Today's "I spoke too soon" URL
David Horne
attitudes towards LGBT folk in the area, and:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3079952.stm
This hurts on a personal level. The Cathedral runs a competition each
year for choral compositions which they perform- they've got a top-notch
choir. Last year, a student of mine came second- this year two of my
other students came first and second. It was a great experience for
them. Not as stunning perhaps as the 2 sublime cathedrals over the road
in Liverpool, but it's always seemed welcoming to me.
I'll watch with interest to see how this plays out, but I'm feeling
disappointed by this.
David
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Timothy McDaniel
David Horne <david...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well, here I was, feeling all warm and fuzzy about generally improving
>attitudes towards LGBT folk in the area, and:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3079952.stm
Synopsis: 'A lesbian and gay Christian group says it is "horrified"
after being told it cannot hold a service at Manchester Cathedral.'
The group is LGCM, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement; it wanted
to have a service for delegates to thei conference.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Nick Fitch
> In article <1g0s0kp.1l4uls3kyz2qN%david...@yahoo.com>,
> David Horne <david...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Well, here I was, feeling all warm and fuzzy about generally improving
> >attitudes towards LGBT folk in the area, and:
> >
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3079952.stm
>
> Synopsis: 'A lesbian and gay Christian group says it is "horrified"
> after being told it cannot hold a service at Manchester Cathedral.'
> The group is LGCM, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement; it wanted
> to have a service for delegates to thei conference.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: The League of Yiddisher
Hitler Youth is upset because it's been told it can't hold a Yom Kippur
celebration in the Sturmbahnfuhrer's office.
Well, gosh.
--
(nickDOTfitchATbtopenworldDOTcom)
Lee Rudolph
>Let me see if I understand this correctly: The League of Yiddisher
>Hitler Youth is upset because it's been told it can't hold a Yom Kippur
>celebration in the Sturmbahnfuhrer's office.
Hey, you. Yes, *you*, the one who's been making notes in
your Thesaurus.
You misspelled "schn"uggli-w"uggli".
Lee Rudolph
Chris Ambidge
>> >Well, here I was, feeling all warm and fuzzy about generally improving
>> >attitudes towards LGBT folk in the area, and:
>> >
>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3079952.stm
>> Synopsis: 'A lesbian and gay Christian group says it is "horrified"
>> after being told it cannot hold a service at Manchester Cathedral.'
>> The group is LGCM, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement; it wanted
>> to have a service for delegates to thei conference.
it is disappointing, especially after Manchester Cathedral
had for quite a long period of time said that it would be fine
to hold the service there. The backing off is certainly from
pressure from the anti-homo conservatives, either in the Church
of England, or from overseas. What the LGCM was going to do
in the cathedral is worship God; that's what all christians
do, gay and straight.
[nick]
>Let me see if I understand this correctly:
>The League of Yiddisher
>Hitler Youth is upset because it's been told it can't hold a Yom Kippur
>celebration in the Sturmbahnfuhrer's office.
no, you don't understand this correctly.
however, since (a) I understand you hold no truck with us silly
mortals who happen to have religious beliefs, and (b) you've
invoked Godwin's law, no further comment along those lines
will be necessary.
Chris
--
if the planets are misaligned, I may have been logged in under an assumed name.
no matter WHAT/WHO the headers of this post claim , I am
Chris Ambidge =|= amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca =|= chris....@utoronto.ca
chemist by day=|=panda by night=|=www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
Nick Fitch
> [nick]
> >Let me see if I understand this correctly:
>
> >The League of Yiddisher
> >Hitler Youth is upset because it's been told it can't hold a Yom Kippur
> >celebration in the Sturmbahnfuhrer's office.
>
> no, you don't understand this correctly.
The Fellowship of Junior Catholic Orangemen is feeling a bit put out
because they're not being allowed to hold a Papal Birthday Disco at the
Shankill Estate Community Centre.
--
(nickDOTfitchATbtopenworldDOTcom)
David W. Fenton
<HKpo1...@ecf.utoronto.ca>:
> [nick]
>>Let me see if I understand this correctly:
>
>>The League of Yiddisher
>>Hitler Youth is upset because it's been told it can't hold a Yom
>>Kippur celebration in the Sturmbahnfuhrer's office.
>
> no, you don't understand this correctly.
>
> however, since (a) I understand you hold no truck with us
> silly mortals who happen to have religious beliefs, and (b)
> you've invoked Godwin's law, no further comment along those
> lines will be necessary.
I don't see where he's got it wrong, to be honest.
I don't understand why people continue to involve themselves with
organizations that promote hatred of them.
I don't see much difference between Dignity and the Log Cabinettes.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David Horne
> I don't see where he's got it wrong, to be honest.
>
> I don't understand why people continue to involve themselves with
> organizations that promote hatred of them.
>
> I don't see much difference between Dignity and the Log Cabinettes.
I think that both of Nick's analogies miss the mark. The local Diocese
has been generally seen as gay-friendly, and the disappointment I feel
about this (I'm obviously not _personally_ affected- I'm not a
christian, or religious) is that they lack the courage to be more
supporting now. It's quite unexpected, actually. They have been very
supportive in the past, and there have been gay and lesbian christian
groups holding services in the cathedral before. So, in other words,
they (referring more widely to LGBT religious organisations) have been
in this particular "Sturmbahnfuhrer's office" or "Shankill Estate
Community Centre" already, and they had a great time, and they felt
accepted.
Jed Davis
> In article <bj82et$qt$1...@reader2.panix.com>, tm...@panix.com says...
>>
>> Synopsis: 'A lesbian and gay Christian group says it is "horrified"
>> after being told it cannot hold a service at Manchester Cathedral.'
>> The group is LGCM, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement; it wanted
>> to have a service for delegates to thei conference.
>
> Let me see if I understand this correctly: The League of Yiddisher
> Hitler Youth is upset because it's been told it can't hold a Yom Kippur
> celebration in the Sturmbahnfuhrer's office.
So, a couple weeks ago I was reading through a little unpleasantness
that took place in this group in... 1992, I think it was, that had to
do with Nazis and such, and also Judaism. And for some reason I find
myself reminded of it at this particular moment. Go figure.
--
Jed Davis <jld...@cs.oberlin.edu> Selling of self: http://panix.com/~jdev/rs/
<jd...@panix.com> PGP<-finger A098:903E:9B9A:DEF4:168F:AA09:BF07:807E:F336:59F9
\ "But life wasn't yes-no, on-off. Life was shades of gray, and rainbows
/\ not in the order of the spectrum." -- L. E. Modesitt, Jr., _Adiamante_
Robert S. Coren
Jed Davis <jd...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>So, a couple weeks ago I was reading through a little unpleasantness
Sometimes I think Google is *not* everyone's friend.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"You can't have any fun on antennas -- all anyone ever does is
dish." --BBC
Mike McKinley
>Nick Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> writes:
>In article <bj82et$qt$1...@reader2.panix.com>, tm...@panix.com says...
>
>
>>>Synopsis: 'A lesbian and gay Christian group says it is "horrified"
>>>after being told it cannot hold a service at Manchester Cathedral.'
>>>The group is LGCM, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement; it wanted
>>>to have a service for delegates to thei conference.
>>>
>>>
>>Let me see if I understand this correctly: The League of Yiddisher
>>Hitler Youth is upset because it's been told it can't hold a Yom Kippur
>>celebration in the Sturmbahnfuhrer's office.
>>
>>
>So, a couple weeks ago I was reading through a little unpleasantness
>that took place in this group in... 1992, I think it was, that had to
>do with Nazis and such, and also Judaism. And for some reason I find
>myself reminded of it at this particular moment. Go figure.
>
>
>
>
Gurl, you're older than you look!
--
¿...qué podemos saber las mujeres sino las filosofías de cocina? Bien dijo Lupercio Leonardo, que bien se puede filosofar y aderezar la cena. Y yo suelo decir viendo estas cosillas: Si Aristóteles hubiera guisado, mucho más hubiera escrito."
("...what can we women know, save philosophies of the kitchen? It was well put by Lupercio Leonardo that one can philosophize quite well while preparing supper. I often say, when I make these little observations, "Had Aristotle cooked, he would have written a great deal more.")
Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, La Respuesta
Nick Fitch
david...@yahoo.com says...
The feeling was self-evidently a matter of wish-fulfillment.
While it's perfectly true that I have zero tolerance for "gay
christians" and their ilk, it's equally true that anyone who seeks to
become part of an established religion, of any religious leaning, is in
effect seeking to join a ritual-laden social club. Now they may feel
that they are expressing their spiritual leanings by doing so, and that
the spirituality is divorced from the club ethos, but that's the mindset
of a bloody idiot. When the accepted rules of the club stipulate that
'your kind' are persona non grata, and officials of the club speak out
against membership by 'your kind' unless you stop being 'your kind', and
the senior officials of the club start enforcing a policy of non-
welcome, then it's time to move on. It doesn't matter whether the local
caretaker of the clubhouse hasn't minded your using it before now. It
all goes a bit deeper than that.
So it really doesn't matter how often the janitor and the
Sturmbahfuhrer's secretary let you break Challah in his office. It
doesn't mean you should consider yourself hard done by when the
Sturmbahnfuhrer kicks up a stink after finding out. Or complain that the
decision is completely awful and incomprehensible. After all, it's not
like the conditions that come with the snazzy jackboots were written in
small print or anything.
--
(nickDOTfitchATbtopenworldDOTcom)
David Horne
> While it's perfectly true that I have zero tolerance for "gay
> christians" and their ilk, it's equally true that anyone who seeks to
> become part of an established religion, of any religious leaning, is in
> effect seeking to join a ritual-laden social club.
Yes, but those rituals manifestly change over time. Though an "outsider"
myself, it's not hard to see that the position of lgbt folk within that
particular institution (C of E, Episcopal, Anglican etc.) in particular
countries has changed, dramatically, over time. I think it would be a
mistake to presume it's _only_ societal changes which have affected
that. I think that religious lgbt folk have, and continue, to make a
difference for _them_. As an agnostic, I may not feel personally
involved, but I _do_ care about the situation religious lgbt folk find
themselves in, and I'm happy when their work improves things for them.
> Now they may feel
> that they are expressing their spiritual leanings by doing so,
Well, they "may" but I can't presume to _know_ what they feel. I don't
think anyone else can- sorry. That's one reason why it's a difficult
issue to discuss.
> and that
> the spirituality is divorced from the club ethos, but that's the mindset
> of a bloody idiot. When the accepted rules of the club stipulate that
> 'your kind' are persona non grata, and officials of the club speak out
> against membership by 'your kind' unless you stop being 'your kind', and
> the senior officials of the club start enforcing a policy of non-
> welcome, then it's time to move on.
Which IMO completely misreads the current situation in the Anglican
chirch. Sorry, it's just wrong. There's a hell of a lot of conflict
going on at the moment, and I happen to think that lgbt anglicans are
doing themselves a favour, and probably the greater issue of their
faith, by being involved in all of this.
> It doesn't matter whether the local
> caretaker of the clubhouse hasn't minded your using it before now.
I don't agree that an anglican bishop equates with a "caretaker" here.
> It
> all goes a bit deeper than that.
Indeed.
>
> So it really doesn't matter how often the janitor and the
> Sturmbahfuhrer's secretary let you break Challah in his office.
Is that the same, or a step up or down, from a janitor?
> It
> doesn't mean you should consider yourself hard done by when the
> Sturmbahnfuhrer kicks up a stink after finding out.
Well, people are considering themselves hard done by, and...
> Or complain that the
> decision is completely awful and incomprehensible.
...they're doing that also. It may even make a difference.
> After all, it's not
> like the conditions that come with the snazzy jackboots were written in
> small print or anything.
That sounds great, but there are many "conditions" to this religion, and
many of them have evolved, significantly, over time. I don't see this
particular issue as being any different, really.
David Horne
[I'm very sorry for the additional post on this, just further
ruminations- DH]
> I don't understand why people continue to involve themselves with
> organizations that promote hatred of them.
Some lgbt folk stay involved with their families throughout all kinds of
trauma- some of it not that different IMO to the kind of issues being
talked about here. It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination on
my part to extend that definition of 'family' to the relationship that
many religious people have with the organisation that they're affiliated
with.
As a purely personal aside (but it does colour my feelings on what I
just posted)- about a decade ago, I thought I'd lose my own family
because of what I felt was their inability to accept my own sexuality.
Thank goodness I hung in there- we survived, and we're all better for
it. So, if you allow me the leeway here, I guess I _do_ understand.
David Horne
wrote:
> In article <1g0ubyx.8jrpyik7ncr4N%david...@yahoo.com>,
> David Horne wrote:
>
> > As a purely personal aside (but it does colour my feelings on what I
> > just posted)- about a decade ago, I thought I'd lose my own family
> > because of what I felt was their inability to accept my own sexuality.
> > Thank goodness I hung in there- we survived, and we're all better for
> > it. So, if you allow me the leeway here, I guess I _do_ understand.
>
> Yabut -- your family can't earn the loyalty of a thousand other
> equivalent David Hornes for putting you out of their lives forever.
I'm trying to figure out what this has got to do with the price of
bread. Reading between the lines, I don't know what you're talking
about.
> OTOH, there's a direct benefit to these organizations when they
> kick around a few fags for show. You could almost call it
> preventive maintenance.
_You_ could, if you want, but it's not the whole story.
David
(OBRobertCumming- listening to Roksopp's "So Easy" just now)
David Horne
wrote:
> In article <1g0ufba.l3z1f0c67aj0N%david...@yahoo.com>, David Horne wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to figure out what this has got to do with the price of
> > bread.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, you were drawing a comparison between what
> people find (and fear losing) within a family; and within a religious
> structure/organization.
So? [this, and the others, are rhetorical questions- see way below] Like
I said, I'm still trying to figure out the relevance of what you said.
You- "Yabut -- your family can't earn the loyalty of a thousand other
equivalent David Hornes for putting you out of their lives forever."
I think this is nonsense. This has nothing to do with the situation I'm
talking about. It's colourful language, but irrelevant. Sorry.
> Even if those fulfilled needs are 100% identical
I didn't claim they were. Why do you have to go there?
> - the same neurons
> are fired, the same short hairs are stood on end - the comparison
> fails because the mainstream churches' relationship to the individual
> does not map in any way shape or form to that of a family's, except
> when that family is abusive, insane, and generally
> undeserving of the unthinking devotion it all too frequently
> enjoys.
Speak for yourself. You've lost me.
> > _You_ could, if you want, but it's not the whole story.
>
> I know, I know, "The Church is changing!"
It is. It has. IMO.
> I realize that waking up to the cold hard reality that
> gee, maybe life and civilization is NOT proceeding in a
> wonderful upward trajectory,
Well, I reckon it's a heck of a lot better _now_ than it was a hundred
years, or five hundred years ago. It's never a perfect line or a
"wonderful upward trajectory"*. So?
[not a bad title for a piece!]
> and maybe the people in
> control of institutions such as the Church ARE in fact
> forging a new Dark Ages before our eyes,
Yes, and maybe they're not
> and are just as
> bas as the assholes one assumes are relegated to history,
> is a bit twitch-inducing,
People think about it.
> but wanting to stay warm
> and fuzzy about it doesn't turn the Church - any church -
> into *family*.
I didn't claim it did, but never mind.
> If the family-church thing was not where you were going
> with your post, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.
You don't misunderstand anything. You know exactly what you're saying,
and sarcasm suits you- i.e. terribly.
> OTOH, I think we can all expect an "I don't really care."
> from you any second now.
Oh, I wouldn't be so royal with the "we" here. I care a lot about what
almost anyone else I interact with here says- even when I don't agree
with them. I've learned a lot from many, and I've sure as heck have a
lot more to learn. For some reason, that I don't quite get _yet_, you're
not interested in a dialogue with me, and you present yourself (albeit
only to _me_, I add) as a complete arsehole. Feel free to reciprocate,
but I'm no longer listening. Many other people obviously admire what you
have to say, and that's fine with me. _I've_ had it, though. Bye.
<plonk>
David
John Whiteside
<david...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So it really doesn't matter how often the janitor and the
> > Sturmbahfuhrer's secretary let you break Challah in his office.
>
> Is that the same, or a step up or down, from a janitor?
>
> > It
> > doesn't mean you should consider yourself hard done by when the
> > Sturmbahnfuhrer kicks up a stink after finding out.
>
> Well, people are considering themselves hard done by, and...
I think this is where Nick's analogy falls apart. If you're talking
about the Catholic church, then you can talk about the guy in charge;
but there aren't too many churches where that is the case.
> That sounds great, but there are many "conditions" to this religion, and
> many of them have evolved, significantly, over time. I don't see this
> particular issue as being any different, really.
Speaking as a lapsed member... it would never occur to me to expect
official homophobia from the anglican church, though it would never
surprise me to find homophobia there. My experience when I was a kid
was that church was one of the few places where I didn't encounter
overt homophobia, but then I grew up in a particularly liberal corner
of the church.
The reasons I'm lapsed actually have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Lee Rudolph
>OTOH, there's a direct benefit to these organizations when they
>kick around a few fags for show. You could almost call it
>preventive maintenance.
Or destructive testing.
Lee Rudolph
David Horne
> Speaking as a lapsed member... it would never occur to me to expect
> official homophobia from the anglican church, though it would never
> surprise me to find homophobia there. My experience when I was a kid
> was that church was one of the few places where I didn't encounter
> overt homophobia, but then I grew up in a particularly liberal corner
> of the church.
I had a similar experience. My high school was actually on the grounds,
and property of, the anglican cathedral (St. Mary's) in Edinburgh, and
there was a very close relationship between the school and the church. I
remember always being aware that there were many openly gay men (don't
remember any women though) in the Cathedral. In our Religious Education
classes, the members of the clergy that took it were generally very
liberal. I remember one who talked very openly about homosexuality with
us, saying he had had gay relationships prior to getting married. The
purpose of discussing this with us was _not_ in anyway to tell us that
homosexuality was just a phase. It was very respectful. I heard a bit of
homophobia too at times, but probably a bit less than I heard in general
society. It seemed a welcoming place to me. I was in the Cathedral quite
a bit, but that was more for musical reasons- organ practise, and they
had a harpsichord there too.
Ellen Evans
the artist formerly known as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
[]
>Even if those fulfilled needs are 100% identical - the same neurons
>are fired, the same short hairs are stood on end - the comparison
>fails because the mainstream churches' relationship to the individual
>does not map in any way shape or form to that of a family's, except
>when that family is abusive, insane, and generally
>undeserving of the unthinking devotion it all too frequently
>enjoys.
Actually, there are mainstream churches that are supportive of gay folks,
and there are mainstream churches that supply a sense of community to gay
folks, and there are mainstream churches that allow gay folks to express
their own feelings re: what they experience as the spiritual nature of the
universe. You may not be one of those gay folks, but that doesn't mean
that said institutions and people don't exist.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Get your Ellenwear at http://www.cafeshops.com/ellexia
All the cool kids are doing it.
David W. Fenton
<1g0to8y.1v57fyu1fw3aldN%david...@yahoo.com>:
>David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't see where he's got it wrong, to be honest.
>>
>> I don't understand why people continue to involve themselves
>> with organizations that promote hatred of them.
>>
>> I don't see much difference between Dignity and the Log
>> Cabinettes.
>
>I think that both of Nick's analogies miss the mark. The local
>Diocese has been generally seen as gay-friendly, . . .
Which doesn't change the fact that the larger organization of which
that Diocese is a part is *not* as friendly. Yes, the Anglicans are
more gay-friendly than the Roman Catholics, but they are not as
friendly as, say, the Unitarians or the Quakers, both of which
fully accept gay people.
> . . . and the
>disappointment I feel about this (I'm obviously not _personally_
>affected- I'm not a christian, or religious) is that they lack the
>courage to be more supporting now. It's quite unexpected,
>actually. . . .
I think Nick's point would be that it's absolutely 100% predictable
that in an authoritarian organization, the higher authority wins
out over the good intentions of the local authority.
> . . . They have been very supportive in the past, and there
>have been gay and lesbian christian groups holding services in the
>cathedral before. So, in other words, they (referring more widely
>to LGBT religious organisations) have been in this particular
>"Sturmbahnfuhrer's office" or "Shankill Estate Community Centre"
>already, and they had a great time, and they felt accepted.
Perhaps there is no analogy to a lower-level operative in either of
those offices being accepting, and in that respect the analogy is
flawed. But the main point is: the organization of which Manchester
Cathedral is a part will predictably reject us, so it shouldn't be
surprising that the local organization gets overruled.
Jed Davis
> In article <tgnwuco...@cumulus.xlerb.net>,
> Jed Davis <jd...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>So, a couple weeks ago I was reading through a little unpleasantness
>>that took place in this group in... 1992, I think it was...
>
> Sometimes I think Google is *not* everyone's friend.
Hey, if I get to have my more regrettable Usenet moments preserved and
put on public display for all eternity, so can soc.motss.
(peacocks, anyone?)
DRS
[...]
> I'm also gonna go out on a limb and say that it's not impossible
> for certain people to find warmth and solace lying in a piss-filled
> alley licking the bottom of someone's boot. As the saying goes,
> "God makes them and they find each other."
Trough Man!
--
"I am gentle and wise, even inside my scrotum."
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030705.rvmaga/BNStory/Entertainment/
Robert S. Coren
the artist formerly known as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
>I'm not doing a Nick Fitch. (I'd like to, but I couldn't if I
>tried
My first reading of this omitted the word "a".
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"[T]he new Bibliothèque Nationale...seems to have been designed by a
committee made up of Michel Foucault, Jacques Tati, and the
production designer of _The Man from U.N.C.L.E._" --Adam Gopnik
John Whiteside
as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
> I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the institutions which
> manage to yank their worship-facility reservations are not in
> the "supportive..." or "supply a sense of community..." column.
> (Let's call this "Column Q").
>
> I'm also gonna go out on a limb and say that there are enough of
> them, and with sufficient membership and influence, not in column
> Q, that the exceptions prove the rule.
I think the problem with this line of reasoning is that you are taking
a whole bunch of very different things and lumping them together as
"Christian churches" and trying to make statements about them as a
group. You can do this, and the statements can even be accurate, but
that doesn't make them meaningful or useful when looking at an
individual member of the group, or a small subset of the group.
So if you look at most Christian churches in the world and conclude
that they are homophobic - well, that actually is a pretty accurate
statement. What it doesn't do is give you much in the way of meaningful
information about a specific church or denomination other than that if
you pick one randomly out of a list of them all, it is more likely that
it will be a homophobic institution than one that is supportive of gay
people.
So I'm not sure what the point of this really is other than to make a
statement that may be true, but doesn't tell you anything useful in
regard to the news story that started this thread.
As for your comment in the first paragraph quoted above - well, explain
what counts as supportive. Here's what I learned about homosexuality as
a kid in church: some people are gay. God made them that way. Everyone
needs to respect people who are gay.
Was that what most people were learning in Christian churches at that
time? No, it wasn't.
Here's what we're hearing from the US Episcopal church about gay people
these days: there are people who are gay, they worship with us, they
are part of our community, and there is nothing about being gay that
should prevent them from participating in our lives, from being part of
our community to leading it as a ministor of bishop.
I have a hard time seeing that as unsupportive.
> My response has not been to chastise anyone for their religious
> beliefs
but just before that you say
> I'm also gonna go out on a limb and say that it's not impossible
> for certain people to find warmth and solace lying in a piss-filled
> alley licking the bottom of someone's boot.
and while that is not a direct criticism, it's hard not to see some
element of chastizing people for their religious beliefs in that
comment.
> Your effort to paint this as
> my inability to see anyone's needs and experiences except as
> a projection of or variation on my own is just more of your
> dishonest bullshit.
I have no idea where you viewpoint on this comes from or how it was
formulated, but it does not seem to be based on an honest observation
of what is actually going on.
Note also that we are talking about a specific denomination here, and
it's reasonable then to talk about the doctrines and actions of that
specific denomination rather than all of Christianity. To insist
otherwise would be like saying you can't criticize a specific
government's actions because it's part of a larger group of world
governments and they can only be considered as a whole.
Ellen Evans
>
>> Actually, there are mainstream churches that are supportive of gay folks,
>> and there are mainstream churches that supply a sense of community to gay
>> folks, and there are mainstream churches that allow gay folks to express
>> their own feelings re: what they experience as the spiritual nature of the
>> universe. You may not be one of those gay folks, but that doesn't mean
>> that said institutions and people don't exist.
>
>manage to yank their worship-facility reservations are not in
>the "supportive..." or "supply a sense of community..." column.
I would agree. You, however, did not limit yourself to those
institutions:
==========
Even if those fulfilled needs are 100% identical - the same neurons are
fired, the same short hairs are stood on end - the comparison fails
because the mainstream churches' relationship to the individual does not
map in any way shape or form to that of a family's, except when that
family is abusive, insane, and generally undeserving of the unthinking
devotion it all too frequently enjoys.
==========
The phrase "mainstream churches" covers a lot of ground.
[]
>Your effort to paint this as
>my inability to see anyone's needs and experiences except as
>a projection of or variation on my own is just more of your
>dishonest bullshit.
Uh, pointing out that other people may have experiences with "mainstream
churches" that are different than yours is simply true.
>Peace be with You.
And with your spirit.
John Whiteside
as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
> Well, there really are such creatures as abuse bottoms. A part
> of me really wishes these folks suffering from Log Cabinet syndrome
> would either solve their problems and go on to become sane and
> productive members of society, or at least have the decency to
> masturbate in the privacy of their pews and not continually
> ask all of us to admire and praise their technique, or to join
> them.
Is it that hard to believe that these folks either really sincerely
hold heinous and stupid political views, or have a religious faith that
others of us don't share, but are not "abuse bottoms"?
I don't think Log Cabinettes have low self esteem; I think they just
really believe the same crap as straight Republicans.
While there's obviously a lot of judgment in that statement, there is
also a certain degree of respect - recognizing that they are competent
human beings capable of forming opinions.
There's something really nasty and cheap about accusing someone of
being psychologically fucked up because they disagree with you or
believe something you don't.
Dissident
Thank you. I've always felt Godwin's Law is applied a
bit too literally, and should be restricted to *calling*
your opponents Nazis, not simply mentioning them in any
capacity. Else one can imagine discussions of military
tactics that end abruptly when certain WW2 battles are
cited and someone neglectfully mentions the dreaded N-word.
Dissident
> Is it that hard to believe that these folks either really sincerely
> hold heinous and stupid political views, or have a religious faith that
> others of us don't share, but are not "abuse bottoms"?
>
> I don't think Log Cabinettes have low self esteem; I think they just
> really believe the same crap as straight Republicans.
>
> While there's obviously a lot of judgment in that statement, there is
> also a certain degree of respect - recognizing that they are competent
> human beings capable of forming opinions.
>
> There's something really nasty and cheap about accusing someone of
> being psychologically fucked up because they disagree with you or
> believe something you don't.
Of course. But really nasty and cheap is so much easier
than thoughtful and respectful. Just consult the soc.motss
archives for details.
For that matter, if you go about classifying certain
targets as "abuse bottoms", and folks simply dismiss
abusive behavior towards them by classifying them thus,
then there really is no basis for condemning gay-bashing,
is there?
After all, from a homophobe's point of view, a fag is
just an abuse bottom who intentionally brings on the
abuse he receives with his swishy, lisping behavior,
his faggy appearance, and his mincing walk. "He
deserved what he got". If we can do no better among
ourselves, then we have no moral right to complain when
others do it to us.
Dissident
> co...@panix.com (Robert S. Coren) writes:
>
>
>>In article <tgnwuco...@cumulus.xlerb.net>,
>>Jed Davis <jd...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>So, a couple weeks ago I was reading through a little unpleasantness
>>>that took place in this group in... 1992, I think it was...
>>
>>Sometimes I think Google is *not* everyone's friend.
>
>
> Hey, if I get to have my more regrettable Usenet moments preserved and
> put on public display for all eternity, so can soc.motss.
AH yes, and so does almost everybody except for a certain
poster who sets "X-No-Archive: Yes" to hide his own posts
from history, while carefully doing all he can to de-anonymize
other's posts and expose them to view. But them, old people
have traditionally been viewed (and it appears rightly so)
as arrogant hypocrites.
John Whiteside
as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <070920030120054261%logan_SKIPTHIS_john@mac_THISTOO_.com>,
> John Whiteside wrote:
>
> > There's something really nasty and cheap about accusing someone of
> > being psychologically fucked up because they disagree with you or
> > believe something you don't.
>
> Well, when it comes to nasty and cheap, say "mwah".
>
>
> I guess this (once again) ends one of these conversations,
> although I know that one should never say never online. From
> my perspective, I tippy-toed on eggshells and tried to placate
> any lurking mullahs... <snip>
Whatever drama you're reading here, you are bringing yourself. If you
think you're "tippy toeing on eggshells" by calling people mullahs and
zombies and characterizing a Nazi reference as the most reasonable
thing in the discussion, it's hard not to read a certain apoplexy into
*your* comments.
But of course, there's no point in continuing the discussion, because
the rest of us are just too excitable to participate. I suppose we
should be glad that you at least aren't refusing to tell us your name
and complaining about the bullying.
Ellen Evans
the artist formerly known as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
[]
>ARz> > I'm also gonna go out on a limb and say that it's not impossible
> > > for certain people to find warmth and solace lying in a piss-filled
> > > alley licking the bottom of someone's boot.
>
>JW> and while that is not a direct criticism, it's hard not to see some
> > element of chastizing people for their religious beliefs in that
> > comment.
>
>Well, there really are such creatures as abuse bottoms. A part
>of me really wishes these folks suffering from Log Cabinet syndrome
>would either solve their problems and go on to become sane and
>productive members of society, or at least have the decency to
>masturbate in the privacy of their pews and not continually
>ask all of us to admire and praise their technique, or to join
>them.
So you would be saying that any gay person who belongs to a mainstream
Christian church is an abuse bottom, the equivalent of a Log Cabinette,
and clearly has problems that they ought to solve in private decency?
And that anyone who speaks, in any way, of their participation in a
mainstream church is "ask[ing] all of us to admire and praise their
technique, or to join them"?
DRS
070920030758422981%logan_SKIPTHIS_john@mac_THISTOO_.com
[...]
> But of course, there's no point in continuing the discussion, because
> the rest of us are just too excitable to participate. I suppose we
> should be glad that you at least aren't refusing to tell us your name
> and complaining about the bullying.
Given how long you've been absent from here and therefore how much history
you've missed there are some leit motifs you rilly shouldn't be using.
Dissident
[A lot of yelling that basically amounted to: I'll do
whatever I damn well want to and if anyone objects
I'll just find lots of things to complain about them
and not make any coherent or reasoned reply to the
points raised]
But that's what I would have expected of Jess anyway.
David Horne
> Which doesn't change the fact that the larger organization of which
> that Diocese is a part is *not* as friendly. Yes, the Anglicans are
> more gay-friendly than the Roman Catholics, but they are not as
> friendly as, say, the Unitarians or the Quakers, both of which
> fully accept gay people.
It's true that the anglican church is not as uniformally friendly as
some other organisations. (I was a member of it only while a teenager-
as I wrote somewhere else I've been agnostic now, and not a member of
any kind of church, for a _long_ time.) However, when you say "larger
organisation"- I don't think it's as clear cut as that. It's still very
much a local church on some levels. There are anglican (or equivalent)
dioceses in some parts of the world that will refuse to ordain women,
for example, while the main proportion of the church now sanctions it.
In the same way that it's perfectly normal for some dioceses to ordain
openly gay priests, anglican communities in some areas probably wouldn't
sanction openly gay church _members_. So, it's a very broad church, I
think, and what various synod meetings decide or not doesn't necessarily
have to affect a local diocese either way. A church in Nigeria is going
to very different indeed to a church in central London. They often
reflect local customs, societal pressures and politics more than they do
anything else. IMO, it would have been quite possible for Manchester to
continue being as pro-gay as it wanted (other Diocese have, after all),
and nothing would have been done about it. Possible- I say, but it
_didn't_ happen here, unfortunately and yes, I was a bit surprised, even
given what little I know of it. I think that surprise is well-founded,
so I disagree with the 'what did you expect' view.
> I think Nick's point would be that it's absolutely 100% predictable
> that in an authoritarian organization, the higher authority wins
> out over the good intentions of the local authority.
Yes, and I suppose I'm saying that I don't think that _that_ is quite
how the anglican church works. It's the "quite" part that's difficult to
get round, I think.
> > . . . They have been very supportive in the past, and there
> >have been gay and lesbian christian groups holding services in the
> >cathedral before. So, in other words, they (referring more widely
> >to LGBT religious organisations) have been in this particular
> >"Sturmbahnfuhrer's office" or "Shankill Estate Community Centre"
> >already, and they had a great time, and they felt accepted.
>
> Perhaps there is no analogy to a lower-level operative in either of
> those offices being accepting, and in that respect the analogy is
> flawed. But the main point is: the organization of which Manchester
> Cathedral is a part will predictably reject us,
I don't think it's predictable- that's part of the problem in the
argument. Who would have predicted an openly gay bishop?
Kevin Michael Vail
ande...@wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) wrote:
> OK, who kicked over the rock again? Is everyone who uses
> X-No-Archive: hiding from "history", Bill? I mean, there are
> *lots* of us.
Well, technically, Jess, yes, you are hiding from history, at least as
far as it is represented by Usenet archives. And so is everyone else
who uses it.
Note that I'm not assigning a value judgment to this.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | Dogbert: That's circular reasoning.
ke...@vaildc.net | Dilbert: I prefer to think of it as no loose ends.
http://www.vaildc.net/kevin/
DRS
kevin-3335C8....@news101.his.com
> In article <bjf6uv$r4k$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
> ande...@wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) wrote:
>
>> OK, who kicked over the rock again? Is everyone who uses
>> X-No-Archive: hiding from "history", Bill? I mean, there are
>> *lots* of us.
>
> Well, technically, Jess, yes, you are hiding from history, at least as
> far as it is represented by Usenet archives. And so is everyone else
> who uses it.
And since Jess's most recent posts are for some reason not hitting my server
I have no way of reading them.
Nick Fitch
(...)
> So you would be saying that any gay person who belongs to a mainstream
> Christian church is an abuse bottom, the equivalent of a Log Cabinette,
> and clearly has problems that they ought to solve in private decency?
Sounds about right.
> And that anyone who speaks, in any way, of their participation in a
> mainstream church is "ask[ing] all of us to admire and praise their
> technique, or to join them"?
You do have to wonder exactly what their motivation is for talking about
participating in a club that's made it clear it doesn't want them.
Lights and bushels and all that.
Incidentally, I've often wondered: how flammable are bushels? I mean,
would shoving a zeroth-century light under one risk charbroiling? If
you're a Foolish Virgin can you legitimately hide your light under one
on the assumption that since the light has stopped working anyway it
won't make any difference? What if you're foolish but sexually
experienced? And why would anyone want to put a light under a bushel
anyway? Does it project pretty patterns onto the walls?
--
(nickDOTfitchATbtopenworldDOTcom)
John Whiteside
Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> wrote:
> > And that anyone who speaks, in any way, of their participation in a
> > mainstream church is "ask[ing] all of us to admire and praise their
> > technique, or to join them"?
>
> You do have to wonder exactly what their motivation is for talking about
> participating in a club that's made it clear it doesn't want them.
> Lights and bushels and all that.
Well, I never felt like I was unwelcome. It was rather the opposite; I
thought it was all quite nice & everyone meant well but the problem I
have with it is the whole superbeing impregnating virgins to have
sacrificial babies aspect of it, memorialized by ritual cannibalism.
That, I really could not have faith in, so I left.
OK, I'm sorry for asking everyone to admire and praise me with that.
John Whiteside
Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> wrote:
> You do have to wonder exactly what their motivation is for talking about
> participating in a club that's made it clear it doesn't want them.
> Lights and bushels and all that.
you also have to wonder about the motivation on someone who cannot bear
the mention of a topic without posting the inevitable nazi parallel
post.
It actually is kind of funny from time to time, but doesn't it become a
little dull to do it over and over? I am hoping that in the future we
may at least get something new: maybe comparisons to different
oppressive regimes, or parallels with fictional characters, or some
other fun option. It could become an interesting game - identify that
Christianity/Oppression metaphor and win - well, I'll leave that part
to you.
but really the Nazi thing is tired.
We might even make this a group effort - I could start interjecting
articles about why I think science fiction is mind-numbing rot every
time it comes up, even though I'd have nothing particularly interesting
to add to the topic at hand. Others could find their own pet projects.
John, just back from a fabuous motorcycle ride on a perfect late summer
day. At a stoplight I found myself next to another bike, and I am
pretty sure the rider was a leather daddy type I've seen around town.
It is convenient sometimes when people don't wear full face helmets,
though I do fear for the safety of their jawbones. But anyway.
Ellen Evans
Nick Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> wrote:
[]
>> And that anyone who speaks, in any way, of their participation in a
>> mainstream church is "ask[ing] all of us to admire and praise their
>> technique, or to join them"?
>
>You do have to wonder exactly what their motivation is for talking about
>participating in a club that's made it clear it doesn't want them.
Multiple clubs. Some not so clear.
HTH.
[]
>Incidentally, I've often wondered: how flammable are bushels?
Fairly.
Lee Rudolph
>You do have to wonder exactly what their motivation is for talking about
>participating in a club that's made it clear it doesn't want them.
>Lights and bushels and all that.
>
>Incidentally, I've often wondered: how flammable are bushels? I mean,
>would shoving a zeroth-century light under one risk charbroiling? If
>you're a Foolish Virgin can you legitimately hide your light under one
>on the assumption that since the light has stopped working anyway it
>won't make any difference? What if you're foolish but sexually
>experienced? And why would anyone want to put a light under a bushel
>anyway? Does it project pretty patterns onto the walls?
Diogenes in Plato's Cave! ... No, he was taking his turn in
the barrel, not the bushel, wasn't he? I think of him as more
of a cat's-cradle man, at that.
Anyhow: though I have (in my mild way) sought for many years
new and (I always hope) interesting ways to Give Offense, it
was not until *yesterday* (if you can believe it), during a
discussion in another forum, that the phrase "the Blessed
Technically-Virgin Mary" popped into my head (positively like
an epiphantic columbine ejaculation). If by any chance you feel
you can make use of it at any time, be my guest. Right now I
have to log off and go to the market.
Lee Rudolph
Brian Kane
>Right now I have to log off and go to the market.
Lee's Supermarket, by any chance?
--
Brian Kane (Washington, DC) | Sad-eyed baby I'm not that kind of girl
astroplace.com/brian.asp | When the dice stop rolling, there's no
>bri...@SPAMastroplace.com<| more to the game :::: Stephin Merritt
Lee Rudolph
>Lee Rudolph:
>>Right now I have to log off and go to the market.
>
>Lee's Supermarket, by any chance?
But of course. And now (and as long as he/she/it lives,
I think) Home of The Blue Lobster. I'm recommending a
look-see to everyone I meet.
Lee Rudolph
Brian Kane
>Brian Kane:
>>Lee Rudolph:
>>>Right now I have to log off and go to the market.
>>Lee[']s Supermarket, by any chance?
>But of course. And now (and as long as he/she/it lives,
>I think) Home of The Blue Lobster. I'm recommending a
>look-see to everyone I meet.
Free Bubbles!!!
We liked their wine selection when we visited last
weekend, too. And Gaga's lemon sherbet.
Now that I think of it, your supermarket namesake is
conspicuously comma-free. Perhaps it refers to dregs
and sediments, not poet-mathematicians.
Nick Fitch
logan_SKIPTHIS_john@mac_THISTOO_.com says...
> In article <MPG.19c5803e4...@news.btopenworld.com>, Nick
> Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> wrote:
>
> > You do have to wonder exactly what their motivation is for talking about
> > participating in a club that's made it clear it doesn't want them.
> > Lights and bushels and all that.
>
> you also have to wonder about the motivation on someone who cannot bear
> the mention of a topic without posting the inevitable nazi parallel
> post.
>
> It actually is kind of funny from time to time, but doesn't it become a
> little dull to do it over and over? I am hoping that in the future we
> may at least get something new: maybe comparisons to different
> oppressive regimes, or parallels with fictional characters, or some
> other fun option. It could become an interesting game - identify that
> Christianity/Oppression metaphor and win - well, I'll leave that part
> to you.
>
> but really the Nazi thing is tired.
Nazi references create an effect that serves a purpose. The purpose was
understood even by those who disagree with the premise, and hence served
its function. You don't like it. Tough shit. I'm not at all concerned
with your delicate nature or what you feel is appropriate. I'm also
thoroughly versed in "Oh dear, how boring, please do something new" as a
tool of usenet dismissal. I don't know whether to be amused or annoyed
by your attempting it on me.
However, I do get extremely tired of irrelevant clucking whose only
purpose is to make clear that someone thinks someone else isn't behaving
to their own exacting standards. Either lay the egg or shut up. If you
haven't figured it by now, I'm not interested in how you think I should
express myself nor have any motivation to adapt to your preferred
approach. The image you present is a faded Southern Belle attempting
total control by making pained moues of distaste when someone in the
family says a word not in keeping with her refined sensibilities. I dare
say it's satisfying to you, but has no effect on me beyond making me
annoyed. If you wish to actually communicate, I suggest you bear that in
mind.
This thread has been a gut-level exchange, as is the case with many
topics generating heat. It has been quite civilised as far as David
Horne is concerned since he's said what he feels and I've said what I
feel and we basically agree to disagree. You, however, are another
matter. Your contributions have been a succession of pained moues of
little consequence beyond your apparent need to communicate your
disappointment in the proceedings. If you dislike the tone and content,
and wish to lead by example, you may fuck off - which would provide an
excellent example. Like Tony, I have far less interest in passive-
aggression as a rhetorical tool than you.
Now, have you anything to say on this subject that doesn't involve an
intimation that it's not being done to your standards, or would you just
like to narrow your lips and fan yourself at me some more?
--
(nickDOTfitchATbtopenworldDOTcom)
Brian Kane
>The image you present is a faded Southern Belle
Southern Belfast, maybe.
Robert S. Coren
Brian Kane <bri...@SPAMastroplace.com> wrote:
>Lee Rudolph:
>>Brian Kane:
>>>Lee Rudolph:
>>>>Right now I have to log off and go to the market.
>>>Lee[']s Supermarket, by any chance?
>>But of course.
>
>conspicuously comma-free. Perhaps it refers to dregs
>and sediments, not poet-mathematicians.
A comma would be pretty conspicuous by its presence in that context, I
should think. It's the apostrophe that proclaims its absence.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"You ain't seen from animus." --Ken Rudolph
Brian Kane
>Brian Kane:
>>Lee Rudolph:
>>>Brian Kane:
>>>>Lee Rudolph:
>>>>>Right now I have to log off and go to the market.
>>>>Lee[']s Supermarket, by any chance?
>>>But of course.
>>
>>Now that I think of it, your supermarket namesake is
>>conspicuously comma-free. Perhaps it refers to dregs
>>and sediments, not poet-mathematicians.
>
>A comma would be pretty conspicuous by its presence in that context, I
>should think. It's the apostrophe that proclaims its absence.
I need to remodel my brain.
David Horne
> Nick Fitch to John Whiteside:
> >The image you present is a faded Southern Belle
>
> Southern Belfast, maybe.
Belfast _has_ been in soc.motss a bit recently, hasn't it?
John Whiteside
as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
> > but really the Nazi thing is tired.
>
> But it was clear as a bell. Everyone - whether they agreed or
> not - knew what Nick was saying, and part of what he was saying
> was "You're telling me you're SURPRISED?"
Well, no kidding. So?
> Certain organizations'
> agendas are no less clear and obvious and tired than Usenet
> Nazi references, making the idiom a perfectly appropriate one.
Tell me about that Anglican agenda.
> Why are you asking him to throw up barriers and hurdles
> and currently non-existent difficulties around himself to -
because he's articulate and witty and if he's going to beat the same
old drum he could at least be more entertaining about it.
> oh,
> never mind. You people can't help it.
Which people would those be?
John Whiteside
Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> wrote:
> Nazi references create an effect that serves a purpose. The purpose was
> understood even by those who disagree with the premise, and hence served
> its function. You don't like it. Tough shit. I'm not at all concerned
> with your delicate nature or what you feel is appropriate. I'm also
> thoroughly versed in "Oh dear, how boring, please do something new" as a
> tool of usenet dismissal. I don't know whether to be amused or annoyed
> by your attempting it on me.
Whatever. Of course we understood the reference. It's also so
simplistic as to be utterly inaccurate, which I pointed out. This has
nothing to do with my "delicate nature," which is not all that delicate
and was not particularly offended by it.
I just think it's kind of stupid, and we've all heard it before.
> However, I do get extremely tired of irrelevant clucking whose only
> purpose is to make clear that someone thinks someone else isn't behaving
> to their own exacting standards.
So ignore it. It has nothing to do with "behaving to (my) own exacting
standards." The analogy was a poor one. I said so. Deal.
> Either lay the egg or shut up. If you
> haven't figured it by now, I'm not interested in how you think I should
> express myself nor have any motivation to adapt to your preferred
> approach. The image you present is a faded Southern Belle attempting
> total control by making pained moues of distaste when someone in the
> family says a word not in keeping with her refined sensibilities.
A Southern Belle? Oh my. I've been called many things before but that's
a new one.
> Now, have you anything to say on this subject that doesn't involve an
> intimation that it's not being done to your standards, or would you just
> like to narrow your lips and fan yourself at me some more?
Sigh. I have not intimated anything, I've said what it thinks, and the
only standard I would try to hold you to is whether your analogy was
accurate. It's not, for reasons on which I've already elaborated. If
that's not relevant, then there isn't much to say, is there?
John Whiteside
<bri...@SPAMastroplace.com> wrote:
> Nick Fitch to John Whiteside:
> >The image you present is a faded Southern Belle
>
> Southern Belfast, maybe.
That's family roots, not personal ones. Southern Connecticut. South End
of Boston. Those could work.
John Whiteside
Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> wrote:
> Nazi references create an effect that serves a purpose. The purpose was
> understood even by those who disagree with the premise, and hence served
> its function.
another note:
Here's the purpose I saw - someone mentioned something to do with
Christianity on soc.motss, so Nick had to take an opportunity to remind
us what he thinks of Christianity.
I just went back and re-read the things I've posted in this thread
looking for this:
> The image you present is a faded Southern Belle attempting
> total control by making pained moues of distaste when someone in the
> family says a word not in keeping with her refined sensibilities.
and I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. I see myself talking, in
straightforward language, about why I think your Nazi analogies are
inaccurate. I see myself explaining, again in pretty straightforward
language, why I think talking about christianity as some kind of
monolith is bound to lead to some very inaccurate statements about any
specific church or denomination within it. I also see myself
questioning claims of being non-judgmental when they are presented with
language about abuse bottoms, licking piss off someone's boots, and so
on.
So where the above comes from, I am not sure. That last article was
sarcastic, and intentionally so. I'm not going to suggest it's a moment
of rhetorical grandeur on my part, but I don't believe it warrants that
last outburt of you.
I am really dying to know if those who know me personally think I
regularly have a southern belle tone, though. I really don't think I
could pull that off if I tried, but who knows, maybe I am channeling
something I didn't know was there....
John Whiteside
as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/313183
> 9.stm
OK, so there are a lot of African churches very pissed off at the US
church. I'm not following how this translates into an "Anglican
agenda."
David Horne
> In article <bjg0rg$b4q$1...@reader2.panix.com>, the artist formerly known
> as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > but really the Nazi thing is tired.
> >
> > But it was clear as a bell. Everyone - whether they agreed or
> > not - knew what Nick was saying, and part of what he was saying
> > was "You're telling me you're SURPRISED?"
>
> Well, no kidding. So?
>
> > Certain organizations'
> > agendas are no less clear and obvious and tired than Usenet
> > Nazi references, making the idiom a perfectly appropriate one.
>
> Tell me about that Anglican agenda.
This is one of the problems, for me, in continuing this discussion much
further. I'm not particularly articulate, but I've voiced why _I_ think
"surprise" was warranted, given the fact that this is about the Anglican
church. Not the catholic church, not the church of scotland
(prespyterian)- but the _anglican_ church. The fact I'm not (though I
was briefly) a member perhaps doesn't help, I suppose, but I think I've
made it pretty clear how I see the hierarchy of the anglican church, and
why I think the disappointment was justified. If Nick, David or Tony
were to articulate their arguments in terms of anglicanism, I'd have
something to really argue with, or even feel- "yeah, I see your point."
If an authority on anglicanism came in and told me I was being an idiot-
then I'd probably listen even more. I'm not personally invested in
anglicanism, or christianity, so letting go in this kind of argument is
not difficult. I'm not arguing about the beauty of the second mode of
limited transposition, after all.
I just don't feel that anyone who has taken the line "what did you
expect?" has put this in the context of the anglican church. David
Fenton has mentioned more gay-friendly churches, and they exist, but the
US Episcopalians (anglicans) have just voted for an openly gay Bishop.
Well, the lgbt episcopalians in _that_ diocese sure as _heck_ would be a
little surprised if their celebratory weekend were taken away! And, for
all the humming and hawing, I don't see that diocese, never mind the US
episcopalians, being subjugated by the 'authority' that has been talked
about. Is there friction? Sure. Are there arguments, and a spilling out
of homophobia in some areas? Absolutely. That's not the same as the
stamping foot of authority though- and I haven't seen an argument to
suggest otherwise. Yet.
David Horne
> That's family roots, not personal ones. Southern Connecticut. South End
> of Boston. Those could work.
You know- South End, in a pinch, wasn't that far away, in my mind, to
the Botanic Avenue.
David Horne
I'm only seeing your follow-up here, but I'm guessing from the context
that this was posted as reponse to your "Tell me about that Anglican
agenda." comment.
I'd already commented on the differences in the anglican church in
different parts of the world. That's exemplified a little in the url
posted. The following goes slightly further in explaining the odd
'hierarchy' which is the 'anglican' church, I think.
" Despite the Archbishop of Canterbury's plea that irrevocable steps
should be avoided, he has no power here to order the Nigerian church to
accept a homosexual bishop in far-off America. "
Same thing would have applied to female ordination, by the way.
Anyway, so the US church does one thing, the Nigerian church does
another. And on a more local level, the Liverpool diocese does one
thing, the Manchester diocese does another. No one tries, and indeed
can, try to get in the way. The anglican church ordains gay priests
regularly (did everyone contributing to this thread actually _know_
that?) and life goes one. (Bishops are still thornier.) The Manchester
diocese then does something out of character with _itself_, and I post
to the effect that this disappoints me. Without going on and on, that's
why the "what did you expect" argument is not persuasive to me.
Brian Kane
>John Whiteside:
>>That's family roots, not personal ones. Southern Connecticut. South End
>>of Boston. Those could work.
>
>You know- South End, in a pinch, wasn't that far away, in my mind, to
>the Botanic Avenue.
It's pretty close, in reality, to las avenidas de las botánicas in
Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, and Roslindale.
Whenever we ran out of St. Francis air freshener or Santería altar
fixin's for our J. P. abode, M. and I loved going down to one of the
many botanicas to restock. Never touched the herbal medecine
concoctions, though.
Brian Kane
>Southern Connecticut. South End of Boston. Those could work.
I forget: where are you now in DC? "Logan East"? "Columbia Bottoms"?
"Shaw Annex"?
Brian Kane
>This has nothing to do with my "delicate nature," which is
>not all that delicate and was not particularly offended by it.
It's true. John's a big, butch, motorcycle riding, leather top.
Kevin Michael Vail
John Whiteside <logan_SKIPTHIS_john@mac_THISTOO_.com> wrote:
> I am really dying to know if those who know me personally think I
> regularly have a southern belle tone, though. I really don't think I
> could pull that off if I tried, but who knows, maybe I am channeling
> something I didn't know was there....
You don't, IMO. I've always considered you fairly direct and
straightforward, both good qualities in my book.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | Dogbert: That's circular reasoning.
ke...@vaildc.net | Dilbert: I prefer to think of it as no loose ends.
http://www.vaildc.net/kevin/
David Horne
> Kevin Vail:
> >Jess Anderson:
>
> >>OK, who kicked over the rock again? Is everyone who uses
> >>X-No-Archive: hiding from "history", Bill? I mean, there are
> >>*lots* of us.
>
> >Well, technically, Jess, yes, you are hiding from history, at
> >least as far as it is represented by Usenet archives.
>
> Which is like no distance at all. The history, if any, will be
> for my executor to decide.
Out of interest, any particular reason why you do it?
Lee Rudolph
>I'd already commented on the differences in the anglican church in
>different parts of the world. That's exemplified a little in the url
>posted. The following goes slightly further in explaining the odd
>'hierarchy' which is the 'anglican' church, I think.
>
>" Despite the Archbishop of Canterbury's plea that irrevocable steps
>should be avoided, he has no power here to order the Nigerian church to
>accept a homosexual bishop in far-off America. "
Hell, Rowan Williams, that shitty pusillanimous slimepot of salted
slugs, didn't even have the personal power (as contrasted with purely
formal power, which he most certainly did have) to keep the evangeloonies
in the *English* branch of the church from forcing him to *rescind*
the appointment of a gay suffragan bishop a couple of months ago.
Start from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,999496,00.html
and work backwards if you don't know the story. Vile, vile, vile.
Lee Rudolph
David Horne
> Start from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,999496,00.html
> and work backwards if you don't know the story. Vile, vile, vile.
There wouldn't be many lgbt people in the UK that didn't know this
story- indeed, _anyone_ who watched TV news a little would know about
it. If you can relate that to why I should be surprised that the
manchester diocese did what they did, fine.
Ellen Evans
Nick Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> wrote:
[]
>Nazi references create an effect that serves a purpose.
As indicative of a momentary lapse in otherwise quite proper performance?
>The purpose was
>understood even by those who disagree with the premise, and hence served
>its function.
What was understood was the *intent*. My take is there was not a little
disappointment that said intent could not be served with something a
little, well, more original.
John Whiteside
as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <070920031926465740%logan_SKIPTHIS_john@mac_THISTOO_.com>,
> John Whiteside wrote:
>
> > OK, so there are a lot of African churches very pissed off at the US
> > church. I'm not following how this translates into an "Anglican
> > agenda."
>
> Say goodnight, Gracie.
You really have no idea what you're talking about on this one.
David Horne
This become increasingly obvious to me. Still, maybe he can follow Lee
and scrape together some kind of URL that _doesn't_ prove the point?
John Whiteside
<bri...@SPAMastroplace.com> wrote:
> I forget: where are you now in DC? "Logan East"? "Columbia Bottoms"?
> "Shaw Annex"?
Logan Circle. The neighborhood definitions are a little vague, but I'm
a block north and a block and half east of the circle. According to the
community association, the Logan Circle neighborhood boundaries are
Massachusetts on the south, S on the north, 16th on the west, and 9th
on the east. Of course, this puts the whole thing within the
traditional boundaries of Shaw, but people pretty much don't call it
Shaw till you get to about 10th these days. The northern boundary is
pretty vague - U Street is pretty much recognized as a different
neighborhood (U St-Cardozo) but Logan and U Street share so many of the
same common areas and businesses that I think they are more the
commercial and residential areas on one neighborhood, personally.
I'm not sure officially when you cross from U St to Columbia Heights as
you head north; it seems rather vague to me but I suspect Florida
Avenue is the boundary.
Occasionally someone talks about a Thomas Circle neighborhood but that
really just seems a little Logan, a little Dupont to me.
David Horne
> In article <Xns93EFCFE68...@199.184.165.240>, Brian Kane
> <bri...@SPAMastroplace.com> wrote:
>
> > I forget: where are you now in DC? "Logan East"? "Columbia Bottoms"?
> > "Shaw Annex"?
>
> Logan Circle.
Hey, I "floated" on top of a crowd there. I'm not kidding. March o'
1993- the place was heaving.
Dissident
> Dissident:
>
>
>>except for a certain poster who sets "X-No-Archive: Yes" to
>>hide his own posts from history,
>
>
> OK, who kicked over the rock again? Is everyone who uses
> X-No-Archive: hiding from "history", Bill? I mean, there are
> *lots* of us.
Yes, there are. Not all of you are hypocrites, however.
>>while carefully doing all he can to de-anonymize other's posts
>>and expose them to view.
>
>
> It may be old-fashioned to want to deal with real people, not
> fakes and phonies, speaking of hiding.
You already know my name, so you hardly need reveal it
to the world in order to feel *your* dealings with me
are personalized. This is clearly not your real reason.
Try again.
> You might at least adopt
> a more accurate handle anyway, something like Cop Killer
> Wannabe, maybe, or Crypto-Fascist Closeted Homo-Hater.
If by "Homo" you mean that men who want to have sex with
men are mandated to have certain behavioral traits that
are identifyably "gay", else they are vilified as
traitors to the cause, then yes, I hate Homos, hate them
with a passion. Just as I hate any other deliberately
self-stereotyped minority. There's nothing closeted
about my hate for this kind of groupthink.
Of course this use of the word "Homo" is a specialized
one with a restricted technical meaning that has little
to do with the general class of people who desire sex
with persons of the same gender, for which let's use
the term "gay". Gay people are my friends, my community.
I love them and enjoy their company. Well most of them,
anyway.
And "Crypto-Fascist"? Have I ever proposed total
authoritarian control of *anything*? Now, "Crypto-
Anarchist" you might have a case for.
> Btw, it wasn't me who published *your* address and phone number
> (though I easily could have) and announced an intention to
> obtain your Social Security number, was it? No indeed, that was
> you, speaking of arrogant hypocrites.
I tried a consciousness-raising exercise: putting you in
the position of having more information revealed about
you than you might want. It worked halfway - you clearly
felt what I've been feeling. However your lack of
empathy prevented you from relating this at all to any
other person's feelings. Thus the consciousness-raising
part of the exercise failed. It was not hypocritical of
me, merely overly optimistic that you could be made to
understand the feelings of another. For that unwarranted
optimism I accept the blame.
>>But them, old people have traditionally been viewed (and it
>>appears rightly so) as arrogant hypocrites.
>
>
> So you're not only an obsessed stalker-pervert but an ageist
> oinker, right? But then, you are already on record as both, as
> well as other things even more warpo.
No, just wanted to get your goat. Worked, too.
Eric Bohlman
> In article <MPG.19c5b2f69...@news.btopenworld.com>,
> Nick Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> wrote:
>
> []
>
>>Nazi references create an effect that serves a purpose.
>
> As indicative of a momentary lapse in otherwise quite proper performance?
To me, they usually create the impression that someone is going to blow
smoke out his ass.
The problem with overusing hyperbole is kind of like the problem with
overusing profanity: Lenny Bruce was certainly right that if you can't say
"fuck," you can't say "fuck the government" but the flip side of that is
that if every other fucking word that comes out of your fucking mouth is
"fuck," then nobody is going to give a fuck when you say "fuck the
government." Or like the drama queen who treats every little mishap as a
horrible tragedy; when something *truly* tragic happens, he/she won't have
the vocabulary to express it because it's all been co-opted to refer to the
mundane.
Overuse of rhetorical hype really amounts to screaming for attention, and
most people's reaction to someone screaming for attention is to turn down
their own mental volume control. Unfortunately, the mental volume control
turns down *other* people's voices as well, and the result is that everyone
has to bellow at the top of their lungs just to be heard. And once
everyone has to speak as loudly as they can, the ability to convey urgency
by tone of voice disappears, since everyone has to use the same tone for
the trivial as for the urgent.
John Whiteside
<1g0y72p.7p2rp4cldrnzN%i_will_almost_...@yahoo.com>, David
Horne <i_will_almost_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This become increasingly obvious to me. Still, maybe he can follow Lee
> and scrape together some kind of URL that _doesn't_ prove the point?
I was being charitable and offering him a chance to explain how the
article that demonstrates my point actually meant something entirely
different. It was, I suppose, a misplaced urge.
John Whiteside
as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
> What has not sunk in my skull is just what it would take to
> present a convincing argument (or what the appropriate URL,
> as David has ostensibly requested, would include) that what
> you vehemently and steadfastly believe to be true about
> independence and influence and power and agenda in this
> particular institution simply does not map to reality.
You said the following:
> Certain organizations'
> agendas are no less clear and obvious and tired than Usenet
> Nazi references, making the idiom a perfectly appropriate one.
which, since we are talking about the Anglican church, suggests that
you think said church has a 'clear and obvious' agenda with regard to
gay people.
When I asked you to tell me about the Anglican agenda, you posted a
link to an article which discussed how different parts of the Anglican
church are fighting bitterly about homosexuality, to the point they may
separate altogether.
Forgive me, but I do not see how there's a 'clear and obvious' agenda
there. It certainly isn't clear to members of the church itself. So
what is this agenda?
You're just not making any sense.
John Whiteside
as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
> In this thread, we're smack in the middle of three stories
> which pretty demonstrably show that the model you and David
> believe to be true probably doesn't apply.
What is it that you think David and I am saying here?
David Horne
It might sink into his skull, eventually, that what would be useful is a
little understanding of the anglican church, and at least a bit of
evidence that _he_ has some, when framing his arguments. Posting a url
(and no, that's _not_ what I'm looking for) doesn't necessarily do that.
David Horne
> David Horne:
>
> >Out of interest, any particular reason why you do it?
>
> No pay, no play.
Fair 'nuf.
John Whiteside
as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
> They have a clear and obvious need to mend some fences right now.
>
> Otherwise, somebody would have told the mouthpieces from Nigeria,
> and the evangeloonies in Oxford et al. that they could go pound
> sand butchly for all anyone cared.
That's an interesting read on it. The idea of that as their agenda is
not obvious from posting a URL. I appreciate you clarifying what you
meant, because I was really mystified.
> That institution's agenda is to expand and convert, whether out
> of a power grab or an earnest quest for souls ("They mean well!!"),
> and if you believe for a minute they're going to thumb their nose
> at an entire continent, or half their constituency at home, to
> keep a few faggots happy, keep dreaming.
I don't think this is a terribly accurate read on things, though, but
only because "the institution" doesn't really *get* to decide whether
to "keep a few faggots happy." They can't make anyone accept gay people
OR reject them. All "the institution" can do it try to keep everybody
together with a limited ability to make anyone do anything in
particular. It's not a setup that lends itself to holding things
together in the face of this kind of issue, I believe. But I guess
we'll see.
Lee Rudolph
>Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Start from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,999496,00.html
>> and work backwards if you don't know the story. Vile, vile, vile.
>
>There wouldn't be many lgbt people in the UK that didn't know this
>story- indeed, _anyone_ who watched TV news a little would know about
>it. If you can relate that to why I should be surprised that the
>manchester diocese did what they did, fine.
I gave that URL (the "you" after it, by the way, was addressed to
the generic reader) in direct response to the following quoted words
of yours (David Horne's), with their included quotation from some
URL of your own, commenting on the power of Mr. Williams:
>I'd already commented on the differences in the anglican church in
>different parts of the world. That's exemplified a little in the url
>posted. The following goes slightly further in explaining the odd
>'hierarchy' which is the 'anglican' church, I think.
>
>" Despite the Archbishop of Canterbury's plea that irrevocable steps
>should be avoided, he has no power here to order the Nigerian church to
>accept a homosexual bishop in far-off America. "
The story to which my URL points is an account of the Archbishop
of Canterbury using the power he *does* have, in *England*, to force
an *English* Bishop of the *Church of England* to rescind that bishop's
appointment of a gay man to the post of suffragan bishop, this brutal
exercise of power being evidently at the order or urgent request of a
group of his (the AofC's) *subordinates* (within that corner of "the
odd 'hierarchy' which is the 'anglican' church" called the Church of
England) who belong to the homophobic evangelical movement within the
CofE. Thus, in the first instance, the rhetorical point of my post was
to show that your "comment[] on the differences in the anglican church
in different parts of the world" was irrelevant insofar as it might
have been understood to be evidence that `it can't happen here'.
As to relating "that" (viz., the shameful story to which my URL
points) "to why I should be surprised that the manchester diocese
did what they did," it's not really all that hard. Diocese X.
in the person of its Bishop does Y. (appoints a gay suffragan)
and gets slapped down *hard* by the AofC after the evangelical
homophobes put pressure on him. This is widely reported (as you
note). Some little time later, Diocese M. "did what they did".
Could there be a chain of causality? Damned if I know. But it
smells bad to me.
Certainly there are people who are surprised come morning when
the sun, which had disappeared the night before, rises again.
The common run of such people are newborn infants, or in the
grips of powerful dementia. But maybe you're the New Adam.
Lee Rudolph
Clay Colwell
> AH yes, and so does almost everybody except for a certain
> poster who sets "X-No-Archive: Yes" to hide his own posts
> from history, while carefully doing all he can to de-anonymize
> other's posts and expose them to view. But them, old people
> have traditionally been viewed (and it appears rightly so)
> as arrogant hypocrites.
<takes out stethoscope>
<puts it to horse's chest>
Nope, still dead.
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> Nick
> Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> wrote:
> > You do have to wonder exactly what their motivation is for talking about
> > participating in a club that's made it clear it doesn't want them.
> > Lights and bushels and all that.
> you also have to wonder about the motivation on someone who cannot bear
> the mention of a topic without posting the inevitable nazi parallel
> post.
But Dr. Fitchie is funny, so we like to read it.
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> A Southern Belle? Oh my. I've been called many things before but that's
> a new one.
Do you want to borrow my fan? I have a lovely new one -- it's made of rainbow
feathers.
Gwendolyn
David Horne
> As to relating "that" (viz., the shameful story to which my URL
> points) "to why I should be surprised that the manchester diocese
> did what they did," it's not really all that hard.
It's not really hard if you're talking in the abstract. I wouldn't have
been at all surprised if certain dioceses had acted this way. I was
surprised that Manchester did, given its recent history.
Chris Ambidge
>The story to which my URL points is an account of the Archbishop
>of Canterbury using the power he *does* have, in *England*, to force
>an *English* Bishop of the *Church of England* to rescind that bishop's
>appointment of a gay man to the post of suffragan bishop, this brutal
>exercise of power being evidently at the order or urgent request of a
>group of his (the AofC's) *subordinates* (within that corner of "the
>odd 'hierarchy' which is the 'anglican' church" called the Church of
>England) who belong to the homophobic evangelical movement within the
>CofE. Thus, in the first instance, the rhetorical point of my post was
>to show that your "comment[] on the differences in the anglican church
>in different parts of the world" was irrelevant insofar as it might
>have been understood to be evidence that `it can't happen here'.
you are misinformed as to the source of the trouble, and the
actual power use here.
while I am disappointed in the actions of archbishop williams,
the sequence of events is not as you describe. In England,
bishops are appointed by royal warrant - ie by the crown, on
advice of 10 Downing St, who take advice from the church.
in the case of suffragans, it is effectively the diocesan
bishop who makes the appointment -- Herries of Oxford, in the
case of Jeffrey John to be suffragan bishop of Reading. Once
the Queen signs the royal warrant for consecration, NO ONE,
including the archbishop of canterbury or the bishop of oxford,
has the power to rescind the appointment. So the facts in
your long and rather convoluted first sentence quoted here is
incorrect. +Cantuar did NOT have that power, in England or anywhere
else. If you're going to use overblown rhetoric, at least get
your facts straight.
what actually happened was Jeffrey John was summoned to a meeting
with Lambeth Palace (+Cantuar officials) people, and after a six
hour meeting, he resigned - or, more formally, sought leave from HM
to do so. He was the only person capable of stopping the process.
I am personally horrified by the bullying techniques used upon
him, and I'm disappointed by the decision that he reached. The
deision, however, was his to make - for his own sake, and for that
of his partner, as well as "for the sake fo the church", which
is doubtless what the lambeth lynch mob/bullies were charging
him with in that meeting. There is certainly no excuse for their
activities, though.
As to those who are claiming there is some kind of Anglican
agenda vis a vis homos in the church, it would appear to me
that they do not quite grasp the nature of the Anglican communion.
It is 38 independent churches, in various parts of the world,
who are in a cooperative federation - much like the Commonwealth.
While there are common purposes and mutual support, the
different churches (referred to as "provinces") are the ones
who make their own decisions. On the particular questions
of homo-ness, the church in Nigeria, or the West Indes, or
Rwanda, or SE Asia, or the Southern Cone (SAmerica south of Brazil)
are certainly going in a different direction to the US or
Canada. I couldn't say which way the church in England is going,
and my suspicion is that different regions have different reactions.
Others have referred to an authoritarian structure. They may be
making parallels to the Roman Catholic church, and its structure.
The parallel is not a good one. There is NO SUCH THING as a Vatican
for the Anglican Church. There is no Big Guy who can say "jump"
and everyone says "how high?" on the way up. +Cantuar has authority
only in England, and has no way of telling the US episcopal church
not to ordain a gay bishop; just as his predecessor had no way
to tell them not to ordain a woman bishop back in 1989. National
churches do have sway over their individual bishops (to greater
or lesser extents, depending on the province); in some provinces
bishops are much more independent (and act it). So generalisations
about "the anglicans say X" is frequently painting with too broad
a brush.
and lest one think that all African anglican churches are right-
wing on this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1037441,00.html
the primate of South Africa/ archbishop of Cape Town, Njonkulu
Ndungane, has a much clearer grasp on what is important, I would
say, than the primate of Nigeria.
Chris
church-going Anglo-Fag, active with Integrity, the LGB group within the
Anglican church in US/Canada/Australia/Uganda, so I am reasonably well
informed on the way the communion works.
--
if the planets are misaligned, I may have been logged in under an assumed name.
no matter WHAT/WHO the headers of this post claim , I am
Chris Ambidge =|= amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca =|= chris....@utoronto.ca
chemist by day=|=panda by night=|=www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
Chris Ambidge
>The problem with overusing hyperbole is kind of like the problem with
>overusing profanity: Lenny Bruce was certainly right that if you can't say
>"fuck," you can't say "fuck the government" but the flip side of that is
>that if every other fucking word that comes out of your fucking mouth is
>"fuck," then nobody is going to give a fuck when you say "fuck the
>government." Or like the drama queen who treats every little mishap as a
>horrible tragedy; when something *truly* tragic happens, he/she won't have
>the vocabulary to express it because it's all been co-opted to refer to the
>mundane.
>
>Overuse of rhetorical hype really amounts to screaming for attention, and
>most people's reaction to someone screaming for attention is to turn down
>their own mental volume control. Unfortunately, the mental volume control
>turns down *other* people's voices as well, and the result is that everyone
>has to bellow at the top of their lungs just to be heard. And once
>everyone has to speak as loudly as they can, the ability to convey urgency
>by tone of voice disappears, since everyone has to use the same tone for
>the trivial as for the urgent.
nail. head. bang.
wasn't there a fable, apparently penned by Aesop, about the
little boy who cried "wolf" too often?
manly panda
Chris Ambidge
[john, on neighbourhoods]
>the Logan Circle neighborhood boundaries are
>Massachusetts on the south, S on the north, 16th on the west, and 9th
>on the east.
I know in my head that John is talking about S street, but
that still reads at-first-glance as "south on the north" to
my befuddled brain. I'm irresistibly drawn to those conundra (?)
about "I have a square cabin with a window in each wall,
each looking south, I shoot a bear, what colour is it?", or
possibly the antarctic/meet-a-penguin-for-luncheon equivalent.
Chris
geography never was my strong suit
Lee Rudolph
> you are misinformed
I was not misinformed; I was at worst misinformative. No matter
of fact in what you wrote below was unknown to me: I thought
(and think) that the facts I omitted or elided were (and are)
irrelevant to the point I was making to David Horne.
> So the facts in
> your long and rather convoluted first sentence quoted here is
> incorrect.
For me, convolution is the tribute etiquette pays to purblind idiocy.
> what actually happened was Jeffrey John was summoned to a meeting
> with Lambeth Palace (+Cantuar officials) people, and after a six
> hour meeting, he resigned - or, more formally, sought leave from HM
> to do so. He was the only person capable of stopping the process.
You will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but it is my *impression*
that the preferred practice when burning heretics at the stake (etc.)
was to have them confess of their own free will--coerced confessions
being quite invalid. They were, of course, the only persons capable
of freely confessing their own heresies. How nice it was that so many
of them did so!
Or, to put it more pithiliy, "Arbeit macht frei!"
Lee Rudolph
Lee Rudolph
>What a retard you are.
Less convolution!
Lee Rudolph
Frank McQuarry
Oh, I don't know. I tend to be in the Fitch camp on this one. I've
seen organized religions behave so badly so often that I don't think its
possible to wear out the Nazi metaphor.
Dissident
> In article <3F5AE32A...@7600.net>,
> someone wrote:
>
>>AH yes, and so does almost everybody except for a certain
>>poster who sets "X-No-Archive: Yes" to hide his own posts
>>from history, while carefully doing all he can to de-anonymize
>>other's posts and expose them to view. But them, old people
>>have traditionally been viewed (and it appears rightly so)
>>as arrogant hypocrites.
>
>
> paranoia attack. Life is unjust.
Oh, I'm not inordinately young myself. But Jess is such
a poster boy for the crotchty, closed-minded old man
contingent that I just had to try getting his goat. Not
all old guys are like that. Don't feel you were
necessarily included, or worse that you necessarily have
to emulate Jess. And believe me, I have the same
paranoia about getting old.
Ellen Evans
Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> wrote:
[]
>Or, to put it more pithiliy, "Arbeit macht frei!"
As a Nazi rfeference, better than Nick's recent foray, but still . . .
Ellen Evans
the artist formerly known as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
[]
>We can't do Nazi metaphors anymore. Is "house nigger" a problem?
Apparently not to you.
Robert S. Coren
Quite apart from the highly dubious[1] assertion that Jess is "like
that", what are we *supposed* to think you meant by "But then, old
people have traditionally been viewed (and it appears rightly so) as
arrogant hypocrites"?
--Robert, and before anybody asks why I'm bothering, I was just
wondering that myself
[1] Understatement alert!
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Little baklavas pulsate in the oven. It's scary and somewhat
erotic." --BBC
Jed Davis
> Jed Davis wrote:
>
>>So, a couple weeks ago I was reading through a little unpleasantness
>>that took place in this group in... 1992, I think it was
[snip]
> Gurl, you're older than you look!
No, it's just that I'm a time traveler, like Whitney Houston.
--
Jed Davis <jld...@cs.oberlin.edu> Selling of self: http://panix.com/~jdev/rs/
<jd...@panix.com> PGP<-finger A098:903E:9B9A:DEF4:168F:AA09:BF07:807E:F336:59F9
\ "But life wasn't yes-no, on-off. Life was shades of gray, and rainbows
/\ not in the order of the spectrum." -- L. E. Modesitt, Jr., _Adiamante_
Chris Ambidge
>> you are misinformed
>
>I was not misinformed; I was at worst misinformative. No matter
>of fact in what you wrote below was unknown to me: I thought
>(and think) that the facts I omitted or elided were (and are)
>irrelevant to the point I was making to David Horne.
you said that Rowan Williams had the power to stop Jeffrye
John from being ordained bishop of Reading. Once the announcement
was made, he didn't. What you said was incorrect.
>> So the facts in
>> your long and rather convoluted first sentence quoted here is
>> incorrect.
>
>For me, convolution is the tribute etiquette pays to purblind idiocy.
horsefeathers.
I am not saying anything in defence of the Lambeth goons. What
they did was execrable. My point is that the Anglican churches
(plural) are a lot less heirarchical than some here are claiming.
Homophobes in one part can run roughshod over homos, while in
other parts gay men (and, undoubtedly in time, lesbians) can
be elected bishops, and there isn't one person or mechanism
that can control those processes. The churches are quite
heterogeneous.
>Or, to put it more pithiliy, "Arbeit macht frei!"
sorry, Godwin's law says that the first to invoke the Nazis
in any web argument not actually about German history loses.
and, as eric has said elsewhere, it ultimately degrades the
rhetoric, and you lose ability to use extremes for emphasis.
chris
Christian Hansen
(David Horne) wrote:
>Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> As to relating "that" (viz., the shameful story to which my URL
>> points) "to why I should be surprised that the manchester diocese
>> did what they did," it's not really all that hard.
>
>It's not really hard if you're talking in the abstract. I wouldn't have
>been at all surprised if certain dioceses had acted this way. I was
>surprised that Manchester did, given its recent history.
Do remember that +Nigel Mancun. is only recently in post, moved from Wakefield
(where a friend was installed as Archdeacon of Pontefract yesterday at
Evensong). I suspect that he got cold feet and decided he didn't want the
Cathedral to play host. Thus, while he had no legal authority to deny LGCM the
use of the Cathedral (the Dean and Chapter did and do) he certainly may have
leaned on them to rescind permission.
As for the Jeffrey John thing, I agree that the whole business stinks to high
heaven. ++Rowan Cantuar will pay a heavy price for allowing this to happen. He
and John are close friends, by the way. ++Rowan runs the risk of being known
as the worst Archbishop of Canterbury in a century (only ++Cosmo Gordon Lang,
who famously trashed Edward VIII just after the abdication, kicking a guy when
he's down, might be thought to be worse). Oh, yes, the only reason I mention
Lang is the fabboo name...
The real problem in this case was not ++Rowan, it was +Richard Oxon. He
appointed Jeffrey John knowing that he is a gay man, but that information, and
the information that he has a partner, and that they are both celibate within
and without the relationship, was _not_ made public at the beginning. Instead,
the information that Jeffrey John is gay and partnered, and had admitted as
much publicly, was leaked to the press by some of those on our side of the
issue. Thus, we blew it. Pressure then mounted on John to resign the
appointment. I am told on quite good authority that only one hour was spent in
persuading John to resign. The other five hours were spent trying to figure
out how to play it in the newsmedia. Spin is everything, even in the Church.
Contrasting New Hampshire, everyone involved in the nomination and election
process knew full well that Gene Robinson was a gay man; they knew him, his
history, his former wife, his children, and his partner. Everything was open
and above-board. There were no secrets in the closet--the door was wide open.
+Richard Oxon should really have either made a full and frank statement as the
appointment was made, or not appointed Jeffrey at all. Withholding this
information, only to have it winkled out from lesbian and gay people who
attended an LGCM conference a few years ago during which Jeffrey John came
out, was a major public relations gaffe and fuelled the speculation that
something was a bit dodgy about the appointments process. Was +Richard so
devious as to know and yet conceal this information? The PM and the Queen were
thus hoodwinked into appointing him, according to the fundagelicals. Was
+Richard so ignorant that he didn't know or didn't ask whether John, an
unmarried clergyman, was gay and whether he had a partner and, if so, whether
they were chaste? Then +Richard is a fool.
I can see a great stage play coming out of this.
Chris "Perhaps Elton John might play his namesake." Hansen
--
Chris Hansen | chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com
http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk
"In this household at least 25% of the contents is vermouth." Michael Palmer
"25% of your household is vermouth? Wow, you must have cases...of the stuff!"
Mike Jankulak
Mike McKinley
>It's true that the anglican church is not as uniformally friendly as
>some other organisations.
>
I had a long talk with the Mexican painter about the Reformation.
He wanted to know if the Protestants were *still* protesting, and, if
so, shouldn't the Catholics be protesting even more.
--
¿...qué podemos saber las mujeres sino las filosofías de cocina? Bien dijo Lupercio Leonardo, que bien se puede filosofar y aderezar la cena. Y yo suelo decir viendo estas cosillas: Si Aristóteles hubiera guisado, mucho más hubiera escrito."
("...what can we women know, save philosophies of the kitchen? It was well put by Lupercio Leonardo that one can philosophize quite well while preparing supper. I often say, when I make these little observations, "Had Aristotle cooked, he would have written a great deal more.")
Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, La Respuesta
Mike McKinley
>In article <MPG.19c5803e4...@news.btopenworld.com>, Nick
>Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>And that anyone who speaks, in any way, of their participation in a
>>>mainstream church is "ask[ing] all of us to admire and praise their
>>>technique, or to join them"?
>>>
>>>
>>You do have to wonder exactly what their motivation is for talking about
>>participating in a club that's made it clear it doesn't want them.
>>Lights and bushels and all that.
>>
>>
>Well, I never felt like I was unwelcome. It was rather the opposite; I
>thought it was all quite nice & everyone meant well but the problem I
>have with it is the whole superbeing impregnating virgins to have
>sacrificial babies aspect of it, memorialized by ritual cannibalism.
>That, I really could not have faith in, so I left.
>OK, I'm sorry for asking everyone to admire and praise me with that.
>
>
I always liked the pretty statues and costumes.
Mike McKinley
>In article <bjf6uv$r4k$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
> ande...@wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) wrote:
>OK, who kicked over the rock again? Is everyone who uses
>X-No-Archive: hiding from "history", Bill? I mean, there are
>*lots* of us.
>
>
>Well, technically, Jess, yes, you are hiding from history, at least as
>far as it is represented by Usenet archives. And so is everyone else
>who uses it.
>
>Note that I'm not assigning a value judgment to this.
>
>
I don't know about you, but I want to allow the world to have my
golden prose for eternity.
Nick Fitch
logan_SKIPTHIS_john@mac_THISTOO_.com says...
> Sigh. I have not intimated anything, I've said what it thinks, and the
> only standard I would try to hold you to is whether your analogy was
> accurate. It's not, for reasons on which I've already elaborated. If
> that's not relevant, then there isn't much to say, is there?
I believe I already made clear how relevant I find it. Does this mean
you're going to shut up from here on, or was that a rhetorical aside?
--
(nickDOTfitchATbtopenworldDOTcom)