How to burn 3500 calories a day and not catch fire
Gene Royer
linkies and a Pillsbury biscuit at 4:00 ayem, I belched sufficiently and
then drove over to the YMCA for my macho workout about 6:00. The place had
cleared out from the *early bird* crew that usually comes in at 5:00, so I
was able to move easily from one weight stack to the other without being
interfered with by novices or people who just want to get my autograph.
Today was *chest* day, with only moderate work on arms and shoulders. So,
following my six sets of bench presses, I did four sets of lateral raises
lying (on 15 degree incline bench) and then moved to the squat rack.
Fortunately for me, a really strong guy had come in to workout; so I was
able to get his assistance in spotting me on my last few heavy reps each
time.
To cap things off, I spent about ten minutes sprinting on the treadmill.
Whew! I smell tired.
The total workout lasted about an hour and a half, and I am now ready for my
Power soaking in a deep tub of H2OT. As I recline in the comfort giving
water, I will sip another Power Shake designed to carry nutrients to my
muscles and vital internal organs.
Of course, I will lace the shake with two scoops of Risotriene®, the most
amazing anti-aging health discover of the century.
Later today I have busine$$/work to do. God certainly has taken a shine to
me.
God Bless America; God continue to Bless George W Bush; and God continue to
bless me.
--Geno<sitting on God's knee in the lap of luxury>Royer
Gene Royer
"Gene Royer" <sire...@Mindset.net> wrote in message
news:10arvh3...@corp.supernews.com...
> After downing my usual Power Protein Shake and two scrambled eggs with
> linkies and a Pillsbury biscuit at 4:00 ayem, I belched sufficiently and
> then drove over to the YMCA for my macho workout about 6:00. The place
had
> cleared out from the *early bird* crew that usually comes in at 5:00, so I
> was able to move easily from one weight stack to the other without being
> interfered with by novices or people who just want to get my autograph.
>
> Today was *chest* day, with only moderate work on arms and shoulders. So,
> following my six sets of bench presses, I did four sets of lateral raises
> lying (on 15 degree incline bench) and then moved to the squat rack.
> Fortunately for me, a really strong guy had come in to workout; so I was
> able to get his assistance in spotting me on my last few heavy reps each
> time.
>
> To cap things off, I spent about ten minutes sprinting on the treadmill.
> Whew! I smell tired.
>
> The total workout lasted about an hour and a half, and I am now ready for
my
> Power soaking in a deep tub of H2OT. As I recline in the comfort giving
> water, I will sip another Power Shake designed to carry nutrients to my
> muscles and vital internal organs.
>
> amazing anti-aging health discover of the century.
>
> Later today I have busine$$/work to do. God certainly has taken a shine
to
> me.
>
> God Bless America; God continue to Bless George W Bush; and God continue
to
> bless me.
>
> --Geno<sitting on God's knee in the lap of luxury>Royer
>
> www.kickaliberalsbutt.com
Geno replies to his own compelling message (too interesting to snip) and
writes:
Today was macho day. Lordy, lordyŠ what a great workout. Another
hour-and-a-half spent fine-tuning my magnificent physique--trimming my
svelte waistline even more and chiseling the well-defined cuts of my
shoulders and arms to even sexier degrees of excellence.
I'm almost too sexy for my clothes--but the law says I have to wear them.
Time for my rub-down--as soon as the Filipino woman across the street gets
done doing my yard. She's great with the rose beds.
--Geno
Gaiawar
Compulsion compelled him to speak the above.
Vanity of vanities. All is vanity and a vexation of the spirit. It is
better to be silent than to pollute the air with vanities. Thus I
presume to impose upon you my values and cosmology, because I quickly
tire of exhibitionism in any form. Liberals and conservatives alike
share this dislike, so how are we fundamentally different, you and I,
from the liberals? Now ain't that question a can-o-worms? I am happy
with you for your exceptional accomplishments in this and in
governance.......What are you doing to preserve Spaceship Earth? I
speak as a balanced Conservative and Ecologist of the first waters.
This afternoon I watched Buteo's fledglings begin their gymnastics
routine through the mother tree as they prepare for flight. These kids
are his eighth clutch of eyasses to be reared to flight from that nest
behind Holland's lounge. the area will be spared from destruction by
commercial "progress"; I saw to that.
-Gaiawar
Gene Royer
"Gaiawar" <gai...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7a617afb.04052...@posting.google.com...
> > Today was macho day. Lordy, lordyŠ what a great workout. Another
> > hour-and-a-half spent fine-tuning my magnificent physique--trimming my
> > svelte waistline even more and chiseling the well-defined cuts of my
> > shoulders and arms to even sexier degrees of excellence.
> >
> > I'm almost too sexy for my clothes--but the law says I have to wear
them.
> >
> > Time for my rub-down--as soon as the Filipino woman across the street
gets
> > done doing my yard. She's great with the rose beds.
> >
> > --Geno
>
> Compulsion compelled him to speak the above.
> Vanity of vanities. All is vanity and a vexation of the spirit. It is
> better to be silent than to pollute the air with vanities. Thus I
> presume to impose upon you my values and cosmology, because I quickly
> tire of exhibitionism in any form. Liberals and conservatives alike
> share this dislike, so how are we fundamentally different, you and I,
> from the liberals? Now ain't that question a can-o-worms? I am happy
> with you for your exceptional accomplishments in this and in
> governance.......What are you doing to preserve Spaceship Earth? I
> speak as a balanced Conservative and Ecologist of the first waters.
I reject the concept of "Spaceship Earth", as it implies our planet
transversing a static universe. What not a few Astronomers are fearful to
tell us is that all things in this universe are moving away from EACH OTHER
and an immeasurable rate of speed. They fear to tell us because they have
no physical explanation--should we ask why.
*Planet* Earth needs no preserving at and by the hand of the creation which
it houses and sustains. It is the creation itself that needs be
preserved--but not from a failing ecology, nor from a failing course of
conservation which particular discipline of science demands. --But from
something else much more sinister.
Yea, a fruitful Planet Earth will be here long after life-as-we-know-it has
withered as the grass does in winter.
All Earth things are cyclical, spiraling upward and not down. Only the
doomsayers see it otherwise because they stand not in faith but in its
opposite, called *fear*.
> This afternoon I watched Buteo's fledglings begin their gymnastics
> routine through the mother tree as they prepare for flight. These kids
> are his eighth clutch of eyasses to be reared to flight from that nest
> behind Holland's lounge. the area will be spared from destruction by
> commercial "progress"; I saw to that.
>
> -Gaiawar
Good show!
Melrose sits atop a crosstimber over my arbor. She shades herself beneath
overhanging Rose of Sharon branches--but not so well that Mrs Blue Jay
cannot see her and complain. A nest of fledglings is surely nearby and out
of Melrose's reach--but Mrs Jay takes no chances. She swoops and whoops and
hops and flops and flitters and flutters and flaps her wings while yelling
at the top of her lungs. Finally Melrose leaves her shady perch and seeks
refuge beneath my huge Ford Explosion.
As she climbed down and settled onto the cool concrete floor I heard her
mumble, "fucking bird."
--Geno
-
Jon Svenn
I can see that you are a person of natural insight. May the glory of the
most high infill you.
--Jonathon
B. Callaghan
"Gene Royer" <sire...@Mindset.net> wrote in message
> All Earth things are cyclical, spiraling upward and not down. Only the
> doomsayers see it otherwise because they stand not in faith but in its
> opposite, called *fear*.
Well gosh-dang-it, I don't quite see how turnin' the planet into one big
refuse heap is a *good thing*. Shippin' nooclar waste off'n to third world
countries and turnin' the oceans into industrial cesspools doesn't strike me
as the most upwardly spiraling kind-o-thing.
But hey! If ya got a nice back yard like Ted Nugent and George W.,
I suppose you can watch the birdies and plant a Victory Garden, secure
in the knowledge that all is well with the universe as far as your l'il eye can
see.
- bettina
Gene Royer
"B. Callaghan" <bett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c96bn...@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Gene Royer" <sire...@Mindset.net> wrote in message
> news:10b4399...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > All Earth things are cyclical, spiraling upward and not down. Only the
> > doomsayers see it otherwise because they stand not in faith but in its
> > opposite, called *fear*.
>
>
> Well gosh-dang-it, I don't quite see how turnin' the planet into one
big
> refuse heap is a *good thing*. Shippin' nooclar waste off'n to third
world
> countries and turnin' the oceans into industrial cesspools doesn't strike
me
> as the most upwardly spiraling kind-o-thing.
>
> But hey! If ya got a nice back yard like Ted Nugent and George W.,
> I suppose you can watch the birdies and plant a Victory Garden, secure
> in the knowledge that all is well with the universe as far as your l'il
eye can
> see.
>
>
> - bettina
>
>
Ahh, a doomsayer speaks. And always with the expected hyperbole: "refuse
heap" "nuclear waste", etc, and, of course, implicating George W Bush and
Ted Nugent--two fine, conservative Real Americans as the perpetrators. How
typically Liberal.
For your information, please take comfort in knowing that the planet is not
being turned into a refuse heap. Perhaps in your small corner of existence
there is a trashy mess--if so, put it on the curb and let the big truck haul
it off. At any rate, I'm not aware that either George W or Ted Nugent has
shipped nuclear waste anywhere or poured battery acid into the ocean.
However, if nuclear waste has been shipped to third-world countries, I
cannot think of a better destination. --except that they might find a way
to refine it and shoot it back at us.
But Earth is an incredibly fine place to live. The life expectancy of
humans living in civilized nations has increased significantly in the last
100 years, and it continues to rise decade by decade. Intelligent people
live longer and enjoy life more than did their parents and grandparents.
Before you have your doomsayer kneejerk reaction, please notice the
qualifiers: "civilized nations" and "intelligent people". Third-world
countries are not civilized by American standards, and that includes Canada,
BTW. Intelligent people don't drag around 40 or 50 pounds (or more) of
hideous bodyfat; and they don't have their drug dealer's phone number on
speed dial. They are the ones who keep the actuarial numbers from rising
even higher.
Yes, the planet is an incredibly nice place to live. And the cyclical life
systems that sustain it continue to spiral upward and not down. Democracy
is being introduced to a heathen part of the world, and with it the
knowledge of Jesus Christ. God Bless America, and God Bless George W Bush.
I just saw a TV clip about the radical movie "Day After Tomorrow". What a
hoot!
Today is macho day at the gym. I arose at 3:30 ayem and have already had my
Power Protein shake (laced with a scoop of Risotriene®) and my eggs and
linkies. In a few minutes I will immerse myself in God's Word for my daily
spiritual feeding; and in less than two hours I'll be driving over to the
YMCA for an incredible physical workout. Damn it's great being me.
--Geno<sitting on God's knee in the lap of luxury>Royer
www.royergovernance.com
www.churchboardleadership.com
http://mastersfitness.royergovernance.com/fitlog/
B. Callaghan
"Gene Royer" <sire...@mindset.net> wrote in message
news:10be674...@corp.supernews.com...
> Ahh, a doomsayer speaks. And always with the expected hyperbole: "refuse
> heap" "nuclear waste", etc, and, of course, implicating George W Bush and
> Ted Nugent--two fine, conservative Real Americans as the perpetrators. How
> typically Liberal.
People like George Bush and Ted Nugent are openly and proudly
anti-environmental, yet they live on huge spreads of land which they enjoy,
far from polluted air and water.
> For your information, please take comfort in knowing that the planet is not
> being turned into a refuse heap.
The planet is most certainly being turned into a refuse heap. There is
no comfort to be taken in that fact. And it is a fact, whether you want to see
it or not.
> Perhaps in your small corner of existence
> there is a trashy mess--if so, put it on the curb and let the big truck haul
> it off.
And haul it off exactly where? A local dump? A sanitary landfill
(hopefully lined)? A municipal incinerator?
There comes a point where local landfills are saturated and there
is no developable land available which will not infringe on an existing
neighborhood. There comes a point whereat aquifurs and other sources
of drinking water risk contamination from landfills. I'm talking sanitary
landfills, not "other" waste. So then what happens. The truck brings it
somewhere else, where they still have land to dump it. And if they can't
find someone to take it, then they send it someplace to be burned. This
of course, vaporizes metals and releases acid gas into the environment.
Hopefully they have good high scrubbers to minimalize the damage, and
competent operators to regulate the temperature of incineration to reduce
the amount of particulates released into the surrounding atmosphere.
Then what happens to the fly ash and bottom ash? Who gives a fuck,
right? As long as it goes Somewhere Else.
I haven't even addressed the problem of medical waste and industrial
waste. Toxic waste and nuclear waste. On a barge somewhere to Venezuela.
Or Africa. Not much they can do with it -- it's not exactly like recycling
newspapers into cute greeting cards. They'll just find some piece of land to
bury the solids in, or some body of water to dump the liquid in and all is right
with the world those silly liberals and tree huggers look how fat Merkins are
and I don't have skin cancer so there's no hole in the ozone layer I can't hear
you I can't hear you la-la-la-la la!
> The life expectancy of
> humans living in civilized nations has increased significantly in the last
> 100 years, and it continues to rise decade by decade. Intelligent people
> live longer and enjoy life more than did their parents and grandparents.
> Before you have your doomsayer kneejerk reaction, please notice the
> qualifiers: "civilized nations" and "intelligent people".
So, ... people who don't live longer and enjoy life more than their
parents and grandparents did are by your definition not intelligent?
Curious, this standard of yours.
>Third-world countries are not civilized by American standards,
No they're not. They're undeveolped countries which accept waste from
the civilized countries of the world. You can always tell the capital cities of
the civilized countries - just look for the haze.
>and that includes Canada,
Oh.
> BTW. Intelligent people don't drag around 40 or 50 pounds (or more) of
> hideous bodyfat; and they don't have their drug dealer's phone number on
> speed dial. They are the ones who keep the actuarial numbers from rising
> even higher.
Well hey, let's hear it for the intelligent people! Yahoo! Intelligent
people RULE. Maybe they can come up with a coherent plan to save
the planet. Or maybe they'll just go off and make lotsa money or sitcoms
and not have to worry about all this shit.
> Yes, the planet is an incredibly nice place to live. And the cyclical life
> systems that sustain it continue to spiral upward and not down.
If you're a cockroach.
HAND at the gym.
- bettina
Gene Royer
>
> "Gene Royer" <sire...@mindset.net> wrote in message
> news:10be674...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Ahh, a doomsayer speaks. And always with the expected hyperbole:
"refuse
> > heap" "nuclear waste", etc, and, of course, implicating George W Bush
and
> > Ted Nugent--two fine, conservative Real Americans as the perpetrators.
How
> > typically Liberal.
>
>
> People like George Bush and Ted Nugent are openly and proudly
> anti-environmental, yet they live on huge spreads of land which they
enjoy,
> far from polluted air and water.
Negative. Both men are avid hunters and fishermen, and are both involved in
preserving the environment. And the last I heard, GW Bush was living in
government housing in Washington D.C. He expects to live there at least
another four 'naf years.
> > > For your information, please take comfort in knowing that the planet
is not
> > being turned into a refuse heap.
>
> The planet is most certainly being turned into a refuse heap.
There is
> no comfort to be taken in that fact. And it is a fact, whether you want
to see
> it or not.
Negative. Air is pure and clean and so is water. The airwaves, however,
are polluted--and getting worse every year.
>
>
> > Perhaps in your small corner of existence
> > there is a trashy mess--if so, put it on the curb and let the big truck
haul
> > it off.
>
> And haul it off exactly where? A local dump? A sanitary
landfill
> (hopefully lined)? A municipal incinerator?
>
> There comes a point where local landfills are saturated and there
> is no developable land available which will not infringe on an existing
> neighborhood. There comes a point whereat aquifurs and other sources
> of drinking water risk contamination from landfills. I'm talking sanitary
> landfills, not "other" waste. So then what happens. The truck brings it
> somewhere else, where they still have land to dump it. And if they can't
> find someone to take it, then they send it someplace to be burned. This
> of course, vaporizes metals and releases acid gas into the environment.
> Hopefully they have good high scrubbers to minimalize the damage, and
> competent operators to regulate the temperature of incineration to reduce
> the amount of particulates released into the surrounding atmosphere.
>
> Then what happens to the fly ash and bottom ash? Who gives a fuck,
> right? As long as it goes Somewhere Else.
Well, I guess the only solution is for people to stop existing. Lordy
lordyŽ.
There is a beautiful golf course near my house (I am a well-to-do
conservative republican, and I could go there and play if I wanted to, but I
don't), and it used to be a landfill. In fact, 25 years ago when I was a
well-to-do trucking executive, my trucks would take their occasional load
there and dump it. It was called Dody Landfill. Now, as a golf course, it
has rolling hills and lakes and sand traps and bunkers and all those other
golf terms. It has been in operation for 25 years, and no one has died from
it.
I don't play there because I don't play golf. I am a health and fitness
enthusiast, and I spend my fitness energy in other ways.
> I haven't even addressed the problem of medical waste and
industrial
> waste. Toxic waste and nuclear waste. On a barge somewhere to Venezuela.
> Or Africa. Not much they can do with it -- it's not exactly like
recycling
> newspapers into cute greeting cards. They'll just find some piece of land
to
> bury the solids in, or some body of water to dump the liquid in and all is
right
> with the world those silly liberals and tree huggers look how fat Merkins
are
> and I don't have skin cancer so there's no hole in the ozone layer I can't
hear
> you I can't hear you la-la-la-la la!
Lordy, lordyŽ, do you still fret over the "ozone hole"? That's silly.
You've been spending way too much time watching CNN.
> > The life expectancy of
> > humans living in civilized nations has increased significantly in the
last
> > 100 years, and it continues to rise decade by decade. Intelligent
people
> > live longer and enjoy life more than did their parents and grandparents.
>
> > Before you have your doomsayer kneejerk reaction, please notice the
> > qualifiers: "civilized nations" and "intelligent people".
>
> So, ... people who don't live longer and enjoy life more than their
> parents and grandparents did are by your definition not intelligent?
> Curious, this standard of yours.
See, you had your doomsayer kneejerk reaction in spite of my warning and
admonition. You liberals cannot help yourselves, can you? Truth is,
intelligent people do live longer and enjoy life more than did their parents
and grandparents. People with a lower intelligence quotient are more prone
to overeating, overdosing and over out-lawing the others. They end up on a
morgue slab a lot sooner than do those who do not.
I bet you're fat, aren't you? That's why you bristled so when I wrote that.
sigh
>
>
> >Third-world countries are not civilized by American standards,
>
> No they're not. They're undeveolped countries which accept waste from
> the civilized countries of the world. You can always tell the capital
cities of
> the civilized countries - just look for the haze.
I was in Germany three summers ago, and we could not see the Alps because of
the haze. I went back in the fall, and everything was clear as a bell. Go
figger.
In 1943 when I was a small child and there were virtually no automobiles nor
industrialization in Southern California, there was a continuous haze
covering the environs. They called it smog...a climatic combination of
smoke and fog.
Now, 50 years later, the wacko environmentalists are blaming the smog on
automobiles and industrialization. What a hoot.
> >and that includes Canada,
>
> Oh.
Yes, it's true. Canada consists of a very large country where 80 percent
of their population is huddled against the U.S. border in order to exist.
They import practically everything they use from the USA. Heck, they even
import me. And I insist on payment up front.
>
>
> > BTW. Intelligent people don't drag around 40 or 50 pounds (or more) of
> > hideous bodyfat; and they don't have their drug dealer's phone number on
> > speed dial. They are the ones who keep the actuarial numbers from
rising
> > even higher.
>
> Well hey, let's hear it for the intelligent people! Yahoo!
Intelligent
> people RULE. Maybe they can come up with a coherent plan to save
> the planet. Or maybe they'll just go off and make lotsa money or sitcoms
> and not have to worry about all this shit.
Yes, intelligent people do rule, and they rule the ones who are lacking.
Which category do you fit into?
>
>
> > Yes, the planet is an incredibly nice place to live. And the cyclical
life
> > systems that sustain it continue to spiral upward and not down.
>
> If you're a cockroach.
Cockroaches have been around for more than a million years. They will be
with us another million. From the way you describe life, I would like to
see some jpegs of the place you live. No, on second thought I would not. I
hate squalor.
> HAND at the gym.
> - bettina
I would respond to "HAND at the gym", but I don't understand what you mean.
My workout this morning was fantastic. I pumped iron with a group of young
negro men who were eager to out perform each other. They are all
Christians, of course, (The YMCA is the Young Mens Christian Association),
and I enjoyed their company.
At this moment, Mrs Geno is preparing a hash made of fresh peeled and slice
Irish potatoes and some chuck roast I sliced earlier in the afternoon. She
will add onions, pepper, a few other spices and just a touch of belladonna.
Of course, I'll wash mine down with Jack Daniels and branch water--as the
branch that runs behind the manor grounds is clear and safe to drink from.
You have an excellent weekend. Stay safe and try to lose a few pounds. You
will feel much better about yourself and the planet upon which you forage.
--Geno<basking in the light of God's brightness>Royer
Josh Hill
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>
>"B. Callaghan" <bett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:c97ko...@news3.newsguy.com...
>> People like George Bush and Ted Nugent are openly and proudly
>> anti-environmental, yet they live on huge spreads of land which they
>enjoy,
>> far from polluted air and water.
>
>Negative. Both men are avid hunters and fishermen, and are both involved in
>preserving the environment.
(Tries unsuccessfully to keep lunch from soiling keyboard)
--
Josh
To reply by email, delete "REMOVE" from the email address.
B. Callaghan
> And the last I heard, GW Bush was living in
> government housing in Washington D.C. He expects to live there at least
> another four 'naf years.
Last I heard, Bush was busy giving away the state of Alaska to his buds,
sabotaging the Clean Air Act and undermining the FDA.
> Negative. Air is pure and clean and so is water. The airwaves, however,
> are polluted--and getting worse every year.
This is all just a big joke to you, I see.
> Well, I guess the only solution is for people to stop existing. Lordy
> lordyŽ.
>
> There is a beautiful golf course near my house (I am a well-to-do
> conservative republican, and I could go there and play if I wanted to, but I
> don't), and it used to be a landfill. In fact, 25 years ago when I was a
> well-to-do trucking executive, my trucks would take their occasional load
> there and dump it. It was called Dody Landfill. Now, as a golf course, it
> has rolling hills and lakes and sand traps and bunkers and all those other
> golf terms. It has been in operation for 25 years, and no one has died from
> it.
It's been operating since 1979? That's good! Very encouraging
for an example of recycling, which, combined with reducing the number
of disposable products, is really the best hope of reducing the vast
amount of refuse produced in industrialized nations. I don't think too
many landfills these days would readily lend themselves to golf courses,
even after reseeding, but your example is heartening. As for your
comment that "no one has died from it", my concern was that landfills
(especially unlined ones, as probably the Dody Landfill was) are at risk
of leeching out and contaminating aquifers and, eventually, groundwater.
> Lordy, lordyŽ, do you still fret over the "ozone hole"? That's silly.
> You've been spending way too much time watching CNN.
I spend little time watching CNN or other news shows. I am
especially concerned that suspected holes in the ozone directly
correlate with areas reporting increased skin cancers and melanomas
(i.e. information obtained from cluster studies).
> See, you had your doomsayer kneejerk reaction in spite of my warning and
> admonition. You liberals cannot help yourselves, can you? Truth is,
> intelligent people do live longer and enjoy life more than did their parents
> and grandparents. People with a lower intelligence quotient are more prone
> to overeating, overdosing and over out-lawing the others. They end up on a
> morgue slab a lot sooner than do those who do not.
>
> I bet you're fat, aren't you? That's why you bristled so when I wrote that.
> sigh
Let's see, in your first response you cited me for "always with the
expected hyperbole"; yet here in one paragraph you intimate I'm a
liberal, a doomsayer, kneejerker, fat, and, later to wit to end, living
in squalor.
> I was in Germany three summers ago, and we could not see the Alps because of
> the haze. I went back in the fall, and everything was clear as a bell. Go
> figger.
>
> In 1943 when I was a small child and there were virtually no automobiles nor
> industrialization in Southern California, there was a continuous haze
> covering the environs. They called it smog...a climatic combination of
> smoke and fog.
Ok, there's such a phenomenon as natural smog. But are you flat-out
denying the existence of air pollution? Or would this not fit in with your
modeling of upward spirility (!)
> Now, 50 years later, the wacko environmentalists are blaming the smog on
> automobiles and industrialization. What a hoot.
> Yes, intelligent people do rule, and they rule the ones who are lacking.
> Which category do you fit into?
It's for other peeps to say, not me. I try my best to do a good job;
protection of the environment is a substantial part of it.
> > HAND at the gym.
> I would respond to "HAND at the gym", but I don't understand what you mean.
Silly! It's Have a NiCe Day! But if you like hand better, that's fine.
You and Mrs. Geno have an excellent weekend too.
- bettina
Gene Royer
Your respnse was just too precious to snip <g>.
Whoop! You liberals and your made-up-on-the-spot acronyms. You're a hoot.
That idiot zero also adds those to the bottoms of his inane messages. I
haven't seen Josh do it, but I don't read him that much, and he seldom
responses to my information either.
Today will be a great day here in the land that God has blessed. I'm
speaking, of course, of the United States of America--and Houston, Texas
specifically. We'll have temps near 90F with good humidity to keep the skin
moist and healthy.
I arose late this morning--far from my normal 3:30 ayem time. And after
feeding all the inside and outside cats, giving the diabetic ones their
insulin and a few cc's of Pepto Bismol to my oldest calico with an upset
stomach, I managed to polish off my second cuppa before settling down here
to respond to this thread. And what a great thread it is, too.
Ulysis, my little buddy from Central America will come by later this morning
to mow the manor grounds and trim some high branches that are yielding too
much shade to the garden area; and I will sit and watch him. My little
negro mailman lady usually comes by about eleven to share a frosty root beer
with me beneath one of the magnolias.
She is a neat little gal, and I love to watch her enjoy the root beer and
see the froth foam up on her big ol' lips. I'm expecting a check today from
a client in Canada, and she always wants the cancelled stamps. She says she
has a great collection.
After she leaves I will go to the YMCA and do some leg and abdominal work.
Three or four sets of heavy squats, some burning calf-raises and a hundred
or so abdominal crunches takes about half an hour. It is doubtful if I will
burn 3500 calories today, but 30 minutes running on the treadmill will
contribute toward that total.
I feel so great! I love being me. I wish everyone could be as healthy and
happy.
On another note, I was not aware that Dubya is giving Alaska away to his
friends as Callaghan avers. That's good news because I AMŽ a pal of his,
and I would like a little chunk of Alaska. I will write him today and call
in a few favors he owes me. Me and his daddy go way back--and I'd like some
of that bumpy, green area just a little to the right of the second big "A"
where it's written across the map.
There's lots of oil up there, BTW, and we can use it. I mean, have you ever
seen gas this high before? Lordy lordyŽ
The only people who are not complaining about the price of gas are the wacko
environmentalists because they are mostly too poor to own cars anyway. Or
else they all ride around in an ancient VW van from the 60s and they pool
their meager money for a few gallons a week. What a pathetic bunch of
nutcakes they are. God have mercy on them.
Me go now.
--Geno<refreshed in God's living waters>Royer
Gene Royer
"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:ifpfb0h549dm0ehce...@4ax.com...
You are joking, of course; as my statement was true.
By the way, Nugent's great book "Kill It and Grill It" is a tribute to
selective hunting and gastronomical enjoyment. He's a Real American.
Today I plan on grilling half a piglet. It's been soaking in the sauce since
about 8:30 last night and should be ready for the coals about noon. Ulysis
will be here to turn it from time to time while I'm at the Y. He's good
with outside cookers.
I'll have a wash tub full of iced beer and soft drinks, and Mrs Geno will
open a half dozen cans of baked beans with sausage chips in it.
In the late afternoon, the neighbors will drift by for a bite or two. I
know my negro neighbor across the street who is on welfare will send her two
sons over--if they not still in bed. They do not usually get up until the
sun is low on the horizon.
The gay Filipinos next door love BBQ, so they will come over--even though
they know that Ulysis does not like homosexuals. Last time, they mixed
their beer with white wine and sipped it. Ulysis calls it "Queer Beer".
Cason Cooley told me he was planning on bringing a gallon jug of jalipeppers
from his daddy's garden over in Louisiana. I hope his pretty daughters show
up with him because it will be nice to have some nice looking caucasians to
look at. Last year there were enough young negroes in my front yard to
shoot an episode of "What's Happening".
We will have a great weekend/Memorial Day celebration.
God Bless America and God Bless George W Bush.
--Geno<sitting on God's knee in the Lap of Luxury>Royer
Rick
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
> --Geno<sitting on God's knee in the Lap of Luxury>Royer
Aren't you dead yet?
--
Rick
Gene Royer
"Rick" <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:290520041024296759%ric...@nyc.rr.com...
How silly. Of course I'm not dead.
While I sit here and watch Ulysis through the window as he happily mows with
my lawn tractor, I sip a Power ProteinŽ shake and do my Dynamic Tension
exercises (an old Charles Atlas routine I learned as a child), and prepare
for my workout. When I return, the piglet will be on the grill, and the air
will be awaft with hickory smoke and the smell of BBQ sauce simmering on
grilling pork.
Ahh, Nugent would be proud.
Try to forget your lowly place in life, Rick, and have a pleasant weekend.
And be thankful for the many Real Americans who sacrificed so much so that
you could have so little.
Damn I'm funny.
--Geno<tickling God's funny bone>Royer
Josh Hill
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
http://www.12move.de/home/crumb/char_white.htm
>We will have a great weekend/Memorial Day celebration.
http://www.12move.de/home/crumb/w10.htm
>
>God Bless America and God Bless George W Bush.
He would, but He's been laid off.
Oh, wait, I used that.
Josh Hill
Since 1962, I think.
Josh Hill
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>Whoop! You liberals and your made-up-on-the-spot acronyms. You're a hoot.
>That idiot zero also adds those to the bottoms of his inane messages. I
>haven't seen Josh do it, but I don't read him that much, and he seldom
>responses to my information either.
WTFDYMB"I,"WM?
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:24:29 GMT, Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <10bh6un...@corp.supernews.com>, Gene Royer
>><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>>
>>> --Geno<sitting on God's knee in the Lap of Luxury>Royer
>>
>>Aren't you dead yet?
>
>Since 1962, I think.
And that would be the last time you did.
Ray
SPAM is not a food group. I'm just fed up with it.
Use rhaddad(at)iexpress(dot)net(dot)au to reply.
Gene Royer
"Ray___(H)" <RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote in message
news:r5thb0p983tpt9hn0...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 13:05:50 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>
> >On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:24:29 GMT, Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <10bh6un...@corp.supernews.com>, Gene Royer
> >><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> --Geno<sitting on God's knee in the Lap of Luxury>Royer
> >>
> >>Aren't you dead yet?
> >
> >Since 1962, I think.
>
> And that would be the last time you did.
>
> Ray
>
Whoop! Damn you're funny. Good'un, Ray.
--Geno
Stan (the Man)
Josh Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 08:48:47 -0500, "Gene Royer"
> <sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Whoop! You liberals and your made-up-on-the-spot acronyms. You're a hoot.
>>That idiot zero also adds those to the bottoms of his inane messages. I
>>haven't seen Josh do it, but I don't read him that much, and he seldom
>>responses to my information either.
>
>
> WTFDYMB"I,"WM?
FYI, Geno, the above acronym means, "What the fuck do you men by "I,"
white man. Of course, if *you* had noted skin color in one of your
posts, whether tongue in cheek or otherwise, enlightened Josh would've
shit all over himself to smack you for racism.
You're a racist, Josh. The ugliest kind--a sneaky racist. Yeah, I know,
you've been accused of it before, but it bears repeating.
--
Stan
Josh Hill
<RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 May 2004 13:05:50 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>
>>On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:24:29 GMT, Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <10bh6un...@corp.supernews.com>, Gene Royer
>>><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> --Geno<sitting on God's knee in the Lap of Luxury>Royer
>>>
>>>Aren't you dead yet?
>>
>>Since 1962, I think.
>
>And that would be the last time you did.
This is strangely reminiscent of having one's weight loss program
criticized by a whale.
Rick
<sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote:
> FYI, Geno, the above acronym means, "What the fuck do you men by "I,"
> white man.
He couldn't figure this out himself? Silly old coot. Should be dead.
> Of course, if *you* had noted skin color in one of your
> posts, whether tongue in cheek or otherwise, enlightened Josh would've
> shit all over himself to smack you for racism.
Geno IS a racist, a fullstripe racist. And a homophobe. And a sexist.
He thinks that he can hide all that with humor, but it doesn't work.
His ugliness is plain for all to see.
> You're a racist, Josh.
Is not.
--
Rick
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:38:38 +0800, "Ray___(H)"
><RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 May 2004 13:05:50 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:24:29 GMT, Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <10bh6un...@corp.supernews.com>, Gene Royer
>>>><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> --Geno<sitting on God's knee in the Lap of Luxury>Royer
>>>>
>>>>Aren't you dead yet?
>>>
>>>Since 1962, I think.
>>
>>And that would be the last time you did.
>
>This is strangely reminiscent of having one's weight loss program
>criticized by a whale.
Whoosh!
Stan (the Man)
Rick wrote:
Most definitely so.
--
Stan
Ray___(H)
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonline.net> instead replied:
Which is so? That he is not a racist or that he is one? Is the last
statement the one you agree with or the one before.
Ray
Gene Royer
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:KU6uc.86460$cz5.32...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
A very apt observation, Stan.
Gene Royer
"strangely reminiscent", eh? You mean it's happened to you before, has it?
Gene Royer
How dare you call me plain and ugly.
Of course, homosexuality is repugnant, but who with any decency doesn't know
that? In fact, most everyone does but they are afraid to admit it publicly
lest they be called "homophobic". That moniker doesn't bother me because I
know that to most people, the image of two men flailing and flouncing away
in anal ecstasy like two suffocating fish out of water is humorously
disgusting.
BTW, "homophobic" means fear of homosexuals, but I can whip most of them I
know; so what's there to be afraid of. The really big ones I steer clear
of.
And as for being sexist, I admit...I am afraid of women. In fact, they
scare the pants off me.
Damn, I'm funny, and even you admit it. Thanks.
Now be a good boy, and stop sucking off other men. It's hygienically
untoward.
--Geno
Stan (the Man)
Ray___(H) wrote:
Absolutely!
--
Stan
Gene Royer
watermelon, I cut off a huge chunk of BBQ pork and have repaired inside to
eat it away from the noise. Ulysis is a master chef when it comes to
outside cooking.
Yummy!
All my cats are under the bed because of the chatter and the boombox music.
My front yard sounds like Soul Train.
The boys from across the street showed up and brought their portable TV to
watch the NBA. Last I saw, they were tuned to the WNBA. Bummer.
--Geno<have a good weekend everyone>Royer
Rick
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
> Of course, homosexuality is repugnant, but who with any decency doesn't know
> that? In fact, most everyone does but they are afraid to admit it publicly
> lest they be called "homophobic". That moniker doesn't bother me because I
> know that to most people, the image of two men flailing and flouncing away
> in anal ecstasy like two suffocating fish out of water is humorously
> disgusting.
Thank you for proving my case. Now go run off someplace and die, you
silly old coot.
--
Rick
Josh Hill
Don't talk about Zen that way.
Josh Hill
Whoosh!
Josh Hill
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>
>"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote in message
>news:KU6uc.86460$cz5.32...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>
>>
>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 29 May 2004 08:48:47 -0500, "Gene Royer"
>> > <sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Whoop! You liberals and your made-up-on-the-spot acronyms. You're a
>hoot.
>> >>That idiot zero also adds those to the bottoms of his inane messages. I
>> >>haven't seen Josh do it, but I don't read him that much, and he seldom
>> >>responses to my information either.
>> >
>> >
>> > WTFDYMB"I,"WM?
>>
>> FYI, Geno, the above acronym means, "What the fuck do you men by "I,"
>> white man. Of course, if *you* had noted skin color in one of your
>> posts, whether tongue in cheek or otherwise, enlightened Josh would've
>> shit all over himself to smack you for racism.
>>
>> You're a racist, Josh. The ugliest kind--a sneaky racist. Yeah, I know,
>> you've been accused of it before, but it bears repeating.
>>
>> --
>> Stan
>
>
>A very apt observation, Stan.
You mean that people who go about making fun of black people aren't
racist while those who don't are?
I confess that the genius of it astounds me, but then, I'm easily awed
by displays of intellectual prowess.
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>On Sat, 29 May 2004 16:52:08 -0500, "Gene Royer"
><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>
>>"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
>>news:oruhb017p0l44ur61...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:38:38 +0800, "Ray___(H)"
>>> <RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 29 May 2004 13:05:50 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>> >and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>>> >
>>> >>On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:24:29 GMT, Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>In article <10bh6un...@corp.supernews.com>, Gene Royer
>>> >>><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> --Geno<sitting on God's knee in the Lap of Luxury>Royer
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Aren't you dead yet?
>>> >>
>>> >>Since 1962, I think.
>>> >
>>> >And that would be the last time you did.
>>>
>>> This is strangely reminiscent of having one's weight loss program
>>> criticized by a whale.
>>>
>>> Josh
>>
>>"strangely reminiscent", eh? You mean it's happened to you before, has it?
>
>Don't talk about Zen that way.
You are a shameless gossip.
Josh Hill
<RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 May 2004 19:57:50 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>
>>On Sat, 29 May 2004 16:52:08 -0500, "Gene Royer"
>><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:oruhb017p0l44ur61...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:38:38 +0800, "Ray___(H)"
>>>> <RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Sat, 29 May 2004 13:05:50 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>> >and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>>>> >
>>>> >>On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:24:29 GMT, Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>In article <10bh6un...@corp.supernews.com>, Gene Royer
>>>> >>><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> --Geno<sitting on God's knee in the Lap of Luxury>Royer
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Aren't you dead yet?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Since 1962, I think.
>>>> >
>>>> >And that would be the last time you did.
>>>>
>>>> This is strangely reminiscent of having one's weight loss program
>>>> criticized by a whale.
>>>>
>>>> Josh
>>>
>>>"strangely reminiscent", eh? You mean it's happened to you before, has it?
>>
>>Don't talk about Zen that way.
>
>You are a shameless gossip.
Right, like Zen's never called me fat in a post to someone else.
Give me a ring when you get back from lunch.
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>I'm easily awed by displays of intellectual prowess.
This, my friend, may go down as the understatement of the year.
Stan (the Man)
Now, Josh the genius thinks that because he pointed his finger at
someone else and said, "But, he's a racist toooooooooooooooo," that he
has presented some kind of defense of his own, ugly racism. Yep, a
genius. Mr. Logic. A racist. That's Josh.
Gawd.
--
Stan
Josh Hill
<RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 May 2004 20:04:17 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>
>>I'm easily awed by displays of intellectual prowess.
>
>This, my friend, may go down as the understatement of the year.
Why, is there a new approach on your side of the bell curve?
Ray___(H)
Josh,
I'm just kidding but thanks for illustrating something. If you think a
behavior is "all right" because someone else did it then you ought to
be just fine with parading prisoners around on leashes. After all,
it's been done now.
Gene Royer
Well! I've never been so insulted in all my life!
--Geno
Josh Hill
<RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
But, rather obviously, I don't think that.
Gotta run -- Zen asked me to take care of his dog while he moves.
Gene Royer
The fact that you deem it racist to make fun of "black" people, as you call
them, is a sign that you are a racist. Why do you set that particular group
of people aside and say they are off limits for poking fun? Why have you
separated them from the rest of the population? What makes them so verboten
(look it up) that they cannot be touched by satire and biting humor?
I make fun of all people--even myself; and I notice you did not think it
unseemly when Rick called me a silly old coot and told me to go somewhere
and die. You prolly thought that was cool because in your eyes it's okay to
degrade old people but not "black" people. You have attached a stigma to
"black" people and to their existence because of their skin color, which--in
your mind--makes it a bad thing to poke fun at them. That's silly. You are
a racist segregationalist.
In truth, negroes are no different from you and me--mebbe uglier--but
ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. So, they are not off-limits. They
are as fair game as is any other segment of the world's
population...including homosexuals.
--Geno<glad I could clear that up for you>Royer
Gene Royer
I didn't know you were also fat. Fat is horrible.
Lordy, don't you have ANYTHING going for you, Josh?
--Geno
Stan (the Man)
Josh Hill wrote:
<...>
> Gotta run -- Zen asked me to take care of his dog while he moves.
As you were, Josh. I'm reasonably certain that dogs prefer to be blown
by other dogs.
--
Stan
Josh Hill
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>I didn't know you were also fat. Fat is horrible.
Ideal body mass index and close to my ideal weight, thanks, due of
course to the fact that I never work out and eat whatever I want. In
fact, I'm thinking of starting a website centered around my health
program, Stay Fit, Trim, Healthy, and Immortal Without Doing Any of
the Work That Geno Does.
>Lordy, don't you have ANYTHING going for you, Josh?
Well, let's see: charming, brilliant, handsome, successful, educated,
loved, respected, kind, generous, moral, and a magnet for beautiful
women -- fearsome warrior and man of peace, mathematician and poet,
equally at home quarterbacking for the NFL or improvising a six-part
fugue or strumming his guitar before a sea of screaming teenagers --
feted by kings, queens, presidents, and princes, yet never so proud as
to reject the friendship of the humble -- modest --
Josh Hill
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
Humor is ultimately a form of criticism, Geno, and when directed
against an individual or group it can be a vicious weapon, one which
reinforces or even creates the stereotypes that lead to . The
"humorous" iconography of racism -- bug eyed, stupid, lazy, scheming,
shuffling, dialect-spouting, banjo-strumming, watermelon-eating black
people -- is abundant in our country's slave-owning, Jim Crow past,
and was used to justify both slavery and discrimination. It's no
accident that we, as a society, have abandoned and come to frown upon
such humor as we've made social progress. Does that abandonment
sometimes constitute political correctness in the sense that common
characteristics such as the use of dialect can't be mimicked? Sure.
It's part of a taboo, and taboos, by their nature, prohibit
actualities. But by the same token, they're a universal, necessary,
and where appropriate beneficial part of human culture.
The question of whether you are, to a significant degree, a racist is
a more complicated one. I don't know you in real life, Geno, and from
my perspective the evidence you've presented here is somewhat
ambiguous. You said once that you don't believe that shopkeepers
should be required to serve people not of their own race, but that
belief could be a libertarian rather than a racist one. You made light
of being called a racist, implying that you didn't care about the
term, but that can be ascribed to humor. Your "little brown person"
sketches seem to be intended as humorous paeans to diversity and
acceptance but to betray instead a nervous preoccupation with race,
ethnicity, and sexual variation and, above all, a deeply patronizing
attitude. I have the sense when I read them that you think that we
little brown or black or gay people are being honored by our admission
into the gardens or service of Your Lilly Whiteness, and that, as much
as anything else, contributes to my sense of your racial (and ethnic
and sexual) attitudes.
So, I remain open minded, but leaning like that thing in Pisa.
>I make fun of all people--even myself; and I notice you did not think it
>unseemly when Rick called me a silly old coot and told me to go somewhere
>and die. You prolly thought that was cool because in your eyes it's okay to
>degrade old people but not "black" people.
You're sensitivity, however minor, to the ageism, sillyism, cootism,
and deathism in Rick's statement seems to me to undercut your own
argument. In fact, I did notice it and in fact thought briefly about
it, but it seemed to me a tit-for-tat, and unlike some in this froup,
I don't attach the same weight to response in kind as I do to
provocation.
> You have attached a stigma to
>"black" people and to their existence because of their skin color, which--in
>your mind--makes it a bad thing to poke fun at them. That's silly. You are
>a racist segregationalist.
Now you're just being ridiculous, Gene. The stigma already exists, as
events in our history and surveys of current attitudes amply
demonstrate, and your stereotyping, implicit in your humorous
depictions, merely reinforces it. It is that reinforcement to which I
object.
>In truth, negroes are no different from you and me--mebbe uglier--but
>ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. So, they are not off-limits. They
>are as fair game as is any other segment of the world's
>population...including homosexuals.
Black people are different than you and me, Geno, insofar as they have
been and continue to be subject to oppression and discrimination that
you and I haven't been. So too gay people, and we little brown bi
ones.
Rick
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
> Well! I've never been so insulted in all my life!
Why, thank you. Considering all the shit that's been flung at you
around here, that's a real compliment. <gawd, I'm funny!>
--
Rick
Rick
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
> In truth, negroes are no different from you and me--mebbe uglier--but
> ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. So, they are not off-limits. They
> are as fair game as is any other segment of the world's
> population...including homosexuals.
No one is questioning your right to say anything you want about anyone.
What's being questioned is whether what you're saying is right. Can you
grasp that distinction, silly old coot?
--
Rick
gekko
news:15tjb0hm79pn0888a...@4ax.com by Josh Hill
<Josh44...@snet.net> i see tonight:
> we
> little brown or black or gay people
Tee-hee!
--
gekko
We now return to our regularly scheduled flame-throwing.
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>Humor is ultimately a form of criticism
Oh, really? I made that observation about you when I identified your
so called "satire" being nothing more than insidious gossip in
another, weakly disguised form and you wailed about it incessantly.
It's pretty clear that in your world, applying the same concept to
Geno is fine but no one dare apply it to you.
Josh Hill
<RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 May 2004 12:08:03 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>
>>Humor is ultimately a form of criticism
>
>Oh, really? I made that observation about you when I identified your
>so called "satire" being nothing more than insidious gossip in
>another, weakly disguised form and you wailed about it incessantly.
>
>It's pretty clear that in your world, applying the same concept to
>Geno is fine but no one dare apply it to you.
Don't be a putz, Ray.
Sorry, I'm not being realistic.
Don't be a total putz.
I never suggested that satire wasn't critical, Ray. That would be
ridiculous.
I said it wasn't necessarily gossip.
And, of course it isn't, any more than all criticism is gossip.
For example, the statement, "Dubya is a putz" isn't gossip, even if I
make it to you, even if I make it to someone who also knows that he's
a putz. It's criticism.
And if I were to start a new threader named "Ray is a putz," that
wouldn't be gossip, either.
If, of course, I said to Gekko "Ray is a putz," that /would/ be
gossip.
And if she responded sarcastically, like, for example, by saying to me
"Ray is /so/ not a putz," that would be gossip, too.
But if I wrote a song called "The Ray is a Putz Two-Step" and posted
it in a thread called "The Ray is a Putz Two-Step," that wouldn't be
gossip.
And if I wrote that song in response to one of Gekko's posts, it
/might/ or /might not/ be gossip, depending.
Are you starting to get it now, Ray?
/All/ of these are critical. /Some/ are gossip.
Now run along and find some other boys who want to play.
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>Are you starting to get it now, Ray?
Not at all, Josh. You're pathetic attempts fail as miserably now as
they always do. But, thanks for trying. It's lovely to see you twist
in the wind as you hang there hoisted upon your own petard.
You are a silly, gossiping little schoolyard tongue wagger.
Gene Royer
Josh, the above is nothing but wordy, liberal psycobabble jibberish, and you
know it.
> The question of whether you are, to a significant degree, a racist is
> a more complicated one. I don't know you in real life, Geno, and from
> my perspective the evidence you've presented here is somewhat
> ambiguous. You said once that you don't believe that shopkeepers
> should be required to serve people not of their own race, but that
> belief could be a libertarian rather than a racist one.
It is a Constitutional one, ol' buddy. And please take note that I did not
say "caucasian shopkeepers" did I? No, I didn't.
I don't think shopkeepers--of any race or economic class--should have to
serve anyone they don't want to--whether it be of a race, religion, height,
weight, gender or political affiliation reason. People who take the risk to
open and operate their businesses should have a right to run them the way
they want to as long as they do not cause harm to the patrons.
There's nothing racist about that.
You made light
> of being called a racist, implying that you didn't care about the
> term, but that can be ascribed to humor. Your "little brown person"
> sketches seem to be intended as humorous paeans to diversity and
> acceptance but to betray instead a nervous preoccupation with race,
> ethnicity, and sexual variation and, above all, a deeply patronizing
> attitude. I have the sense when I read them that you think that we
> little brown or black or gay people are being honored by our admission
> into the gardens or service of Your Lilly Whiteness, and that, as much
> as anything else, contributes to my sense of your racial (and ethnic
> and sexual) attitudes.
What's wrong with saying "little brown person" when you openly say "black
people"? And you say "black people" all the time.
You have this separateness toward negroes that is racist. You need to get
that out of your psyche. It is so obvious.
>
> So, I remain open minded, but leaning like that thing in Pisa.
>
> >I make fun of all people--even myself; and I notice you did not think it
> >unseemly when Rick called me a silly old coot and told me to go somewhere
> >and die. You prolly thought that was cool because in your eyes it's okay
to
> >degrade old people but not "black" people.
>
> You're sensitivity, however minor, to the ageism, sillyism, cootism,
> and deathism in Rick's statement seems to me to undercut your own
> argument. In fact, I did notice it and in fact thought briefly about
> it, but it seemed to me a tit-for-tat, and unlike some in this froup,
> I don't attach the same weight to response in kind as I do to
> provocation.
I am not sensitive at all to ward ageism. Aging and eventual natural death
is a natural chronological phenomenon of life. Homosexuality, btw, is not
natural. It is repugnantly unnatural. And I did not feel provoked at all.
I, in fact, chuckled.
But it still amused me that you and your ilk did not think it unseemly.
> > You have attached a stigma to
> >"black" people and to their existence because of their skin color,
which--in
> >your mind--makes it a bad thing to poke fun at them. That's silly. You
are
> >a racist segregationalist.
>
> Now you're just being ridiculous, Gene. The stigma already exists, as
> events in our history and surveys of current attitudes amply
> demonstrate, and your stereotyping, implicit in your humorous
> depictions, merely reinforces it. It is that reinforcement to which I
> object.
And your pandering to their past continues to cement that stigma. Why don't
you allow negroes to be treated like the rest of American citizens instead
of insisting on leading them around in a bubble. Let them take their own
stand. They don't need a fat, liberal, mama's boy to take up for them.
>
> >In truth, negroes are no different from you and me--mebbe uglier--but
> >ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. So, they are not off-limits.
They
> >are as fair game as is any other segment of the world's
> >population...including homosexuals.
>
> Black people are different than you and me, Geno, insofar as they have
> been and continue to be subject to oppression and discrimination that
> you and I haven't been. So too gay people, and we little brown bi
> ones.
It is people like you who insist on there being differences between us and
who insist on different standards of conduct, achievement and for the way we
interact with each other as American citizens. And that is segregation.
And that is also racism.
I cannot speak for you, but homosexuals and bi sexuals are definitely
different from me.
--Geno
Josh Hill
<RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 May 2004 15:45:45 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>
>>Are you starting to get it now, Ray?
>
>Not at all, Josh. You're pathetic attempts fail as miserably now as
>they always do. But, thanks for trying. It's lovely to see you twist
>in the wind as you hang there hoisted upon your own petard.
>
>You are a silly, gossiping little schoolyard tongue wagger.
But, as always, you're unable to respond to the actual points. Rather,
you drag out the same silly names you used in the post before, and the
post before that, and the post before that, and so on all the way back
to the antediluvian fish that crawled from the scum a bit later and a
bit more slowly than its schoolmates.
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 04:04:14 +0800, "Ray___(H)"
><RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 May 2004 15:45:45 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>>
>>>Are you starting to get it now, Ray?
>>
>>Not at all, Josh. You're pathetic attempts fail as miserably now as
>>they always do. But, thanks for trying. It's lovely to see you twist
>>in the wind as you hang there hoisted upon your own petard.
>>
>>You are a silly, gossiping little schoolyard tongue wagger.
>
>But, as always, you're unable to respond to the actual points. Rather,
>you drag out the same silly names you used in the post before, and the
>post before that, and the post before that, and so on all the way back
>to the antediluvian fish that crawled from the scum a bit later and a
>bit more slowly than its schoolmates.
I note that even in this very denial you can't help from namecalling.
Oh, the irony of it all.
Josh Hill
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>
>"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:15tjb0hm79pn0888a...@4ax.com...
>> Humor is ultimately a form of criticism, Geno, and when directed
>> against an individual or group it can be a vicious weapon, one which
>> reinforces or even creates the stereotypes that lead to . The
>> "humorous" iconography of racism -- bug eyed, stupid, lazy, scheming,
>> shuffling, dialect-spouting, banjo-strumming, watermelon-eating black
>> people -- is abundant in our country's slave-owning, Jim Crow past,
>> and was used to justify both slavery and discrimination. It's no
>> accident that we, as a society, have abandoned and come to frown upon
>> such humor as we've made social progress. Does that abandonment
>> sometimes constitute political correctness in the sense that common
>> characteristics such as the use of dialect can't be mimicked? Sure.
>> It's part of a taboo, and taboos, by their nature, prohibit
>> actualities. But by the same token, they're a universal, necessary,
>> and where appropriate beneficial part of human culture.
>
>
>Josh, the above is nothing but wordy, liberal psycobabble jibberish, and you
>know it.
Nonsense, Geno (except insofar as it's wordy). The take on the
function of humor is my own, but it's not that great a stretch to get
there from generally accepted research and a bit of thinking about
when we use humor, its role in other primates, the effect it has on
us, and so forth. The association of our changing attitudes toward
racial humor and our treatment of minorities is, I think, abundantly
clear. the assertion regarding taboo was originally my own, but I've
seen others say the same thing over the years; taboos themselves are,
as I said, a human universal, and their form, function, and purpose
are well documented in the literature of psychology and anthropology.
As to liberalism, the position I take in this case is, of course, to
some extent a liberal one, although I think it's fair to note that the
taboo against racial humor has rapidly spread throughout our public
life and is so harsh that prominent people, Democratic or Republican,
lose their positions for using it. My sense in this case is that the
theory wasn't necessary to create that position: our use of humor and
our creation of taboos is determined in large measure by instinct, and
society senses, in ways it doesn't quite understand, when it's time to
recalibrate its notions of acceptability. The dynamic in personal life
seems to be different from that in public life, as it is in the case
of sexual taboos (e.g., you can tell a dirty joke at the office party
that you can't tell on TV). Too, southerners don't seem to have, in
private life, the same taboo against racial jokes that many
northerners do.
>> The question of whether you are, to a significant degree, a racist is
>> a more complicated one. I don't know you in real life, Geno, and from
>> my perspective the evidence you've presented here is somewhat
>> ambiguous. You said once that you don't believe that shopkeepers
>> should be required to serve people not of their own race, but that
>> belief could be a libertarian rather than a racist one.
>
>It is a Constitutional one, ol' buddy. And please take note that I did not
>say "caucasian shopkeepers" did I? No, I didn't.
>
>I don't think shopkeepers--of any race or economic class--should have to
>serve anyone they don't want to--whether it be of a race, religion, height,
>weight, gender or political affiliation reason. People who take the risk to
>open and operate their businesses should have a right to run them the way
>they want to as long as they do not cause harm to the patrons.
>
>There's nothing racist about that.
I agree, though I disagree vehemently with your position, since I
don't think it's a Constitutional issue and we're all familiar with
the effects of discrimination in employment and public accomodation.
>You made light
>> of being called a racist, implying that you didn't care about the
>> term, but that can be ascribed to humor. Your "little brown person"
>> sketches seem to be intended as humorous paeans to diversity and
>> acceptance but to betray instead a nervous preoccupation with race,
>> ethnicity, and sexual variation and, above all, a deeply patronizing
>> attitude. I have the sense when I read them that you think that we
>> little brown or black or gay people are being honored by our admission
>> into the gardens or service of Your Lilly Whiteness, and that, as much
>> as anything else, contributes to my sense of your racial (and ethnic
>> and sexual) attitudes.
>
>What's wrong with saying "little brown person" when you openly say "black
>people"? And you say "black people" all the time.
It's a matter of context, isn't it?
If I said "the black postman delivered my mail early this morning, and
when I went to the convenience store the little brown clerk gave me a
hearty welcome," I'd be saying something very different from "the
postman delivered my mail early this morning, and when I went to the
convenience store the clerk gave me a hearty welcome."
Of course, there are times when it's appropriate or necessary to call
attention to race: "Blacks are arrested at a higher rate than whites,"
"He was an elderly black man of dignified appearance, hair graying,
but with the youthful skin of those accomodated to the sun." But
calling it out routinely in other contexts seems to me suspect, and,
as I said, there seems to be something patronizing about the way you
describe it, even if that isn't your intent.
>You have this separateness toward negroes that is racist. You need to get
>that out of your psyche. It is so obvious.
What seperateness would that be, Geno? Our home was never segregated,
nor was my school, nor was my work. I've had black friends as far back
as I can remember. My family had a longstanding commitment to civil
rights -- my grandfather was fighting for integration as far back as
the 20's, and when my father died a few months ago, one of the people
who spoke at his funeral was the head of the local chapter of the
NAACP, who noted that he was the only white person in our community
who had attended their meetings. My current neighborhood is more than
half black, and race has never determined who comes through the door.
It's quite a stretch to get from that to a "seperateness towards
Negroes." If anything, my upbringing was the opposite, and it is for
that reason more than any other that I reject attempts to separate
people on the basis of race.
>> You're sensitivity, however minor, to the ageism, sillyism, cootism,
>> and deathism in Rick's statement seems to me to undercut your own
>> argument. In fact, I did notice it and in fact thought briefly about
>> it, but it seemed to me a tit-for-tat, and unlike some in this froup,
>> I don't attach the same weight to response in kind as I do to
>> provocation.
>
>I am not sensitive at all to ward ageism. Aging and eventual natural death
>is a natural chronological phenomenon of life. Homosexuality, btw, is not
>natural. It is repugnantly unnatural. And I did not feel provoked at all.
>I, in fact, chuckled.
>
>But it still amused me that you and your ilk did not think it unseemly.
For something that's "repugnantly unnatural," homosexuality sure is
common enough. It is found in every human society, and it is found in
our closest animal relatives. As I've said before, the fact that it
makes you uncomfortable isn't sufficient cause to make a judgment
regarding whether it's natural or not. Why not just say "Homosexuality
turns me off," which would be more honest and accurate?
>> Now you're just being ridiculous, Gene. The stigma already exists, as
>> events in our history and surveys of current attitudes amply
>> demonstrate, and your stereotyping, implicit in your humorous
>> depictions, merely reinforces it. It is that reinforcement to which I
>> object.
>
>And your pandering to their past continues to cement that stigma. Why don't
>you allow negroes to be treated like the rest of American citizens instead
>of insisting on leading them around in a bubble. Let them take their own
>stand. They don't need a fat, liberal, mama's boy to take up for them.
What was it you were just saying about seperatism, Geno? And now
you're saying "Let /them/ take /their own/ stand [emphasis mine]."
Black people are a minority in this country, Geno, perhaps 12% of the
population. They have stood up for and continue to stand up for their
rights, often against fearsome odds. But this being a democracy, they
cannot change the law unless the majority is with them, nor can the
rest of us ignore our moral duty to remedy the mistakes of the past
and behave fairly in the present. In that, we've made progress, but
it's equally obvious that we have a ways to go.
>> Black people are different than you and me, Geno, insofar as they have
>> been and continue to be subject to oppression and discrimination that
>> you and I haven't been. So too gay people, and we little brown bi
>> ones.
>
>It is people like you who insist on there being differences between us and
>who insist on different standards of conduct, achievement and for the way we
>interact with each other as American citizens.
You introduce the issue of different standards of conduct,
achievement, and interaction. I have discussed no such thing. In fact,
I believe that to the extent we have low expectations for people, they
will fulfill those expectations. I do agree, reluctantly, with the
need for Affirmative Action, but that is philosophically because it
has made up for the effects of segregation and in practicality it has
been perhaps the most successful social program in our country's
history, one that created a black middle class almost overnight and in
general moved women and minorities into positions that had been
largely closed to them.
> And that is segregation.
>And that is also racism.
I wasn't the one who stood at the schoohouse door with an axe handle,
Geno, nor was I the one who firebombed churches, or banned black
people from my own, or refused to let them patronize my store or sit
in the same section of the bus or work in my business or marry my
kids.
To claim that one isn't oneself racist is one thing, but to turn
things on their head and claim that those who have never themselves
discriminated and who have had a lifelong opposition to discrimination
are somehow the racists is disingenuous to the point of being
Orwellian.
>I cannot speak for you, but homosexuals and bi sexuals are definitely
>different from me.
Inevitable quip suppressed.
Gene Royer
Who said anything about rights? You need to tune in to the conversation
before you jump in with some ejaculated response that is off the subject.
You undoubtedly object to my reference to you and your butt buddies looking
like floundering fish on a pier. Well, that's my opinion, of course; and
you prolly think it looks sexy.
And no one is questioning the veracity of that but you. It is an amusing
image, eh?
--Geno
Gene Royer
>>
> For something that's "repugnantly unnatural," homosexuality sure is
> common enough. It is found in every human society, and it is found in
> our closest animal relatives. As I've said before, the fact that it
> makes you uncomfortable isn't sufficient cause to make a judgment
> regarding whether it's natural or not. Why not just say "Homosexuality
> turns me off," which would be more honest and accurate?
Homosexuality turns my stomach because it is an unnatural and perverted act.
It is the most disgusting thing two people can engage in that isn't
unlawful.
>
> >> Now you're just being ridiculous, Gene. The stigma already exists, as
> >> events in our history and surveys of current attitudes amply
> >> demonstrate, and your stereotyping, implicit in your humorous
> >> depictions, merely reinforces it. It is that reinforcement to which I
> >> object.
> >
> >And your pandering to their past continues to cement that stigma. Why
don't
> >you allow negroes to be treated like the rest of American citizens
instead
> >of insisting on leading them around in a bubble. Let them take their own
> >stand. They don't need a fat, liberal, mama's boy to take up for them.
>
> What was it you were just saying about seperatism, Geno? And now
> you're saying "Let /them/ take /their own/ stand [emphasis mine]."
Absolutely. Negro people are capable of taking their own stand without the
help of do-gooder liberals who for some reason think they are incapable of
standing by themselves. That is racism. It is the *looking-down* on a race
of people from an elitist POV. That is racism, Josh. Live with it. You're
a racist.
>
> Black people are a minority in this country, Geno, perhaps 12% of the
> population. They have stood up for and continue to stand up for their
> rights, often against fearsome odds. But this being a democracy, they
> cannot change the law unless the majority is with them, nor can the
> rest of us ignore our moral duty to remedy the mistakes of the past
> and behave fairly in the present. In that, we've made progress, but
> it's equally obvious that we have a ways to go.
What laws do they need to change? Right to vote? Right to go to school?
Right to work? Right to own property? Right to enter professional
fraternities? Right to work out at the YMCA? Right to worship? Right to
perform in movies and TV? Right to participate in major sports? Right to
use the internet?
My wife is in middle management, and she works for a negro woman. Her
co-worker is a large negro man. What laws do they need to change, Josh?
Why are you so opposed to letting the American human spirit of these people
carry them to achievement?
Asians come over here from countries that have dealt them far worse hands in
the last 50 years than have been to dealt American negroes, and they achieve
greatness. They do it because there are no do-gooder liberals carrying them
around like babies the way you people insist on treating American negroes.
You peole are elitist racists.
>
> >> Black people are different than you and me, Geno, insofar as they have
> >> been and continue to be subject to oppression and discrimination that
> >> you and I haven't been. So too gay people, and we little brown bi
> >> ones.
> >It is people like you who insist on there being differences between us
and
> >who insist on different standards of conduct, achievement and for the way
we
> >interact with each other as American citizens.
>
> You introduce the issue of different standards of conduct,
> achievement, and interaction. I have discussed no such thing. In fact,
> I believe that to the extent we have low expectations for people, they
> will fulfill those expectations. I do agree, reluctantly, with the
> need for Affirmative Action, but that is philosophically because it
> has made up for the effects of segregation and in practicality it has
> been perhaps the most successful social program in our country's
> history, one that created a black middle class almost overnight and in
> general moved women and minorities into positions that had been
> largely closed to them.
Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination and it is counterproductive to
achievement. it is racist because it qualifies a person based on the color
of his/her skin. That is racism. You are a racist.
> > And that is segregation.
> >And that is also racism.
>
> I wasn't the one who stood at the schoohouse door with an axe handle,
> Geno, nor was I the one who firebombed churches, or banned black
> people from my own, or refused to let them patronize my store or sit
> in the same section of the bus or work in my business or marry my
> kids.
Nor was it me. You have a very myopic view of racism. You seem to think
that the only racists are those wearing hoods and burning crosses. The
subtle side of racism is the kind you display. The elitist attitude you
have toward negro Americans that they cannot make it on their own unless you
and your ilk give them a hand out (frequently called a hand up). That is
racism.
>
> To claim that one isn't oneself racist is one thing, but to turn
> things on their head and claim that those who have never themselves
> discriminated and who have had a lifelong opposition to discrimination
> are somehow the racists is disingenuous to the point of being
> Orwellian.
You entertain racism in your own heart by your prejudicial and pandering
attitude toward negroes. It is discrimination because you are using skin
color (and race) as a standard of measure; and that is racism. You do not
look at negroes as fellow Americans, but as second-class citizens.
Everything you have written about the subject reeks of pandering and elitism
toward negroes. You cannot bring yourself to treat them as equal to
you--but that the rest of America must help them because they are not
capable of making it on their own by themselves.
That is racism. You are a racist.
--Geno
Gene Royer
"Gene Royer" <sire...@mindset.net> wrote in message
news:10bkqri...@corp.supernews.com...
Geno responds to his own amusing message and writes:
flop flop flop flop flop gasp gasp gasp gasp flop flop flop flop gasp gasp
--Geno<damn I'm funny>Royer
Gene Royer
After returning from my in-laws' home for a day of family visitation, I went
to the YMCA and did my macho workout. The Y where I attend is heavily
ethnic, and often I am the only caucasian in the place. Such was today.
One of my W/O partners was there with his son, who will be leaving in a few
weeks for football camp at Nebraska. Both he and his son have shaved
heads--but today both wore the traditional Aunt Jemima rags to keep the
sweat from running down and sullying the equipment.
The boy outlifted both of us old men. But I got a terrific workout just
trying to stay up with him. I came home pumped and feeling marvelous. Damn
it's great being me.
Everyone have a super holiday tomorrow, and don't let anything steal your
joy.
--Geno<basking in the light of God's brightness>Royer
Josh Hill
<RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:27:31 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>
>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 04:04:14 +0800, "Ray___(H)"
>><RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 May 2004 15:45:45 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>>>
>>>>Are you starting to get it now, Ray?
>>>
>>>Not at all, Josh. You're pathetic attempts fail as miserably now as
>>>they always do. But, thanks for trying. It's lovely to see you twist
>>>in the wind as you hang there hoisted upon your own petard.
>>>
>>>You are a silly, gossiping little schoolyard tongue wagger.
>>
>>But, as always, you're unable to respond to the actual points. Rather,
>>you drag out the same silly names you used in the post before, and the
>>post before that, and the post before that, and so on all the way back
>>to the antediluvian fish that crawled from the scum a bit later and a
>>bit more slowly than its schoolmates.
>
>I note that even in this very denial you can't help from namecalling.
This from the fellow who said, in his last post,
>>>You are a silly, gossiping little schoolyard tongue wagger.
?
Ray, /nobody/ could possibly be this dumb.
Josh Hill
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>
>"Rick" <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:300520041437215550%ric...@nyc.rr.com...
>> In article <10bjo1v...@corp.supernews.com>, Gene Royer
>> <sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In truth, negroes are no different from you and me--mebbe uglier--but
>> > ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. So, they are not off-limits.
>They
>> > are as fair game as is any other segment of the world's
>> > population...including homosexuals.
>>
>> No one is questioning your right to say anything you want about anyone.
>> What's being questioned is whether what you're saying is right. Can you
>> grasp that distinction, silly old coot?
>>
>> --
>> Rick
>
>
>Who said anything about rights? You need to tune in to the conversation
>before you jump in with some ejaculated response that is off the subject.
>
>You undoubtedly object to my reference to you and your butt buddies looking
>like floundering fish on a pier. Well, that's my opinion, of course
Arrive at after much experience, no doubt. Do you join in, or just
like to watch?
>; and
>you prolly think it looks sexy.
>
>And no one is questioning the veracity of that but you. It is an amusing
>image, eh?
>
>--Geno
>
>
>
>
Josh Hill
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>
>"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:lfkkb09nmp5ljcqoh...@4ax.com...
>> For something that's "repugnantly unnatural," homosexuality sure is
>> common enough. It is found in every human society, and it is found in
>> our closest animal relatives. As I've said before, the fact that it
>> makes you uncomfortable isn't sufficient cause to make a judgment
>> regarding whether it's natural or not. Why not just say "Homosexuality
>> turns me off," which would be more honest and accurate?
>
>Homosexuality turns my stomach because it is an unnatural and perverted act.
>It is the most disgusting thing two people can engage in that isn't
>unlawful.
Nah, they could listen to Lawrence Welk records. That aside, I agree.
I mean, what could be more disgusting than the sight of two beautiful
women kissing, then licking one another's nipples and fondling one
another's shapely breasts, then . . .
BRB
>> What was it you were just saying about seperatism, Geno? And now
>> you're saying "Let /them/ take /their own/ stand [emphasis mine]."
>
>Absolutely. Negro people are capable of taking their own stand without the
>help of do-gooder liberals who for some reason think they are incapable of
>standing by themselves. That is racism. It is the *looking-down* on a race
>of people from an elitist POV. That is racism, Josh. Live with it. You're
>a racist.
Sorry, Geno, but I'm not about to lose any sleep over siding with
those who face discrimination. This has nothing to do with whether
they're black or not, and nothing to do with looking down on them. It
has everything to do with the fact that they've being wronged.
>> Black people are a minority in this country, Geno, perhaps 12% of the
>> population. They have stood up for and continue to stand up for their
>> rights, often against fearsome odds. But this being a democracy, they
>> cannot change the law unless the majority is with them, nor can the
>> rest of us ignore our moral duty to remedy the mistakes of the past
>> and behave fairly in the present. In that, we've made progress, but
>> it's equally obvious that we have a ways to go.
>
>What laws do they need to change? Right to vote? Right to go to school?
>Right to work? Right to own property? Right to enter professional
>fraternities? Right to work out at the YMCA? Right to worship? Right to
>perform in movies and TV? Right to participate in major sports? Right to
>use the internet?
>
>My wife is in middle management, and she works for a negro woman. Her
>co-worker is a large negro man. What laws do they need to change, Josh?
>Why are you so opposed to letting the American human spirit of these people
>carry them to achievement?
>
>Asians come over here from countries that have dealt them far worse hands in
>the last 50 years than have been to dealt American negroes, and they achieve
>greatness. They do it because there are no do-gooder liberals carrying them
>around like babies the way you people insist on treating American negroes.
>You peole are elitist racists.
Geno, many of the laws that needed to be changed /were/ changed, and
that came about because a majority of Americans -- not just black --
decided they needed changing. There is no escaping that.
Within my own lifetime, blacks were legally denied employment,
housing, education, and services. To some extent, that continues, and
to the extent that it does, it is a fallacy to claim that nothing
needs changing, or that they should somehow pull themselves up by
their bootstraps.
When Affirmative Action was introduced, Geno, many of the construction
trades where I lived were lilly white, because the unions
discriminated against blacks. Black friends had a terrible time
finding decent housing, because real estate agents wouldn't sell them
housing below 96th Street. That is not an equal playing ground, and it
was not "babying" anyone to fight for the laws that changed it.
>> You introduce the issue of different standards of conduct,
>> achievement, and interaction. I have discussed no such thing. In fact,
>> I believe that to the extent we have low expectations for people, they
>> will fulfill those expectations. I do agree, reluctantly, with the
>> need for Affirmative Action, but that is philosophically because it
>> has made up for the effects of segregation and in practicality it has
>> been perhaps the most successful social program in our country's
>> history, one that created a black middle class almost overnight and in
>> general moved women and minorities into positions that had been
>> largely closed to them.
>
>Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination and it is counterproductive to
>achievement. it is racist because it qualifies a person based on the color
>of his/her skin. That is racism. You are a racist.
No. Affirmative Action neither requires nor countenances the
appointment of unqualified people on the basis of race. Appointments
are to be made on the basis of merit.
In practice, people don't always follow the letter of the law, or they
hire unqualified minorities to reach their goals. Tough. I don't see
why liberals like you should baby white people who are discriminated
against on the basis of their skin color. That is racism. You are a
racist.
>> > And that is segregation.
>> >And that is also racism.
>>
>> I wasn't the one who stood at the schoohouse door with an axe handle,
>> Geno, nor was I the one who firebombed churches, or banned black
>> people from my own, or refused to let them patronize my store or sit
>> in the same section of the bus or work in my business or marry my
>> kids.
>
>Nor was it me. You have a very myopic view of racism. You seem to think
>that the only racists are those wearing hoods and burning crosses. The
>subtle side of racism is the kind you display. The elitist attitude you
>have toward negro Americans that they cannot make it on their own unless you
>and your ilk give them a hand out (frequently called a hand up). That is
>racism.
I have said nothing about handouts here, Geno, and I assure you that
given equal access to decent neighborhoods, good schooling, and equal
employment opportunities, black Americans do just fine.
What I find particularly offensive about your attitude is that, as I
said, I remember a time when black friends faced the worst kind of
in-your-face discrimination, even more than they do today. You yammer
about elitist attitudes when the simple reality was that when they
went to the interview they were rejected /on the basis of their skin
color./ It was not subtle. That changed radically when the laws did,
and I have never had any reason to regret that it did.
>> To claim that one isn't oneself racist is one thing, but to turn
>> things on their head and claim that those who have never themselves
>> discriminated and who have had a lifelong opposition to discrimination
>> are somehow the racists is disingenuous to the point of being
>> Orwellian.
>
>You entertain racism in your own heart by your prejudicial and pandering
>attitude toward negroes. It is discrimination because you are using skin
>color (and race) as a standard of measure; and that is racism. You do not
>look at negroes as fellow Americans, but as second-class citizens.
>Everything you have written about the subject reeks of pandering and elitism
>toward negroes. You cannot bring yourself to treat them as equal to
>you--but that the rest of America must help them because they are not
>capable of making it on their own by themselves.
>
>That is racism. You are a racist.
Yeah, right, and Jesus Day is a secular holiday.
Next . . .
Josh Hill
>In article <KU6uc.86460$cz5.32...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, the Man
><sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> FYI, Geno, the above acronym means, "What the fuck do you men by "I,"
>> white man.
>
>He couldn't figure this out himself? Silly old coot. Should be dead.
>
>> Of course, if *you* had noted skin color in one of your
>> posts, whether tongue in cheek or otherwise, enlightened Josh would've
>> shit all over himself to smack you for racism.
>
>Geno IS a racist, a fullstripe racist. And a homophobe. And a sexist.
>He thinks that he can hide all that with humor, but it doesn't work.
>His ugliness is plain for all to see.
>
>> You're a racist, Josh.
>
>Is not.
You just haven't been paying close enough attention, Rick. Why, in the
last two days alone I've learned that Dubya is smart, the Bush
Administration is pro-environment, the good economic times under
Democratic presidents are due to Republicans and the bad economic
times under Republican presidents are due to Democrats, and Jesus Day
is a secular holiday.
If I keep studying hard, they've promised to give me a ranch and let
me make demeaning comments about ethnically diverse postal employees.
gekko
<Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in
news:e82lb0hkesih6acoi...@4ax.com...
> holiday
Bwah. Just like National Black History Month is, overstatement boy.
--
gekko
TEAMWORK... means never having to take all the blame yourself.
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>Nine out of ten gynecologists agree that Josh Hill
><Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in
>news:e82lb0hkesih6acoi...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> holiday
>
>Bwah. Just like National Black History Month is, overstatement boy.
Well, come up with a better name for it, then. How about a why the
fuck are we paying politicians to come up with such stupid ideas day?
Rick
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
> Homosexuality turns my stomach because it is an unnatural and perverted act.
> It is the most disgusting thing two people can engage in that isn't
> unlawful.
I'm gonna tell Richard Simmons on you.
(BTW, how's your lezzie daughter?)
--
Rick
gekko
<Josh44...@snet.net> i see tonight:
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 02:46:22 GMT, gekko
> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Nine out of ten gynecologists agree that Josh Hill
>><Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in
>>news:e82lb0hkesih6acoi...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>> holiday
>>
>>Bwah. Just like National Black History Month is, overstatement boy.
>
> Well, come up with a better name for it, then.
A day of recognition.
> How about a why the
> fuck are we paying politicians to come up with such stupid ideas
> day?
Because we're idiots.
--
gekko
Well-timed silence hath more eloquence than speech. - Martin
Fraquhar Tupper
Ray__(H)_
You're right but there is hope for you, Josh. Dumbness can be overcome. Look
what happened to your hero, Bill Clinton. He managed and perhaps you can, too.
You're still a shameless gossip. Maybe you can find a support group for that.
Gene Royer
My beautiful daughter is doing fine, and I love her very much. Thank you
for asking.
Of course, being a typical liberal, she's opposed to the success of America
in our effort to liberate Iraq and stabilize that area of the world, and she
hates George Bush because he is a Christian man who professes Jesus Christ
as his Lord and Savior. The thinks the sun rises and set on Bill and
Hillary's butts.
However, the good news is that my two sons are normal, heteroxual males who
detest abortion, support the death penalty for capital murderers, oppose the
installation of racial quotas in hiring and education, believe in capitalism
and take care of the children they have sired. (I have nine beautiful
granddaughters, one grandson and one great-grandson)
How's your boyfriend these days?
--Geno
Stan (the Man)
Rick wrote:
Oooh! Kick save! And, a beauty!
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Gene Royer wrote:
> "Rick" <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:300520042311396942%ric...@nyc.rr.com...
<...>
>>(BTW, how's your lezzie daughter?)
>>
>>--
>>Rick
<...>
> How's your boyfriend these days?
>
> --Geno
Boyfriend?! That bitch has a boyfriend?!
--
Stan
Gene Royer
> <sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>
> > Homosexuality turns my stomach because it is an unnatural and perverted
act.
> > It is the most disgusting thing two people can engage in that isn't
> > unlawful.
>
> I'm gonna tell Richard Simmons on you.
Good.
When you see him, tell him I admire him very much for getting his fat, ugly
body in shape and urging others of his ilk to do likewise. (He used to be a
slob) I know of at least a half-dozen old queens who took his advice and
dropped as much as 60 pounds.
A couple of them later died of diseases unrelated to obesity, but the others
are practicing safe sex and maintaining a healthy bodyweight.
--Geno
Gene Royer
> Everyone have a super holiday tomorrow, and don't let anything steal your
> joy.
>
> --Geno<basking in the light of God's brightness>Royer
>
>
Who won that silly race yesterday? I left the TV when the rain started and
did not turn it back on to see the restart and end.
--Geno
Stan (the Man)
Gene Royer wrote:
> "Rick" <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:300520042311396942%ric...@nyc.rr.com...
>
>>In article <10bksmp...@corp.supernews.com>, Gene Royer
>><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Homosexuality turns my stomach because it is an unnatural and perverted
>
> act.
>
>>>It is the most disgusting thing two people can engage in that isn't
>>>unlawful.
>>
>>I'm gonna tell Richard Simmons on you.
>
>
>
> Good.
> When you see him, tell him I admire him very much for getting his fat, ugly
> body in shape and urging others of his ilk to do likewise.
Ummm...have you seen Richard Simmons' body lately?
<...>
--
Stan
Gene Royer
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote in message
heh heh
Yeah, Rick and I do sound like a couple of hissy-queers going at each other
in a cat fight don't we? I've got to go back to using the Mexcian barber
in the strip center and stop patronizing Gerald at "Super-Cutz For Guyz" in
the mal. My wife says I'm starting to talk like him. He is so swishy.
Last week he tried to sell me eye shadow. He said I could look like some
woman named Alice Cooper.
--Geno
Gene Royer
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote in message
It's been a while. Last time I saw him on TV he looked real cute in his
shorts and sneakers.
Don't tell me he's fallen off the wagon and got fat again? Lordy, lordyŽ.
The good life is just too much for some people to handle.
--Geno
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>Star light, misc.writing bright, first
>news:r38lb051v7eqkbahm...@4ax.com by Josh Hill
><Josh44...@snet.net> i see tonight:
>
>
>> On Mon, 31 May 2004 02:46:22 GMT, gekko
>> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Nine out of ten gynecologists agree that Josh Hill
>>><Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in
>>>news:e82lb0hkesih6acoi...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> holiday
>>>
>>>Bwah. Just like National Black History Month is, overstatement boy.
>>
>> Well, come up with a better name for it, then.
>
>A day of recognition.
Why does that remind me of every emasculated euphemism that's ever
croaked in the voice of a giant boy? Surely we can come up with
something pithier.
>> How about a why the
>> fuck are we paying politicians to come up with such stupid ideas
>> day?
>
>Because we're idiots.
Can't argue with that . . .
Josh Hill
Bill Clinton is, by all accounts, a brilliant man.
Dubya is, by all accounts, one of the dumbest men anyone has ever met.
Ray is -- oh, but that would be gossip.
gekko
while we're at it, let's read what "Stan (the Man)"
<sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> had to say in
news:TnGuc.30382$DC1.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
Is it missing? Have you checked the fridge?
>
> <...>
>
--
gekko
Does your train of thought have a caboose?
gekko
<Josh44...@snet.net> had to say in
news:8gemb0p7skj8g92lm...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 03:27:11 GMT, gekko
> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Star light, misc.writing bright, first
>>news:r38lb051v7eqkbahm...@4ax.com by Josh Hill
>><Josh44...@snet.net> i see tonight:
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 May 2004 02:46:22 GMT, gekko
>>> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nine out of ten gynecologists agree that Josh Hill
>>>><Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in
>>>>news:e82lb0hkesih6acoi...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> holiday
>>>>
>>>>Bwah. Just like National Black History Month is, overstatement
>>>>boy.
>>>
>>> Well, come up with a better name for it, then.
>>
>>A day of recognition.
>
> Why does that remind me of every emasculated euphemism that's ever
> croaked in the voice of a giant boy? Surely we can come up with
> something pithier.
It's what it is, though. A day of recognition.
Okay, you can do the dumbass Zed thing and come up with a clever
word. Given that the word "holiday" comes from combining "Holy" with
"day" (wouldn't that just salt the shorts off of the hissing
anti-religion atheists who like to celebrate the Labor Day holiday,
hmmmmm?) perhaps you can noodle on what to call those days that are
NOT holidays, but are days set aside when the people who care about
those days spend a little time either thinking about 'em, or handing
out little goodies at their offices to alert others that the day
exists.
Oh, hey, how about "tchotchkeday"?
>
>>> How about a why the
>>> fuck are we paying politicians to come up with such stupid ideas
>>> day?
>>
>>Because we're idiots.
>
> Can't argue with that . . .
>
Yes, but maybe I'll get a plastic squeezy jesus to go with my other
squeezy stress reliever toys from other tchotchkedays -- squeezy
veggies from Earth Day, squeezy stars from National Smoke-Out Day
... I'll never have to suffer from RSI again!
Josh Hill
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>detest abortion, support the death penalty
We should all be so lucky to be fetuses.
Josh Hill
When do they do that? I think we should call them "notadays."
>>>> How about a why the
>>>> fuck are we paying politicians to come up with such stupid ideas
>>>> day?
>>>
>>>Because we're idiots.
>>
>> Can't argue with that . . .
>>
>
>Yes, but maybe I'll get a plastic squeezy jesus to go with my other
>squeezy stress reliever toys from other tchotchkedays -- squeezy
>veggies from Earth Day, squeezy stars from National Smoke-Out Day
>... I'll never have to suffer from RSI again!
Squeezy lab rats from National Lead Day . . . squeezy sewer rats from
National Politicians Day . . .
Rick
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
> How's your boyfriend these days?
Alas, the only boyfriend I have at the moment is your youngest son, and
he asked me not to mention it to you. Oops.
--
Rick
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:
:Who won that silly race yesterday? I left the TV when the rain started and
:did not turn it back on to see the restart and end.
Jimmie Johnson
--
Wendy (Oh, not that silly race, but that other silly race)
Chatley Green -- wcg...@cris.com
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Gene Royer
That's pretty funny.
How are things in Iraq these days?
--Geno
Gene Royer
"Wendy Chatley Green" <wcgreen...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:84nmb09hrq5f9ta6j...@4ax.com...
> For some inexplicable reasons, "Gene Royer" <sire...@mindset.net>
> wrote:
>
> :
> :Who won that silly race yesterday? I left the TV when the rain started
and
> :did not turn it back on to see the restart and end.
>
> Jimmie Johnson
>
>
> --
> Wendy (Oh, not that silly race, but that other silly race)
> Chatley Green -- wcg...@cris.com
>
>
The Cowboys haven't been the same since he left.
--Geno
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 13:59:08 +0800, "Ray__(H)_"
><RayBL...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:08:06 -0400, Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 06:01:53 +0800, "Ray___(H)"
>>><RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I note that even in this very denial you can't help from namecalling.
>>>
>>>This from the fellow who said, in his last post,
>>>
>>>>>>You are a silly, gossiping little schoolyard tongue wagger.
>>>
>>>?
>>>
>>>Ray, /nobody/ could possibly be this dumb.
>>
>>You're right but there is hope for you, Josh. Dumbness can be overcome. Look
>>what happened to your hero, Bill Clinton. He managed and perhaps you can, too.
>>
>>You're still a shameless gossip. Maybe you can find a support group for that.
>
>Bill Clinton is, by all accounts, a brilliant man.
Rumors again. Gossip again.
>Dubya is, by all accounts, one of the dumbest men anyone has ever met.
Rumors again. Gossip again.
>Ray is -- oh, but that would be gossip.
Josh, you have it in your blood. Go for it. The actual fact is that
since you are addressing me directly here instead of making comments
about me, it wouldn't be gossip. Name calling, perhaps, but not
gossip.
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 07:59:28 -0500, "Gene Royer"
><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>
>>detest abortion, support the death penalty
>
>We should all be so lucky to be fetuses.
Would that you could go back again Josh.
Gene Royer
"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:inemb011lghnch8i2...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 13:59:08 +0800, "Ray__(H)_"
> <RayBL...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:08:06 -0400, Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net>
wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 31 May 2004 06:01:53 +0800, "Ray___(H)"
> >><RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I note that even in this very denial you can't help from namecalling.
> >>
> >>This from the fellow who said, in his last post,
> >>
> >>>>>You are a silly, gossiping little schoolyard tongue wagger.
> >>
> >>?
> >>
> >>Ray, /nobody/ could possibly be this dumb.
> >
> >You're right but there is hope for you, Josh. Dumbness can be overcome.
Look
> >what happened to your hero, Bill Clinton. He managed and perhaps you can,
too.
> >
> >You're still a shameless gossip. Maybe you can find a support group for
that.
>
> Bill Clinton is, by all accounts, a brilliant man.
Whoop!
If he's so brilliant, then how come he got impeached?
If he's so brilliant, then how come he lost his license to practice law?
If he's so brilliant, then how come the first thing people think of when his
name is mentioned is that he is a sexual pervert and that he practiced his
perversion in the Oval Office?
If he's so brilliant, then how come his name is synonymous with blow jobs,
rape, sexual harassment and all forms of low morality.
If he's so brilliant, then how he's the only president whose semen is still
preserved as evidence.
If he's so brilliant, then how come he's considered second fiddle to
Hillary?
If he is so brilliant, then how come the democrats lost not only the White
House, but the Senate and the Congress as well?
Face it. He is not brilliant.
--Geno<glad I could clear that up for you>Royer
Josh Hill
<RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 10:04:32 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>
>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 13:59:08 +0800, "Ray__(H)_"
>><RayBL...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:08:06 -0400, Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 06:01:53 +0800, "Ray___(H)"
>>>><RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I note that even in this very denial you can't help from namecalling.
>>>>
>>>>This from the fellow who said, in his last post,
>>>>
>>>>>>>You are a silly, gossiping little schoolyard tongue wagger.
>>>>
>>>>?
>>>>
>>>>Ray, /nobody/ could possibly be this dumb.
>>>
>>>You're right but there is hope for you, Josh. Dumbness can be overcome. Look
>>>what happened to your hero, Bill Clinton. He managed and perhaps you can, too.
>>>
>>>You're still a shameless gossip. Maybe you can find a support group for that.
>>
>>Bill Clinton is, by all accounts, a brilliant man.
>
>Rumors again. Gossip again.
Large male ungulate droppings.
>>Dubya is, by all accounts, one of the dumbest men anyone has ever met.
>
>Rumors again. Gossip again.
Equally large male ungulate droppings.
>>Ray is -- oh, but that would be gossip.
>
>Josh, you have it in your blood. Go for it. The actual fact is that
>since you are addressing me directly here instead of making comments
>about me, it wouldn't be gossip. Name calling, perhaps, but not gossip.
Can anyone possibly be this whooshed?
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>Can anyone possibly be this whooshed?
Don't worry, Josh. You're not the first.
Josh Hill
<sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:inemb011lghnch8i2...@4ax.com...
>> Bill Clinton is, by all accounts, a brilliant man.
>
>
>Whoop!
>
> If he's so brilliant, then how come he got impeached?
Republicans.
>If he's so brilliant, then how come he lost his license to practice law?
Republicans.
>If he's so brilliant, then how come the first thing people think of when his
>name is mentioned is that he is a sexual pervert and that he practiced his
>perversion in the Oval Office?
And exactly what would those perversions be, Geno, getting to third
base?
>If he's so brilliant, then how come his name is synonymous with blow jobs,
>rape, sexual harassment and all forms of low morality.
They're giving blow jobs? Where?
>If he's so brilliant, then how he's the only president whose semen is still
>preserved as evidence.
Particularly crackpotty Republicans.
>If he's so brilliant, then how come he's considered second fiddle to
>Hillary?
IOW, as a woman, she should be his inferior?
>If he is so brilliant, then how come the democrats lost not only the White
>House, but the Senate and the Congress as well?
Because they won more votes?
>Face it. He is not brilliant.
Yeah, you're right -- rather than being remarkably articulate, quick
to grasp complex concepts and situations, exceedingly knowledgeable,
and a Rhodes Scholar, Bill Clinton can scarcely utter a sentence,
limits his reading to the sports pages and children's books, and has
the moral and intellectual sophistication of a slightly retarded Cub
Scout.
Oh, wait . . .
Josh Hill
<RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 10:34:43 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>
>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 07:59:28 -0500, "Gene Royer"
>><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>>
>>>detest abortion, support the death penalty
>>
>>We should all be so lucky to be fetuses.
>
>Would that you could go back again Josh.
Wow, Ray, when you get one in it is a /zinger,/ let me tell you.
Josh Hill
<RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 17:57:50 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>
>>Can anyone possibly be this whooshed?
>
>Don't worry, Josh. You're not the first.
My, my, an IKYABWAI. How perfectly novel.
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 06:04:20 +0800, "Ray___(H)"
><RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 17:57:50 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>>
>>>Can anyone possibly be this whooshed?
>>
>>Don't worry, Josh. You're not the first.
>
>My, my, an IKYABWAI. How perfectly novel.
By now you must be aware that it is the skill in which it is delivered
that makes it so much fun.
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>They're giving blow jobs? Where?
Submit an application and that job may just be yours. Wouldn't that be
special?
Ray___(H)
and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 04:44:26 +0800, "Ray___(H)"
><RayDR...@hawksnest.info> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 10:34:43 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>and Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> instead replied:
>>
>>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 07:59:28 -0500, "Gene Royer"
>>><sire...@mindset.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>detest abortion, support the death penalty
>>>
>>>We should all be so lucky to be fetuses.
>>
>>Would that you could go back again Josh.
>
>Wow, Ray, when you get one in it is a /zinger,/ let me tell you.
I find it oddly reassuring that your ideological stance can impose the
death penalty on an innocent, unborn child who has committed no crime
while condemning the death penalty for those who have earned it.
It's only reassuring because it defines your character and what drives
you to support the positions which you do here. Otherwise, rational
readers might think you're quite deranged.
Ray