Is homosexuality not inherent? Site seems to say so
hcha...@gmail.com
I recently came across this site that basically says, alongwith its
sources, that you can switch on and off your sexual orientation like a
switch. I don't know what to say ... what do you think? Comments
please. (Btw, the site address: techqi.blogspot.com ; the article is
titled "So sexuality is like... a switch").
Sincerely,
Harry C.
Dionisio
It's a blog. Caveat emptor.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
We must question the Story Logic of having an All Knowing All Powerful God, who creates
faulty humans, and then blames them for His own mistakes.
-- Gene Roddenberry
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
No One
> hcha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I recently came across this site that basically says, alongwith its
> > sources, that you can switch on and off your sexual orientation like a
> > switch. I don't know what to say ... what do you think? Comments
> > please. (Btw, the site address: techqi.blogspot.com ; the article is
> > titled "So sexuality is like... a switch").
>
> It's a blog. Caveat emptor.
It's also kind of true - they apparently did some experiments where
they managed to change a fruit fly's sexual orientation by changing a
gene. You can read an article about it at
<http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1385169.htm>
<http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v6/n7/full/nrg1661.html>.
There's somethign similar for worms:
<http://www.topix.net/content/reuters/2007/10/gene-switch-altered-sex-orientation-of-worms>.
Obviously humans are a bit more complex. :-)
Dionisio
> Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> writes:
>>hcha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>I recently came across this site that basically says, alongwith its
>>>sources, that you can switch on and off your sexual orientation like a
>>>switch. I don't know what to say ... what do you think? Comments
>>>please. (Btw, the site address: techqi.blogspot.com ; the article is
>>>titled "So sexuality is like... a switch").
>>It's a blog. Caveat emptor.
>
> It's also kind of true
And that's as far as it goes.
The insect experiments have been done, and done, and done. Genes, infections, chemicals,
etc...
The only *human* folks who can switch are bisexuals. And that ain't what's being claimed.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Love is a word that is constantly heard,
hate is a word that is not.
Love, I am told, is more precious than gold.
love, I have heard, is hot!
But hate is the verb that, to me, is superb,
and love but a drug of the heart.
Any kid in school can love like a fool,
but hating, my friend, is an art.
-- Ogden Nash
No One
> No One wrote:
> > Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> writes:
> >>hcha...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>I recently came across this site that basically says, alongwith its
> >>>sources, that you can switch on and off your sexual orientation like a
> >>>switch. I don't know what to say ... what do you think? Comments
> >>>please. (Btw, the site address: techqi.blogspot.com ; the article is
> >>>titled "So sexuality is like... a switch").
> >>It's a blog. Caveat emptor.
> > It's also kind of true
>
> And that's as far as it goes.
>
> The insect experiments have been done, and done, and done. Genes,
> infections, chemicals, etc...
Here's what you snippped:
:: It's also kind of true - they apparently did some experiments where
:: they managed to change a fruit fly's sexual orientation by changing
:: a gene. You can read an article about it at
:: <http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1385169.htm>
:: <http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v6/n7/full/nrg1661.html>.
:: There's somethign similar for worms:
:: <http://www.topix.net/content/reuters/2007/10/gene-switch-altered-sex-orientation-of-worms>.
:: Obviously humans are a bit more complex. :-)
>
> The only *human* folks who can switch are bisexuals. And that ain't
> what's being claimed.
By whom?
You claimed "its a blog". I showed you some data showing it is
possible to change some primitive organisms' sexual orientations.
Eventually it might be possible to change the sexual orientations
of more complex organisms, but whether we do or not, we'll probably
learn something about what biological processes are involved in
forming one's sexual orientation.
You also don't know that the only "*human* folks" who can change
their sexual orientation are bisexuals. Do you have any proof
that some (maybe a very few) individuals can't go through part of
their life with one sexual orientation and another part with a
different one? Remember that sexual orientation refers to whether
you are attracted to same or opposite sex individuals in general,
not the sex of your current partner.
ScottyFLL
The "site" is a blog.
> that basically says, alongwith its
> sources, that you can switch on and off your sexual orientation like a
> switch.
That's not what it says.
What it says, in a nutshell, is this: "According to the news, a team
of University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) neurobiologists have
discovered that the sexual orientation of bees can be ALTERED BY
GENETIC MANIPULATIONS OR DRUGS."
Bees.
Fucking BEES. On drugs! LOL!
> I don't know what to say ... what do you think? Comments
> please. (Btw, the site address: techqi.blogspot.com ; the article is
> titled "So sexuality is like... a switch").
Would have been nice of you just to link us to it, as I have here:
http://techqi.blogspot.com/2008/01/so-sexuality-is-like-switch.html
> Sincerely,
Really?
> Harry C.
hcha...@gmail.com
so it's true then?!
Dysperdis
Alright, let's point out some of the problems here:
-It's a blog, and therefor opinion based
-It uses NARTH as a source
-It's contradictory. If sexuality can be altered by changing genetics,
there are obviously inherent or "hardwired" factors.
-It assumes that something must be genetic to be inherent
-it ignores research showing that sexual orientation is immutable
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html
As far as we can tell, sexuality is determined by an interaction between
genetics, pre-natal environment, and environmental factors during
infancy and early childhood. So far, there has been no evidence showing
that humans can willingly change their sexual orientation.
Dionisio
> Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> writes:
>>The insect experiments have been done, and done, and done. Genes,
>>infections, chemicals, etc...
>
> Here's what you snippped:
Because it was addressed. Pay attention.
It was nothing terribly new, unique, or excitingly unprecedented after all.
>>The only *human* folks who can switch are bisexuals. And that ain't
>>what's being claimed.
>
> By whom?
The person mentioning the blogger, and the blogger.
> You claimed "its a blog".
Claim, schlame. It's a blog.
Deal with it.
> I showed you some data showing it is
> possible to change some primitive organisms' sexual orientations.
Again, it was nothing terribly new.
> You also don't know that the only "*human* folks" who can change
> their sexual orientation are bisexuals.
Yeah. Right. Call Exodus International. You might have to pester them to get them to admit
the truth, but what you'll want them to admit is that there was a study by two outside
psychiatrists 1978. Of the ministry's 800 members at the time, 30 were picked by the
ministry staff as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual
in orientation.
The researchers interviewed the 30 and determined that only 11 had really been largely
"cured" of their homosexual orientation. Eight of the 11 still reported homosexual dreams,
fantasies and/or impulses. Two of the 11 were Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, the founders
of Exodus, who fell in love and were united in a commitment ceremony after this study was
completed. (As shown in the documentary movie One Nation Under God. They fell in love
three years later, and criticized their own organization and other ministries for gays as
fraudulent.) One can safely conclude from this study that essentially no clients were able
to change their sexual orientation.
There was also a "preliminary results announcement" by a noted, and somewhat
controversial, researcher a few years back. But then things went from "See? I told you it
was possible!" to the sounds of crickets chirping. Cue the "Church Lady."
If "change therapy" worked, it would have been touted from the pulpits and there would be
imperical, documented, published and peer-reviewed studies out the wazoo. To date there's
been just one. Not because folks haven't tried to document it, but because the results
weren't conducive to the collection plates.
Variations on the groups have been around since the '70s. That's an entire generation. One
study. And after it, the groups clamped down. (Go figure.) They thought they hit pay dirt
a few years back, but then things started going south...
> Do you have any proof
> that some (maybe a very few) individuals can't go through part of
> their life with one sexual orientation and another part with a
> different one? Remember that sexual orientation refers to whether
> you are attracted to same or opposite sex individuals in general,
> not the sex of your current partner.
You wish me to prove a negative? That some folks *can't* do something?!? Well, in order to
even properly attempt that, I'd have to be a professional researching the phenomenon. I'm not.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
I fell asleep reading a dull book, and I dreamt that I was reading on, so I woke up from
sheer boredom.
No One
> No One wrote:
> > Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> writes:
> >>The insect experiments have been done, and done, and done. Genes,
> >>infections, chemicals, etc...
> > Here's what you snippped:
>
> Because it was addressed. Pay attention.
No, it was covered and you pretended it wasn't (which is typical of you).
>
> It was nothing terribly new, unique, or excitingly unprecedented after all.
It was new - nobody had done what they did before.
> >>The only *human* folks who can switch are bisexuals. And that ain't
> >>what's being claimed.
> > By whom?
>
> The person mentioning the blogger, and the blogger.
>
Who gives a damn?
> > You claimed "its a blog".
>
> Claim, schlame. It's a blog.
>
> Deal with it.
Why don't you deal with - honestly for a change.
> > I showed you some data showing it is possible to change some
> > primitive organisms' sexual orientations.
>
> Again, it was nothing terribly new.
Actually, it is new.
>
> > You also don't know that the only "*human* folks" who can change
> > their sexual orientation are bisexuals.
>
> Yeah. Right. Call Exodus International.
<snip>
Why? Exodus International consists of a group of flakes. What I was
referring to was the possibility of some people being attracted to the
opposite sex during part of their lives and the same sex during other
parts of their lives. If that is what is natural for some people, why
should you care? If such people exist and you run one of them through
Exodus International just at the point where they would naturally
switch sexual orientations from gay to straight, you have what appears
to be a success. In fact, it is just random chance - you happened to
catch them at just the right point in their lives. It's like somoene
doing a rain dance and having an unexpected storm appear, and then
taking credit for it.
> You might have to pester them to get them to admit the truth, but
> what you'll want them to admit is that there was a study by two
> outside psychiatrists 1978. Of the ministry's 800 members at the
> time, 30 were picked by the ministry staff as having changed from
> exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation.
I'll note that you ignored Spitzer's much more recent study of this
"therapy" which indicated that a very few people seem to end up
functioning hetorsexually. Other research showed that for nearly
everyone, it doesn't work or is actually harmful.
Also, why should I pester them? They are flakes who won't listen
to anyone? Why don't you pester them instead? If someone is
going to waste his time, it might as well be you.
> > Do you have any proof that some (maybe a very few) individuals
> > can't go through part of their life with one sexual orientation
> > and another part with a different one? Remember that sexual
> > orientation refers to whether you are attracted to same or
> > opposite sex individuals in general, not the sex of your current
> > partner.
>
> You wish me to prove a negative? That some folks *can't* do
> something?!? Well, in order to even properly attempt that, I'd have to
> be a professional researching the phenomenon. I'm not.
No, I want you to stop making absolute statments when you really
don't know.
ScottyFLL
What's true? That genetic manipulation can cause changes in an
organism? Of COURSE that's true.
Lars Eighner
<82fc54ef-f714-47a0...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented hcha...@gmail.com broadcast on
alt.politics.homosexuality:
If you are a bee, you might switch on and off your sexual orientation like a
switch --- but you know, bees are not especially good at lab work, so maybe
even if you are a bee, you cannot not make the necessary chemicals and apply
them to yourself properly.
So no. You cannot do this if you are a human being because the article is
about bees. You cannot do this if you are a bee because you cannot read the
article if you are a bee.
In particular, the article has no application to human beings whatsoever,
now or at any time in the future for this reason:
Much insect behavior including most or all sexual behavior is mediated by
pheromones, but no pheromones, sexual or otherwise, has ever been found
effective in human beings (although of course many fraudulent claims are
made by perfumers).
Since pheromones are chemical triggers, it is perfectly reasonable to think
that it might be possible to alter pheromones or the response to them in a
chemical way --- whether or not this one study of bees proves to be correct
or not. But since human sexual behavior (or any other human behavior) is
not regulated by pheromones, there is no reason at all to think that human
sexual orientation can be changed one way or the other by chemicals.
> Sincerely,
I very much doubt that.
> Harry C.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 374 days to go.
a concerned citizen
I am not sure what is meant by orientation. But try as they might
heterosexual men don't usually aren't attracted to other men no matter
what the cash offer or how handsome they guys are. The same is true for
most
homosexuals. No matter what the cash offer or how beautiful the women,
homosexual men aren't usually sexually attracted to women.
Oh, and by the way, the first scientist to discover how to turn off the
gay gene will be the most famous and richest person on the planet - but
don't hold your breath, it is going to be a while for that discovery to
be made.
a concerned citizen
Because women are technically sexually passive, it is easier for them to
live as a lesbian or heterosexual within a relationship. For men it is
more difficult because they have to have not only their mental capacity
but their sexual capacity to get and maintain an erection.
Bisexuals have both orientation 100 percent of the time. While they
have a much broader field to find a partner in with any one of the
possible orientations, not all partners are comfortable living or
marrying a person who has such diverse an orientation.
Dennis Kemmerer
message news:478ACD25...@concernedcitizen.com...
> No One wrote:
>>
>> Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> writes:
>>
>> > hcha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > Hello,
>> > > I recently came across this site that basically says, alongwith its
>> > > sources, that you can switch on and off your sexual orientation like
>> > > a
>> > > switch. I don't know what to say ... what do you think? Comments
>> > > please. (Btw, the site address: techqi.blogspot.com ; the article is
>> > > titled "So sexuality is like... a switch").
>> >
>> > It's a blog. Caveat emptor.
>>
>> It's also kind of true - they apparently did some experiments where
>> they managed to change a fruit fly's sexual orientation by changing a
>> gene. You can read an article about it at
>> <http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1385169.htm>
>> <http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v6/n7/full/nrg1661.html>.
>> There's somethign similar for worms:
>> <http://www.topix.net/content/reuters/2007/10/gene-switch-altered-sex-orientation-of-worms>.
>>
>> Obviously humans are a bit more complex. :-)
>
> I am not sure what is meant by orientation.
Which is precisely why you're too stupid for any sort of serious discussion.
[snip]
No One
So? The research that was cited showed that we can identify biological
causes of sexual attraction (whether to the same sex or the opposite
sex) in fruit flies and worms. That's merely a first step, but it is
a pretty good indication that sexual orientation is innate - real
proof instead of handwaving. Whatever you might think, you can't blame
a fruit fly's sexual orientation on a weak father, an overbearing mother,
or any of the other reasons people dream up when looking for someone to
blame.
> Oh, and by the way, the first scientist to discover how to turn off the
> gay gene will be the most famous and richest person on the planet - but
> don't hold your breath, it is going to be a while for that discovery to
> be made.
First, there may not be a single gene that determines sexual orientation,
and you can't necessarily turn something off without creating really
nasty side effects. Second, why would anyone care? There's nothing
wrong with being gay, and by the time we figure out the biological
mechanisms that help determine sexual orientation, we'll most likely
have gotten over our silly prejudices anyway.
Emerson Wainwright
> "a concerned citizen" <taconcernedciti...@concernedcitizen.com> wrote in
> messagenews:478ACD25...@concernedcitizen.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > No One wrote:
>
> >> Dionisio <moc-rr-thgi...@5ellimd.com> writes:
>
> >> > hchang...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > Hello,
> >> > > I recently came across this site that basically says, alongwith its
> >> > > sources, that you can switch on and off your sexual orientation like
> >> > > a
> >> > > switch. I don't know what to say ... what do you think? Comments
> >> > > please. (Btw, the site address: techqi.blogspot.com ; the article is
> >> > > titled "So sexuality is like... a switch").
>
> >> > It's a blog. Caveat emptor.
>
> >> It's also kind of true - they apparently did some experiments where
> >> they managed to change a fruit fly's sexual orientation by changing a
> >> gene. You can read an article about it at
> >> <http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1385169.htm>
> >> <http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v6/n7/full/nrg1661.html>.
> >> There's somethign similar for worms:
>
> >> Obviously humans are a bit more complex. :-)
>
> > I am not sure what is meant by orientation.
>
> Which is precisely why you're too stupid for any sort of serious discussion.
LOL!
Dionisio
>>>Here's what you snippped:
>>Because it was addressed. Pay attention.
>
> No, it was covered and you pretended it wasn't (which is typical of you).
Oh, back to the famous reading comprehension we've all come to know and loath, eh?
>>It was nothing terribly new, unique, or excitingly unprecedented after all.
>
> It was new - nobody had done what they did before.
Not in one fell swoop, no. The bits and pieces were there since the mid '80s.
>>>>The only *human* folks who can switch are bisexuals. And that ain't
>>>>what's being claimed.
>>>By whom?
>>The person mentioning the blogger, and the blogger.
>
> Who gives a damn?
Apparently you.
>>>You claimed "its a blog".
>>Claim, schlame. It's a blog.
>>Deal with it.
>
> Why don't you deal with - honestly for a change.
Hmm... I wonder what a visit to the web provider's main page reveals...
https://www.blogger.com/start (For your convenience.)
It's a blog. Period.
>>Yeah. Right. Call Exodus International.
> <snip>
>
> Why? Exodus International consists of a group of flakes.
Ah, but they are the *only* scientifically documented flakes. None of the others have
*ever* let things hit peer-reviewed journals in their totality since; They prefer the
pay-to-publish ones.
> What I was
> referring to was the possibility of some people being attracted to the
> opposite sex during part of their lives and the same sex during other
> parts of their lives.
We call them bisexuals.
> If that is what is natural for some people, why
> should you care?
Oh, I don't know... Perhaps because I'm one of 'em?
> If such people exist and you run one of them through
> Exodus International just at the point where they would naturally
> switch sexual orientations from gay to straight, you have what appears
> to be a success. In fact, it is just random chance - you happened to
> catch them at just the right point in their lives. It's like somoene
> doing a rain dance and having an unexpected storm appear, and then
> taking credit for it.
Bingo.
>>You might have to pester them to get them to admit the truth, but
>>what you'll want them to admit is that there was a study by two
>>outside psychiatrists 1978. Of the ministry's 800 members at the
>>time, 30 were picked by the ministry staff as having changed from
>>exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation.
>
>
> I'll note that you ignored Spitzer's much more recent study of this
> "therapy" which indicated that a very few people seem to end up
> functioning hetorsexually. Other research showed that for nearly
> everyone, it doesn't work or is actually harmful.
Oh. It was finally published? I'm aware of the preliminary announcement, but not that it
was actually reviewed and printed. Dare one ask for a pointer?
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Love is like a game of chess. One false move and you're mated.
No One
> No One wrote:
> > Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> writes:
> >>No One wrote:
> >>>Here's what you snippped:
> >>Because it was addressed. Pay attention.
> > No, it was covered and you pretended it wasn't (which is typical of
> > you).
>
> Oh, back to the famous reading comprehension we've all come to know
> and loath, eh?
Back to ranting like you usually do when you have a bad hair day
or whatever the hell turns you into the queen bitch of the universe?
>
>
> >>It was nothing terribly new, unique, or excitingly unprecedented after all.
> > It was new - nobody had done what they did before.
>
> Not in one fell swoop, no. The bits and pieces were there since the mid '80s.
Not really, unless you are trying to pretend that learning how to
turn genes on and off in general is all there is to it.
>
> >>>>The only *human* folks who can switch are bisexuals. And that ain't
> >>>>what's being claimed.
> >>>By whom?
> >>The person mentioning the blogger, and the blogger.
> > Who gives a damn?
>
> Apparently you.
>
>
> >>>You claimed "its a blog".
> >>Claim, schlame. It's a blog.
> >>Deal with it.
> > Why don't you deal with - honestly for a change.
>
> Hmm... I wonder what a visit to the web provider's main page reveals...
>
> https://www.blogger.com/start (For your convenience.)
>
> It's a blog. Period.
You idiot! Read what I actually said:
:: It's also kind of true - they apparently did some experiments where
:: they managed to change a fruit fly's sexual orientation by changing a
:: gene. You can read an article about it at
:: <http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1385169.htm>
:: <http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v6/n7/full/nrg1661.html>.
:: There's somethign similar for worms:
:: <http://www.topix.net/content/reuters/2007/10/gene-switch-altered-sex-orientation-of-worms>.
::
:: Obviously humans are a bit more complex. :-)
Now, try real hard until you get it. First, start with the phrase
"kind of true". That should suggest to you that the blogger isn't being
serious, but that there is something that should be taken seriously,
which is what follows: three links to research on simple organisms
where we found fairly recently how to change these organisms' sexual
attractons.
Also note the final sentence, "Obviously humans are a bit more complex."
Now, read this 50 times until is sinks into your thick scull.
> > referring to was the possibility of some people being attracted to the
> > opposite sex during part of their lives and the same sex during other
> > parts of their lives.
>
> We call them bisexuals.
>
>
> > If that is what is natural for some people, why should you care?
>
> Oh, I don't know... Perhaps because I'm one of 'em?
Nobody cares if you are bisexual. There is, however, a useful distinction
between people who are attracted to both men and women and people who
are attracted to one or the other, but whose attraction changes during
their lives over a long time frame. It is quantitatively different.
> > If such people exist and you run one of them through
> > Exodus International just at the point where they would naturally
> > switch sexual orientations from gay to straight, you have what appears
> > to be a success. In fact, it is just random chance - you happened to
> > catch them at just the right point in their lives. It's like somoene
> > doing a rain dance and having an unexpected storm appear, and then
> > taking credit for it.
>
> Bingo.
You mean what I had been saying might have actually gotten through that
thick scull of yours?
>
>
> >>You might have to pester them to get them to admit the truth, but
> >>what you'll want them to admit is that there was a study by two
> >>outside psychiatrists 1978. Of the ministry's 800 members at the
> >>time, 30 were picked by the ministry staff as having changed from
> >>exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation.
> > I'll note that you ignored Spitzer's much more recent study of this
> > "therapy" which indicated that a very few people seem to end up
> > functioning hetorsexually. Other research showed that for nearly
> > everyone, it doesn't work or is actually harmful.
>
> Oh. It was finally published? I'm aware of the preliminary
> announcement, but not that it was actually reviewed and printed. Dare
> one ask for a pointer?
It was presented at a conference. Get the conference proceedings.
Usually that's where you find conference talks. You don't just turn
up and talk either - conference submissions are often peer reviewed,
with the exception of people explicitly invited to give a talk.
BTW, what the religious right wing tried to pretend Spitzer said and
what Spitzer actually said are quite different.
Dionisio
> Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> writes:
>>Oh, back to the famous reading comprehension we've all come to know
>>and loath, eh?
>
> Back to ranting like you usually do when you have a bad hair day
> or whatever the hell turns you into the queen bitch of the universe?
<yawn>
What? No insults? No name calling? (Well, beyond what which could be found on the average
playground during grade school recess.) How shocking!
> Not really, unless you are trying to pretend that learning how to
> turn genes on and off in general is all there is to it.
Methelation. Reverse transcription. Ah heck, let's go for the "knock out."
(Too cheeky?)
>>>>>>The only *human* folks who can switch are bisexuals. And that ain't
>>>>>>what's being claimed.
>>>>>By whom?
>>>>The person mentioning the blogger, and the blogger.
>>>Who gives a damn?
>>Apparently you.
No comment?
>>>>>You claimed "its a blog".
>>>>Claim, schlame. It's a blog.
>>>>Deal with it.
>>>Why don't you deal with - honestly for a change.
>>Hmm... I wonder what a visit to the web provider's main page reveals...
>>https://www.blogger.com/start (For your convenience.)
>>It's a blog. Period.
>
> You idiot! Read what I actually said:
You didn't say a word of it, more intelligent folks did.
> Now, try real hard until you get it. First, start with the phrase
> "kind of true".
Would that be like, "kind of confessed"? You know, like a plea bargain?
> Nobody cares if you are bisexual. There is, however, a useful distinction
> between people who are attracted to both men and women and people who
> are attracted to one or the other, but whose attraction changes during
> their lives over a long time frame. It is quantitatively different.
Really? One is bisexual. The other is bisexual. Quantify the difference.
Go ahead.
Shall I "double dog dare" you?
(Cue bestiality fetish.)
>>Oh. It was finally published? I'm aware of the preliminary
>>announcement, but not that it was actually reviewed and printed. Dare
>>one ask for a pointer?
>
> It was presented at a conference. Get the conference proceedings.
You'll have to be a little more precise. There are thousands of conferences held every day
it seems. How about something more detailed? I recall that the "preliminary results" were
announced at a conference too; Have you confused them with an actual published and
peer-reviewed study?
> Usually that's where you find conference talks. You don't just turn
> up and talk either - conference submissions are often peer reviewed,
> with the exception of people explicitly invited to give a talk.
Oh. How handy! "Conference submissions are often peer reviewed." (With exceptions.)
So. Would this have been an exception?
Go ahead: Answer.
> BTW, what the religious right wing tried to pretend Spitzer said and
> what Spitzer actually said are quite different.
That's another topic, and you know it.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
-- Mark Twain
No One
> No One wrote:
> > Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> writes:
> >>Oh, back to the famous reading comprehension we've all come to know
> >>and loath, eh?
> > Back to ranting like you usually do when you have a bad hair day
> > or whatever the hell turns you into the queen bitch of the universe?
>
> <yawn>
>
> What? No insults? No name calling? (Well, beyond what which could be
> found on the average playground during grade school recess.) How
> shocking!
You were in fact insulted for cause and were too dumb to notice.
> > Not really, unless you are trying to pretend that learning how to
> > turn genes on and off in general is all there is to it.
>
> Methelation. Reverse transcription. Ah heck, let's go for the "knock out."
In other words, in your previous post, you lied by claiming that the
research showed nothing particularly new. In fact it did, as it identified
specific chemicals and showed what they do.
Dinosio, you are either a liar or a fool. Take your pick.
Emerson Wainwright
> Claim, schlame.
You misspelled "schlaim".
Emerson Wainwright
> Now, read this 50 times until is sinks into your thick scull.
Skull. With a "k". Genius.
> You mean what I had been saying might have actually gotten through that
> thick scull of yours?
Skull. With a "k". Genius.
No One
> On Jan 14, 8:12 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Now, read this 50 times until is sinks into your thick scull.
>
> Skull. With a "k". Genius.
Reduced to whining about typos? Sometimes it comes out scrambled
when I type fast. Get used to it. You are not worth the effort
of running a spell checker.
Emerson Wainwright
> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Jan 14, 8:12 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Now, read this 50 times until is sinks into your thick scull.
>
> > Skull. With a "k". Genius.
>
> Reduced to whining about typos?
It's not a typo.
You spelled it wrong.
Twice.
Dionisio
> Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> writes:
>>What? No insults? No name calling? (Well, beyond what which could be
>>found on the average playground during grade school recess.) How
>>shocking!
>
> You were in fact insulted for cause and were too dumb to notice.
Oh dear. Silly me. I forgot the "<sarcasm>" tags again...
Tsk, tsk. I really must spank myself.
> In other words, in your previous post, you lied by claiming that the
> research showed nothing particularly new. In fact it did, as it identified
> specific chemicals and showed what they do.
Continuation of a logical progression. Chemicals have been known to change sex
characteristics and expression for decades now. So some more got added to the list. Wow.
> Dinosio, you are either a liar or a fool. Take your pick.
"I wanna be just like you. I figure all I need is a lobotomy and some tights."
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"The sponsor of one of the bills that would outlaw gay marriages in Michigan asserts that
same-sex unions would 'lead to further disintegration of the traditional family unit.' But
it appears at least worth asking how a public declaration of commitment, monogamy and
permanence by any two people would subvert family values. Strong marriages are the
foundation of strong families and a strong nation, but committed relationships can and do
take different forms. At their best, marriages are tangible expressions of love, respect,
security, social stability and human dignity. Preemptive legislation that presumes only
heterosexual relationships invoke that kind of commitment may not defend the sanctity of
the institution of marriage, but weaken it."
-- Editorial in the Detroit Free Press.
Dionisio
:-P
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
From demagogue Randal Terry, head of the reactionary Operation Rescue, on his group's
agenda: "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you...I want you to let a
wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have
a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time.
We don't want pluralism." (The News-Sentinal, Fort Wayne Ind., August 16, 1993)
Dionisio
> Reduced to whining about typos? Sometimes it comes out scrambled
> when I type fast. Get used to it. You are not worth the effort
> of running a spell checker.
Beware, Mr. Wainwright, in a.p.h. he's known as having the fastest fingers on either side
of the Mississippi.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
I was watching "The Wizard of Oz" on my VCR yesterday. After I finished watching it, I
realized there was an inconsistency in the plot. I rewound the tape and found the part
were Dorothy kills the witch. Do you know where the bucket of water was? It was just
sitting in the middle of the set! I got to thinking to myself: "Hey witch, if I had
something that could, oh... melt me -- battery acid say -- would I just leave a bucket of
it lying around in the middle of the condo?"
No One
> No One wrote:
> > Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> writes:
> >>What? No insults? No name calling? (Well, beyond what which could be
> >>found on the average playground during grade school recess.) How
> >>shocking!
> > You were in fact insulted for cause and were too dumb to notice.
>
> Oh dear. Silly me. I forgot the "<sarcasm>" tags again...
>
> Tsk, tsk. I really must spank myself.
You should spank yourself, troll.
> > In other words, in your previous post, you lied by claiming that the
> > research showed nothing particularly new. In fact it did, as it identified
> > specific chemicals and showed what they do.
>
> Continuation of a logical progression. Chemicals have been known to
> change sex characteristics and expression for decades now. So some
> more got added to the list. Wow.
Sigh. Nobody previously had done what these guys had done, and it wasn't
something as simple as noting that testosterone has an effect on sexual
expression.
>
> > Dinosio, you are either a liar or a fool. Take your pick.
>
> "I wanna be just like you. I figure all I need is a lobotomy and
> some tights."
What you need is to learn how to act like an adult.
No One
> No One wrote:
> > Reduced to whining about typos? Sometimes it comes out scrambled
> > when I type fast. Get used to it. You are not worth the effort
> > of running a spell checker.
>
> Beware, Mr. Wainwright, in a.p.h. he's known as having the fastest
> fingers on either side of the Mississippi.
What you are noted for is being a mindless troll. You and Wainwright
deserve each other.
Emerson Wainwright
> >>What? No insults? No name calling? (Well, beyond what which could be
> >>found on the average playground during grade school recess.) How
> >>shocking!
>
> > You were in fact insulted for cause and were too dumb to notice.
>
> Oh dear. Silly me. I forgot the "<sarcasm>" tags again...
>
> Tsk, tsk. I really must spank myself.
Let me help you with that.
> > In other words, in your previous post, you lied by claiming that the
> > research showed nothing particularly new. In fact it did, as it identified
> > specific chemicals and showed what they do.
>
> Continuation of a logical progression. Chemicals have been known to change sex
> characteristics and expression for decades now. So some more got added to the list. Wow.
>
> > Dinosio, you are either a liar or a fool. Take your pick.
>
> "I wanna be just like you. I figure all I need is a lobotomy and some tights."
And some little wings so you can flit about.
Emerson Wainwright
> No One wrote:
> > Reduced to whining about typos? Sometimes it comes out scrambled
> > when I type fast. Get used to it. You are not worth the effort
> > of running a spell checker.
>
> Beware, Mr. Wainwright, in a.p.h. he's known as having the fastest fingers on either side
> of the Mississippi.
I've seen his posts on this topic in an earlier thread and it's
obvious that the kids just can't spell.
That must be severely embarrassing, as he tries to project himself to
be a genius.
Emerson Wainwright
> > >>What? No insults? No name calling? (Well, beyond what which could be
> > >>found on the average playground during grade school recess.) How
> > >>shocking!
> > > You were in fact insulted for cause and were too dumb to notice.
>
> > Oh dear. Silly me. I forgot the "<sarcasm>" tags again...
>
> > Tsk, tsk. I really must spank myself.
>
> You should spank yourself, troll.
>
> > > In other words, in your previous post, you lied by claiming that the
> > > research showed nothing particularly new. In fact it did, as it identified
> > > specific chemicals and showed what they do.
>
> > Continuation of a logical progression. Chemicals have been known to
> > change sex characteristics and expression for decades now. So some
> > more got added to the list. Wow.
>
> Sigh. Nobody previously had done what these guys had done, and it wasn't
> something as simple as noting that testosterone has an effect on sexual
> expression.
Alcohol and crack and crystal meth have an effect as well.
It's no huge surprise that messing with genetics or administering
drugs can change behavior. Nobody's clutching at pearls on this one.
Emerson Wainwright
No One
It's not "clutching at pearls" but making slow, incremental progress
towards understanding the biological mechanisms that control
sexual orientation.
No One
> On Jan 15, 7:57 pm, Dionisio <moc-rr-thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
> > No One wrote:
> > > Reduced to whining about typos? Sometimes it comes out scrambled
> > > when I type fast. Get used to it. You are not worth the effort
> > > of running a spell checker.
> >
> I've seen his posts on this topic in an earlier thread and it's
> obvious that the kids just can't spell.
>
> That must be severely embarrassing, as he tries to project himself to
> be a genius.
Poor baby. If I type fast and don't proofread a post on some
inconsequential topic, the little babies get all upset because they
don't have anything substantive to say. How childish.
Emerson Wainwright
Emerson Wainwright
> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On Jan 15, 7:57 pm, Dionisio <moc-rr-thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
> > > No One wrote:
> > > > Reduced to whining about typos? Sometimes it comes out scrambled
> > > > when I type fast. Get used to it. You are not worth the effort
> > > > of running a spell checker.
>
> > I've seen his posts on this topic in an earlier thread and it's
> > obvious that the kids just can't spell.
>
> > That must be severely embarrassing, as he tries to project himself to
> > be a genius.
>
> Poor baby. If I type fast
If you type fast, your spelling probably gets even worse.
No One
Let's see you do the research. Nobody cares if you think it is
"unsurprising". The hard part is in setting up an experiment that
will produce conclusive results.
No One
And you think it's surprising that the error rate goes up with
typing speed? You must not be very bright.
Emerson Wainwright
Point:
Your spelling is horrendous and your typing fast makes it worse.
So if you want to make a fool of yourself less often, type more
slowly.
No One
My spelling is not horrendous, so that is another of your lies. There
are a few random typos - not many - but I guess you've run out of
things to whine about.
You really do act like a child. I suggest you get some help.
Emerson Wainwright
> My spelling is not horrendous
Oh, but it is.
No One
Liar - you are simply whining about a small number of random
typos, which is no surprise since you have nothing substantive
to say.
Emerson Wainwright
> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Jan 16, 2:43 am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > My spelling is not horrendous
>
> > Oh, but it is.
>
> Liar - you are simply whining about a small number of random
> typos
Typos are one thing, and I don't call you on typos.
I call you on misspelled words.
>, which is no surprise since you have nothing substantive
> to say.
My calling you on misspelled words negates your attempt to present
yourself as a genius.
A genius would know how to spell "skull" and "advice", yet you TWICE
misspelled each of those in one day.
Now tell us... how does "skull" get typo-ed "scull"? Hmmm? Is the
"c" right next to the "k"?
LOL!
No One
> On Jan 16, 11:57 am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > On Jan 16, 2:43 am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > My spelling is not horrendous
> >
> > > Oh, but it is.
> >
> > Liar - you are simply whining about a small number of random
> > typos
>
> Typos are one thing, and I don't call you on typos.
> I call you on misspelled words.
Shows that you are an idiot, since there is no decision procedure that
can distinguish a typo and a mispelled word. And your harping on
mispellings is typical of either Dionisio or that other idiot
ScottyFLL (who was also in the previous discussion regarding Craig)
If you are not Dionisio, could you be ScottyFLL in a new incarnation?
He also liked spelling flames.
> My calling you on misspelled words negates your attempt to present
> yourself as a genius.
Where did I say I was a genius as I was hardly trying to "present"
myslef as one? If you get that impression, it must be because I
really am a lot smarter than you. Of course, being smarter than you
is nothing to brag about.
> A genius would know how to spell "skull" and "advice", yet you TWICE
> misspelled each of those in one day.
> Now tell us... how does "skull" get typo-ed "scull"? Hmmm? Is the
> "c" right next to the "k"?
> LOL!
The 'c' is right next the 's' and the 'k' is right next to the 'u',
or didn't you notice.
RedDog
LOL! Nobody buys that explanation, No One. It reminds me of how you
tried to explain away Capgun's misspelling of the word "piece" as a
typo.
Keep it up, though, No One! You're a laugh a minute, boy. :-)
RedDog
We're not "whining", No One. We're *laughing* at you, boy! :-)
Sniper .308
wrote:
>We're not "whining", No One. We're *laughing* at you, boy! :-)
No, you are just a lying, whining fucking retard
RedDog
It's no use trying to suck up to him, Cappy. No one, not even No One,
would humiliate himself by befriending a moron like you. :-)
Sniper .308
wrote:
>It's no use trying to suck up to him, Cappy. No one, not even No One,
>would humiliate himself by befriending a moron like you. :-)
not sucking up to anybody, just point out A FACT, you are just a
lying, whining fucking retard
Sniper .308
The above was NOT sent by me, but was a forgery sent by the whining
shit-eater calling itself "No One".
Proof of No One's shit fetish:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals.bondage.gay/browse_thread/thread/d153499fd6fd6354
Sniper .308
<Snipe...@budweiser.com> wrote:
wittle wed faggot is back to posting childish forgeries
RedDog
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:56:19 -0800 (PST), "Sniper .308"
>
Prove it's a forgery, fucktard.
ScottyFLL
> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Jan 16, 11:57 am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > > On Jan 16, 2:43 am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > My spelling is not horrendous
>
> > > > Oh, but it is.
>
> > > Liar - you are simply whining about a small number of random
> > > typos
>
> > Typos are one thing, and I don't call you on typos.
> > I call you on misspelled words.
>
> Shows that you are an idiot
Well, I beg to disagree!
*I* know how to spell and know the differences between "scull" and
"skull", and between "advice" and "advise".
*You're* the one having problems there.
>, since there is no decision procedure that
> can distinguish a typo and a mispelled
"Misspelled". Double "s" there, Genius.
> word.
Well, but there is.
See, a typo occurs when the wrong key is tapped. This can happen when
the keys are right next to each other, or a key might be pressed more
than once, or a key might not be pressed or might be pressed but not
hard enough. Those are "typographical" errors. Errors in typing.
Now, as I see it, the only way a touch typist is going to accidentally
click a "c" when what is needed is a "k" is if said typist has a
seizure at precisely that moment.
Of course, I guess we can't rule out the possibility of earthquakes
forcing the finger under which sits the letter "k" to click on it.
> And your harping on
> mispellings is typical of either Dionisio or that other idiot
> ScottyFLL
Oh. I thought you said you knew that ScottyFLL (me) and Emerson
Wainwright (also me) were the same person?
Guess you LIED again!
LOL!
> > My calling you on misspelled words negates your attempt to present
> > yourself as a genius.
>
> Where did I say I was a genius as I was hardly trying to "present"
> myslef
Now see? THERE'S a typo. Just a transposition of the "e" and "l".
I don't call you on those. Everyone makes 'em.
> Of course, being smarter than you
> is nothing to brag about.
Well, it's also untrue.
Not that that means anything to ya.
RedDog
ROTFL! Beautiful, Scotty! One of the best ass-kickings I've ever
witnessed, actually! :-)
No One
> On Jan 16, 4:58 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > And your harping on
> > mispellings is typical of either Dionisio or that other idiot
> > ScottyFLL
>
> Oh. I thought you said you knew that ScottyFLL (me) and Emerson
> Wainwright (also me) were the same person?
>
> Guess you LIED again!
>
> LOL!
Now he's quoting old posts - before I found out that the two are the
same individual as opposed to two nuts with similar symptoms.
"Emerson Wainwright" is the new name used by the troll ScottyFLL, who
is simply recycling his old material. He has a grudge - a very long
one and when his feelings are hurt, he acts out, regessing to the
point where he has the maturity of a 12 year old boy. He is a
pathological liar.
RedDog
Nope. He's just pointing out what is already known by any of us who
have ever tried to have an intelligent conversation with you, i.e.,
that you're dishonest and stupid.
You're the one who never admits when he's wrong, No One, and hence
*you're* the one who has the maturity of a young adolescent, NOT
Scotty. Ya see, you're just too little of a man to admit when you've
been bested by one of your betters, so now go run along and cry to
yourself, boy. Nobody here is interested in reading your pathetic
whining. :-)