OT A Terrific Movie About Hate/Anti-Semitism
ansermetniac
1947
Directed by Ed Dymytryk
Stariing
Robert Ryan as the anti-Semite
Sam Levene as the Jew
Robert Mitchum as the one with the droopy eyelids
Marcus Welby as the Police Captain
Gloria Grahame as the B-Girl
Because it was shot in 20 days, it beat Gentlemen's Agreement to the
screen
Robert Ryan was amazing
Abbedd
Russ (not Martha)
> Marcus Welby as the Police Captain
Don't you mean Robert Young?
Russ (not Martha)
William Sommerwerck
news:jckd565acgfurkfli...@4ax.com...
> Crossfire
> 1947
I normally don't respond to Mr Maniac's postings, but in this case I feel
obliged to.
The original novel -- "The Brick Foxhole" -- did not center around
anti-Semitism, but queer-hating. The murdered soldier wasn't Jewish, but
homosexual. In Hollywood of that era, you didn't talk about such things
directly. So the victim was moved from one minority to another.
It's worth noting that "Gentleman's Agreement" (the correct title) was
written by Laura Z Hobson, one of whose sons was gay, and about whom she
wrote a novel, "Long-Term Companion".
I consider "Gentleman's Agreement" a good-but-not-great film that, had it
not been about anti-Semitism, would not have been nominated for Best
Picture, let alone have won it. But Hollywood has a strongly Jewish
demographic, which was not going to ignore a basically pro-Jewish film, so
it was nominated and won -- sort of "Brokeback Mountain" in reverse, one
well-known Hollywood Jew (Bernard Schwartz) making particularly disparaging
remarks about it.
The best thing about the film is its somethat ambiguous ending.
ansermetniac
Q: What is green and gooey and runs around the hospital
A: Mucus Welby
Abbedd
JohnGavin
wrote:
> "ansermetniac" <ansermetn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> But Hollywood has a strongly Jewish
> demographic, which was not going to ignore a basically pro-Jewish film, so
Well, we can safely say that there will be no Bernie Madoff bio pic
anytime soon.
It would be a good thing however, to see an accurate dramatization of
how many lives he ruined.
ansermetniac
When Hitler's favorite filmmaker, a female whose name I can't
remember, came to Hollywood, all the secular Jewish heads of studios
and the gentile Zannuck refused her. She was welcomed with open arms
by Walter Disney
Abbedd
William Sommerwerck
> I can't remember, came to Hollywood, all the secular
> Jewish heads of studios and the gentile Zannuck refused
Leni Refenstahl. (Hope I spelled that right.)
Disney was largely apolitical. Most of the rumors about his Nazi and
anti-Semitic leanings are untrue. He did, however (as most people do) become
more conservative as he grew older.
ansermetniac
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Disney was largely apolitical. Most of the rumors about his Nazi and
>anti-Semitic leanings are untrue
I don't think so
Abbedd
Gerard
You better don't think (it's not your expertise and it's not on your CV), but
read a history book.
Norman Schwartz
Kip Williams
> Disney was largely apolitical. Most of the rumors about his Nazi and
> anti-Semitic leanings are untrue. He did, however (as most people do) become
> more conservative as he grew older.
He was mildly antisemitic, mostly in the casual, unthinking way of most
of the environment he came in and moved around in. He didn't think twice
about putting in a Jewish caricature here and there in his cartoons —
after all, the Fleischers did it all the time.
He did get conservative. It may have started with his feelings of
betrayal at the animators' strike in 1940, which led him to regard Labor
as a bunch of freeloading commies.
Nazi leanings seems to be stretching it a bit. He wanted the Allies to
win WW2 and didn't hesitate to put in unflattering caricatures of Nazis,
including head Nazis, and he made cartoons to help the war effort, from
selling bonds and stamps to the rather unusual VICTORY THROUGH AIR POWER.
It's a subject I'm interested in, so I added some detail. Incidentally,
I have scans of animation-related material (including contemporary
reports on the strike) here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kipw/sets/72157594477322717/
Kip W
Frank Berger
The both of you have come close to dangerously stereotyping Hollywood Jews,
IMO. In order for a Madoff film to be anti-semitic, it would have to omit
the damage Madoff did to other Jews from the story. Even if there are Jews
wouldn't make that film for the reasons you seem to suggest, there are
plenty of others, Jew and Gentile, that would make it if they thought it
would earn a buck. I'm just not sure it would make interesting drama.
pianomaven
>
> news:jckd565acgfurkfli...@4ax.com...
>
> > Crossfire
> > 1947
>
> I normally don't respond to Mr Maniac's postings, but in this case I feel
> obliged to.
>
> The original novel -- "The Brick Foxhole" -- did not center around
> anti-Semitism, but queer-hating. The murdered soldier wasn't Jewish, but
> homosexual. In Hollywood of that era, you didn't talk about such things
> directly. So the victim was moved from one minority to another.
>
> It's worth noting that "Gentleman's Agreement" (the correct title) was
> written by Laura Z Hobson, one of whose sons was gay, and about whom she
> wrote a novel, "Long-Term Companion".
I think you will find that the title was "Consenting Adult", 1975
TD
William Sommerwerck
>> about his Nazi and anti-Semitic leanings are untrue
> I don't think so.
Give Neil Gabler's recent biography a look-see. It's a fun read, too.
William Sommerwerck
>> anti-Semitic leanings are untrue. He did, however (as most people do)
>> become more conservative as he grew older.
> He was mildly antisemitic, mostly in the casual, unthinking way of most
> of the environment he came in and moved around in. He didn't think twice
> about putting in a Jewish caricature here and there in his cartoons —
> after all, the Fleischers did it all the time.
Most notably "The Three Little Pigs".
> He did get conservative. It may have started with his feelings of
> betrayal at the animators' strike in 1940, which led him to regard
> Labor as a bunch of freeloading commies.
If Disney's politics had to be summed up in any way, "anti-Communist" would
be it. In his early days, he wanted the studio to be a sort of "workers'
paradise" -- not simply to make the employees feel good, but so that they
would be in the kind of environment that would educe their very best work.
This lead to what I call the "Disney Paradox of Management". When you own
the company, the employees will eventually turn against you, regardless of
how well you treat them (and even if their share your basic artistic
philosophy), simply because there is dividing line between being the boss
and being someone who "works" for their living. Disney was the epitome of
"do something you love and you will never work a day in your life". Disney
put in long hours, but hardly ever "worked". I don't think he really
understood that his employees were "workers".
Disney was not initially an ogre (though he became one). He told his
daughter that in the early days, the employees were always paid first, and
some weeks he and Roy went home with little or nothing. Disney also was
quick to authorize bonuses for employees he felt had made major
contributions. Of course, as he got increasingly wealthy, he increasingly
became an unappreciative creep. The story that Art Babbitt tells in the
Gabler biography about his careless rudeness is appalling.
When TIME picked Einstein as man of the 20th century, they made a serious
mistake. It should have been Disney. Disney had more effect on our daily
lives and the way we see the world than any other person of the 20th
century. He is arguably the most-unintentionally evil man who ever lived.
The world would have been better off had he not been born.
> Nazi leanings seems to be stretching it a bit. He wanted the Allies to
> win WW2 and didn't hesitate to put in unflattering caricatures of Nazis,
> including head Nazis, and he made cartoons to help the war effort, from
> selling bonds and stamps to the rather unusual VICTORY THROUGH
> AIR POWER.
This film was his idea. No one twisted his arm.
One of the Disney Treasures sets the war-time material, including "Victory"
and "Der Fuhrer's Face".
William Sommerwerck
Thanks for the correction.
JohnGavin
Thanks. If it's released without heavy handed editing I'll certainly
retract my words.
A good article in connection with him:
Kip Williams
> When TIME picked Einstein as man of the 20th century, they made a serious
> mistake. It should have been Disney. Disney had more effect on our daily
> lives and the way we see the world than any other person of the 20th
> century. He is arguably the most-unintentionally evil man who ever lived.
> The world would have been better off had he not been born.
Yow! I'm going to have to think about that one. I'll certainly agree
that he has done, or caused to be done, some amount of evil.
Kip W
Frank Berger
Is William talking about Einstein or Disney as the most "untintentionally
evil man who ever lived?" If the latter, that's ludicrous. If the former,
Time's choice is perfect, as the man of the year is supposed to be most
influentional, not necessarily for the good.
Steven Bornfeld
> Is William talking about Einstein or Disney as the most "untintentionally
> evil man who ever lived?" If the latter, that's ludicrous. If the former,
> Time's choice is perfect, as the man of the year is supposed to be most
> influentional, not necessarily for the good.
>
>
Time's choice of Einstein as man of the century had to be symbolic.
And blaming the A-bomb on one guy is decidedly over the top.
Disney as a cultural figure--well, there's plenty to discuss there (IMO
for good and bad) but while I have my opinions, I don't think I have the
cultural standing to trumpet them here.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
M forever
Interesting. And the irony of that story is that a lot of traditional
Jews strongly condemn homosexuality while at the same time whining
about how they are the victims of intolerance...
So it is interesting to see how this story about intolerance of
homosexuality was turned into an "anti-semitism" whinefest. Thanks for
that info.
M forever
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 08:27:52 -0700 (PDT), JohnGavin
>
Nonsense. Riefenstahl was actually invited to come to America by MGM,
a studio firmly in Jewish hands.
M forever
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:30:04 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
>
> >Disney was largely apolitical. Most of the rumors about his Nazi and
> >anti-Semitic leanings are untrue
>
> I don't think so
That's a very powerful argument! I wonder how Sommerwerck could ever
counter that...
M forever
wrote:
Ansermetniac's ("read a history book") world view has never been
influenced by facts, so why should he seek them now?
M forever
wrote:
I don't understand that. Why do you think so?
> He is arguably the most-unintentionally evil man who ever lived.
> The world would have been better off had he not been born.
I don't get that either. Why would the world have been better off of
WD had never been born?
Norman Schwartz
"Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
news:i37igr$8fg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 8/2/2010 6:10 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Is William talking about Einstein or Disney as the most "untintentionally
>> evil man who ever lived?" If the latter, that's ludicrous. If the
>> former,
>> Time's choice is perfect, as the man of the year is supposed to be most
>> influentional, not necessarily for the good.
>>
>>
>
>
> Time's choice of Einstein as man of the century had to be symbolic. And
> blaming the A-bomb on one guy is decidedly over the top.
> Disney as a cultural figure--well, there's plenty to discuss there (IMO
> for good and bad) but while I have my opinions, I don't think I have the
> cultural standing to trumpet them here.
>
> Steve
>
>
ansermetniac
wrote:
>Nonsense. Riefenstahl was actually invited to come to America by MGM,
>a studio firmly in Jewish hands.
Source, please
Abbedd
ansermetniac
wrote:
>On Aug 2, 12:37 pm, ansermetniac <ansermetn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
He could put me in the oven. Oops that is the German Way. Sorry
Abbedd
Norman Schwartz
Is there any religion that approves of homosexuality?
> So it is interesting to see how this story about intolerance of
> homosexuality was turned into an "anti-semitism" whinefest. Thanks for
A religion vs. sexual orientation, does that make any sense?
Catholics have http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm, Jews have Israel, and
homosexuals have -----?
Norman Schwartz
> When TIME picked Einstein as man of the 20th century, they made a
> serious mistake. It should have been Disney. Disney had more effect
> on our daily lives and the way we see the world than any other person
> of the 20th century. He is arguably the most-unintentionally evil man
> who ever lived. The world would have been better off had he not been
> born.
>
>
William, I think you've lost your mind; e = mc2 vs.Donald Duck?
And the prize goes to ....?
ansermetniac
Deacon
Abbedd
Bob Lombard
> "Steven Bornfeld"<bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> Time's choice of Einstein as man of the century had to be symbolic. And
>> blaming the A-bomb on one guy is decidedly over the top.
Seeing as how Einstein was a mathematician and theorist, not a nuclear
physicist, _way_ 'over the top'.
>> Disney as a cultural figure--well, there's plenty to discuss there (IMO
>> for good and bad) but while I have my opinions, I don't think I have the
>> cultural standing to trumpet them here.
My 'cultural standing' sucks too, but assuming that Mickey and Donald
had any more cultural influence than Sylvester (~0) is severely
dissing the plebeian population.
>>
> Mickey Mouse vs. Einstein, the choice is clear.
>
Not if your main interest is movies.
bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
ivanmaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes I thought I read that line wrong - why exactly would the world
have been better if Disney had never been born??? Wagner Fan
William Sommerwerck
What does that have to do with anything? Discrimination is discrimination.
>> So it is interesting to see how this story about intolerance of
>> homosexuality was turned into an "anti-semitism" whinefest.
> A religion vs. sexual orientation, does that make any sense?
One can choose one's religion. One has little or no choice over one's sexual
orientation.
Steven Bornfeld
>>
>
http://www.depletedcranium.com/happyscience/einstein-tongue.jpg
S.
William Sommerwerck
My understanding is that Q'uran says nothing about it, pro or con, thus
implicitly at least "tolerating" it.
Many pagan societies tolerated or even flatly accepted homosexuality. Unless
you think pagan religions aren't religions.
William Sommerwerck
>> they made a serious mistake. It should have been Disney.
>> Disney had more effect on our daily lives and the way we
>> see the world than any other person of the 20th century.
> I don't understand that. Why do you think so?
>> He is arguably the most-unintentionally evil man who ever lived.
>> The world would have been better off had he not been born.
> I don't get that either. Why would the world have been better off
> if WD had never been born?
I'm terribly busy at the moment. Would you give me a day or two to write
something down? I don't have time right now. Thanks.
ivanmaxim
wrote:
One has no choice over ones sexual orientation - you are what you are.
You can choose what you want to do about it. Wagner fan
Bob Harper
>> Is there any religion that approves of homosexuality?
>
> My understanding is that Q'uran says nothing about it, pro or con, thus
> implicitly at least "tolerating" it.
Tell that to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Or to the Wahhabists who run Saudi Arabia.
Bob Harper
William Sommerwerck
>> choice over one's sexual orientation.
> One has no choice over ones sexual orientation -- you
> are what you are. You can choose what you want to do
> about it. Wagner fan
And if I don't choose to do what Those In Power think is right...?
David Oberman
<ivanm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yes I thought I read that line wrong - why exactly would the world
>have been better if Disney had never been born??? Wagner Fan
A world without Disneyland would have been no world at all!!
Ray Hall
> On 8/2/2010 8:19 PM, Norman Schwartz wrote:
>> "Steven Bornfeld"<bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Time's choice of Einstein as man of the century had to be symbolic. And
>>> blaming the A-bomb on one guy is decidedly over the top.
>
> Seeing as how Einstein was a mathematician and theorist, not a nuclear
> physicist, _way_ 'over the top'.
>
>>> Disney as a cultural figure--well, there's plenty to discuss there (IMO
>>> for good and bad) but while I have my opinions, I don't think I have the
>>> cultural standing to trumpet them here.
>
> My 'cultural standing' sucks too, but assuming that Mickey and Donald
> had any more cultural influence than Sylvester (~0) is severely dissing
> the plebeian population.
>>>
>> Mickey Mouse vs. Einstein, the choice is clear.
>>
>
> Not if your main interest is movies.
He wasn't a very good mathematician either. Knew his physics though. Had
to be tutored for several years to even grasp Riemannian geometry.
His conceptual grasp was enormous.
Ray Hall, Taree
ivanmaxim
wrote:
Well thats up to you. Wagner fan
pianomaven
Perhaps you have a Jesus complex and want to be terminated?
TD
pianomaven
wrote:
> > Is there any religion that approves of homosexuality?
>
> What does that have to do with anything? Discrimination is discrimination.
>
> >> So it is interesting to see how this story about intolerance of
> >> homosexuality was turned into an "anti-semitism" whinefest.
> > A religion vs. sexual orientation, does that make any sense?
>
> One can choose one's religion.
Tell that to a Jew.
> One has little or no choice over one's sexual orientation.
I thought that was a "lifestyle" choice.
TD
pianomaven
TD
pianomaven
> On 8/2/10 5:34 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> >> Is there any religion that approves of homosexuality?
>
> > My understanding is that Q'uran says nothing about it, pro or con, thus
> > implicitly at least "tolerating" it.
>
> Tell that to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Or to the Wahhabists who run Saudi Arabia.
Why?
TD
Gerard
> > Is there any religion that approves of homosexuality?
>
> My understanding is that Q'uran says nothing about it, pro or con,
> thus implicitly at least "tolerating" it.
>
They don't. According to what they say, homosexuals have to be thrown from the
roofs.
Hardly "tolerating".
ansermetniac
Modern Islam is a bastardization of Islam as is Modern Christianity a
bastardization of Christianity
Abbedd
David Oberman
<raymon...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>He wasn't a very good mathematician either. Knew his physics though. Had
>to be tutored for several years to even grasp Riemannian geometry.
>
>His conceptual grasp was enormous.
He had a shock of wild white hair.
That is enough.
Gerard
>
> Modern Islam is a bastardization of Islam as is Modern Christianity a
> bastardization of Christianity
>
> Abbedd
Let's not talk about modern abbeddism.
William Sommerwerck
I wasn't talking about the idiots who profess to practice a particular
religion -- I was talking about Islam's holy book, which presumably defines
Islamic beliefs.
Homosexual behavior has long been (and still is) common in the
Mediterranean, to the point it was generally accepted. Mohammed probably
tolerated it, and so the Q'uran says nothing. When the Taliban was weakened
in Afghanistan, the practice of unmarried men taking older teenagers as
lovers quickly returned. For obvious psychological reasons, this becomes
self-perpetuating behavior.
It's worth noting that, until the stupid British outlawed it in the '30s,
male/male Islamic marriage existed among the defenders of the Siwa oasis --
though the exact character of these marriages is not altogether clear. These
Muslims did not have any problem with sex between adult men and teenagers,
or even (apparently) between adult men.
David Oberman
<1pian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> One can choose one's religion.
>
>Tell that to a Jew.
The Jew will agree, actually. He may be born into the "tribe" because
his mom is Jewish, but that fact is so inconsequential to Judaism's
world view & designs for human life that, in 45 years of listening to
rabbis speak to congregations, I don't think I've heard it mentioned
even once.
Allen
last week my wife and seven year old son flew out to join me, and the
two of them went to Disneyland. My son had little to say as they waked
around, but when they left he said "Everything in that place is
plastic". End of any more talk about it. What he did talk about
enthusiastically was something absolutely non-plastic; archaeologists
were digging in the La Brea tar pits, apparently for the first time
since the original excavations. They happened to dig up a sabre-tooth
tiger skull while he was watching; now that's an experience to remember.
I personally believe that the world would be no worse off if there had
never been a Disneyland.
Allen
David Oberman
<anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Modern Islam is a bastardization of Islam as is Modern Christianity a
>bastardization of Christianity
Modern movie music is a bastardization of Bruckner, is what I think!
Allen
orientation--in either direction. I also believe that the people who are
convinced that it is a choice think that because they have made that
choice. There are many more bisexuals in this world than are recognized
in studies.
Allen
ivanmaxim
The choice they have made is how they will act, not what they are -
you are born either gay or straight or one of the many levels in
between. How you act is your choice - to be what you are or try to act
differently from what you are. Its up to you how you act - but that
often has little relationship to what you are . A guy could be happily
straight but have a curiousity or even a yearning to be with a man -
but for any number of reasons he could decide to give in or ignore
that impulse - thats his choice. Wagner fam
Gerard
> > > > Is there any religion that approves of homosexuality?
>
> > > My understanding is that Q'uran says nothing about it,
> > > pro or con, thus implicitly at least "tolerating" it.
>
> > They don't. According to what they say, homosexuals have
> > to be thrown from the roofs. Hardly "tolerating".
>
> I wasn't talking about the idiots who profess to practice a particular
> religion -- I was talking about Islam's holy book, which presumably
> defines Islamic beliefs.
You may call them 'idiots', but if they are with millions and say what is their
belief: does it matter what is exactly written in their holy book?
>
> Homosexual behavior has long been (and still is) common in the
> Mediterranean, to the point it was generally accepted. Mohammed
> probably tolerated it, and so the Q'uran says nothing. When the
> Taliban was weakened in Afghanistan, the practice of unmarried men
> taking older teenagers as lovers quickly returned. For obvious
> psychological reasons, this becomes self-perpetuating behavior.
>
> It's worth noting that, until the stupid British outlawed it in the
> '30s, male/male Islamic marriage existed among the defenders of the
> Siwa oasis -- though the exact character of these marriages is not
> altogether clear. These Muslims did not have any problem with sex
> between adult men and teenagers, or even (apparently) between adult
> men.
I don't know about your sources.
But googling 'koran homosexuality' and 'qu'ran homosexuality' and 'quran
homosexuality' gives thousands and thousands of pages where is stated that
homosexuality is sinful according to that holy book.
Other pages are in contradiction (saying that the Qu'ran does not say anything
about it) however.
So it seems to depend on who's page you're reading.
Gerard
> There are many more bisexuals in this world
> than are recognized in studies.
> Allen
How can you know this?
Frank Berger
Well, traditional Judaism avers that a Jew is obligated to live a Torah
lifestyle. In that sense, he can't choose his religion. But of course, the
individual has free will and therefore the ability to choose to live that
lifestyle or not. It's all about process.
William Sommerwerck
>> than are recognized in studies.
> How can you know this?
We don't "know" it.
However, human males generally have a strong sex drive, which can lead to
all sorts of experimentation. It would be more correct to say that a
signficant percentage of hetero males experiments with homosexual activities
sometime in their lives. It's the way human males are wired.
Gerard
I suppose that this is not just a gratitous statement, but something that has
been resulted from studies.
Imo Allen's statement does not make sense.
Norman Schwartz
"David Oberman" <DavidO...@att.net> wrote in message
news:vh9g569eg46ff4li6...@4ax.com...
And appreciated Marilyn M.
Bob Lombard
A friend looks at the issue this way (I don't know if he applies it to
just males): Everyone's sexuality can be visualized as occupying a
place on a scale that is 100% heterosexual at one end and 100%
homosexual at the other end. He theorizes that positions of about 80%
or more toward either end are essentially equal to being all the way
at an end. Some degree of sexual ambivalence is felt by people toward
the middle from those values, but social pressures tilt conscious
awareness of this ambivalence strongly toward the hetero side. He
makes no guesses regarding the position of the mean.
My friend is a math-oriented guy.
bl (the homophobic Jew, remember)
Norman Schwartz
"Bob Lombard" <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:kLI5o.443515$7n7.4...@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com...
> On 8/2/2010 8:19 PM, Norman Schwartz wrote:
>> "Steven Bornfeld"<bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Time's choice of Einstein as man of the century had to be symbolic. And
>>> blaming the A-bomb on one guy is decidedly over the top.
>
> Seeing as how Einstein was a mathematician and theorist, not a nuclear
> physicist, _way_ 'over the top'.
>
>>> Disney as a cultural figure--well, there's plenty to discuss there (IMO
>>> for good and bad) but while I have my opinions, I don't think I have the
>>> cultural standing to trumpet them here.
>
> My 'cultural standing' sucks too, but assuming that Mickey and Donald had
> any more cultural influence than Sylvester (~0) is severely dissing the
> plebeian population.
>>>
>> Mickey Mouse vs. Einstein, the choice is clear.
>>
>
> Not if your main interest is movies.
>
Movies and popcorn vendors wouldn't exactly go bust without the Disney
contribution, some parties stepping in to take up any slack. Even kiddies
would have fared well, perhaps even better if they'd picked up a decent book
and read rather than watching some BS. AFAIC whatever his political leanings
were, I'd be just as well off should he neverexisted. Even if there weren't
an Epcot, we could have spent the money more wisely.
> bl
>
>
> --
> Music, books, a few movies
> LombardMusic
> http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
ansermetniac
Since when are you landsedman????
A recent conversion for the Jokes?
What was Lombard in Europe?
Abbedd
Kip Williams
And Beany.
Kip W
Gerard
He looks ...
He theorizes ...
A friend ...
Isn't Wikipedia is much more reliable source?
William Sommerwerck
Read Kinsey.
William Sommerwerck
>>>> than are recognized in studies.
>> How can you know this?
>> We don't "know" it.
>> However, human males generally have a strong sex drive, which can
>> lead to all sorts of experimentation. It would be more correct to say
>> that a signficant percentage of hetero males experiments with
>> homosexual activities sometime in their lives. It's the way human
>> males are wired.
> I suppose that this is not just a gratitous statement, but something
> that has been resulted from studies.
> IMOllen's statement does not make sense.
I neglected to mention I've also seen this in my own experience. Men with
strong sex drives commonly experiment with same-sex sex. This is not
necessarily connected with "orientation", but simply "curiosity" and a
natural desire for any kind of sexual contact.
Mutual masturbation has always common among human males. Sailors and cowboys
even had a term for it... "a chaw for a chaw". (The reference is to an
uncircumcised foreskin resembling a plug of tobacco.)
Quentin Crisp put it very well... "Men are neither heterosexual no
homosexual. They are sexual."
Frank Berger
So if one had never had a homosexual experience, you would be inclined to
attribute that to never having been in prison. Or perhaps to a generally
low libido.
Gerard
Because that is a study?
Does that make sense?
Frank Berger
>>>>> There are many more bisexuals in this world
>>>>> than are recognized in studies.
>
>>> How can you know this?
>
>>> We don't "know" it.
>>> However, human males generally have a strong sex drive, which can
>>> lead to all sorts of experimentation. It would be more correct to
>>> say that a signficant percentage of hetero males experiments with
>>> homosexual activities sometime in their lives. It's the way human
>>> males are wired.
>
>> I suppose that this is not just a gratitous statement, but something
>> that has been resulted from studies.
>> IMOllen's statement does not make sense.
>
> I neglected to mention I've also seen this in my own experience. Men
> with strong sex drives commonly experiment with same-sex sex.
Could you be confusing a need to dominate with a strong sex drive? Just
wondering.
Gerard
Yet nothing of this "proofs" what Allen wrote.
It's all based on studies.
pianomaven
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:55:47 +0200, "Gerard"
>
> <g_no_spam_hendrik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >> > Is there any religion that approves of homosexuality?
>
> >> My understanding is that Q'uran says nothing about it, pro or con,
> >> thus implicitly at least "tolerating" it.
>
> >They don't. According to what they say, homosexuals have to be thrown from the
> >roofs.
> >Hardly "tolerating".
>
> bastardization of Christianity
And Modern Judaism is just a bastard?
TD
William Sommerwerck
>>> but something that has been resulted from studies.
>>> Imo Allen's statement does not make sense.
>> Read Kinsey.
> Because that is a study?
> Does that make sense?
Kinsey discovered that incidental homosexual experience was quite common,
among virtually every group of men he interviewed.
Rather than go into this in detail, I recommend finding a copy and at least
browsing it.
William Sommerwerck
>> experience. Men with strong sex drives commonly
>> experiment with same-sex sex.
> Could you be confusing a need to dominate with a
> strong sex drive? Just wondering.
That might be true for Roman men...
When I was in college, I was publically "out", and several hetero men I
already knew asked to have sex with me, simply out of curiosity. All of
them, by the way, were strongly sexed and notorious womanizers.
There was no "domination" on either side.
pianomaven
> >>> One can choose one's religion. One has little or no
> >>> choice over one's sexual orientation.
>
> >> One has no choice over ones sexual orientation -- you
> >> are what you are. You can choose what you want to do
> >> about it. Wagner fan
>
> > And if I don't choose to do what Those In Power think is right...?
>
> I am so totally heterosexual that I can't imagine anyone changing their
> orientation--in either direction.
Really? You don't say. Well, I'll be damned. Sure figured you for
"friend of Dorothy's". Just another bitchy queen, said I to myself.
Funny that, isn't it?
TD
pianomaven
Hmmmmmm.
He read it somewhere.
Scribbled on the wall of some public washroom.
And immediately felt better.
TD
pianomaven
HA HA HA HA HA
And what was Powell "in Europe"?
TD
William Sommerwerck
> It's all based on studies.
What do you want, for God's sake? How else do you find out what people do
except by asking them? Outside of determining their OBIT code, what do you
do?
A properly structured and administered study is generally considered to
provide "proof" of whatever conclusions it draws. Kinsey was considered a
superb interviewer, capable of getting anyone to talk about anything. On the
other hand, Kinsey was also a sado-masochistic bisexual, which probably
explains why the hetero/homo scale has 0 at the hetero end.
There was an article about Kinsey and his research not many years ago in
"The New Yorker". You might want to look it up.
pianomaven
Or uncommon ugliness.
TD
William Sommerwerck
>> which can lead to all sorts of experimentation. It would be
>> more correct to say that a signficant percentage of hetero
>> males experiments with homosexual activities sometime
>> in their lives. It's the way human males are wired.
> So if one had never had a homosexual experience, you would
> be inclined to attribute that to never having been in prison.
> Or perhaps to a generally low libido.
Possibly. But that's rather putting the cart before the horse. The person
might have had a strong sex drive /and/ strong religious inhibitions.
Similarly, not every man who spends time in prison has sexual experiences
with another man.
People differ. There are valid generalities about human behavior, but they
don't necessarily predict how a particular person will behave.
Example: My father told me how he'd been propositioned in the Navy, during
WWII. He chose to ignore it. Yet you should have seen his wildly positive
reaction to Douglas Fairbanks' near-nudity at the beginning of "The Thief of
Baghdad". (Fairbanks "wore" a costume that looked as if it had come from the
male division of Frederick's of Hollywood. It was intended to make him look
nude without actually being nude.)
ansermetniac
In the Ukraine it was Pavlifka. At Ellis island it became Powlinsky.
In 1926 legally changed to Powell
Abbedd
Gerard
The content of this kind of studies is not my 'point'. But the fact that Allen
wrote "There are many more bisexuals in this world than are recognized in
studies".
Because that kind of knowledge is the result of ... studies.
Gerard
> > Yet nothing of this "proofs" what Allen wrote.
> > It's all based on studies.
>
> What do you want, for God's sake? How else do you find out what
> people do except by asking them? Outside of determining their OBIT
> code, what do you do?
Obviously you don't see my point about Allen's statement.
William Sommerwerck
Perhaps you didn't express it as well as you might have.
ivanmaxim
wrote:
What else is new???? Wagner fan
Gerard
I think I have expressed it well. For some maybe it's obvious what I mean: Allen
knows *more* than what has been the results of studies.
(While what you wrote, actually is result of studies.)
herman
>In order for a Madoff film to be anti-semitic, it would have to omit
> the damage Madoff did to other Jews from the story.
This does not bear two seconds of thinking.
One could, obviously, make a perfect anti-semitic story in which Jews
abuse their own kind. It would make 'em only more avaricious.
As I recall some comments aroudn teh time Madoff was arrested did just
this.
Gerard
Maybe that the difference between dog shit and wagner fan is less than is
recognized in studies.
graham
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i39l2d$vcl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Graham
Bob Lombard
like to remind him of it. My closest surviving friend (when one gets
old, friends have an annoying tendency to die) is gay, so chances are
I'm not homophobic either.
bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
ansermetniac
<thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>Oh, I'm not
Would ytou like to be. I know a mohel
Abbedd
JohnGavin
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:07:06 -0400, ansermetniac
>
> <ansermetn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Modern Islam is a bastardization of Islam as is Modern Christianity a
> >bastardization of Christianity
>
I hear as much Ravel bastardization as Bruckner, if not more.
pianomaven
So you took a perfectly good Ukranian name and traded it for an
English name.
Is that crazy, or what? You're still a completely nutty Ukranian. Now,
at least, we know where it came from. Certainly not from the founder
of the Boy Scouts.
TD
William Sommerwerck
>> a copy and at least browsing it.
> Hasn't his study been discredited?
By whom?
Ignoring the fact that Kinsey was bisexual, and thus at least theoretically
biased towards finding a wide range of sexual behavior among the people
interviewed, * the only way to discredit his studies is either to show
errors of design, execution, and/or interpretation, or to repeat the studies
and show a substantially different outcome.
The Wikipedia article has a section on controversies surrounding his
studies. If you're interested, you should read it for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey
As far as I know, no one has attempted to repeat his studies.
* One could make a claim for the opposite sort of bias had Kinsey been
strictly heterosexual.
pianomaven
Madoff shafted his own kind. Those are the kind he knew best how to
prey upon. He would have preyed upon chimpanzees if they had any
money.
It is a story of human greed and ambition. Greed is NOT good!
TD
William Sommerwerck
> is what I think!
Do you mean that if often runs on interminably?
JohnGavin
wrote:
> >>>> There are many more bisexuals in this world
> >>>> than are recognized in studies.
> >> How can you know this?
> >> We don't "know" it.
> >> However, human males generally have a strong sex drive, which can
> >> lead to all sorts of experimentation. It would be more correct to say
> >> that a signficant percentage of hetero males experiments with
> >> homosexual activities sometime in their lives. It's the way human
> >> males are wired.
> > that has been resulted from studies.
>
> I neglected to mention I've also seen this in my own experience. Men with
> necessarily connected with "orientation", but simply "curiosity" and a
> natural desire for any kind of sexual contact.
>
Just an observation - lots of heterosexual men don't really like women
on an emotional-friendship level- this sounds like a contradiction,
but I think there's truth to it. They prefer women as sex objects,
they are to some degree more attracted to women than men, but think of
how many married men rather spend social time with their male friends
than with their wives. They are often poor companions emotionally.
Something else - homoeroticism exists in the straight-male world - in
fraternities, sports teams, in the military - an interesting question
is how big is the line that separates homoeroticism from homosexual
desire? I tend to agree that within the spectrum of human sexuality,
the majority of people fall outside the extremes of pure straight or
pure gay. The percentage spectrum seems true to me and i would guess,
yes it's a guess, an intuition, that most people fall closer to the
50% mark on either side.