FOX station anchor suspended for insulting Rachel Maddow

[David]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tricia-macke-suspended-fox-affiliate-maddow-389947

Local Fox Anchor Suspended For Homophobic Comment About Rachel Maddow
by Jordan Zakarin

An anchor on WXIX-TV in Cincinnati was absent from the air on Sunday,
following outrage over Facebook remarks she made about the MSNBC host.

Tricia Macke was conspicuous in her absence from the anchor's desk
during the Sunday broadcast of the Fox 19 10 p.m. news, with reports
in Cincinnati indicating that she was taken off the air as punishment
for a comment she made about MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.

In October, Macke wrote on her Facebook page that Maddow, who is
openly gay, is "such an angry young man." When she received an angry
response, she doubled down, writing in another update, "I am sorry. I
should have said antagonistic."

The controversy raged in the southern Ohio city, with GLAAD demanding
an apology, leading Macke to post a more formal statement online, with
a note from her network's management attached.

"I recently posted comments on my personal Facebook page regarding
cable news anchor Rachel Maddow which were insensitive and
inappropriate," she wrote. "I apologize to Ms. Maddow and any others
who may have been offended by my comments, as they do not reflect my
firm beliefs in individual and equal rights, and they certainly do not
represent the opinions or position of my employer WXIX-TV."

The network would not say whether she is suspended -- it does not
comment on personnel matters, the station manager said -- but John
Kiesewetter of the Cincinnati Enquirer indicated that she had indeed
been suspended, and will be back in the anchor's chair on Tuesday.

[Dano]

"David" wrote in message news:0ef5a81148gsntg8m...@4ax.com...

==========================================

So he wasn't suspended for "insulting" Maddow. He was suspended for making
homophobic comments. She's lucky to still have her job.

[shawn]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:02:28 -0500, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I trust you will be posting an apology for referring to Ms Macke as
"he" and "she" in the same paragraph. It would seem you may be
implying something. Luckily none of us are in a position to suspend
you from your duties.

:)

[Obveeus]

It looks like she was actually suspended as a cowtow to GLAAD and any
impending boycott.

[Rich]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:0ef5a81148gsntg8m...@4ax.com:

> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tricia-macke-suspended-fox-affili

> ate-maddow-389947
>
> Local Fox Anchor Suspended For Homophobic Comment About Rachel Maddow
> by Jordan Zakarin
>

Normally, I don't mind short hair on women. But with her, she does it in
order to be more like a man. That's not normal.

[Tom]

On Nov 13, 4:02 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "David"  wrote in messagenews:0ef5a81148gsntg8m...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tricia-macke-suspended-fox-affi...

The way big Fox works, she'll probably get promoted.

Tom

[Tom]

On Nov 13, 7:14 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:0ef5a81148gsntg8m...@4ax.com:

You no doubt can provide a link to a video of Dr. Maddow explaining
that's why she wears her hair short, yes?

Tom

[BTR1701]

In article <k7ug1l$67s$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

How is saying Maddow is ugly homophobic?

It may not be nice, but it's not indicative that Macke fears gay people.

[Tom]

On Nov 13, 9:19 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <k7ug1l$67...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David"  wrote in messagenews:0ef5a81148gsntg8m...@4ax.com...
>
> >http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tricia-macke-suspended-fox-affi...

Where, in the provided article, is the Fox affiliate reporter quoted
as saying Dr. Maddow is ugly?

Tom

[BTR1701]

In article
<bb65dd9e-5792-49b3...@a14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

Calling a woman man-like in appearance is synonymous with calling her
ugly. Even if you don't agree, it's certainly not synonymous with being
afraid of gay people.

[Keith D. Lee]

All:
Big deal. So she called Maddow ugly. Let's get on with it.
Sheesh!!

--
Sincerely,
Keith D. Lee

[anim8rFSK]

In article <atropos-07A4EF...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

And truth is a defense.

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Barry Margolin]

In article <anim8rfsk-CF6C5...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> And truth is a defense.

Against a defamation lawsuit, yes. Against being fired, probably not.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Tom]

On Nov 13, 11:12 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article

> <bb65dd9e-5792-49b3-a79d-7c43ec56b...@a14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

It's also synonymous with calling her a bull dyke.

>Even if you don't agree, it's certainly not synonymous with being
> afraid of gay people.

Yes it is. People use insults to deflect their irrational fears every
second of every day... just ask your therapist.

Tom

[Barbarian Mutual]

Hate-radio shock-jock Michael Savage seemingly and insultingly says
PMSNBC to refer to MSNBC using female reporters from time-to-time.
Does that mean that he has an irrational fear of women?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Barbarian Mutual <barbarianfina...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hate-radio shock-jock Michael Savage seemingly and insultingly says
>PMSNBC to refer to MSNBC using female reporters from time-to-time.
>Does that mean that he has an irrational fear of women?

Maybe a rational fear of PMS...

[Dano]

"Barbarian Mutual" wrote in message
news:450c446c-b7ad-4566...@g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

===================================

Possibly. His mom must have really been a bitch eh? Maybe he just prefers
dudes?

Certainly is indisputable that he has no respect for women...or many other
humans for that matter. Well named.

[Dano]

"Barbarian Mutual" wrote in message
news:450c446c-b7ad-4566...@g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

[Jim G.]

Dano sent the following on Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:02:28 -0500:

> "David" wrote in message news:0ef5a81148gsntg8m...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tricia-macke-suspended-fox-affiliate-maddow-389947
>
> Local Fox Anchor Suspended For Homophobic Comment About Rachel Maddow
> by Jordan Zakarin
>
> An anchor on WXIX-TV in Cincinnati was absent from the air on Sunday,
> following outrage over Facebook remarks she made about the MSNBC host.
>
> Tricia Macke was conspicuous in her absence from the anchor's desk
> during the Sunday broadcast of the Fox 19 10 p.m. news, with reports
> in Cincinnati indicating that she was taken off the air as punishment
> for a comment she made about MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
>
> In October, Macke wrote on her Facebook page that Maddow, who is
> openly gay, is "such an angry young man." When she received an angry
> response, she doubled down, writing in another update, "I am sorry. I
> should have said antagonistic."

Hahahahahahahahahaha. That's awesome.

> The controversy raged in the southern Ohio city, with GLAAD demanding
> an apology, leading Macke to post a more formal statement online, with
> a note from her network's management attached.
>
> "I recently posted comments on my personal Facebook page regarding
> cable news anchor Rachel Maddow which were insensitive and
> inappropriate," she wrote. "I apologize to Ms. Maddow and any others
> who may have been offended by my comments, as they do not reflect my
> firm beliefs in individual and equal rights, and they certainly do not
> represent the opinions or position of my employer WXIX-TV."
>
> The network would not say whether she is suspended -- it does not
> comment on personnel matters, the station manager said -- but John
> Kiesewetter of the Cincinnati Enquirer indicated that she had indeed
> been suspended, and will be back in the anchor's chair on Tuesday.
>
> ==========================================
>
> So he wasn't suspended for "insulting" Maddow. He was suspended for making
> homophobic comments.

Looks like you and Jordan need to take another look at the definition of
phobia. Good luck finding a legitimate one that doesn't include a fear
component as a primary factor.

> She's lucky to still have her job.

As a tolerant and free speech-loving guy, I'm sure that this makes you
very happy.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN

[Barry Margolin]

In article <val7a81r6vouocj1l...@4ax.com>,

The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry against
homosexuals. My dictionary says that homophobia is "an extreme and
irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people".

It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few people fear
gays in the same way that they might fear spiders, snakes, or heights.
They just don't like them or their lifestyle, or don't like allowing
them to have more rights in society.

[BTR1701]

The word "homophobia" is generally used incorrectly to refer to any
bigotry against homosexuals.

Fixed that for you.

> My dictionary says that homophobia is "an extreme and
> irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people".

Macke's comments don't even fit that unrealistically broad definition of
the word.

> It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few people fear
> gays in the same way that they might fear spiders, snakes, or heights.
> They just don't like them or their lifestyle, or don't like allowing
> them to have more rights in society.

Which, while arguably unfair and narrow-minded, is neither extreme nor
irrational, which removes them from even your dictionary's definition of
'homophobic'.

[Tom]

On Nov 14, 11:57 am, Barbarian Mutual

Sure... and an irrational fear of rationality. Savage is too cowardly
to use his real name on his show.

People who can't support their opinions based on the merits aren't
worth engaging.

Tom

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<1889795303374626047....@news.giganews.com>,

Words mean what people generally use them to mean. If a word is commonly
used in a particular way, and it's understood by people, then that's its
meaning. Etymology may be a useful way to try to discern the meaning of
an unfamiliar word, but it's not how language is actually defined.

>
> Fixed that for you.
>
> > My dictionary says that homophobia is "an extreme and
> > irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people".
>
> Macke's comments don't even fit that unrealistically broad definition of
> the word.
>
> > It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few people fear
> > gays in the same way that they might fear spiders, snakes, or heights.
> > They just don't like them or their lifestyle, or don't like allowing
> > them to have more rights in society.
>
> Which, while arguably unfair and narrow-minded, is neither extreme nor
> irrational, which removes them from even your dictionary's definition of
> 'homophobic'.

OK, then please give examples of homophobia that meet your definition?
I've never heard of anyone actually running away from a gay person
because they're scared of them. Just the opposite -- the most extreme
forms of homophobia are usually defined by violence against gays (e.g.
the Matthew Shepard murder).

[William December Starr]

In article <1889795303374626047....@news.giganews.com>,
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry
>> against homosexuals.
>
> The word "homophobia" is generally used incorrectly to refer to
> any bigotry against homosexuals.
>
> Fixed that for you.

Since we're talking about humans and not Vulcans, the meaning of
a word is not welded to the logical sum of its root parts.

-- wds

[BTR1701]

In article <barmar-45B9AE....@news.eternal-september.org>,

I can call a horse 'zebra' all day long. Doesn't mean it has stripes.

> > > It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few people fear
> > > gays in the same way that they might fear spiders, snakes, or heights.
> > > They just don't like them or their lifestyle, or don't like allowing
> > > them to have more rights in society.
> >
> > Which, while arguably unfair and narrow-minded, is neither extreme nor
> > irrational, which removes them from even your dictionary's definition of
> > 'homophobic'.
>
> OK, then please give examples of homophobia that meet your definition?

I'm not allowed to. Only gay people can use gay slurs in today's
America. Just as blacks are the only ones allowed to use the 'n-word'.
Everyone else is forbidden, even in the context of analysis of the words
themselves, even when devoid of any bigoted intent, from even mentioning
those words.

> I've never heard of anyone actually running away from a gay person
> because they're scared of them. Just the opposite -- the most extreme
> forms of homophobia are usually defined by violence against gays (e.g.
> the Matthew Shepard murder).

Not everyone runs away from that which frightens them.

[BTR1701]

In article
<9e794432-a9e9-407a...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

If you say so. I don't know much about them. But even accepting your
claim as true, all you've done is establish there are multiple meanings
and interpretations possible here. You have no basis for declaring yours
to be fact.

> >Even if you don't agree, it's certainly not synonymous with being
> > afraid of gay people.
>
> Yes it is. People use insults to deflect their irrational fears every
> second of every day... just ask your therapist.

Ah, the ad hom. I knew you'd get around to that sooner rather than later.

[William December Starr]

In article <atropos-173C14...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The word "homophobia" is generally used incorrectly to refer to
>>> any bigotry against homosexuals.
>>
>> Words mean what people generally use them to mean.
>
> I can call a horse 'zebra' all day long. Doesn't mean it has
> stripes.

Words mean what people generally use them to mean.

>>>> It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few
>>>> people fear gays in the same way that they might fear spiders,
>>>> snakes, or heights. They just don't like them or their
>>>> lifestyle, or don't like allowing them to have more rights in
>>>> society.
>>>
>>> Which, while arguably unfair and narrow-minded, is neither
>>> extreme nor irrational, which removes them from even your
>>> dictionary's definition of 'homophobic'.
>>
>> OK, then please give examples of homophobia that meet your definition?
>
> I'm not allowed to. Only gay people can use gay slurs in today's
> America. Just as blacks are the only ones allowed to use the
> 'n-word'. Everyone else is forbidden, even in the context of
> analysis of the words themselves, even when devoid of any bigoted
> intent, from even mentioning those words.

Now you're just either deluded or lying.

-- wds

[Tom]

On Nov 14, 8:14 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article

> <9e794432-a9e9-407a-8bba-8bcfcfb39...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 11:12 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <bb65dd9e-5792-49b3-a79d-7c43ec56b...@a14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 13, 9:19 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > How is saying Maddow is ugly homophobic?
>
> > > > > It may not be nice, but it's not indicative that Macke fears
> > > > > gay people.
> > > > Where, in the provided article, is the Fox affiliate reporter quoted
> > > > as saying Dr. Maddow is ugly?
>
> > > Calling a woman man-like in appearance is synonymous with calling her
> > > ugly.
> > It's also synonymous with calling her a bull dyke.
>
> If you say so. I don't know much about them. But even accepting your
> claim as true, all you've done is establish there are multiple meanings
> and interpretations possible here. You have no basis for declaring yours
> to be fact.

Just as you have no basis for declaring yours as fact.

>
> > >Even if you don't agree, it's certainly not synonymous with being
> > > afraid of gay people.
>
> > Yes it is. People use insults to deflect their irrational fears every
> > second of every day... just ask your therapist.
>
> Ah, the ad hom. I knew you'd get around to that sooner rather than later.

Ah, the passive-aggressive bullshit... always a can't miss with you.

Tom

[BTR1701]

In article <k81jas$81g$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

Really? Try using that word in public if you're not black and see what
happens. And it'll happen no matter the context in which you use it.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <atropos-173C14...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

True. Because you're just one person, not "people generally". But if
most people start calling horses zebras, it means the definition of the
word has changed.

There was a time when the word "head" just referred to the thing above
people's necks. Now it can also refer to the person who runs a
corporation, the place where a river begins, and many other things.
This happened because someone "incorrectly" used the word to refer to
these things, and other people copied him, and so on and so on.
Eventually, what once was an error becomes commonplace, and the language
evolves as a result.

Meanings can also differ depending on context. A few years ago,
astronomers decided that Pluto wasn't a planet. They use a very
precise, technical definition of "planet" among themselves. Laymen are
not bound to this definition -- if the rest of us want to continue
calling Pluto a planet, then that's what it is.

So it's quite possible that the common meaning of "phobia" may not
precisely match the use of that term by a psychiatrist (similarly, you
wouldn't expect laymen to know the clinical meanings of terms like
"insane", "psychotic", or "schizophrenic" -- we use their informal
meanings).

>
> > > > It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few people
> > > > fear
> > > > gays in the same way that they might fear spiders, snakes, or heights.
> > > > They just don't like them or their lifestyle, or don't like allowing
> > > > them to have more rights in society.
> > >
> > > Which, while arguably unfair and narrow-minded, is neither extreme nor
> > > irrational, which removes them from even your dictionary's definition of
> > > 'homophobic'.
> >
> > OK, then please give examples of homophobia that meet your definition?
>
> I'm not allowed to. Only gay people can use gay slurs in today's
> America. Just as blacks are the only ones allowed to use the 'n-word'.
> Everyone else is forbidden, even in the context of analysis of the words
> themselves, even when devoid of any bigoted intent, from even mentioning
> those words.

You can talk about these things without using taboo words, can't you?
We can talk about the struggle of African-Americans without using the
n-word.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <atropos-BAA7F9...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

What word, "homophobia" or "gay"?

[William December Starr]

In article <atropos-BAA7F9...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

Is last July recent enough?

| From wdstarr Sun Jul 1 10:02:32 EDT 2012
| Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom
| From: wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
| Subject: Re: Google Groups becomes even less useful.
| References: <jrdkev$f0l$2...@dont-email.me> <slrnjul6f...@gatekeeper.vic.com> <proto-2E4312....@news.panix.com> <PsCdnWWjBb_ds3PS...@earthlink.com>
| In-reply-to: b...@example.invalid
|
| In article <PsCdnWWjBb_ds3PS...@earthlink.com>,
| David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> said:
|
| > A business with a "No Coloreds" sign cuts themselves out of a
| > segment of their natural market. Potentially a large enough
| > segment to make them unprofitable in the face of competition that
| > doesn't do that. Or not, as the case may be. It should be
| > obvious that "Jim Crow" laws wouldn't have passed unless somebody
| > thought
|
| that there was political profit to be found in nigger-beating.
|
| -- wds

Nothing happened.

-- wds

[Dano]

"Barry Margolin" wrote in message
news:barmar-FA9930....@news.eternal-september.org...

========================================

The "fear" in most of these people is the fear of either others finding out
about their own confused sexuality...or their fear OF that confusion. I
think more folks that have suppressed their own feelings act out
irrationally against gay folks who ARE comfortable with who they are. But
that's just my guess. I don't care that much...probably because I simply
have no use for such ignorant jackasses.

[trotsky]

Yes, that is heinous. As is not being able to draw depictions of
Mohammed. Or use Native American culture as if it was a marketing
concept. I get it, Thanny--you're just one of several anonyshit white
guys that think it makes sense to them to disrespect other people's
culture. Then you're up in arms when women, blacks, and Hispanics don't
vote for your candidate. You're a fucking dinosaur--try seceding from
the fucking world and go live on the fucking moon. You certainly don't
fit in on planet Earth.

You constantly say racist things ("Why can they use the n-word and I
can't?") and then bitch when you're told you're a racist. You remind me
of Kevin Kline's character, Otto, in "A Fish Called Wanda": "Don't call
me stupid!"

[Obveeus]

I'd say that his avoidance of offering an answer was pretty much an example
of his running away in fear of the subject.

[Obveeus]

"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry
>>> against homosexuals.
>>
>> The word "homophobia" is generally used incorrectly to refer to
>> any bigotry against homosexuals.
>>
>> Fixed that for you.
>
> Since we're talking about humans and not Vulcans, the meaning of
> a word is not welded to the logical sum of its root parts.

Some of these Usenet posters want to define every word their own way, rather
than how 'the public', 'the experts', or even 'the dictionary' define the
words. I ran up against the same issue a day or two ago when they refused
to acknowledge that 'embedded journalist' can and is used to define
journalists that are embedded in a political campaign, not just a war unit.

Dictionary definition: a journalist who is embedded with a military unit or
a political campaign.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embedded?s=t

Example of use by the experts in the field from 2004:
'To provide you with in-depth coverage of the 2004 campaign,
we've embedded a reporter with each of the Democratic
presidential candidates.'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080589/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/campaign-embeds/

[Ed Stasiak]

> trotsky
> > BTR1701

> >
> > Really? Try using that word in public if you're not black and
> > see what happens. And it'll happen no matter the context in
> > which you use it.
>
> Yes, that is heinous. As is not being able to draw depictions
> of Mohammed. Or use Native American culture as if it was
> a marketing concept.

It's good to see you agree that freedom of speech trumps the
"feelings" of some amorphous group, be they race-hustling
Blacks, fundi Muslims, self-segregating Indians, or fabulously
enraged homosexuals.

[BTR1701]

In article <k82vcv$783$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> "William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >
> >> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry
> >>> against homosexuals.
> >>
> >> The word "homophobia" is generally used incorrectly to refer to
> >> any bigotry against homosexuals.
> >>
> >> Fixed that for you.
> >
> > Since we're talking about humans and not Vulcans, the meaning of
> > a word is not welded to the logical sum of its root parts.
>
> Some of these Usenet posters want to define every word their own way, rather
> than how 'the public', 'the experts', or even 'the dictionary' define the
> words. I ran up against the same issue a day or two ago when they refused
> to acknowledge that 'embedded journalist' can and is used to define
> journalists that are embedded in a political campaign, not just a war unit.

Or like when you define 'crime' to be 'not crime'?

The idea of you criticizing others for making up their own word
definitions is quite amusing.

[BTR1701]

In article <k81umi$1bq$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> The "fear" in most of these people is the fear of either others finding out
> about their own confused sexuality...or their fear OF that confusion. I
> think more folks that have suppressed their own feelings act out
> irrationally against gay folks who ARE comfortable with who they are. But
> that's just my guess. I don't care that much...probably because I simply
> have no use for such ignorant jackasses.

Yes, you're absolutely right. Macke obviously only said Maddow looked
like a guy because she's terrified of her own sexuality. You nailed it.

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:04:55 -0500, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:

Yeah, but a lot of people dislike the intellectual dishonesty of this
carefully fashioned term. It reminds me of how they name bills in
Congress, like, a major tax hike might be the "Fiscal Responsibility Act
of 2012".

It was crafted to imply that anyone who has any opposition to what gay
advocates claim to be "rights" is motivated by some psychologically warped
fear of homosexuality.

[BTR1701]

The word 'Islamophobia' has been used in a similarly dishonest manner.

[trotsky]

It's bad to see that you represent a contingent that consistently thinks
"freedom of speech" translates to "freedom to be an asshole". And then
you complain when we call a spade a spade. Is whining your only game plan?

[Ed Stasiak]

> trotsky

>
> It's bad to see that you represent a contingent that consistently thinks
> "freedom of speech" translates to "freedom to be an asshole".

You say tomato, I say tomato. Which is exactly why the
1st Amendment exists.

> And then you complain when we call a spade a spade.

Good thing the 1st Amendment exists to protect you from
what many would consider a racist comment.

[marcus]

On Nov 14, 12:57 pm, Barbarian Mutual
<barbarianfinancialservi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 10:52 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 11:12 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <bb65dd9e-5792-49b3-a79d-7c43ec56b...@a14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >  Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 13, 9:19 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:

> > > > > In article <k7ug1l$67...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > "David"  wrote in
> > > > > > messagenews:0ef5a81148gsntg8m...@4ax.com...
>
> > > > > >http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tricia-macke-suspended-fox-affi...
> > > > > > dow-389947
>

> > > > > > Local Fox Anchor Suspended For Homophobic Comment About Rachel Maddow
> > > > > > by Jordan Zakarin
>
> > > > > > An anchor on WXIX-TV in Cincinnati was absent from the air on Sunday,
> > > > > > following outrage over Facebook remarks she made about the MSNBC host.
>
> > > > > > Tricia Macke was conspicuous in her absence from the anchor's desk
> > > > > > during the Sunday broadcast of the Fox 19 10 p.m. news, with reports
> > > > > > in Cincinnati indicating that she was taken off the air as punishment
> > > > > > for a comment she made about MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
>
> > > > > > In October, Macke wrote on her Facebook page that Maddow, who is
> > > > > > openly gay, is "such an angry young man." When she received an angry
> > > > > > response, she doubled down, writing in another update, "I am sorry. I
> > > > > > should have said antagonistic."
>

> > > > > > The controversy raged in the southern Ohio city, with GLAAD demanding
> > > > > > an apology, leading Macke to post a more formal statement online, with
> > > > > > a note from her network's management attached.
>
> > > > > > "I recently posted comments on my personal Facebook page regarding
> > > > > > cable news anchor Rachel Maddow which were insensitive and
> > > > > > inappropriate," she wrote. "I apologize to Ms. Maddow and any others
> > > > > > who may have been offended by my comments, as they do not reflect my
> > > > > > firm beliefs in individual and equal rights, and they certainly do not
> > > > > > represent the opinions or position of my employer WXIX-TV."
>
> > > > > > The network would not say whether she is suspended -- it does not
> > > > > > comment on personnel matters, the station manager said -- but John
> > > > > > Kiesewetter of the Cincinnati Enquirer indicated that she had indeed
> > > > > > been suspended, and will be back in the anchor's chair on Tuesday.
>
> > > > > > ==========================================
>

> > > > > > So he wasn't suspended for "insulting" Maddow. He was suspended for

> > > > > > making homophobic comments.  She's lucky to still have her job.
>

> > > > > How is saying Maddow is ugly homophobic?
>
> > > > > It may not be nice, but it's not indicative that Macke fears
> > > > > gay people.
> > > > Where, in the provided article, is the Fox affiliate reporter quoted
> > > > as saying Dr. Maddow is ugly?
>
> > > Calling a woman man-like in appearance is synonymous with calling her
> > > ugly.
>
> > It's also synonymous with calling her a bull dyke.
>

> > >Even if you don't agree, it's certainly not synonymous with being
> > > afraid of gay people.
>
>  >Yes it is.  People use insults to deflect their irrational fears
> every
>
> >  second of every day...  just ask your therapist.
>

> Hate-radio shock-jock Michael Savage seemingly and insultingly says
> PMSNBC to refer to MSNBC using female reporters from time-to-time.
> Does that mean that he has an irrational fear of women?

Nah, he's just an asshole.

[Dano]

"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:4r5aa8p28okgh8553...@4ax.com...

=========================================

Well then...what would YOU call it? Simply white bread variety bigotry? Or
just blind, stupid hatred.

[trotsky]

On 11/15/12 2:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> trotsky
>>
>> It's bad to see that you represent a contingent that consistently thinks
>> "freedom of speech" translates to "freedom to be an asshole".
>
> You say tomato, I say tomato. Which is exactly why the
> 1st Amendment exists.

No, I don't believe the purpose was for people to go out of their way to
be disagreeable to others. Again, you're just being an asshole. I
respect an informed, dissenting opinion. I've never heard that from
Rush Limbaugh, for example.

>> And then you complain when we call a spade a spade.
>
> Good thing the 1st Amendment exists to protect you from
> what many would consider a racist comment.

Well, if you want to admit the First Amendment helped you lose an
election, I'm all for that!!

[Ed Stasiak]

> trotsky
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Which is exactly why the 1st Amendment exists.
>
> No, I don't believe the purpose was for people to go out
> of their way to be disagreeable to others.

The part about being "disagreeable", where exactly is that
in the Bill of Rights again?

> Again, you're just being an asshole.

No, _you're_ being an asshole (see, I can play to!).

And we're free to say that, and free to be offended or not.

What's the problem here?

> > Good thing the 1st Amendment exists to protect you from
> > what many would consider a racist comment.
>
> Well, if you want to admit the First Amendment helped you
> lose an election, I'm all for that!!

Strange, I wasn't aware I was in the running for political office?

[William December Starr]

In article <4r5aa8p28okgh8553...@4ax.com>,

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:

> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>

>> The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry
>> against homosexuals. My dictionary says that homophobia is "an
>> extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual
>> people".
>
> Yeah, but a lot of people dislike the intellectual dishonesty of
> this carefully fashioned term. It reminds me of how they name
> bills in Congress, like, a major tax hike might be the "Fiscal
> Responsibility Act of 2012".
>
> It was crafted to imply that anyone who has any opposition to
> what gay advocates claim to be "rights" is motivated by some
> psychologically warped fear of homosexuality.

Prove it.

-- wds

[BTR1701]

In article <idydnSk_bbacrzjN...@mchsi.com>,

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> On 11/15/12 9:09 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> trotsky
> >>> BTR1701
> >>>
> >>> Really? Try using that word in public if you're not black and
> >>> see what happens. And it'll happen no matter the context in
> >>> which you use it.
> >>
> >> Yes, that is heinous. As is not being able to draw depictions
> >> of Mohammed. Or use Native American culture as if it was
> >> a marketing concept.
> >
> > It's good to see you agree that freedom of speech trumps the
> > "feelings" of some amorphous group, be they race-hustling
> > Blacks, fundi Muslims, self-segregating Indians, or fabulously
> > enraged homosexuals.
>
>
> It's bad to see that you represent a contingent that consistently thinks
> "freedom of speech" translates to "freedom to be an asshole".

It does, you Hot Pocket-engorged behemoth, as you amply demonstrate here
every single day.

[trotsky]

I can see why you complain, Thanny. 90% of my responses to you you are
too afraid to answer. The only good thing I can say about you is that
you're consistently a sore loser.

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:28:14 -0500:

Yup. One of the first tacks of the intellectually dishonest is to smear
the credibility of those who don't toe the line.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:39:14 -0800:

:)

[Jim G.]

Barry Margolin sent the following on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:04:55 -0500:

> In article <val7a81r6vouocj1l...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>

> > Dano sent the following on Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:02:28 -0500:
> > > "David" wrote in message
> > > news:0ef5a81148gsntg8m...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tricia-macke-suspended-fox-affiliate-m
> > > addow-389947
> > >

> > > Local Fox Anchor Suspended For Homophobic Comment About Rachel Maddow
> > > by Jordan Zakarin
> > >
> > > An anchor on WXIX-TV in Cincinnati was absent from the air on Sunday,
> > > following outrage over Facebook remarks she made about the MSNBC host.
> > >
> > > Tricia Macke was conspicuous in her absence from the anchor's desk
> > > during the Sunday broadcast of the Fox 19 10 p.m. news, with reports
> > > in Cincinnati indicating that she was taken off the air as punishment
> > > for a comment she made about MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
> > >
> > > In October, Macke wrote on her Facebook page that Maddow, who is
> > > openly gay, is "such an angry young man." When she received an angry
> > > response, she doubled down, writing in another update, "I am sorry. I
> > > should have said antagonistic."
> >

> > Hahahahahahahahahaha. That's awesome.

> >
> > > The controversy raged in the southern Ohio city, with GLAAD demanding
> > > an apology, leading Macke to post a more formal statement online, with
> > > a note from her network's management attached.
> > >
> > > "I recently posted comments on my personal Facebook page regarding
> > > cable news anchor Rachel Maddow which were insensitive and
> > > inappropriate," she wrote. "I apologize to Ms. Maddow and any others
> > > who may have been offended by my comments, as they do not reflect my
> > > firm beliefs in individual and equal rights, and they certainly do not
> > > represent the opinions or position of my employer WXIX-TV."
> > >
> > > The network would not say whether she is suspended -- it does not
> > > comment on personnel matters, the station manager said -- but John
> > > Kiesewetter of the Cincinnati Enquirer indicated that she had indeed
> > > been suspended, and will be back in the anchor's chair on Tuesday.
> > >
> > > ==========================================
> > >

> > > So he wasn't suspended for "insulting" Maddow. He was suspended for making
> > > homophobic comments.
> >
> > Looks like you and Jordan need to take another look at the definition of
> > phobia. Good luck finding a legitimate one that doesn't include a fear
> > component as a primary factor.
>
> The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry against
> homosexuals.

And a lot of people are generally stupid. Or, at the other end of the
spectrum, clever enough that they see value in diminishing the views of
their opponents by labeling those views as being "fear."

> My dictionary says that homophobia is "an extreme and
> irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people".

You need a less politically correct dictionary. From the OED, the
granddaddy of them all:

phobia

('f??b??)

Also 9 phoby.

[The prec. suffix used as a separate word.]

Fear, horror, or aversion, esp. of a morbid character. In Psychol., an
abnormal and irrational fear or dread which is caused by a particular
object or circumstance.

   1786 Columbian Mag. Nov. 110/1, I shall begin, by defining Phobia in
the present instance, to be a fear of an imaginary evil, or an undue
fear of a real one.    1801 Coleridge in Sir H. Davy's Rem. (1858) 92,
I?have a perfect phobia of inns and coffee-houses.    1875 W. Cory Lett.
& Jrnls. (1897) 409 Against management by phobies, either Tory phobies
or popular phobies.    1887, 1895 [see -phobia].    1897 tr. T. Ribot's
Psychol. of Emotions ii. ii. 215 We can easily see that many phobias
come under this category.    1899 Allbutt's Syst. Med. VIII. 157
Specific means?to dissipate the ‘phobias’ or the obsessions.    1907 S.
A. K. Wilson tr. Meige & Feindel's Tics iv. 88 Prominent among the
mental anomalies of the subjects of tic are found different sorts of
phobia.    1909 A. A. Brill tr. Freud's Sel. Papers on Hysteria v. 123
Thus far the processes are the same in hysteria, in phobias and
obsessions, but from now on their ways part.    Ibid. 127 Thus?freed
anxiety, the sexual origin of which can not be recalled, attaches itself
to the common primary phobias of man.    1954 R. F. C. Hull tr. Jung's
Devel. of Personality in Coll. Wks. XVII. iv. 74 The latter [sc. the
mother] projected all her phobias onto the child.    1974 E. B. McNeil
Psychol. of being Human ix. 232 Phobias are symptoms issuing from
unacceptable basic urges that have been repressed from consciousness.
When repression is effective, phobia symptoms need not exist.    1978
New York 3 Apr. 85/2 (Advt.), Swim-o-phobia? Cure it forever. Our
private lessons by professional instructors will have you phobia-free
and swimming in no time.

So 'phobist nonce-wd., one who has a horror of or morbid aversion to
anything.

   1883 Church Quarterly XV. 394 Men, who refuse to give up their
liberty at the dictation of ‘phobists’ of any denomination.

> It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few people fear
> gays in the same way that they might fear spiders, snakes, or heights.
> They just don't like them or their lifestyle, or don't like allowing
> them to have more rights in society.

Exactly. So it's not a phobia. So it's not homo*phobia*.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>Some of these Usenet posters want to define every word their own way, rather
>than how 'the public', 'the experts', or even 'the dictionary' define the
>words. I ran up against the same issue a day or two ago when they refused
>to acknowledge that 'embedded journalist' can and is used to define
>journalists that are embedded in a political campaign, not just a war unit.

>Dictionary definition: a journalist who is embedded with a military unit or
>a political campaign.
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embedded?s=t

Missing the obveeus yet again by providing a definition that means itself:

embedded journalist: a journalist who is embedded

obveeus means: blithering idiot

[nera...@gmail.com]

she is an angry man!

[Dano]

wrote in message
news:9c67323a-b593-44a1...@googlegroups.com...

she is an angry man!

===================================

And you are a worthless rodent. So what?