devil putting them there and that she
> should pray about it and resist such evil temptations.
Believe what you want--no evidence of any kind could possibly have any
bearing on whether something is "the work of the devil." Even if we
find a gene that causes homosexuality, one could simply say that the
GENE is "the work of the devil." For extra credit, demonstrate that YOU
are not "the work of the devil," dearie.
> I will tell her she should not feel ashamed for having
> those feelings, but she should feel ashamed if she
> claims that it is not un-Christianlike activity and
> proceeds to go through with them.
> ******************************************************
So, you'd condemn your daughter to a cold, empty live without love,
simply because her taste in lovers is different from yours? Better she
should live and eventually die alone, or in a sham marriage to a man she
doesn't want, so her mother can sleep better? There's something
devilish at work here, but it's not the lesbians.
> ******************************************************
> I hope that I will be able to allow my children to
> feel secure talking to me or their father about any
> thoughts, no matter how sinful, they have on their
> mind. I am open-minded, but also moralistic. In
> other words, I will accept their feelings, but tell
> them that they should resist as much as possible for
> their own sakes.
> ******************************************************
If you don't realize how profoundly internally contradictory this is,
you're definitely beyond my feeble powers of exposition.
> ******************************************************
> If it comes to that, I can't blame anyone but the devil
> himself. It's a cruel world he creates for us to live
> in.
> ******************************************************
It's a cruel world you propose to construct for your lesbian daughter,
where you tell her all her life that her love is unclean and vile and
that she carries within her the work of the very devil. Whether you
blame "the devil" or yourself, the fault will be where it is; your
denial and evasion of responsibility will not change that basic fact.
If you teach your daughter to revile what she is, then it's hardly some
diabolic "miracle" if she comes to revile herself as well. Perhaps hate
is properly ascribed to "the devil himself," but when you teach it to
your children, you are most assuredly his Earthly servant.
>
> It's possible. I've read that a largish percentage of
> all teenage
> suicides in America (help me out here with the number,
> someone?) are
> committed because the person in question had problems
> dealing with their
> non-heterosexual identity.
> ******************************************************
> Well, it's good to have a conservative feeling on life.
> There just needs to be more education in the HOMES of
> these teens so that they are aware of what these feelings
> mean and are able to take action on them before it's too
> late.*************************************************
"Education" like that which you propose for your lesbian daughter is why
these kids kill themselves. If any of your children turn out to be gay,
they will not be safe in your home while you cling to your dogma.
> All teens must choose their own identity,
So tell us, Sweetums, when and how did you "choose" heterosexuality for
yourself?
> and hopefully I won't have to worry about my children becoming
> homosexuals or bi's.
Yes, I'm sure that's the best way to resolve a difficult issue: just
hope it doesn't happen, and stop thinking about it.
---------
A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.
Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsm...@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027...@compuserve.com. Ain't UNIX grand?
Teemu Leisti
(Brad Kepley) writes:
>...If it was found that adultery was predetermined, or pedophilia,
>or violent behavior, or whatever undesirable activity you choose is
>predetermined, you would not necessarily want to be indifferent to it although
>you might deal with it differently.
What causes you to make the jump from homosexuality to adultery,
pedophilia or violent behavior?
>... These prejudices can be outrages
>and stupid and even harmful to individuals in the community. Nevertheless,
>they are part of a the collective unconscious (if you will) of a country
>and they perform a function in unifying people and shouldn't be dismissed
>out of hand.
Unifying those straight people who are bigoted in the thrill of the
witch-hunt, you mean.
Greg Barnes
>IN RESPONSE TO Teemu's article:::
Deal with it.]
>Eventually, she becomes desperate enough to attempt
>suicide. She
>succeeds. You find her, your own child, dead.
>
>******************************************************
>If it comes to that, I can't blame anyone but the devil
>himself. It's a cruel world he creates for us to live
>in.
>******************************************************
An interesting response by STEPHANIE, but it's not, as Clavdia Chauchat
would say, "*mensch*-lich". It is, though, a human response, in that human
beings have the evil capacity to blame the supernatural for tragic
events that they could have prevented.
In any event, I'm torn between the following two interpretations:
They're nice kids. None of their folks can complain. They're
*perky*. They embrace and believe the pseudo-globalism and ersatz racial
harmony of ad campaigns engineered by the makers of soft drinks and
computer-inventoried sweaters. Many want to work for IBM when their lives
end at the age of twenty-five ("Excuse me, but can you tell me more about
your pension plan?"). But in some dark and undefinable way, these kids are
also Dow, Union Carbide, General Dynamics, and the military. And I suspect
that unlike Tobias, were their AirBus to crash on a frosty Andean plateau,
they would have little, if any, compunction about eating dead fellow
passengers. Only a theory.
--- Douglas Coupland, "Generation X"
Guil: I'm talking about death---and you've never experienced *that*. And
you cannot *act* it. You die a thousand casual deaths---with none
of that intensity which squeezes out life...and no blood runs cold
anywhere. Because even as you die you know that you will come back
in a different hat. But no one gets up after *death*---there is no
applause---there is only silence and some second-hand clothes, and
that's---*death*.
--- Tom Stoppard, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are
Dead"
I suspect Guildenstern (or is it Rosencrantz?) is the one who's right
here. A sad case of Senate Judiciary Committee Syndrome.
There's one more quote I'd like to use, by some guy named Paul. I don't
have the whole thing at my disposal, but it's something about "and the
greatest of these is love."
Followups to alt.flame, which I don't read.
Greg Barnes
gr...@cs.washington.edu
bar...@mpi-sb.mpg.de
----------------------------------------------------------
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
--- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>
>IN RESPONSE TO Teemu's article:::
>Let us assume, just to make
>the point
>perfectly clear, that Satu is not bisexual to any
>degree: that she feels
>just as much revulsion about intimacy with men as you
>probably do about
>intimacy with women.
>
>*******************************************************
>Good, because bisexuality is frankly admitting a
>lifestyle of fornication with more than one partner.
>*******************************************************
Nonsense. Learn the definitions before you speak. Bisexuality
is having the potential for one's partner to be of either sex;
it says nothing about how many of them -- if any at all -- you
end up having. I know entirely celibate bisexuals; I know happily
and faithfully married ones.
Beyond that, I'll let everybody else handle you; they seem
to have the stomach for it. I prefer debating with people who
know the facts of what they claim to be talking about first.
-Naomi
--
Yes, it is bread we May the Source of peace
fight for, but we fight Naomi Rivkis in the heavens bring peace
for roses too. ri...@midway.uchicago.edu to us, and to all Israel.
Brad Kepley
>What causes you to make the jump from homosexuality to adultery,
>pedophilia or violent behavior?
I was not implying that they were related or morally equivalent, at least
I did not mean to imply that. I was only trying to find examples of behavior
that a society might decide to discourage.
>
>>... These prejudices can be outrages
>>and stupid and even harmful to individuals in the community. Nevertheless,
>>they are part of a the collective unconscious (if you will) of a country
>>and they perform a function in unifying people and shouldn't be dismissed
>>out of hand.
>
>Unifying those straight people who are bigoted in the thrill of the
>witch-hunt, you mean.
It can come to that, unfortunately.
--
Herbert Rutledge
Oh, Steph'nie, play that thing, that slide tram-bone:
[ <DEL> Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! ]
Her .sig is gone! Since Stephanie Watson has offered abundant evidence
in the past to make us doubt any claims she may make about her status
as a college student, I guess that the disappearance of her .sig means
that next she's going to try and convince us that she's *really* majoring
in studio art.
What I find most fascinating about her "Those People" post is that
finally she has posted something of interest to readers of a.f.d-q.
Namely, the likely subject matter of many of Dan's campaign speeches
in ninety-whenever.
Betcha it plays just as well to the country at large as it's played
here.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Herbert Rutledge, aka Train | |
| Paramax Systems Corporation | "To post is human; to flame, divine." |
| Valley Forge Labs, M/S GVL-3 | |
| P.O. Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301 | ---Alexander Pope |
| Internet: tr...@vfl.paramax.com | |
|_________________________________|_______________________________________|
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
> Now ask yourself: What is it exactly that you want to protect your
> children from?
I want to protect them from thoughts that
there actually exists such thing as a Christian
lesbian or gay.
Stephanie
NUF SAID!
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
Like I said, there is not such thing as a
Christian lesbian. That's all there is to it.
If you would like me to site from the Word, mail
me personally and I will site passages in which
it is an obvious un-Christianlike form of conduct.
I rest my case.
Stephanie
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
Beyond that, I'll let everybody else handle you; they seem
to have the stomach for it. I prefer debating with people who
know the facts of what they claim to be talking about first.
************************************************************
Are you saying then that I bisexual can be a person that
only experiences sex with one person and that is the person
that he/she marries. That is what distinguishes fornication:
more than one sexual partner before and during marriage.
*************************************************************
Stephanie
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
I know a few gay ministers you may want to meet.
*******************************************************
Yeah... I would. Blasphemy if you ask me. I will
choose to stick with my church and our beliefs for
now, okay?
*******************************************************
Stephanie
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
What if you found out people are *born* homosexual, rather than decide
to "become" homosexual?
**************************************************************
I don't believe God would create a life that could not be
changed to do His will.
**************************************************************
Stephanie
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
I will not be cross-posting to alt.fan.dan-quayle
for any resonse posts following this one due to
it's enormous liberal resonse. I subscribe only to
alt.society.conservatism, so I will only respond to
posts made in that group.
Thank you.
Stephanie
Spencer PriceNash
Christian gays and lesbians exist. You'd be protecting them from the
truth. I doubt that's what you want.
Best to leave your children (do they exist [yet]?) to discover the
truth, or better yet, prepare them for it. No reason for anyone to
enter this world painfully ignorant of what a parent could prepare them
for.
> Stephanie
>NUF SAID!
Not yet, I'd say.
--
Spencer PriceNash spe...@spencer.ann-arbor.mi.us spe...@umcc.umich.edu
The Official Internet Quayle quote files are available via anon ftp.
ftp to umcc.umich.edu, cd to pub/quayle, and pick up the 2 files.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Without getting into your definition of fornication, yes;
that is precisely what I am saying. There are bisexual
people who never have sex with anyone but the person
they are married to. (Although I will note that even your
religion allows for second marriages in the case of widow-
hood, so "only one person" in a lifetime is not strictly
correct of necessity even by your standards.) Bisexuality
is a matter of who one finds attractive, not of what actions
one takes about it.
> Stephanie
Teemu Leisti
(Brad Kepley) writes:
>>What causes you to make the jump from homosexuality to adultery,
>>pedophilia or violent behavior?
>
>I was not implying that they were related or morally equivalent, at least
>I did not mean to imply that. I was only trying to find examples of behavior
>that a society might decide to discourage.
Yeah, and society might decide to discourage the consumption of green
jellybeans, buster.
>>Unifying those straight people who are bigoted in the thrill of the
>>witch-hunt, you mean.
>
>It can come to that, unfortunately.
"It can come to that, unfortunately. Nothing personal against you, sir,
but rules are rules, and we have to imprison you [or castrate? deport?
exterminate?] you, for the good of the society, you know, to help unify
us decent people." What a nice person you are.
Rumpleteazer
Thank God!! (The obviously heterosexual one that is).
I have already mailed a request to Stephanie to please
take her opinions of lesbians, gays, and Christians
to a more appropriate newsgroup than alt.fan.dan-quayle.
If I really cared how she felt about such issues I
would meet up with her on more appropriate group (such
as something with a *.motss title) but I don't care
to read it on alt.fan.dan-quayle. Now, if she
wants to talk about how she feels about lesbians,
gays and Dan, that's fine...or about Marilyn and
lesbians or gays, that's fine too.
However, the past slew of posts with one line
replies spouting conservative thought regarding
sexuality really just have no place in this forum.
Please cease and desist at once -- or I'll sic Maddi on you!
;-)
Cat
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ | c...@access.digex.com
_/ _/ _/ _/ | "The way to a woman's heart is through
_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ | her cat -- among other things."
_/ _/ _/ _/ | -- Rob Abramson
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ |
STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON
I think the word "response" was misspelled twice
in the previous post, so I will post one last
CORRECTION to my post!
I will not be cross-posting to alt.fan.dan-quayle
for any response posts following this one due to
it's enormous liberal response. I subscribe only to
Teemu Leisti
(STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes:
>Like I said, there is not such thing as a
>Christian lesbian. That's all there is to it.
Others have responded to this point of yours, so I shall pass it by.
>If you would like me to site from the Word, mail
>me personally and I will site passages in which
>it is an obvious un-Christianlike form of conduct.
Do you follow every rule of the Old Testament in your daily life?
Hypocrite.
James Davis Nicoll
>in the previous post, so I will post one last
>CORRECTION to my post!
>
>I will not be cross-posting to alt.fan.dan-quayle
>for any response posts following this one due to
>it's enormous liberal response. I subscribe only to
'It's' is the contraction of 'it is'. You wanted
to use 'its'.
James Nicoll
gar...@ingres.com
>
>I think the word "response" was misspelled twice
>in the previous post, so I will post one last
>CORRECTION to my post!
>
>I will not be cross-posting to alt.fan.dan-quayle
>for any response posts following this one due to
>it's enormous liberal response.
This caught my eye. Now I couldn't care less about this discussion
about homophobia, or homosexuality, or whatever it was. But why do you
want just one response to your views, aka agreement? I've found that
when everyone agrees, the conversation drags. What's the point in
discussion if all you get as feedback is the same that you said in the
first place?
> I subscribe only to
>alt.society.conservatism, so I will only respond to
>posts made in that group.
>
Or you could just edit out a.f.d-q. It should be simple.
> Stephanie
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In article <1993Jun17.1...@ncsu.edu> sewa...@eos.ncsu.edu
>(STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes:
>
>>Like I said, there is not such thing as a
>>Christian lesbian. That's all there is to it.
>
>Others have responded to this point of yours, so I shall pass it by.
>
>>If you would like me to site from the Word, mail
>>me personally and I will site passages in which
>>it is an obvious un-Christianlike form of conduct.
>
>Do you follow every rule of the Old Testament in your daily life?
I would sincerely hope not. Most of them are not required of her,
being only applicable to Jews (check the text), and some of them
are actually forbidden. The Law is that a gentile who celebrates
the Sabbath as the Bible requires of a Jew shall be put to death.
Just something for the people who make a fuss over Levitical com-
mandments to consider. Most such commandments don't belong to them
anyhow.
>-- Teemu Leisti / U. of Helsinki, Finland / lei...@cc.helsinki.fi
-Naomi
Don Coolidge
(Rumpleteazer) wrote:
>
> However, the past slew of posts with one line
> replies spouting conservative thought regarding
> sexuality really just have no place in this forum.
No, no, Cat, you have it wrong. Not "thought" - "rote". Conservative rote.
*Definitely* not "thought", because it ignores all the evidence.
(Please do not consider the above as a statement separating thought from
conservatism - that's not what I said, I merely observed that so-called
conservative statements on that particular subject deny objective reality.
Besides, there's certainly such a thing as liberal rote, too...)
Despite the plethora of scientific reports (including the loud AMA one)
strongly linking homosexuality to genetics, despite the observance of
homosexual behavior in almost all captive species of mammals (which
creatures Stephanie, as a "good Christian", would undoubtedly consider
incapable of thought and, hence, choice - so where does it come from if
it's not choice, Steph?), Stephanie persists in her myth that it's only the
gays themselves who promulgate the "opinion" that sexual orientation is
genetically based.
She would do herself a *large* favor if she would at least attempt to
research some of the subjects on which she has opinions. She'd be doing
herself an even larger favor if the research *preceeded* the opinions...
> Please cease and desist at once -- or I'll sic Maddi on you!
What???!!??? And start this all over again??? Sheesh!
- Don Coolidge
Eric Nedervold
>Like I said, there is not such thing as a
>Christian lesbian. That's all there is to it.
>If you would like me to site from the Word, mail
>me personally and I will site passages in which
>it is an obvious un-Christianlike form of conduct.
>
>I rest my case.
>
> Stephanie
Actually, I'd like to see a posted response to this. The Bible contains
passages that have been interpreted as prohibiting male homosexuality,
certain kinds of incest, and certain kinds of bestiality. I don't
believe though that I've ever seen anything at all about lesbian sex.
Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.
--Eric
Eric Nedervold
it was sent. Abject apologies. --Eric
Bob Smart
(STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes:
>
> Like I said, there is not such thing as a
> Christian lesbian. That's all there is to it.
No, you sanctimonious little ninny, that is NOT "all there is to it."
"Christian" does not mean "without sin," and it does not mean
"heterosexual." It most certainly does not mean "smug." To be a
Christian is to believe in the divine nature of Christ, to believe that
in His sacrifice is the redemption of sin, and to follow His teachings,
humbly, to the best of one's ability. The POINT of Christ's message,
which you might have gotten if you'd been praying and studying to
emulate Him instead of looking for opportunities to judge your
neighbors, is that EVERYONE is imperfect and weak in the sight of
God--if that were not so, there would be no NEED for redemption or
salvation--but that God loves and accepts us anyway.
It is most certainly not for you to comment on the validity or quality
of anyone else's relationship with Christ--which is exactly what you're
doing when you declare that someone isn't a Christian. You're in no
position to say whether they have Christ in their hearts or not, and it
is UNBELIEVABLY arrogant of you to claim otherwise. But don't take my
word for it, take a look and see what Jesus Himself had to say on the subject!
> If you would like me to site from the Word, mail
^^^^
That's "cite." I would like very much for you to master the rudiments
of your own language and your own religion, before you presume to give
anyone else correction on anything.
> me personally and I will site passages in which
> it is an obvious un-Christianlike form of conduct.
Your interpretation of the Bible is simply not important, no matter how
"obvious" you think it is, unless you are claiming to be a prophet with
direct information from God. If you are not a prophet, then you are no
more qualified to tell us the true meaning of any Scripture than anyone
else is. The Bible is not a bludgeon to be used against any person, and
to employ it in that way, as a tool and a justification for oppression
is vile and blasphemous.
Furthermore, if a person is gay, that too is a gift from God, not to be
spurned in the hubris of Man any more than skin color, vocation, or any
other gift from God is to be rejected. If a lesbian is called to become
a nun, that is a matter between her and God...it is NOT a matter in
which you have any say at all. God makes each of as as we are; who are
you to say that he botched the job on some people, or that you know best
how each person's life should unfold? You are called to live your own
life as best you can; you are not charged with correcting the lives of
the people around you, who have their own relationships with the
Infinite. If you would spend less time deciding whether other people
are Christians, you would yourself be a better Christian (and set a
better example for others).
By engaging in this spate of judgement and condemnation of the people
around you, YOU are engaging in un-Christlike (although, sadly, hardly
"un-ChristIANlike") conduct, conduct that is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN by
Jesus in the Gospels. How is it that you can engage in such behavior,
yet still claim to be a Christian?
> I rest my case.
While you're resting, why don't you try READING that Bible, instead of
just thumping it? Jesus DID NOT give you permission to judge ANYONE,
even if you're sure you can do a much better job than He can. Instead
of frantically searching for this verse or that one to justify your
contempt for others, why not open yourself to the Word? Citing
Scripture in support of injustice and the perpetuation of hatred is
just...perverted.
Bob Smart
Well, how about that, Stephanie knows the Mind of God well enough to
tell us what He would and wouldn't do! Not only that, but she claims to
know His will so perfectly that she can say with assurance whether a
particular life serves the Divine Will, or doesn't!
So tell us, St. Stephie, what's God's favorite color?
Bob Smart
In that case, you really ought to crosspost to alt.masturbation, since
that's exactly and literally what you'll be doing.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
It isn't. Jewish law disapproves of it because it supposedly
is detrimental to the possibility of having children (tell
that to a couple of friends of mine... and their kids), but
that's a rabbinic commandment, not a Biblical one. And if
it were there as a Biblical commandment, believe me, the
nitpickers in Jewish scholarship over the years would've
*found* it by now.
>--Eric
N.O. Monaghan
> (Brad Kepley) writes:
> >I was not implying that they were related or morally equivalent, at least
> >I did not mean to imply that. I was only trying to find examples of behavior
> >that a society might decide to discourage.
> Yeah, and society might decide to discourage the consumption of green
> jellybeans, buster.
Well, there could be some validity to this as certain of the ancients
held the eating of beans to be sinful - probably with good cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.O. Monaghan
nmon...@nyx.cs.du.edu - for email only
mona...@zanskar.avc.ucl.ac.uk - email currently NOT available
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Kepley
>> Yeah, and society might decide to discourage the consumption of green
>> jellybeans, buster.
>
>Well, there could be some validity to this as certain of the ancients
>held the eating of beans to be sinful - probably with good cause.
I don't think so. He said "jellybeans" whereas the ancients were concerned
particularly with kidney beans.
--
| "The natural progress of things is for government |
| to gain ground and for liberty to yield" |
| Thomas Jefferson |
| Brad Kepley kep...@photon.phys.unca.edu 704-252-8330/Voice-Days |
Patrick L Humphrey
Why do I have the suspicion that that handy little definition was crafted
to exclude your present situation?
(Not that it matters a whit to me -- so I had sex before I was married. Big
bleeding deal. If you want to rave that I'm a fornicater, go right ahead.
I won't lose one minute of sleep today knowing that. The wife and I may
have a good laugh at your holier-than-thou attitude, though -- as may her
17-year-old daughter when we tell her about this...)
Since you're raving about bisexuals, though -- just what makes you think
they *can't* be celibate, or monogamous?
--
Patrick L. Humphrey (pat...@is.rice.edu) Rice Networking & Computing Systems
+1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes.
"...on earth, as it is in Texas."
sous...@ccsua.ctstateu.edu
> Christian lesbian. That's all there is to it.
> me personally and I will site (sic) passages in which
>
> I rest my case.
>
> Stephanie
Not that I believe in the sanctity of the King James Bible, or any of
those other loose interperetations of the original koine greek text, but
doesn't Paul say in his Letters that the Hebrew law is no longer valid and that
the only law of God is to love your brother as you love God? (Help me out,
Bible Scholars, I don't bring a bible to work...)
The only reason that I am posting to afdq and not E-Mailing is that the
similarity between the previous post and Danoe's debate tactics are uncanny.
1. Insist that a source (Gore's book or King Jame's book) proves a point
2. Offer to turn to a particular page/verse/passage which proves it.
3. Hope that no one calls him/her publicly on his/her statement
4. Lose the battle the next day when journalists/posters call his/her bluff.
Please, Stephanie, either provide a NEW testament quote which condemns
homosexuality, preferably one attributed to Jesus Christ himself, or shut your
ignorant, sanctimonious, moralistic mouth.
David B. Sousa, providing no smileys today.
PS I included the (sic)'s, rather than flame your spelling, although I
suspect your use of 'site' when you meant 'cite' was not a typo.
sous...@ccsua.ctstateu.edu
> I want to protect (my hypothetical children) from thoughts that
> there actually exists such thing as a Christian
> lesbian or gay.
>
> Stephanie
You want to protect your children from thoughts. how typical.
> NUF SAID!
Hardly.
David B. Sousa, who would be amused by Stephanie if she weren't so frightening.
PS: What if your 15-year-old hypothetical married a Jew and converted to
Judaism? would you treat her as a Christian?
dks
mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
> Stephanie, after going on and on about your deeply-held
> religious beliefs and your high moral standards, you now
> admit you are LIVING IN SIN WITHOUT BENEFIT OF MARRIAGE?
>
> I can think of a few words to describe your condemining
> one set of behavior while acting out another prohibited
> (by your own moral code) behavior, and those words are
> not very polite.
Not to mention a few words the fundamentalists would use to describe
the "prohibited" behavior in the first place! And as I recall, it
was exactly the use of one of those words that *started* this
little affliction...
> Of course, since I'm a Happy Atheist, I have no worry that
> My Living In Sin With My Fiance has any supernatural,
> spiritual or moral consequences.
Which reminds me, have y'all heard of Cardinal Sin? He's the
Pope's best friend in Manila. Cardinal Jaime Sin. Really.
> I also note for a.f.d-q readers that this exchange somewhat
> reminds me of Dannoe's response when asked what he'd do if
> his 13-year-old daughter were to become pregnant.
That, and Alice in Wonderland. But I repeat myself.
> Maddi "Absolutely No Flames In This Post" Hausmann
That's OK, Maddi. We love you anyway.
Cheers!
Dhanesh
Really, we do.
Herbert Rutledge
|> I will not be cross-posting to alt.fan.dan-quayle
|> for any response posts following this one due to
|> it's enormous liberal response. I subscribe only to
|> alt.society.conservatism, so I will only respond to
|> posts made in that group.
|>
|> Thank you.
|>
|> Stephanie
[ NOTE: Cubist trombone not in original ]
This is followed by more cross-posts from you-know-who to a.f.you-know-where.
Have we missed anything from Stephanie? I check over on a.s.c, and found
just this one lone post that had not been cross-posted to a.f.d-q:
|> Article: 879 of alt.society.conservatism
|> Anyone want to express their opions on
|> the Dale City, VA, Denny's incident
|> nvolving the black choir from here in
|> Raleigh, NC? I have tried to post about it
|> for a week or more,but my posts, even though
|> they claim to go through, have not yet been
|> posted.
|> Stephanie
Why am I not surprised?
--
_________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Herbert Rutledge, aka Train | |
| Paramax Systems Corporation | "To post is human; to flame, divine." |
| Valley Forge Labs, M/S GVL-3 | |
| P.O. Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301 | ---Alexander Pope |
| Internet: tr...@vfl.paramax.com | |
|_________________________________|_______________________________________|
Clayton Haapala
>alt.society.conservatism, so I will only respond to
>posts made in that group.
>
months.
I see that Steph subscribes to only one group. This rather restricts the
flow of information and viewpoints available, does it not? I wonder what
her opinion of a Liberal Arts education would be? Not to impugn the good
folks at ncsu.edu, of course.
--
Clayton Haapala (cl...@network.com)
Not speaking for or about:
Network Systems Corp. "...I think even Dante was involved with
7625 Boone Ave N MS604 this project, at some level."
Minneapolis, MN 55428-1099
Bill Anderson
: I will not be cross-posting to alt.fan.dan-quayle
: for any resonse posts following this one due to
: it's enormous liberal resonse. I subscribe only to
: alt.society.conservatism, so I will only respond to
: posts made in that group.
: Thank you.
:
: Stephanie
Yep. Wouldn't want the ol' brain-pan corrupted by liberal
thoughts, huh, Steph? I mean, who knows- if you actually allow
your beliefs to be challenged, why, you might change your mind!
You might even start thinking, and then where would you be?
Bill
Howdy, potato folk. I'm back, for a few days, anyway...
e
Bill Anderson
: >
: >************************************************************
: >Are you saying then that I bisexual can be a person that
: >only experiences sex with one person and that is the person
: >that he/she marries. That is what distinguishes fornication:
: >more than one sexual partner before and during marriage.
: >*************************************************************
Um... sorry, dear. Fornication is sex outside of marriage. If
you are having sex with your fiance, then you are fornicating.
Means you'll burn in H E Double Hockey Stick, y'know.
Bill
:
gar...@ingres.com
>sewa...@eos.ncsu.edu (STEPHANIE ELIZA WATSON) writes:
>:
>: I will not be cross-posting to alt.fan.dan-quayle
>: for any resonse posts following this one due to
>: it's enormous liberal resonse. I subscribe only to
>: alt.society.conservatism, so I will only respond to
>: posts made in that group.
>:
>: Thank you.
>: Stephanie
>
>Yep. Wouldn't want the ol' brain-pan corrupted by liberal
>thoughts, huh, Steph? I mean, who knows- if you actually allow
>your beliefs to be challenged, why, you might change your mind!
>You might even start thinking, and then where would you be?
>
conservative. So you can just stop making those...evil (note the elipses)
suggestions.
>Bill