Gays on Trek
Paul
knowledge of biology.
I can understand a Trekkies lack of knowledge about sex, but you all need
to mature beyond the adolescent stage.
Gays and lesbians are a reality. Get over it. You don't need too many brain
cells to understand why only passing references to gays and lesbians exist
on Trek; the series is highly commercial and not likely to take risks on a
hot topic like sexual orientation. However, all circumstancial evidence
suggests if the Trek people had the balls to actually deal directly with
sexual orientation, they would be supportive of gay and lesbian issues. I
cite the Genii episode and the episode in which Bev fell for that
Trill-male who then becam a Trill-female as two shows that come to mind.
I won't even answer the gays-can't-reproduce question as a response to why
gays don't exist in Star Trek's view of the 24th century, because it's
stupid and displays a lack of knowledge of REAL science.
You can blush and giggle all you want about anything relating to "gays and
lesbians," but all you do is show how ignorant, immature and dorky you
really are.
Mark Webster
> However, all circumstancial evidence
>suggests if the Trek people had the balls to actually deal directly with
>sexual orientation, they would be supportive of gay and lesbian issues. I
>cite the Genii episode and the episode in which Bev fell for that
>Trill-male who then becam a Trill-female as two shows that come to mind.
In the episode where Riker goes for the androgynous person (can't remember
title) that person states 'she' doesn't want to be 'cured'. The other members
of 'her' society assure 'her' that 'she' will feel differently once 'cured'.
After being 'cured', 'it' states that 'it' feels fine, and couldn't understand
thinking the way 'she/it' did. That person even said something like, 'Even
though I didn't think so before, I can honestly say I'm glad I'm cured'.
I don't think this supports your theory. This episode seems to be saying that
gays will actully feel better if they were 'cured', even though they can't see
that now.
Flames ignored. I have not expressed any opinion on gays. I have merely
interpreted an episode of Star Trek.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__ |\ D E P A R T M E N T O F D E F E N C E
/ |_| \ --------------------*--------------------
.' \ DEFENCE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION
/ DSTO \ Aeronautical & Maritime Research Laboratory
\ __ / GPO Box 4331 Melbourne VIC 3001
\_.-' \_*/ Mark Webster, Ship Structures and Materials Division
v webste...@dsto.defence.gov.au +61 3 626 8256
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISCLAIMER: The contents of this message do not necessarily represent
the Commonwealth of Australia or the Australian Department of Defence.
Janis Maria C. C. Cortese
>In article <none-150...@slama.pbs.org> none (Paul) writes:
>
>> However, all circumstancial evidence
>>suggests if the Trek people had the balls to actually deal directly with
>>sexual orientation, they would be supportive of gay and lesbian issues. I
>>cite the Genii episode and the episode in which Bev fell for that
>>Trill-male who then becam a Trill-female as two shows that come to mind.
>
>In the episode where Riker goes for the androgynous person (can't remember
>title) that person states 'she' doesn't want to be 'cured'. The other members
>of 'her' society assure 'her' that 'she' will feel differently once 'cured'.
>After being 'cured', 'it' states that 'it' feels fine, and couldn't understand
>thinking the way 'she/it' did. That person even said something like, 'Even
>though I didn't think so before, I can honestly say I'm glad I'm cured'.
>
>I don't think this supports your theory. This episode seems to be saying that
>gays will actully feel better if they were 'cured', even though they can't see
>that now.
>
>Flames ignored. I have not expressed any opinion on gays. I have merely
>interpreted an episode of Star Trek.
No flames, hon. I just disagree with you; it's clear this was meant to
be a *hideously* downbeat ending, one that evoked a great deal of horror
in the Big E crew and was meant to evoke horror in the viewer. I don't
think it was showing what the writers believed would be best; I think it
was the writers trying to come up with the most horrible ending they
could and slamming it down the viewers' throats. It was deliberately
black and depressing and no more in support of altering GLB folks than
the ending of Orwell's _1984_ was meant to be supportive of
totalitarianism.
Regards,
Janis the net.proud.hussy
Janis Cortese || President and Founder: SEFEB, and The ||
cor...@netcom.com || Society of People Who Would Love to ||
Net Loudmouthed Bitchy || Shove a Stick Up Rush Limbaugh's Ass; ||
Renaissance Woman and || and Member of The Star Fleet Ladies' ||
General All-Around Hussy || Auxiliary and Embroidery/Baking Society ||
=====================================================================||
I used to be a bitch and just thought it was my problem. ||
Now, I've learned to make it everyone else's problem, too. ||
========== I BOYCOTT ANY COMPANY THAT ADVERTISES ON USENET! ===========
Kenneth Simon
web...@ssmd.mrl.dsto.gov.au (Mark Webster) wrote:
> In the episode where Riker goes for the androgynous person (can't remember
> title) that person states 'she' doesn't want to be 'cured'. The other members
> of 'her' society assure 'her' that 'she' will feel differently once 'cured'.
> After being 'cured', 'it' states that 'it' feels fine, and couldn't
understand
> thinking the way 'she/it' did. That person even said something like, 'Even
> though I didn't think so before, I can honestly say I'm glad I'm cured'.
>
> I don't think this supports your theory. This episode seems to be saying that
> gays will actully feel better if they were 'cured', even though they
can't see
> that now.
>
Woah - I think you missed the point of this episode. Seemed to me the point
was that this person had been "brainwashed" in whatever way her society
had developed, and that at the end, she was no longer the same person.
This was depicted as a tragic, not as a demonstration that once she was
"cured" everything was better for her.
Also, "feeling better" doesn't necessarily connote "right"ness. Yes,
s/he felt better - because she'd been brainwashed and no longer understood
the feelings she had previously. But this "feeling better" came at the
price of a large part of who she was. The person she was would never
have chosen this path over the desires and curiosity which drove
her to be interested in Riker. She was coerced into giving up a part
of her personality.
People who've been lobotomized might "feel better" and be "cured" too, but
that isn't meant as an advocation for lobotomy. ;)
--
Kenneth Simon e-mail: kss...@indiana.edu
Student Legal Services
Indiana University, Bloomington USA
babb...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
web...@ssmd.mrl.dsto.gov.au (Mark Webster) writes:
>In the episode where Riker goes for the androgynous person (can't remember
>title) that person states 'she' doesn't want to be 'cured'. The other members
>of 'her' society assure 'her' that 'she' will feel differently once 'cured'.
>After being 'cured', 'it' states that 'it' feels fine, and couldn't understand
>thinking the way 'she/it' did. That person even said something like, 'Even
>though I didn't think so before, I can honestly say I'm glad I'm cured'.
>
>I don't think this supports your theory. This episode seems to be saying that
>gays will actully feel better if they were 'cured', even though they can't see
>that now.
This is not a flame, but I cannot agree with your interpretation of that
episode...
While the androgynous alien claimed to be glad that it was 'cured', it was clear
that Riker and the Enterprise crew were __not__. Riker and Worf undertook an
unauthorised mission to rescue the alien from her people - a mission which
failed because she didn't want to be rescued. Picard clearly wanted to help
Riker before this but knew that any intervention went against the prime
directive.
The whole thrust of the episode was that she _was_ normal in the eyes of the
crew of the Enterprise, and there was no need for her to change, but that their
hands were tied (though Riker and Worf acted anyhow) to ignore what they saw
as a blatant impringement on the rights and actual personhood of the alien.
This episode was not making a comment to gays, but to society... a point you
seem to have missed here.
Note: as the previous author also stated, this does not necessarily reflect my
opinions on homosexuality: rather, it is an interpretation of an episode of
Star Trek: TNG.
(This _does_ belong in rec.arts.startrek.current if you live in New Zealand!
We're a little behind the 'pace'!)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duncan R. Babbage babb...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
_______________________________________________________________________________
Per Jacobsen
n> You know, for a group of science geeks, not many of you seem to have
n> much knowledge of biology.
n> I can understand a Trekkies lack of knowledge about sex, but you all
n> need to mature beyond the adolescent stage.
And how do we do that!
n> Gays and lesbians are a reality. Get over it.
No problem :)
n> You don't need too many brain cells to understand why only passing
n> references to gays and lesbians exist on Trek;
Lets not be nasty to the americans :)
n> ...the series is highly commercial and not likely to take risks on a
n> hot topic like sexual orientation.
Isn't it about time the US entered the 18 century? (I wouldn't say 19th
that would be to much of a jump)
PJ
* AmyBW v2.11 Beta *
... Don't confuse me with facts. Religion's easier.
--
| Internet: Per.Ja...@ds9.embassy.co.uk
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
| Embassy NET - Bring Usenet to the masses
| For Details mail : In...@embassy.co.uk
Jon Vinson
>Lets not be nasty to the americans :)
...
>Isn't it about time the US entered the 18 century? (I wouldn't say 19th
>that would be to much of a jump)
There seems to be a bit of a contradiction between the first
quotation and the second.
It is possible to discuss the shortcomings of American society without
being snide.
Kristina
>I don't think this supports your theory. This episode seems to be saying that
>gays will actully feel better if they were 'cured', even though they can't see
>interpreted an episode of Star Trek.
saying what a CRIME it is that a person is not allowed by a society to have
the freedom to choose their own lifestyle. How terrible that Soren could not
love whomever she chose. How sad that she could not express her sexuality in
her own individual way. The same is true today. How sad that society still
tells homosexuals, bisexuals, etc. that they need to be 'cured' and they are
not able to comfortably choose someone of their own sex. It is ridiculous.
I would think that Star Trek viewers of all people would have a broader frame
of reference and understanding. Remember the episode where Crusher fell in
love with Odan, but it turned out Odan was the symbiant, the man was only a
host. So when Odan was put into a woman's body, why did their relationship
have to change? Was Beverly in love with the essence of Odan, regardless of
the symbiant's 'packaging'? If she truly loved Odan, what did it matter
the gender of the host body? To me, that explained homosexuality perfectly.
But as for the Soren/Riker episode, that was not saying that gay people would
be happier if they were not gay. It was a slap in the face to a simplistic
and dense society that was uncomfortable with what was not traditionally
accpeted.
---Kristina
as...@orion.alaska.edu
> Mark Webster <web...@ssmd.mrl.dsto.gov.au> writes:
>
> In my opinion, the episode was really
> saying what a CRIME it is that a person is not allowed by a society to have
> the freedom to choose their own lifestyle. How terrible that Soren could not
> love whomever she chose. How sad that she could not express her sexuality in
> her own individual way. The same is true today. How sad that society still
> tells homosexuals, bisexuals, etc. that they need to be 'cured' and they are
> not able to comfortably choose someone of their own sex. It is ridiculous.
> I would think that Star Trek viewers of all people would have a broader frame
> of reference and understanding. Remember the episode where Crusher fell in
> love with Odan, but it turned out Odan was the symbiant, the man was only a
> host. So when Odan was put into a woman's body, why did their relationship
> have to change? Was Beverly in love with the essence of Odan, regardless of
> the symbiant's 'packaging'? If she truly loved Odan, what did it matter
> the gender of the host body? To me, that explained homosexuality perfectly.
> But as for the Soren/Riker episode, that was not saying that gay people would
> be happier if they were not gay. It was a slap in the face to a simplistic
> and dense society that was uncomfortable with what was not traditionally
> accpeted.
>
> ---Kristina
Obviously, Crusher only loved Odan for his Body. hehehe
Trekke
I totally understand what you wrote on those two episodes--one with
Riker and one with Beverly. In reality, gays are regarded as "queer" and
"different." True, they ARE different, but aren't we all different from
one another in some way or another? I certainly hope I'm not exactly like
every single person out there in this world.
Some of my friends often say, "Oh, my God, look at that FINE guy over
there!" I don't judge people totally by their looks, so never say
anything to these remarks. My opinion on guys is probably a lot different
from other people's, so should that be bad? I don't think so.
People should be able to have their own opinions on such matters and
not simply "go with the flow." Gays could be totally suppressed by a mob
of people who want to get rid of that "threat to society."
Astara Wong
Incoming message from the U.S.S. GRIM.NCC-8218.Captain's Communique
I heard a rumor that both Wil Wheaton and Brent Spiner are gay.Can anyone
confirm this?
Xela T
Per.Ja...@ds9.embassy.co.uk (Per Jacobsen) writes:
J. Is it really important what the sexual orientation of the "Trek" cast
members or their characters are???
Most of us don't care. We just watch the series(s) and enjoy them. Why
get envolved in these kinds of discussions? Relax and enjoy them!!!
Blase Martin Louis
: I heard a rumor that both Wil Wheaton and Brent Spiner are gay.Can anyone
: confirm this?
I'll confirm that it's an unsubstantiated trekophobic rumor, yes...
Blaze
"insert your favorite quote here"
Cliff Pearson
As for the rumor that Will Wheaton and/or Brent Spiner are gay. I
don't think so. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force maintains a
database/list of out gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people.
Neither of those names were on the list. However I will say that I too
have heard the rumor that Wil Wheaton is gay. I've never heard that
Brent Spiner is. The version of the Wheaton rumor I heard is that he
admitted he was gay on Arsenio one day. No one I've talked to though
has ever actually SEEN the episode! Also, according to the same
rumor, Wil Wheaton LEFT the show because Jonathan Frakes refused
to work with him because Wheaton, allegedly, kept making sexual
advances toward him. Again, I don't think it's true. If he was
gay, the NGLTF would most likely have him on the list. Just about
every gay person I know wants to jump his bones (me included!), which
is probably the reason why the rumor got started in the first place.
Now, if you are looking for a gay Trek cast member. George Takei,
who played Sulu in the original series, is an out and proud gay man.
And he IS on the NGLTF list.
Cliff
Matt Lih
>
>Now, if you are looking for a gay Trek cast member. George Takei,
>who played Sulu in the original series, is an out and proud gay man.
>And he IS on the NGLTF list.
>
>Cliff
I sort of wondered, after reading the autobiography and finding no accounts
of relationships with women. But why no explanation of his being gay? (Other
than potential drop in sales.)
Matt Lih (l...@venice.sedd.trw.com)
Freefall
Organization: IQuest Network Services
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
>In article <38sun7$4...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> db...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Cliff Pearson) writes:
>>Now, if you are looking for a gay Trek cast member. George Takei,
>>who played Sulu in the original series, is an out and proud gay man.
>>And he IS on the NGLTF list.
Say it ain't so, Joe!
F r e e f a l l :: _ __/| Ack!! :: "Giving money and power to
free...@iquest.net :: \`O.o' / Phfft! :: politicians is like giving
Indianapolis, IN :: =(_ _)= :: whiskey and car keys to
Soopa-Genius (tm) :: U :: teenagers." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Russell C Silberglied
that's been floating around: Is it possible that the DS9 writers are
making him so mysterious beacuse they are tired of all of us "netters"
criticizing every action that is "out of character"? They might figure
that this is a character that cannot act out of character, since we are
not sure who he really is.
-Russ-
Freefall
Organization: IQuest Network Services
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
In article <CyL89...@freenet.carleton.ca>, aa...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jeff
Stimson) says:
>
>
>In a previous article, free...@iquest.net (Freefall) says:
>
>><3945t9$m...@venice.sedd.trw.com>
>>Organization: IQuest Network Services
>>X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
>>
>>
>>>In article <38sun7$4...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> db...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>>(Cliff Pearson) writes:
>>
>>>>Now, if you are looking for a gay Trek cast member. George Takei,
>>>>who played Sulu in the original series, is an out and proud gay man.
>>>>And he IS on the NGLTF list.
>>
>>Say it ain't so, Joe!
>>
>>
>
>
>Oh, now there's an intelligent reaction. Now I suppose you are prepared
>to discount the past 25 years of his contribution to Trek.
>
>A stupid response like this shows just how bad the stigma of being gay
>can detract from everything else that person is. Perhaps a little
>support could be shown instead of shocked dismay.
Don't get me wrong, I love fags. DEAD ONES. <---is this politically
incorrect? muahahaha
Lloyd R. Parker
: <CyL89...@freenet.carleton.ca>
When you read posts like this one, you wonder how the human species ever
evolved. Then again, maybe some people (like the poster above) just
haven't fully evolved yet. These sure sound like Neanderthal attitudes.
Jeff Stimson
In a previous article, free...@iquest.net (Freefall) says:
><3945t9$m...@venice.sedd.trw.com>
>Organization: IQuest Network Services
>X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
>
>
>>In article <38sun7$4...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> db...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>(Cliff Pearson) writes:
>
>>>Now, if you are looking for a gay Trek cast member. George Takei,
>>>who played Sulu in the original series, is an out and proud gay man.
>>>And he IS on the NGLTF list.
>
>Say it ain't so, Joe!
>
>
Oh, now there's an intelligent reaction. Now I suppose you are prepared
to discount the past 25 years of his contribution to Trek.
A stupid response like this shows just how bad the stigma of being gay
can detract from everything else that person is. Perhaps a little
support could be shown instead of shocked dismay.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Let's say we run down to the Krell lab and boost our IQ's by |
| a couple thousand points. "Brain? Brain? What is brain?" |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Steve Kittelsen
>Don't get me wrong, I love fags. DEAD ONES. <---is this politically
>incorrect? muahahaha
>
>
> F r e e f a l l :: _ __/| Ack!! :: "Giving money and power to
>free...@iquest.net :: \`O.o' / Phfft! :: politicians is like giving
personal experience! So, since there are only "5%" of you, we can just
ignore your views!
*********************************************************************
* __/\__ /\ Steve Kittelsen __________ *
* / /\ \ Rochester, New York \ rosa / *
* I I I I " sa...@delphi.com " \ / *
* \ __\/__ / Open Your Minds \/ *
*********************************************************************
Freefall
Organization: IQuest Network Services
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
In article <396b6t$8...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@unix.cc.emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>>: Don't get me wrong, I love fags. DEAD ONES. <---is this politically
>>: incorrect? muahahaha
>When you read posts like this one, you wonder how the human species ever
>evolved. Then again, maybe some people (like the poster above) just
>haven't fully evolved yet. These sure sound like Neanderthal attitudes.
Has every male in this echo checked their balls at the door? Christ, it's a
brave new world...and you can keep it.
Kate Orman
>Don't get me wrong, I love fags. DEAD ONES. <---is this politically
>incorrect? muahahaha
Freefall: homosexual necrophiliac. ;-)
--
Kate Orman
"You are endlessly agitating, unceasingly mischievous. Will you never
stop?" - Light, in Marc Platt's "Ghost Light", 1989
Freefall
Organization: IQuest Network Services
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
In article <398pa6$r...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@unix.cc.emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) says:
FF> Has every male in this echo checked their balls at the door? Christ,
FF> it's a brave new world...and you can keep it.
LP>I propose that from now on, nobody read this bigot's messages and nobody
LP>respond to him. Let him play with himself!
Play with myself? I'm sure you are the definative expert on THAT topic.
As for not responding to my messages, I second the motion. But just try to
get a gaggle of fruits to shaddap... you would have an easier time finding a
hetero male in the echo besides myself (which ain't likely, sparky)
da...@olivetti.nl
>
>Don't get me wrong, I love fags. DEAD ONES. <---is this politically
>
Well guess what folks this poor wretched creature is into NECROPHILIA.
I thought by the tone of his anally retentive clutter that he had a few
*skeletons* in the closet.
Groetjes
Davey
Freefall
Organization: IQuest Network Services
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
In article <Zi0WLS...@delphi.com>, Steve Kittelsen <sa...@delphi.com>
says:
>
>Freefall <free...@iquest.net> writes:
>
>>Don't get me wrong, I love fags. DEAD ONES. <---is this politically
>>incorrect? muahahaha
>Thank goodness there are not many people like you (5%), and I'm speaking
from
>personal experience! So, since there are only "5%" of you, we can just
>ignore your views!
Maybe 5% in San Francisco. Try the rest of the country.
Freefall
Organization: IQuest Network Services
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
In article <Cyn2q...@olivetti.nl>, da...@olivetti.nl says:
>
>>>In a previous article, free...@iquest.net (Freefall) :
>>
>>Don't get me wrong, I love fags. DEAD ONES. <---is this politically
>>incorrect? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>
>Well guess what folks this poor wretched creature is into NECROPHILIA.
>I thought by the tone of his anally retentive clutter that he had a few
>*skeletons* in the closet.
Actually, I was referring to the fact that fags make excellent skeet
targets. "Pull!" Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyeeeeeeee! BOOM! *KLUNK*
Freefall
Organization: IQuest Network Services
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
In article <397a1v$f...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
(Kate Orman) says:
>
>In article <CyLKs...@dorite.use.com> free...@iquest.net (Freefall)
writes:
>
>>Don't get me wrong, I love fags. DEAD ONES. <---is this politically
>>incorrect? muahahaha
>
>Freefall: homosexual necrophiliac. ;-)
Well, if I had to choose between you and a dead fag, you would probably be
right. *snerk!*
Lloyd R. Parker
: <CyLKs...@dorite.use.com> <396b6t$8...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
I propose that from now on, nobody read this bigot's messages and nobody
Kate Orman
><CyLKs...@dorite.use.com> <397a1v$f...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>
>Organization: IQuest Network Services
>X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
>
>In article <397a1v$f...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
>(Kate Orman) says:
>>
>>In article <CyLKs...@dorite.use.com> free...@iquest.net (Freefall)
>writes:
>>
>>>Don't get me wrong, I love fags. DEAD ONES. <---is this politically
>>>incorrect? muahahaha
>>
>>Freefall: homosexual necrophiliac. ;-)
>
>Well, if I had to choose between you and a dead fag, you would probably be
>right. *snerk!*
So you'd rather do it with a dead man than a live woman? Oh dear,
Freefall, what a giveaway. :-)
Dirk Loedding
Fr> Has every male in this echo checked their balls at the door?
No. Most of the rest of us have a brain, have thought through the
issues, and don't care to make asses out of ourselves the way you seem
intent on doing.
... Dirk Loedding dirk.l...@datadim.com (or dirk.l...@tdd.com)
---
* Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 *
Ken Stuart
>From: op...@dolphin.upenn.edu (Russell C Silberglied)
>Subject: Re: A different Garak thread (no spoilers)
>Date: 1 Nov 1994 02:58:43 GMT
I'm sure that ST writers don't give a !@#$%^& about netters, unless they
violate copyright...
My guess is that Garak's character kept getting embellished every time one
of the better writers got a chance to do an episode, because they recognized
the possibilities.
Maybe after "Second Skin", the producers will note that there is now enough
substance to Garak to make him more a part of the series...
However, on the other hand, ST usually seems to avoid such things, keeping
to the TV rule that if you've seen the first episode of the series, you can
then watch the rest in any order. Note that after the initial DS9 pilot
involving the Bajoran religion, it was months before there was any further
episode involving it. Note that after the initial DS9 episodes of the
season involving the Dominion, there haven't been any that have anything to
do with it!
-
respect to all,
Ken k...@snowcrest.net (primary address)
(if no answer, try ken.s...@tigerteam.org )
Freefall
Organization: The Neutral Zone
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
In article <39c3tq$p...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
(Kate Orman) says:
FF>Well, if I had to choose between you and a dead fag, you would probably
FF>be right. *snerk!*
KO>So you'd rather do it with a dead man than a live woman? Oh dear,
KO>Freefall, what a giveaway. :-)
Well, I have to give you credit, at least you are TRYING to be
funny...unlike that inbred feep Kilpatrick-Homo, whose best feature is that
he's biodegradable. ;)
F r e e f a l l :: _ __/| Fags!! :: Queers, Homos, Faggits, Fruits,
free...@iquest.net :: \`O.o' / Lemme :: Butt Bandits, Rump Wranglers,
1994 Gay Bashing :: =(_ _)= at em! :: Sissies and Fag Hags humiliated
-Gold Medallist- :: U :: at request. Walk-Ins welcome.
Freefall
Loedding) says:
FF> Has every male in this echo checked their balls at the door?
DL>No. Most of the rest of us have a brain, have thought through the
DL>issues, and don't care to make asses out of ourselves the way you seem
DL>intent on doing.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
DanielR573
(Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>I propose that from now on, nobody read this bigot's messages and nobody
>respond to him. Let him play with himself!
Here here!
While I normally would reject this tactic, it is clear that Mr. Freefall
is interested in provocation only. He's trying to create some turmoil,
and we are foolishly falling for it.
By now it should be apparent that Mr. Freefall's brain is even smaller
than his shrivelled, chanchrous penis.
Let's confine the issue to gays in Trek, shall we? Don't fall for this
kind of baiting.
JOHN HUEY
BTW, not everyone in Indianapolis is like this cretin. Now may I suggest that
everyone put old Freefall into the freefall of a permanent killfile. Ok, on
the count of three.
one.
two.
three.
Killfile.
John D. Huey
izq...@indyvax.iupui.edu
JOHN HUEY
> Freefall (free...@iquest.net) wrote<stupid idiotic inane reprehensible drival deleted>
> : F r e e f a l l :: _ __/| Ack!! :: "Giving money and power to
> : free...@iquest.net :: \`O.o' / Phfft! :: politicians is like giving
> : Indianapolis, IN :: =(_ _)= :: whiskey and car keys to
> : Soopa-Genius (tm) :: U :: teenagers." -- P.J. O'Rourke
>
> When you read posts like this one, you wonder how the human species ever
> evolved. Then again, maybe some people (like the poster above) just
> haven't fully evolved yet. These sure sound like Neanderthal attitudes.
>
Please don't defame the Neanderthal like that. This slime mold has a long
way to go just aquire pseudopods.
John D. Huey
izq...@indyvax.iupui.edu
Cliff Pearson
I don't know why he didn't mention it, unless it's like you said,
a matter of salability of the book. But honestly, I wouldn't
have guessed, and I can usually peg gay people even when they're
in the closet. (I've got good gaydar.)
Cliff
Cliff Pearson
It be true, Lou!
Cliff
Cliff Pearson
To all the people that thought this guy's moronic homophobia was
truly sad, let me say thanks for the sentiment. It makes me think
there's hope for this world afterall.
But, as some of you may know, the worst homophobes usually ARE
gay themselves, and are just having a hard time accepting it.
So hard a time that they project their self-hate onto others.
This guy seems obsessed with gays. I mean, look at his signature.
I can't help but suspect.
Kinda sad really. I hope he comes to terms with himself.
Cliff
John Rickard Rybock
: Don't get me wrong, I love fags. DEAD ONES. <---is this politically
: incorrect? muahahaha
No, not politically incorrect. Just politically stupid, because you come off
as a neanderthal whose only response to something which you simply do not like
is through violence (this has been illustrated throughout this little flame
war). Such comments basically prevent me from hearing anything intelligent
you may have to say (though there has been little of that from you), and this
ceases from being a rational debate, which many of the people opposed to your
comments have been engaging in, and turns into a shouting match. And when the
only response you seem to be able to give is "Shut up, fruit," or the like,
I can only say one thing: "Game, set, match. You lose."
--
| "You are the meek, and I am the tyranny of evil men.
John R. Rybock | But I am trying hard... I am trying REAL HARD, Ringo,
(ryb...@umich.edu) | to be the shepard."
| -- Samuel L. Jackson, "Pulp Fiction"
Timothy Miller
homosexuals, and they can have those prejudices if they like.
However, I don't think making flames against homosexuals is a very good
approach.
Nevertheless, homosexuals have to put up with those flames to the extent
that they can ignore them when they pop up. Or they can argue against
them, which is their right also.
We all have to put up with each other.