After all, it's just another day
WTF
So Be It!
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So if the Canadian and US governments determines that it is against the law
for the words 'under God' to be on our money, then, so be it.
And if that same governments decides that the 'Ten Commandments' are not to be
used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to be a law-abiding Canadian and US
citizen.
I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to think that smarter people than I
are in positions to make good decisions. I would like to think that those
people have the Canadian and U.S. public's best interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God in Schools, can't Trust in God on our coins, and
cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings
I don't believe that the Government and its employees should participate in the
Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is
eliminating from many
facets of Canadian life.
I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving, and
Easter.
After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the 'Canadian Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good
Friday, Thanksgiving, and Easter, as well as Sundays.'
After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the Senate and the House of Commons
to not have to worry about getting home for the'Christmas Break'.
After all, it's just another day.
I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved,
if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday, and
Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other
day of the week to a government that is trying to be 'politically correct'.
In fact....
I think that our government should work on Sundays
(initially set aside for worshipping God...)
because, after all, our government says that it should be
just another day.
What do you all think????
That Canadian Kid
news:oq5ah5t6o1146uknm...@4ax.com:
This is a damn good post, about time someone decided to say something. I
have always found it humourous when the government goes out of it's way
to protect the relegious rights of minorities but when it comes to the
majority forget we have rights as well.
Excellent post.
Diane Gall
I think there are many great reasons to have a 5 day work week and
things called statutory holidays that have nothing to do with anyone's
supernatural commitments.
Di
Zaphod
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well said, I wonder if WTF is going to set an example and start
working on Sundays, Christmas and Good Friday.
WTF
wrote:
-->On Dec 1, 6:18�ｿｽam, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
-->> THE LAW IS THE LAW! �ｿｽ
-->>
-->> So Be It!
-->>
-->> THE LAW IS THE LAW
-->>
-->> So if the �ｿｽCanadian and US governments determines that it is against the
law
-->> for the words 'under God' to be on our money, then, �ｿｽ so be it.
-->>
-->> And if that same governments decides that the �ｿｽ'Ten Commandments' are not
to be
-->> used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
-->>
-->> I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to be a law-abiding Canadian and
US
-->> citizen.
-->>
-->> I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to think that smarter people �ｿｽthan
I
-->> are in positions to make good decisions. I would like to think that those
-->> people have the Canadian and U.S. public's best interests �ｿｽat heart.
-->>
-->> BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
-->>
-->> Since we can't pray to God in Schools, �ｿｽ can't Trust in God on our coins,
and
-->> cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings
-->>
-->> I don't believe that the Government and its employees should participate
in the
-->> Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government
is
-->> eliminating from many
-->> �ｿｽfacets of Canadian life.
-->>
-->> I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, �ｿｽGood Friday, Thanksgiving, and
-->> Easter.
-->>
-->> After all, it's just another day.
-->>
-->> I'd like the 'Canadian Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good
-->> Friday, Thanksgiving, and Easter, as well as Sundays.'
-->> After all, it's just another day.
-->>
-->> I'd like the Senate and the House of Commons
-->> to not have to worry about getting home for the'Christmas Break'.
-->> After all, it's just another day.
-->>
-->> I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved,
-->> if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday,
and
-->> Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any
other
-->> day of the week to a government that is trying to be 'politically
correct'.
-->>
-->> In fact....
-->>
-->> I think that our government should work on Sundays
-->> (initially set aside for worshipping God...) �ｿｽ
-->> because, after all, our government says that it should be
-->> just another day.
-->>
-->> What do you all think????
-->
-->I think there are many great reasons to have a 5 day work week and
-->things called statutory holidays that have nothing to do with anyone's
-->supernatural commitments.
-->
-->Di
Are you a government employee that would be impacted by this if implemented
Diane?
WTF
-->On Dec 1, 7:00�pm, Diane Gall <diane.r.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
-->> On Dec 1, 6:18�am, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
-->>
-->>
-->>
-->>
-->>
-->> > THE LAW IS THE LAW! �
-->>
-->> > So Be It!
-->>
-->> > THE LAW IS THE LAW
-->>
-->> > So if the �Canadian and US governments determines that it is against the
law
-->> > for the words 'under God' to be on our money, then, � so be it.
-->>
-->> > And if that same governments decides that the �'Ten Commandments' are
not to be
-->> > used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
-->>
-->> > I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to be a law-abiding Canadian and
US
-->> > citizen.
-->>
-->> > I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to think that smarter people
�than I
-->> > are in positions to make good decisions. I would like to think that
those
-->> > people have the Canadian and U.S. public's best interests �at heart.
-->>
-->> > BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
-->>
-->> > Since we can't pray to God in Schools, � can't Trust in God on our
coins, and
-->> > cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings
-->>
-->> > I don't believe that the Government and its employees should participate
in the
-->> > Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our
government is
-->> > eliminating from many
-->> > �facets of Canadian life.
-->>
-->> > I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, �Good Friday, Thanksgiving, and
-->> > Easter.
-->>
-->> > After all, it's just another day.
-->>
-->> > I'd like the 'Canadian Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good
-->> > Friday, Thanksgiving, and Easter, as well as Sundays.'
-->> > After all, it's just another day.
-->>
-->> > I'd like the Senate and the House of Commons
-->> > to not have to worry about getting home for the'Christmas Break'.
-->> > After all, it's just another day.
-->>
-->> > I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved,
-->> > if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good
Friday, and
-->> > Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like
any other
-->> > day of the week to a government that is trying to be 'politically
correct'.
-->>
-->> > In fact....
-->>
-->> > I think that our government should work on Sundays
-->> > (initially set aside for worshipping God...) �
-->> > because, after all, our government says that it should be
-->> > just another day.
-->>
-->> > What do you all think????
-->>
-->> I think there are many great reasons to have a 5 day work week and
-->> things called statutory holidays that have nothing to do with anyone's
-->> supernatural commitments.
-->>
-->> Di- Hide quoted text -
-->>
-->> - Show quoted text -
-->
-->Well said, I wonder if WTF is going to set an example and start
-->working on Sundays, Christmas and Good Friday.
I'm not a government employee, nor a postal employee, nor on the Supreme court,
nor a member of parliment. It's time the well paid whiners actually worked for
a living.
Diane Gall
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:00:04 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall <diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> -->On Dec 1, 6:18 am, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
> -->> THE LAW IS THE LAW!
> -->> So Be It!
> -->>
> -->> THE LAW IS THE LAW
> -->>
> law
> -->> for the words 'under God' to be on our money, then, so be it.
> -->>
> -->> And if that same governments decides that the 'Ten Commandments' are not
> to be
> -->> used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
> -->>
> -->> I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to be a law-abiding Canadian and
> US
> -->> citizen.
> -->>
> I
> -->> are in positions to make good decisions. I would like to think that those
> -->>
> -->> BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
> -->>
> and
> -->> cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings
> -->>
> -->> I don't believe that the Government and its employees should participate
> in the
> -->> Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government
> is
> -->> eliminating from many
> -->>
> -->> I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving, and
> -->> Easter.
> -->>
> -->> After all, it's just another day.
> -->>
> -->> I'd like the 'Canadian Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good
> -->> Friday, Thanksgiving, and Easter, as well as Sundays.'
> -->> After all, it's just another day.
> -->>
> -->> I'd like the Senate and the House of Commons
> -->> to not have to worry about getting home for the'Christmas Break'.
> -->> After all, it's just another day.
> -->>
> -->> I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved,
> -->> if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday,
> and
> -->> Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any
> other
> -->> day of the week to a government that is trying to be 'politically
> correct'.
> -->>
> -->> In fact....
> -->>
> -->> I think that our government should work on Sundays
> -->> (initially set aside for worshipping God...)
> -->> just another day.
> -->>
> -->> What do you all think????
> -->
> -->I think there are many great reasons to have a 5 day work week and
> -->things called statutory holidays that have nothing to do with anyone's
> -->supernatural commitments.
> -->
> -->Di
>
> Are you a government employee that would be impacted by this if implemented
> Diane?
No. I work every day anyway. But my personal situation has nothing to
do with the many great reasons to have a 5 day work week and statutory
holidays that have nothing to do with supernatural commitments.
Sunday is just a convention; choose Monday and Tuesday as the days
where standard business is not carried out.
Statutory Holidays are quite well established to be excellent means to
promoting mental health in workers.
I could go on, but you'd just accuse me of something else rather than
address the argument.
Di
Diane Gall
> I'm not a government employee, nor a postal employee, nor on the Supreme court,
> nor a member of parliment. It's time the well paid whiners actually worked for
> a living.
So, you lift or build things for a living? What exactly counts as
'work'? Does writing count? How about making difficult decisions that
require years of expertise?
If we are disparaging each other's motivations, I might wonder aloud
if you are just some dumb shit that can do little more than mash their
fists on a keyboard and resent those who have skills for which they
are well paid. I can certainly understand the feeling of grievance you
might feel when smarter, better educated, more skilled people get
better jobs for which others are willing to pay higher wages than you
could hope for.
Di
WTF
wrote:
-->On Dec 1, 9:19�pm, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
-->
-->> I'm not a government employee, nor a postal employee, nor on the Supreme
court,
-->> nor a member of parliment. It's time the well paid whiners actually worked
for
-->> a living.
-->
-->So, you lift or build things for a living? What exactly counts as
-->'work'? Does writing count? How about making difficult decisions that
-->require years of expertise?
-->
-->If we are disparaging each other's motivations, I might wonder aloud
-->if you are just some dumb shit that can do little more than mash their
-->fists on a keyboard and resent those who have skills for which they
-->are well paid. I can certainly understand the feeling of grievance you
-->might feel when smarter, better educated, more skilled people get
-->better jobs for which others are willing to pay higher wages than you
-->could hope for.
-->
-->Di
Oh Diane how quickly you lash out.
fyi - I've known your ex for quite anumber of years, I never met you though.
I thought i'd throw this email I got the other day and guage the reaction,
which has been favorable, I'm not surprised one bit.
The people we elect need to do as the people wish, and not bow themselves to
every minority that is the loudest at that moment is all I was trying to get
across to Joe Lunchbox.
Diane Gall
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:03:18 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall <diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> -->On Dec 1, 9:19 pm, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
> -->
> -->> I'm not a government employee, nor a postal employee, nor on the Supreme
> court,
> -->> nor a member of parliment. It's time the well paid whiners actually worked
> for
> -->> a living.
> -->
> -->So, you lift or build things for a living? What exactly counts as
> -->'work'? Does writing count? How about making difficult decisions that
> -->require years of expertise?
> -->
> -->If we are disparaging each other's motivations, I might wonder aloud
> -->if you are just some dumb shit that can do little more than mash their
> -->fists on a keyboard and resent those who have skills for which they
> -->are well paid. I can certainly understand the feeling of grievance you
> -->might feel when smarter, better educated, more skilled people get
> -->better jobs for which others are willing to pay higher wages than you
> -->could hope for.
> -->
> -->Di
>
> Oh Diane how quickly you lash out.
Hardly. I merely offered something in the hypothetical.
> fyi - I've known your ex for quite anumber of years, I never met you though.
Good grief, you are an idiot.
> The people we elect need to do as the people wish, and not bow themselves to
> every minority that is the loudest at that moment is all I was trying to get
> across to Joe Lunchbox.
Ah, the mindless chant of the naive democrat. I'd go on, but you
probably wouldn't understand any of it.
Di
WTF
wrote:
-->On Dec 2, 5:40�am, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
-->> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:03:18 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall
<diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
-->> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->On Dec 1, 9:19�pm, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
-->> -->
-->> -->> I'm not a government employee, nor a postal employee, nor on the
Supreme
-->> court,
-->> -->> nor a member of parliment. It's time the well paid whiners actually
worked
-->> for
-->> -->> a living.
-->> -->
-->> -->So, you lift or build things for a living? What exactly counts as
-->> -->'work'? Does writing count? How about making difficult decisions that
-->> -->require years of expertise?
-->> -->
-->> -->If we are disparaging each other's motivations, I might wonder aloud
-->> -->if you are just some dumb shit that can do little more than mash their
-->> -->fists on a keyboard and resent those who have skills for which they
-->> -->are well paid. I can certainly understand the feeling of grievance you
-->> -->might feel when smarter, better educated, more skilled people get
-->> -->better jobs for which others are willing to pay higher wages than you
-->> -->could hope for.
-->> -->
-->> -->Di
-->>
-->> Oh Diane how quickly you lash out.
-->
-->Hardly. I merely offered something in the hypothetical.
-->
-->> fyi - I've known your ex for quite anumber of years, I never met you
-->>though.
-->
-->Good grief, you are an idiot.
Remember YOU married him, and you call me an idiot.
-->>The people we elect need to do as the people wish, and not bow themselves
-->>to every minority that is the loudest at that moment is all I was trying to
-->>get across to Joe Lunchbox.
-->
-->Ah, the mindless chant of the naive democrat. I'd go on, but you
-->probably wouldn't understand any of it.
Actually I have no political affiliation. What's wrong with liking to see the
government actually do their jobs and listen to their voters.
Diane Gall
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 06:19:59 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall <diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> -->On Dec 2, 5:40 am, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
> -->> fyi - I've known your ex for quite anumber of years, I never met you
> -->>though.
> -->Good grief, you are an idiot.
> Remember YOU married him, and you call me an idiot.
I have never been married to a man. I have never co-habited with a
man. This is the last name with which I was born.
You are an idiot. On the other hand, this is expected. You'd have to
have done a little reading to understand my retort and that task seems
beyond you.
> -->>The people we elect need to do as the people wish, and not bow themselves
> -->>to every minority that is the loudest at that moment is all I was trying to
> -->>get across to Joe Lunchbox.
> -->Ah, the mindless chant of the naive democrat. I'd go on, but you
> -->probably wouldn't understand any of it.
> Actually I have no political affiliation. What's wrong with liking to see the
> government actually do their jobs and listen to their voters.
*facepalm*
When I called you a 'naive democrat', I was not implying that you were
a member of any particular political party (or any political party at
all).
A democrat is a person who subscribes to a political philosophy that
maintains that political power devolves from the electorate. I called
you naive because you seem to think that the job of elected members of
a representative government is to simply parrot the often
unprincipled, uninformed, and imbecilic ideas of their constituents.
Thinking that representative democracy should work like this is like
thinking that capitalism should be entirely unregulated: a fine way to
teach the concepts to 10 year olds, but not so much so for adults who
have the franchise.
As for 'doing what the people want' and not 'bowing to minorities',
you seem to forget (or ignore) the fact that members of any particular
minority are still citizens. Did it ever occur to you that the
majority might be wrong in specific cases?
Di
WTF
wrote:
-->I have never been married to a man. I have never co-habited with a
-->man. This is the last name with which I was born.
That's right, you're a lesbian, my mistake sorry. Norm is family then?
Diane Gall
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:16:16 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall <diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> -->I have never been married to a man. I have never co-habited with a
> -->man. This is the last name with which I was born.
>
> That's right, you're a lesbian, my mistake sorry.
Don't be sorry that I am a lesbian. I'm not.
> Norm is family then?
In a manner of speaking, but please stop guessing. You are
embarrassing yourself.
Di
WTF
wrote:
-->On Dec 2, 8:26�am, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
-->> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:16:16 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall
<diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
-->> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->I have never been married to a man. I have never co-habited with a
-->> -->man. This is the last name with which I was born.
-->>
-->> That's right, you're a lesbian, my mistake sorry.
-->
-->Don't be sorry that I am a lesbian. I'm not.
-->
-->> Norm is family then?
-->
-->In a manner of speaking, but please stop guessing. You are
-->embarrassing yourself.
-->
-->Di
Oke Doki
That Canadian Kid
> Oh Diane how quickly you lash out.
>
> fyi - I've known your ex for quite anumber of years, I never met you
> though.
>
> I thought i'd throw this email I got the other day and guage the
> reaction, which has been favorable, I'm not surprised one bit.
> The people we elect need to do as the people wish, and not bow
> themselves to every minority that is the loudest at that moment is all
> I was trying to get across to Joe Lunchbox.
Like most people in here I believe you missed the point that Di was making
and whether you know their ex or not really has nothing to do with it so
why even bring it up?
And if you read what Di has posted in here in answer to your post you will
find that for the most part Di agrees to disagree but suggests alternative
observation.
I agreed with you in the fact that what is good for one religion is good
for all, not one rule for christians, another rule for Shieks, or another
rule for born again, etc etc.
Either take it out of government completely and leave it in the hands of
individual communities or leave it the way it is.....
WTF
-->On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:03:08 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall
--><diane....@gmail.com> spake thusly:
-->
-->>On Dec 2, 8:26�am, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
-->>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:16:16 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall
<diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
-->>> wrote:
-->>>
-->>> -->I have never been married to a man. I have never co-habited with a
-->>> -->man. This is the last name with which I was born.
-->>>
-->>> That's right, you're a lesbian, my mistake sorry.
-->>
-->>Don't be sorry that I am a lesbian. I'm not.
-->>
-->>> Norm is family then?
-->>
-->>In a manner of speaking, but please stop guessing. You are
-->>embarrassing yourself.
-->
-->ROFLMAO!!!! I just can't take this any more. It's too much!!
-->ROFLMAOPIMP.
I knew you'd eventually come out of hiding ;) and the extremes I had to go to
...now if brayomi would bite.
Diane Gall
> I knew you'd eventually come out of hiding ;) and the extremes I had to go to
> ...now if brayomi would bite.
Lord have mercy.
Please. Call people assholes or 'loosers' or god-knows-what-else, but
please, for the love of god, please do not pretend that your
jackassery is trolling.
Accept your place in the newsgroup and toss crap around, but don't try
to give anyone the impression that you can plan something as
complicated.
Di
WTF
wrote:
-->On Dec 3, 5:55�am, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
-->
-->> I knew you'd eventually come out of hiding �;) and the extremes I had to
go to
-->> ...now if brayomi would bite.
-->
-->Lord have mercy.
-->
-->Please. Call people assholes or 'loosers' or god-knows-what-else, but
-->please, for the love of god, please do not pretend that your
-->jackassery is trolling.
Fell for it didn't you. Just know you've been had, and don't get all self
righteous about it.
Diane Gall
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 07:39:45 -0800 (PST), Diane Gall <diane.r.g...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> -->On Dec 3, 5:55 am, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
> -->
> -->> I knew you'd eventually come out of hiding ;) and the extremes I had to
> go to
> -->> ...now if brayomi would bite.
> -->
> -->Lord have mercy.
> -->
> -->Please. Call people assholes or 'loosers' or god-knows-what-else, but
> -->please, for the love of god, please do not pretend that your
> -->jackassery is trolling.
>
> Fell for it didn't you. Just know you've been had, and don't get all self
> righteous about it.
/facepalm
That Canadian Kid
news:87dfh5594cg91p1i2...@4ax.com:
<snip>
> I knew you'd eventually come out of hiding ;) and the extremes I had
> to go to ...now if brayomi would bite.
WOW, you honestly think anyone believes your are not racist. You think that
the reason people have called you racist is simply because of one thread in
wpg.general and now you want to try and convince people it was a troll.
lololol.
Maybe you can get people like Nobody and Homepc to believe you but they are
below average so I wouldn't be to proud of that accomplishment.
__
"The best index to a person's character is (a) how he treats people who
can't do him any good, and (b) how he treats people who can't fight back."
....ABIGAIL VAN BUREN ("Dear Abby") advice columnist
Clueless Newbie
news:b255a43d-acba-4169...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
/facepalm
Something occurred to me during this exchange about this whole exchange...at
no time have you explicitly stated the specifics regarding the nics Dianne
Gall and the more familiar (to NG regulars) Norm Gall. The whole conclusion
as to your newsgroup nic and/or current gender assignment has been allowed
to develop through vague assumption. Along comes WTF, who regardless if he
is playing dog in the manger or trolling and you chastise him/her/it for
making comments based on a different set of assumptions.
It's fine to play newsgroup pundit and attempt to discuss various issue with
matters of logic, ethics, and to some degree relgious morality, but to then
wail away at WTF because of his assumptions when you have never made any
explicit clarification for his (or anyone else's) benefit smacks of a sense
of shame - vis-a-vis "accept me as I am" without wanting to deal with
matters of personal clarity.
WTF
wrote:
-->WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote in
-->news:87dfh5594cg91p1i2...@4ax.com:
-->
--><snip>
-->
-->> I knew you'd eventually come out of hiding ;) and the extremes I had
-->> to go to ...now if brayomi would bite.
-->
-->WOW, you honestly think anyone believes your are not racist. You think that
-->the reason people have called you racist is simply because of one thread in
-->wpg.general and now you want to try and convince people it was a troll.
Show me where I said anything racist, you can't because I didn't.
I even pulled the whole thread and checked it, nothing said so you prove your
statement or sit and bask in your Idiousy.
Diane Gall
> "Diane Gall" <diane.r.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b255a43d-acba-4169...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> /facepalm
>
> Something occurred to me during this exchange about this whole exchange...at
> no time have you explicitly stated the specifics regarding the nics Dianne
First of all the names used by me here are not 'nics'; they are names.
Secondly, it is spelt 'Diane'.
> Gall and the more familiar (to NG regulars) Norm Gall. The whole conclusion
> as to your newsgroup nic and/or current gender assignment has been allowed
> to develop through vague assumption.
Really? You think it was vague? In http://groups.google.com/group/wpg.general/msg/d62996ab383c3558
the following exchange took place:
Di > > > I really don't know whom I am talking to any more.
That Canadian Kid > > Nor do I, who are you?
Di > Well, not to put to sharp a point on it, I used to be Norm Gall.
Di > This is the kinder and gentler me.
Sounds pretty explicit to me.
> Along comes WTF, who regardless if he
> is playing dog in the manger or trolling and you chastise him/her/it for
> making comments based on a different set of assumptions.
Perhaps he should have made no assumptions at all or he should have
checked a profile or read back a little while. Besides, what
difference does it make if I was Norm, Norm was my husband, or Norm
was the love child of Greg Kaletzke and w3spider? If he's trolling,
he's fair game. If he's being a shit, he'd better do his homework. If
he's trying to argue a point, who I am is irrelevant.
> It's fine to play newsgroup pundit and attempt to discuss various issue with
> matters of logic, ethics, and to some degree relgious morality, but to then
> wail away at WTF because of his assumptions when you have never made any
> explicit clarification for his (or anyone else's) benefit smacks of a sense
> of shame - vis-a-vis "accept me as I am" without wanting to deal with
> matters of personal clarity.
It smacks of nothing of the sort. The only smack you hear is the sound
of the crowbar hitting WTF where it matters.
Di
That Canadian Kid
news:inbgh51n67s1qfof3...@4ax.com:
Well I did post the definitions of biogotry, discrimination and racism but
from this post I see you failed to read them.
The fact that you mentioned that a person was Aboriginal when talking about
what you considered to be a homeless person shows your racist tendencies.
Your attempt to defend the use of such assumption proved it even more.
The fact that the person approaching you was aboriginal had absolutely
nothing to do with whether this person was homeless or not.
Even more so on your part, you assumed the following because he was
aboriginal, if you didn't why mention it?
- you assume this person was homeless
- you assumed he was going to ask for money or some sort of hand out
He didn't
- you also assumed by the way he dressed he was homeless, maybe he was
a labourer on a construction site
You knew nothing about this person approaching you but because he was
aboriginal you assumed a lot with little or no information.
There is only one conclusion, you are a racist pig
That Canadian Kid
news:ozURm.64449$rE5....@newsfe08.iad:
vis-a-vis means "face to face" nothing more
>"accept me as I
> am" without wanting to deal with matters of personal clarity.
Whether diane is norm or norm is diane or they are each other has nothing
to do with the posts or postings.
The fact the WTF wanted to try and use what little information he has to
try and divert the attention from himself and his stupidity is the real
issue.
A persons sexuality, identity, etc means nothing in a news group but the
fact that WTF brought it up makes people wonder why it mattered to him.
WTF
wrote:
-->WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote in
-->news:inbgh51n67s1qfof3...@4ax.com:
-->
-->> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:25:46 -0600, That Canadian Kid
-->> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote in
-->> -->news:87dfh5594cg91p1i2...@4ax.com:
-->> -->
-->> --><snip>
-->> -->
-->> -->> I knew you'd eventually come out of hiding ;) and the extremes I
-->> had -->> to go to ...now if brayomi would bite.
-->> -->
-->> -->WOW, you honestly think anyone believes your are not racist. You
-->> think that -->the reason people have called you racist is simply
-->> because of one thread in -->wpg.general and now you want to try and
-->> convince people it was a troll.
-->>
-->>
-->> Show me where I said anything racist, you can't because I didn't.
-->> I even pulled the whole thread and checked it, nothing said so you
-->> prove your statement or sit and bask in your Idiousy.
-->>
-->
-->Well I did post the definitions of biogotry, discrimination and racism but
-->from this post I see you failed to read them.
-->
-->The fact that you mentioned that a person was Aboriginal when talking about
-->what you considered to be a homeless person shows your racist tendencies.
-->Your attempt to defend the use of such assumption proved it even more.
-->
-->The fact that the person approaching you was aboriginal had absolutely
-->nothing to do with whether this person was homeless or not.
Perhaps you need to re-read this thread, I did not mention Aboriginals
whatsoever, you've got me mixed up with someone else who contributed to the
thread, and when you realize that I'd like an apology for being called such a
thing.
-->There is only one conclusion, you are a racist pig
....... and you could end up in court for slander, I advise you re-reading the
thread before you dig yourself deeper. Once you realize your mistake there had
better be an apology coming from you.
WTF
-->WTF wrote:
-->
-->> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:38:59 -0600, That Canadian Kid
-->> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote in
-->> -->news:inbgh51n67s1qfof3...@4ax.com:
-->> -->
-->> -->> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:25:46 -0600, That Canadian Kid
-->> -->> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
-->> -->>
-->> -->> -->WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote in
-->> -->> -->news:87dfh5594cg91p1i2...@4ax.com:
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> --><snip>
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->> I knew you'd eventually come out of hiding ;) and the
-->> extremes I -->> had -->> to go to ...now if brayomi would bite.
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->WOW, you honestly think anyone believes your are not
-->> racist. You -->> think that -->the reason people have called you
-->> racist is simply -->> because of one thread in -->wpg.general and
-->> now you want to try and -->> convince people it was a troll.
-->> -->>
-->> -->>
-->> -->> Show me where I said anything racist, you can't because I
-->> didn't. -->> I even pulled the whole thread and checked it,
-->> nothing said so you -->> prove your statement or sit and bask in
-->> your Idiousy. -->>
-->> -->
-->> -->Well I did post the definitions of biogotry, discrimination and
-->> racism but -->from this post I see you failed to read them.
-->> -->
-->> -->The fact that you mentioned that a person was Aboriginal when
-->> talking about -->what you considered to be a homeless person shows
-->> your racist tendencies. -->Your attempt to defend the use of such
-->> assumption proved it even more. -->
-->> -->The fact that the person approaching you was aboriginal had
-->> absolutely -->nothing to do with whether this person was homeless
-->> or not.
-->>
-->>
-->>
-->> Perhaps you need to re-read this thread, I did not mention
-->> Aboriginals whatsoever, you've got me mixed up with someone else
-->> who contributed to the thread, and when you realize that I'd like
-->> an apology for being called such a thing.
-->
-->
-->That Canadian Kid is too thick to understand when it is wrong. He
-->reminds me of another fool that used to post here.
Who
That Canadian Kid
news:17rgh5t0k3993jgkr...@4ax.com:
Well I have to give you credit for that, I was mistaken and it was Dick
Blisters who posted that crap and I do apologize to you becuase I did get
the posts mixed up.
>
> -->There is only one conclusion, you are a racist pig
>
> ....... and you could end up in court for slander, I advise you
> re-reading the
> thread before you dig yourself deeper. Once you realize your mistake
> there had better be an apology coming from you.
As for this, look up slander and get back to me, making a mistake and
honestly believing I was posting to someone I believed to be a racist is in
no way slander, it has to be done with malic
Now either take me to court right NOW or shutup.....and the next time you
threaten someone you should know what you are talking about.
WTF
wrote:
-->WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote in
-->news:17rgh5t0k3993jgkr...@4ax.com:
-->
-->> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:38:59 -0600, That Canadian Kid
-->> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote in
-->> -->news:inbgh51n67s1qfof3...@4ax.com:
-->> -->
-->> -->> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:25:46 -0600, That Canadian Kid
-->> -->> <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
-->> -->>
-->> -->> -->WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote in
-->> -->> -->news:87dfh5594cg91p1i2...@4ax.com:
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> --><snip>
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->> I knew you'd eventually come out of hiding ;) and the
-->> extremes I -->> had -->> to go to ...now if brayomi would bite.
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->WOW, you honestly think anyone believes your are not racist.
-->> You -->> think that -->the reason people have called you racist is
-->> simply -->> because of one thread in -->wpg.general and now you want
-->> to try and -->> convince people it was a troll.
-->> -->>
-->> -->>
-->> -->> Show me where I said anything racist, you can't because I didn't.
-->> -->> I even pulled the whole thread and checked it, nothing said so
-->> you -->> prove your statement or sit and bask in your Idiousy.
-->> -->>
-->> -->
-->> -->Well I did post the definitions of biogotry, discrimination and
-->> racism but -->from this post I see you failed to read them.
-->> -->
-->> -->The fact that you mentioned that a person was Aboriginal when
-->> talking about -->what you considered to be a homeless person shows
-->> your racist tendencies. -->Your attempt to defend the use of such
-->> assumption proved it even more. -->
-->> -->The fact that the person approaching you was aboriginal had
-->> absolutely -->nothing to do with whether this person was homeless or
-->> not.
-->>
-->>
-->>
-->> Perhaps you need to re-read this thread, I did not mention Aboriginals
-->> whatsoever, you've got me mixed up with someone else who contributed
-->> to the thread, and when you realize that I'd like an apology for
-->> being called such a thing.
-->
-->
-->Well I have to give you credit for that, I was mistaken and it was Dick
-->Blisters who posted that crap and I do apologize to you becuase I did get
-->the posts mixed up.
-->
-->>
-->> -->There is only one conclusion, you are a racist pig
-->>
-->> ....... and you could end up in court for slander, I advise you
-->> re-reading the
-->> thread before you dig yourself deeper. Once you realize your mistake
-->> there had better be an apology coming from you.
-->
-->As for this, look up slander and get back to me, making a mistake and
-->honestly believing I was posting to someone I believed to be a racist is in
-->no way slander, it has to be done with malic
-->
-->Now either take me to court right NOW or shutup.....and the next time you
-->threaten someone you should know what you are talking about.
Oh but I do
That Canadian Kid
news:bg0hh59php3akrdar...@4ax.com:
I wouldn't put yourself in a position as the Nobody has, no one will ask
you anything intellegent anymore............not sure anyone ever did.
Oh by the way I didn't get that phone call telling me we were going to
court, can you let me kno when it will be coming so I can be home to
receive it of do you need my cell number.....
I await your lawyers response....the following is for your edification or
should I put the definition for edification up as well?
"In law, defamation�also called calumny, vilification, slander (for spoken
words), and libel (for written or otherwise published words)�is the
communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or
implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product,
group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not
always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication
is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).
In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false and
defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form
of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow
legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation
and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public
disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals
information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would
offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense
for invasion of privacy."[2]"
Slander is for the "spoken" word not the written word which now makes your
claim "Oh but I do" when it comes to knowing what you are talking about
falls on it's face as you have on so many occassions.
So once again, if not sure what you are post, look it up, the Nobody has
found that out so should you.
Clueless Newbie
> First of all the names used by me here are not 'nics'; they are names.
> Secondly, it is spelt 'Diane'.
Well fuck excuse my typo...
>> Gall and the more familiar (to NG regulars) Norm Gall. The whole
>> conclusion
>> as to your newsgroup nic and/or current gender assignment has been
>> allowed
>> to develop through vague assumption.
> Really? You think it was vague? In
> http://groups.google.com/group/wpg.general/msg/d62996ab383c3558
> the following exchange took place:
> Di > > > I really don't know whom I am talking to any more.
> That Canadian Kid > > Nor do I, who are you?
> Di > Well, not to put to sharp a point on it, I used to be Norm Gall.
> Di > This is the kinder and gentler me.
> Sounds pretty explicit to me.
Fine you're Norm Gall, a male posting and using the female name Diane Gall.
How does using the name Diane make you kinder and gentler in any way shape
or form?
Barbara Amero was far from kind and gentle, in fact a complete whack job,
and while Bear may be kind and gentle she has the ability to be very pointed
in her comments when the situation calls for it.
> Perhaps he should have made no assumptions at all or he should have
> checked a profile or read back a little while. Besides, what
> difference does it make if I was Norm, Norm was my husband, or Norm
> was the love child of Greg Kaletzke and w3spider? If he's trolling,
> he's fair game. If he's being a shit, he'd better do his homework. If
> he's trying to argue a point, who I am is irrelevant.
Right, it doesn't make a fuck of a bit of difference, any more than the
spacious claim using the name Diane Gall some how makes you kinder and
gentler.
The gender of a nic would make absolutely no difference, except that it is
you who claims it somehow makes you kind and gentle, as opposed supposedly
to Norm Gall who I read not because of warm and fuzzy, but because he
usually had something worth reading.
> It smacks of nothing of the sort. The only smack you hear is the sound
> of the crowbar hitting WTF where it matters.
If instead of a male name Norm Gall (met by many NG regulars) you want to
post instead as (a locally unknown) female lesbian named Diane Gall (kinder
and gentler) that's fine with me, but the pragmatic common sense and logic
of Norm Gall is no longer an attribute because obviously you haven't just
changed a nic, and as though there are other issues in the back ground.
It's like you want to be someone new, but are quite happy to trade on on the
reputation of who yu were.
WTF
wrote:
-->"Diane Gall" <diane....@gmail.com> wrote in message
-->news:d21209fc-8d81-4c24...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
-->
-->> First of all the names used by me here are not 'nics'; they are names.
-->> Secondly, it is spelt 'Diane'.
-->
-->Well fuck excuse my typo...
-->
-->>> Gall and the more familiar (to NG regulars) Norm Gall. The whole
-->>> conclusion
-->>> as to your newsgroup nic and/or current gender assignment has been
-->>> allowed
-->>> to develop through vague assumption.
-->
-->> Really? You think it was vague? In
-->> http://groups.google.com/group/wpg.general/msg/d62996ab383c3558
-->> the following exchange took place:
-->
-->> Di > > > I really don't know whom I am talking to any more.
-->> That Canadian Kid > > Nor do I, who are you?
-->> Di > Well, not to put to sharp a point on it, I used to be Norm Gall.
-->> Di > This is the kinder and gentler me.
-->
-->> Sounds pretty explicit to me.
-->
-->Fine you're Norm Gall, a male posting and using the female name Diane Gall.
-->How does using the name Diane make you kinder and gentler in any way shape
-->or form?
-->Barbara Amero was far from kind and gentle, in fact a complete whack job,
-->and while Bear may be kind and gentle she has the ability to be very pointed
-->in her comments when the situation calls for it.
-->
-->> Perhaps he should have made no assumptions at all or he should have
-->> checked a profile or read back a little while. Besides, what
-->> difference does it make if I was Norm, Norm was my husband, or Norm
-->> was the love child of Greg Kaletzke and w3spider? If he's trolling,
-->> he's fair game. If he's being a shit, he'd better do his homework. If
-->> he's trying to argue a point, who I am is irrelevant.
-->
-->Right, it doesn't make a fuck of a bit of difference, any more than the
-->spacious claim using the name Diane Gall some how makes you kinder and
-->gentler.
-->The gender of a nic would make absolutely no difference, except that it is
-->you who claims it somehow makes you kind and gentle, as opposed supposedly
-->to Norm Gall who I read not because of warm and fuzzy, but because he
-->usually had something worth reading.
-->
-->> It smacks of nothing of the sort. The only smack you hear is the sound
-->> of the crowbar hitting WTF where it matters.
-->
-->If instead of a male name Norm Gall (met by many NG regulars) you want to
-->post instead as (a locally unknown) female lesbian named Diane Gall (kinder
-->and gentler) that's fine with me, but the pragmatic common sense and logic
-->of Norm Gall is no longer an attribute because obviously you haven't just
-->changed a nic, and as though there are other issues in the back ground.
-->
-->It's like you want to be someone new, but are quite happy to trade on on the
-->reputation of who yu were.
-->
I'm ok with Norm wanting to be a lesbien, perhaps as he's grown older he's
found that he is not happy with his male sexuality and wants a change, who am I
or you to say he's not allowed. If you wish to cross dress or have a sex change
Norm, I say go for it if it makes you happy. Perhaps you could hookup with some
of your old military police buddies after the sex change and really find out
how the other half lives. HooooHawwww
Diane Gall
> "Diane Gall" <diane.r.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well.
Looking at everything you have written here makes me smile. It's sort
of like the old days, but I think we are all out of practice. The
flame-bait here is pretty obvious because even undergraduates can
intuitively interpret other people's claims fairly accurately. No one
who has avoided being eaten by tigers for any length of time is dopey
enough to interpret my claims as as argument.
But let me indulge you. It might very well be that you are as clueless
as you claim. I'll take you at your word for the sake of argument.
> news:d21209fc-8d81-4c24...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > First of all the names used by me here are not 'nics'; they are names.
> > Secondly, it is spelt 'Diane'.
>
> Well fuck excuse my typo...
Well, it is my name after all. I take care when I type out 'Clueless
Newbie'.
> >> Gall and the more familiar (to NG regulars) Norm Gall. The whole
> >> conclusion
> >> as to your newsgroup nic and/or current gender assignment has been
> >> allowed
> >> to develop through vague assumption.
> > Really? You think it was vague? In
> >http://groups.google.com/group/wpg.general/msg/d62996ab383c3558
> > the following exchange took place:
> > Di > > > I really don't know whom I am talking to any more.
> > That Canadian Kid > > Nor do I, who are you?
> > Di > Well, not to put to sharp a point on it, I used to be Norm Gall.
> > Di > This is the kinder and gentler me.
> > Sounds pretty explicit to me.
>
> Fine you're Norm Gall, a male posting and using the female name Diane Gall.
> How does using the name Diane make you kinder and gentler in any way shape
> or form?
> Barbara Amero was far from kind and gentle, in fact a complete whack job,
> and while Bear may be kind and gentle she has the ability to be very pointed
> in her comments when the situation calls for it.
Sigh. I suppose the careless (or clueless?) would interpret what I
said as "I used to be Norm Gall therefore I am now kinder and gentler"
but that is certainly not the most parsimonious interpretation. Amero
and Bear are simply not counter-examples because I didn't make an
argument: I made two claims, one of which was true, the other intended
as a joke for the person to whom I was replying.
I am afraid you've committed the fallacy 'straw argument'.
> > Perhaps he should have made no assumptions at all or he should have
> > checked a profile or read back a little while. Besides, what
> > difference does it make if I was Norm, Norm was my husband, or Norm
> > was the love child of Greg Kaletzke and w3spider? If he's trolling,
> > he's fair game. If he's being a shit, he'd better do his homework. If
> > he's trying to argue a point, who I am is irrelevant.
>
> Right, it doesn't make a fuck of a bit of difference, any more than the
> spacious claim using the name Diane Gall some how makes you kinder and
> gentler.
Just so. But since I didn't say that, your comment is irrelevant. And,
just to remind you of whom you are talking to, the word is 'specious'.
< snip >
> > It smacks of nothing of the sort. The only smack you hear is the sound
> > of the crowbar hitting WTF where it matters.
>
> If instead of a male name Norm Gall (met by many NG regulars) you want to
> post instead as (a locally unknown) female lesbian named Diane Gall (kinder
> and gentler) that's fine with me, but the pragmatic common sense and logic
> of Norm Gall is no longer an attribute because obviously you haven't just
> changed a nic, and as though there are other issues in the back ground.
>
> It's like you want to be someone new, but are quite happy to trade on on the
> reputation of who yu were.
Really? I think you are reading far more into this than is warranted
by the standards of normal English. My name is now different (it is
not merely changing the identifying string from 'Norm Gall' as it is
for you to change that identifying string to 'Clueless Newbie'). I did
make the rather humorous claim that I was now 'kinder and gentler'. If
you missed the humour, my apology. I will attempt to use the word
'fart' more often; that seems more your speed.
It still seems to me that you aren't *really* as stupid as you are
letting on. But this is quite clearly a superior effort at flame bait.
I indulge because WTF is phoning in the comments and everyone is
clearly out of practice.
Now, if you actually wanted to have a serious conversation about your
last sentence, I'd be more than happy to engage you. But I sincerely
doubt it: if the only way you wish to flag yourself is as a Clueless
Newbie, I really can't take anything you might say as being authentic.
Diane ('still a pedant') Gall
That Canadian Kid
< snip >
>>
>> It's like you want to be someone new, but are quite happy to trade on
>> on
> the
>> reputation of who yu were.
>
> Really? I think you are reading far more into this than is warranted
> by the standards of normal English. My name is now different (it is
> not merely changing the identifying string from 'Norm Gall' as it is
> for you to change that identifying string to 'Clueless Newbie'). I did
> make the rather humorous claim that I was now 'kinder and gentler'. If
> you missed the humour, my apology. I will attempt to use the word
> 'fart' more often; that seems more your speed.
>
> It still seems to me that you aren't *really* as stupid as you are
> letting on. But this is quite clearly a superior effort at flame bait.
> I indulge because WTF is phoning in the comments and everyone is
> clearly out of practice.
>
> Now, if you actually wanted to have a serious conversation about your
> last sentence, I'd be more than happy to engage you. But I sincerely
> doubt it: if the only way you wish to flag yourself is as a Clueless
> Newbie, I really can't take anything you might say as being authentic.
>
> Diane ('still a pedant') Gall
Well "D" it is become very obvious that people in here tend to take not
only the identity string but the entire hdr content as truth and nutin but
the truth.
For example because I have "That Canadian Kid" as my identity string I
therefore must be a kid and lack any experience. I always find this funny
and truly enjoy watching the flounders in this newsgroup.
Thanks for all the good times.
WTF
-->Diane Gall wrote:
-->
-->> On Dec 3, 12:45�pm, "Clueless Newbie" <cluelessnew...@shaw.ca>
-->> wrote:
-->>> "Diane Gall" <diane.r.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-->>>
-->>> news:b255a43d-acba-4169...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.
-->>> com...
-->>>
-->>> /facepalm
-->>>
-->>> Something occurred to me during this exchange about this whole
-->>> exchange.. .at no time have you explicitly stated the specifics
-->>> regarding the nics Diann e
-->>
-->> First of all the names used by me here are not 'nics'; they are
-->> names. Secondly, it is spelt 'Diane'.
-->
-->They are more like nyms then (a nym is an anonymous invented name) as
-->Diane Gall is not your real name. Remember you said it was Norm Gall.
It could be Norm gall, he always liked playing games. Last heard of he was
working, perhaps he's been sacked and has more time on his hands now to play in
usenet.
Diane Gall
> Perhaps you could hookup with some
> of your old military police buddies after the sex change and really find out
> how the other half lives. HooooHawwww
Gak! I'd sew it up before I'd let a Meathead near me.
Di
Diane Gall
> Diane Gall wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 12:45 pm, "Clueless Newbie" <cluelessnew...@shaw.ca>
> > wrote:
> >> "Diane Gall" <diane.r.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:b255a43d-acba-4169...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.
> >> com...
>
> >> /facepalm
>
> >> Something occurred to me during this exchange about this whole
> >> regarding the nics Diann e
>
> > First of all the names used by me here are not 'nics'; they are
> > names. Secondly, it is spelt 'Diane'.
>
I said no such thing, at least in the last few months. My real name is
Diane Gall. My name at birth was indeed not the one I have now, but
then lots of people change their names. It doesn't imply that the new
name is 'less real.'
I haven't said that my name was 'Norm Gall' in quite some time. It
would be false to say so.
Di
Diane Gall
'Sacked'. I've heard it called many things, but not that.
Di
Diane Gall
> WTF wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:29:18 -0600, "Clueless Newbie"
>
> > -->"Diane Gall" <diane.r.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > -->news:d21209fc-8d81-4c24...@b25g2000prb.googlegrou
> > ps.com... -->
I'm married.
So the chances of getting laid are either 0% or 100%, depending upon
the comedic tradition to which you belong.
Di
dick blisters
Di
If all your experience has been with meatheads, then that says more about
you than those you refer to as meatheads.
dick blisters
"Nobody" <n...@home.anymore> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD793141EC...@209.197.15.171...
> That Canadian Kid wrote:
>
>> For example because I have "That Canadian Kid" as my identity
>> string I therefore must be a kid and lack any experience. I always
>> find this funny and truly enjoy watching the flounders in this
>> newsgroup.
>
> There is no way you could be a 'kid' and be this stupid. Your level of
> idiocy must have taken years to perfect.
Some people are just lucky and are born idiots.
Diane Gall
<n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> Diane Gall wrote:
> > I'm married.
> To what?
Are you trying to be a pinhead or does it come naturally?
> Did you marry a man or a woman?
I've been married to the same woman for many many years now.
Di
Diane Gall
<dickbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Absolutely true.
But since all my experience has not been with MPs, I have no troubles
there.
Di
Diane Gall
<n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> Diane Gall wrote:
>
> > On Dec 4, 2:09�pm, Nobody <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> >> Diane Gall wrote:
> >> > On Dec 3, 12:45�pm, "Clueless Newbie" <cluelessnew...@shaw.ca>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "Diane Gall" <diane.r.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >>news:b255a43d-acba-4169...@g4g2000pri.googlegroup
> >> >>s. com...
> >>
> >> >> /facepalm
> >>
> >> >> Something occurred to me during this exchange about this whole
> >> >> exchange.. .at no time have you explicitly stated the
> >> >> specifics regarding the nics Diann e
> >>
> >> > First of all the names used by me here are not 'nics'; they are
> >> > names. Secondly, it is spelt 'Diane'.
> >>
> >> They are more like nyms then (a nym is an anonymous invented
> >> name) as Diane Gall is not your real name. �Remember you said it
> >> was Norm Gall.
> >
> > I said no such thing, at least in the last few months.
>
> Actually, on NOvember 4th you said just that:
> http://groups.google.com/group/wpg.general/msg/d62996ab383c3558
So you think that past and present tense are logically identical?
"I used to live in Winnipeg" means exactly the same thing as "I live in
Winnipeg"?
Smarten up and stop wasting everyone's time.
> > My real name is Diane Gall. My name at birth was indeed not the one
> > I have now, but then lots of people change their names. It doesn't
> > imply that the new name is 'less real.'
>
> Is Diane your legal name? Is it on your driver's license and
> Passport?
Yes. And my SIN card and my Alberta Health card and my credit cards
and... well, you get the picture.
> > I haven't said that my name was 'Norm Gall' in quite some time. It
> > would be false to say so.
>
> It seems you memory is also very short. Unlike yourself, I don't
> lie.
I am perfectly convinced that you really believe that you have a point.
But we can now all see that it's on the top of your head.
Di
Diane Gall
<n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> Diane Gall wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9CD7968E8F9...@209.197.15.171>, Nobody
> > <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> >
> >> Diane Gall wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > I'm married.
> >
> >> To what?
> >
> > Are you trying to be a pinhead or does it come naturally?
>
> Nope, legitimate question. You changed your name and sexual
> orientation so how am I supposed to know what you are banging now?
Sigh. Do you normally refer to people as a 'what'?
> >> Did you marry a man or a woman?
> >
> > I've been married to the same woman for many many years now.
>
> Did she like you better when you were Norm?
No.
Di
That Canadian Kid
@news.eternal-september.org:
I love when a racist posts, you never have anything intellegent to say but
you do make people laugh.
That Canadian Kid
209.197.15.171:
> Diane Gall wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns9CD799AF449...@209.197.15.171>, Nobody
>> <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
>>
>>> Diane Gall wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <Xns9CD7968E8F9...@209.197.15.171>, Nobody
>>> > <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Diane Gall wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> > I'm married.
>>> >
>>> >> To what?
>>> >
>>> > Are you trying to be a pinhead or does it come naturally?
>>>
>>> Nope, legitimate question. You changed your name and sexual
>>> orientation so how am I supposed to know what you are banging now?
>>
>> Sigh. Do you normally refer to people as a 'what'?
>
> I am not referring to a person, I am referring to a sex. Do you
> usually say 'who sex' or do you say 'what sex'?
>
>>> >> Did you marry a man or a woman?
>>> >
>>> > I've been married to the same woman for many many years now.
>>>
>>> Did she like you better when you were Norm?
>>
>> No.
>
> So, it is good she thinks you made the right choice as well.
>
> Did she have any trouble becoming a lesbian or was she already one
> when you married her? I mean you were a dude then, right?
This is soooooooooooooooooooo funny, D. has you running in circles with
your head up your ass....
Diane Gall
<n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> Diane Gall wrote:
> > Nobody wrote:
> >> Diane Gall wrote:
> >> > Nobody wrote:
> >> >> Diane Gall wrote:
> >> >> > First of all the names used by me here are not 'nics'; they
> >> >> > are names. Secondly, it is spelt 'Diane'.
> >> >> They are more like nyms then (a nym is an anonymous invented
> >> >> name) as Diane Gall is not your real name. �Remember you said
> >> >> it was Norm Gall.
> >> > I said no such thing, at least in the last few months.
> >> Actually, on NOvember 4th you said just that:
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/wpg.general/msg/d62996ab383c3558
> > So you think that past and present tense are logically identical?
> No. You said you had not said you name was NOrm in a long time.
Well, now you are just playing around with tenses. It's sort of funny:
either you are clever or you are a dumb as a post. You can't seem to be
able to tell the difference between direct and indirect speech.
You claim: "You said you had not said you name was NOrm in a long time."
I did not. You even say so here:
> That was a lie as on November 4 you said "Well, not to put to sharp a
> point on it, I used to be Norm Gall."
On Nov 4, I said "I used to be Norm Gall."
Above, you claimed "Diane Gall is not your real name. Remember you said
it was Norm Gall."
Now, what you say above here only makes sense if you meant "Diane Gall
is not your real name. Remember you said that your name is Norm Gall."
If my name used to be Norm and is now Diane, I am quite telling the
truth if I say "I have not said that my was is Norm Gall in quite a few
months."
> Looks to me like you are saying you name was Norm.
Sigh. You are confusing direct and indirect speech again.
> > Smarten up and stop wasting everyone's time.
> Stop being a liar.
You are wasting everyone's time.
Di
That Canadian Kid
diane....@gmail.com:
<snip>
> You claim: "You said you had not said you name was NOrm in a long time."
>
> I did not. You even say so here:
>
>> That was a lie as on November 4 you said "Well, not to put to sharp a
>> point on it, I used to be Norm Gall."
>
> On Nov 4, I said "I used to be Norm Gall."
>
> Above, you claimed "Diane Gall is not your real name. Remember you said
> it was Norm Gall."
>
> Now, what you say above here only makes sense if you meant "Diane Gall
> is not your real name. Remember you said that your name is Norm Gall."
>
> If my name used to be Norm and is now Diane, I am quite telling the
> truth if I say "I have not said that my was is Norm Gall in quite a few
> months."
>
>> Looks to me like you are saying you name was Norm.
>
> Sigh. You are confusing direct and indirect speech again.
>
>> > Smarten up and stop wasting everyone's time.
>
>> Stop being a liar.
>
> You are wasting everyone's time.
>
> Di
Wait D. there is more, he has a very large tendency to twist what people
post then lie to suit his own needs....next week will be a lot of fun,
believe me.
Diane Gall
<n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> Diane Gall wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9CD799AF449...@209.197.15.171>, Nobody
> > <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> >
> >> Diane Gall wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <Xns9CD7968E8F9...@209.197.15.171>, Nobody
> >> > <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Diane Gall wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> > I'm married.
> >> >
> >> >> To what?
> >> >
> >> > Are you trying to be a pinhead or does it come naturally?
> >>
> >> Nope, legitimate question. You changed your name and sexual
> >> orientation so how am I supposed to know what you are banging now?
> >
> > Sigh. Do you normally refer to people as a 'what'?
>
> I am not referring to a person, I am referring to a sex. Do you
> usually say 'who sex' or do you say 'what sex'?
Well, then I have no idea what you are asking. I don't know how to be
married to a sex. I am married to a person.
Do you refer to people who are standing right there as 'he' or 'she'
when speaking to a third party? My mother taught me that it was rude to
do so. My English teachers taught me it was proper to refer to people
with 'who' rather than 'what' or 'that'.
> >> >> Did you marry a man or a woman?
> >> >
> >> > I've been married to the same woman for many many years now.
> >>
> >> Did she like you better when you were Norm?
> >
> > No.
>
> So, it is good she thinks you made the right choice as well.
>
> Did she have any trouble becoming a lesbian or was she already one
> when you married her? I mean you were a dude then, right?
What was that thing about bisexuality again?
Di
Diane Gall
Canadian Kid <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
> This is soooooooooooooooooooo funny, D. has you running in circles with
> your head up your ass....
I wonder if they are starting to think that this might all be bullshit
with you using just my initial.
Maybe they will start to think I am Don Bayomi.
No. Even they are not that rude.
Di
Diane Gall
Canadian Kid <Th...@Canadian.Kid> wrote:
> Wait D. there is more, he has a very large tendency to twist what people
> post then lie to suit his own needs....next week will be a lot of fun,
> believe me.
Awesome. I'll make some popcorn.
Di
WTF
-->Diane Gall wrote:
-->
-->> In article <Xns9CD799AF449...@209.197.15.171>, Nobody
-->> <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
-->>
-->>> Diane Gall wrote:
-->>>
-->>> > In article <Xns9CD7968E8F9...@209.197.15.171>, Nobody
-->>> > <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
-->>> >
-->>> >> Diane Gall wrote:
-->>> >
-->>> >
-->>> >> > I'm married.
-->>> >
-->>> >> To what?
-->>> >
-->>> > Are you trying to be a pinhead or does it come naturally?
-->>>
-->>> Nope, legitimate question. You changed your name and sexual
-->>> orientation so how am I supposed to know what you are banging now?
-->>
-->> Sigh. Do you normally refer to people as a 'what'?
-->
-->I am not referring to a person, I am referring to a sex. Do you
-->usually say 'who sex' or do you say 'what sex'?
-->
-->>> >> Did you marry a man or a woman?
-->>> >
-->>> > I've been married to the same woman for many many years now.
-->>>
-->>> Did she like you better when you were Norm?
-->>
-->> No.
-->
-->So, it is good she thinks you made the right choice as well.
-->
-->Did she have any trouble becoming a lesbian or was she already one
-->when you married her? I mean you were a dude then, right?
I'm going out for dinner, can't wait to read her reply.
Diane Gall
<n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> Diane Gall wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9CD79ACD5F5...@209.197.15.171>, Nobody
> > <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> >
> >> Diane Gall wrote:
> >
> >> > Nobody wrote:
> >
> >> >> Diane Gall wrote:
> >
> >> >> > Nobody wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> Diane Gall wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> > First of all the names used by me here are not 'nics';
> >> >> >> > they are names. Secondly, it is spelt 'Diane'.
> >
> >> >> >> They are more like nyms then (a nym is an anonymous
> >> >> >> invented name) as Diane Gall is not your real name.
> >> >> >> �Remember you said it was Norm Gall.
> >
> >> >> > I said no such thing, at least in the last few months.
> >
> >> >> Actually, on NOvember 4th you said just that:
> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/wpg.general/msg/d62996ab383c3558
> >
> >> > So you think that past and present tense are logically
> >> > identical?
> >
> >> No. You said you had not said you name was NOrm in a long time.
> >
> > Well, now you are just playing around with tenses. It's sort of
> > funny: either you are clever or you are a dumb as a post. You
> > can't seem to be able to tell the difference between direct and
> > indirect speech.
>
>
> FFS, you said you never said anything and I showed you that you did.
> Why do you have trouble admitting you made a mistake?
For the love of God, 'I said no such thing' doesn't mean 'I said
nothing' It means 'I didn't say anything that meant that.'
Good grief, read something more challenging than a comic book and you
might pick up some English idiom.
I have this idea that if only I try just a little harder you might
actually learn something. I know this is hard for you, but I think I
can do it.
Let's do this for the beneft of clarity.
On Nov 4, I said "I used to be Norm Gall" meaning "My name used to be,
but is no longer, Norm Gall"
You claimed "Diane Gall is not your real name" and cited the Nov 4
quote as evidence that "Remember you said it was Norm Gall" meaning
"Remember: you said that your name is Norm Gall".
If you were actually being true to the tense, even you would have
figured out that there is no conflict between saying "My name is X and
my name used to be Y."
I corrected you in saying that you were confusing tenses.
I said "I used to be Norm Gall" and "My real name is Diane Gall". No
conflicts, no contradictions.
Hope this (finally) helps,
Di
Diane Gall
<n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> Diane Gall wrote:
> > Maybe they will start to think I am Don Bayomi.
>
> Not likely
>
> > No. Even they are not that rude.
>
> Exactly.
Fair enough.
Di
Clueless Newbie
news:hfc09e$3i1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Di
> If all your experience has been with meatheads, then that says more about
> you than those you refer to as meatheads.
Meathead is a military nickname for those who's trade is Military Police,
just as the infantry is called ground pounders and so on.
Diane Gall
<n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> Diane Gall wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, I said "I used to be Norm Gall" meaning "My name used to
> > be, but is no longer, Norm Gall"
>
> EXACTLY what I said.
Um, no.
Too bad you chopped everything off the top to show where you said:
"Diane Gall is not your real name. Remember you said it was Norm Gall."
Why did you say this if not to use the claim "you said it was Norm
Gall" except as evidence for the claim "Diane Gall is not your real
name"?
Di
Diane Gall
<clueles...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Indeed: pecker checkers, rag pickers, gun plumbers, etc.
To be honest, I could never really get into the hate for MPs. Everyone
has a job, but one tends to go with the flow sometimes. Sort of
embarrassing. I liked all the MPs I ever knew... dated one when I was
an OR.
Di
Clueless Newbie
news:041220091555025883%diane....@gmail.com...
> Let's do this for the beneft of clarity.
>
> On Nov 4, I said "I used to be Norm Gall" meaning "My name used to be,
> but is no longer, Norm Gall"
Fine, if you are no longer Norm Gall then effectively Norm Gall no longer
exists, ibid any credibiliy, positive or negative attributes NG regulars may
have held out in respect to what Norm Gall previously posted is no longer
valid. On the contrary you state you are now Diane Gall, claiming to be a
lesbian which directly indicates a female gendered homosexual, which is not
simply the use of another name but a whole different kettle of fish - as it
were.
But you may say - I am still the same person regardless of what my name or
gender may be today or at any given moment.
Nope...that's as absurd as saying water is water regardless if it is in a
liquid or a vapour (steam state). Each carries with it certain distinctly
different properties which can impact any other human being interacting with
it...drinking steam is possible but carries a number of negative
consequences.
In the same manner while the NG regulars are familiar with the Norm Gal
water, you claim by your self described attributes that Norm Gall water no
longer exists and therefore must be something else. Yet you berate WTF
claiming the credentials and attributes of someone who no longer exists when
WTF raises questions about who or what you are today in more intimate
detail.
I have no desire to legally have a female name, or become a female
homosexual. If that's what you aspire to on a journey of self discovery then
fine...whatever gets you through the night. But IMHO it invalidates and
calls into question - in fact taints - any ethics, truth, logic, principal,
etc you may have espoused in this NG as Norm Gall.
WTF
-->In article <Xns9CD79FFDE42...@209.197.15.171>, Nobody
--><n...@home.anymore> wrote:
-->
-->> Diane Gall wrote:
-->>
-->> > In article <Xns9CD79ACD5F5...@209.197.15.171>, Nobody
-->> > <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
-->> >
-->> >> Diane Gall wrote:
-->> >
-->> >> > Nobody wrote:
-->> >
-->> >> >> Diane Gall wrote:
-->> >
-->> >> >> > Nobody wrote:
-->> >
-->> >> >> >> Diane Gall wrote:
-->> >
-->> >> >> >> > First of all the names used by me here are not 'nics';
-->> >> >> >> > they are names. Secondly, it is spelt 'Diane'.
-->> >
-->> >> >> >> They are more like nyms then (a nym is an anonymous
-->> >> >> >> invented name) as Diane Gall is not your real name.
-->> >> >> >> �Remember you said it was Norm Gall.
-->> >
-->> >> >> > I said no such thing, at least in the last few months.
-->> >
-->> >> >> Actually, on NOvember 4th you said just that:
-->> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/wpg.general/msg/d62996ab383c3558
-->> >
-->> >> > So you think that past and present tense are logically
-->> >> > identical?
-->> >
-->> >> No. You said you had not said you name was NOrm in a long time.
-->> >
-->> > Well, now you are just playing around with tenses. It's sort of
-->> > funny: either you are clever or you are a dumb as a post. You
-->> > can't seem to be able to tell the difference between direct and
-->> > indirect speech.
-->>
-->>
-->> FFS, you said you never said anything and I showed you that you did.
-->> Why do you have trouble admitting you made a mistake?
-->
-->For the love of God, 'I said no such thing' doesn't mean 'I said
-->nothing' It means 'I didn't say anything that meant that.'
-->
-->Good grief, read something more challenging than a comic book and you
-->might pick up some English idiom.
-->
-->I have this idea that if only I try just a little harder you might
-->actually learn something. I know this is hard for you, but I think I
-->can do it.
-->
-->Let's do this for the beneft of clarity.
-->
-->On Nov 4, I said "I used to be Norm Gall" meaning "My name used to be,
-->but is no longer, Norm Gall"
-->
-->You claimed "Diane Gall is not your real name" and cited the Nov 4
-->quote as evidence that "Remember you said it was Norm Gall" meaning
-->"Remember: you said that your name is Norm Gall".
-->
-->If you were actually being true to the tense, even you would have
-->figured out that there is no conflict between saying "My name is X and
-->my name used to be Y."
-->
-->I corrected you in saying that you were confusing tenses.
-->
-->I said "I used to be Norm Gall" and "My real name is Diane Gall". No
-->conflicts, no contradictions.
-->
-->Hope this (finally) helps,
-->Di
Perfect sense, you're either Norm who's had a sex change and then changed her
name to Diane from Norm, or it's Norm fucking with us.
WTF
wrote:
-->"dick blisters" <dickbl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-->news:hfc09e$3i1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
-->
-->> Di
-->> If all your experience has been with meatheads, then that says more about
-->> you than those you refer to as meatheads.
-->
-->Meathead is a military nickname for those who's trade is Military Police,
-->just as the infantry is called ground pounders and so on.
-->
Infantry are Grunts
Diane Gall
> Perfect sense, you're either Norm who's had a sex change and then changed her
> name to Diane from Norm, or it's Norm fucking with us.
Exactly.
Thanks,
Di
WTF
wrote:
-->On Dec 4, 8:17�pm, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
-->
-->> Perfect sense, you're either Norm who's had a sex change and then changed
her
-->> name to Diane from Norm, or �it's Norm fucking with us.
-->
-->Exactly.
-->
-->Thanks,
-->Di
So Di, which is it?
WTF
-->Diane Gall wrote:
-->
-->> On Dec 4, 8:17�pm, WTF <w...@dev.null> wrote:
-->>
-->>> Perfect sense, you're either Norm who's had a sex change and then
-->>> changed her name to Diane from Norm, or �it's Norm fucking with
-->>> us.
-->>
-->> Exactly.
-->
-->So, you ARE fucking with us. I thought so.
She/He hasn't answered my question yet.
So Diane which is it?
Clueless Newbie
news:bakjh5ddga7731ng6...@4ax.com...
> Infantry are Grunts
Perhaps that term may find favour today since it also appears there's new CF
rank terminology and no doubt slang descriptions too, much of which seems
adopted from the Americans - like the term grunt.
Diane Gall
> "Diane Gall" <diane.r.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:041220091555025883%diane....@gmail.com...
>
> > Let's do this for the beneft of clarity.
>
> > On Nov 4, I said "I used to be Norm Gall" meaning "My name used to be,
> > but is no longer, Norm Gall"
>
> Fine, if you are no longer Norm Gall then effectively Norm Gall no longer
> exists, ibid
You mean 'ergo'. 'Ibid' means something entirely different.
> any credibiliy, positive or negative attributes NG regulars may
> have held out in respect to what Norm Gall previously posted is no longer
> valid.
Sure.
> On the contrary you state you are now Diane Gall, claiming to be a
> lesbian which directly indicates a female gendered homosexual, which is not
> simply the use of another name but a whole different kettle of fish - as it
> were.
Sure.
> But you may say - I am still the same person regardless of what my name or
> gender may be today or at any given moment.
I don't say that at all.
> Nope...that's as absurd as saying water is water regardless if it is in a
> liquid or a vapour (steam state). Each carries with it certain distinctly
> different properties which can impact any other human being interacting with
> it...drinking steam is possible but carries a number of negative
> consequences.
That is an amazingly bad metaphor, but you will of course agree that
ice, water, and steam is still all the same compound; water, ice, and
steam are called different phases of the compound (my degree in
biochemistry is in my new name too, I presume you'll give me
permission to use what I learned earning that one). The change in my
experience of all of this is more like seeing an actress in many, many
roles. You know that these are roles, but you are more or less forced
to understand the actress in terms of her roles. Much of her
personality and looks are manifested in the way she plays her roles.
But now you meet her in real life, without a script or movie set. She
acts much differently, but you can discern commonalities between the
roles she played and the person speaking to you now.
I undersand how this can be a difficult thing for people to either
accept or understand (or both).
> In the same manner while the NG regulars are familiar with the Norm Gal
> water, you claim by your self described attributes that Norm Gall water no
> longer exists and therefore must be something else.
Well, no. Like I said above, using your amazingly bad metaphor, I am
claiming something like 'what you all saw as water in its liquid phase
was really in its solid phase'. Using my better metaphor, you are
meeting the actress in a coffee shop. You see a lot of similarities
but there are now different aspects that are very real and were in a
very real sense there all along. They were simply surprised.
> Yet you berate WTF
> claiming the credentials and attributes of someone who no longer exists when
> WTF raises questions about who or what you are today in more intimate
> detail.
I did no such thing. I simply chided him for not simply looking back
through a few posts for the information that was clearly stated there.
I think WTF and I understand each other well enough now.
> I have no desire to legally have a female name, or become a female
> homosexual. If that's what you aspire to on a journey of self discovery then
> fine...whatever gets you through the night. But IMHO it invalidates and
> calls into question - in fact taints - any ethics, truth, logic, principal,
> etc you may have espoused in this NG as Norm Gall.
Really? Well, lucky for me, that is still considered irrational in
most of the rest of society. As for you, fill your boots.
Cheers,
Di
WTF
wrote:
-->"WTF" <w...@dev.null> wrote in message
-->news:bakjh5ddga7731ng6...@4ax.com...
-->
-->> Infantry are Grunts
-->
-->Perhaps that term may find favour today since it also appears there's new CF
-->rank terminology and no doubt slang descriptions too, much of which seems
-->adopted from the Americans - like the term grunt.
-->
-->
Well I worked with them for nine years and they even call themselves that
because they get all the grunt work.
Diane Gall
If you can meaningfully tell me why this seems so urgently important
to you, I shall answer truthfully.
Di
Diane Gall
> Diane Gall wrote:
Whatever gets *you* through the night.
Di
Diane Gall
> WTF wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:55:02 -0700, Diane Gall
>
> > -->In article <Xns9CD79FFDE421D204153245...@209.197.15.171>,
> > Nobody --><n...@home.anymore> wrote:
> > -->
> > -->> Diane Gall wrote:
> > -->>
> woman he married who would now be a lesbian. I wonder if that is
> covered in the original marriage contract. When NORM got married,
> his wife was of the opposite sex. She isn't anymore. Gay marriage
> is a new thing.
Actually, it was part of the understanding.
Di
WTF
wrote:
-->On Dec 4, 8:17�pm, "Clueless Newbie" <cluelessnew...@shaw.ca> wrote:
-->> "Diane Gall" <diane.r.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-->>
-->> news:041220091555025883%diane....@gmail.com...
-->>
-->> > Let's do this for the beneft of clarity.
-->>
-->> > On Nov 4, I said "I used to be Norm Gall" meaning "My name used to be,
-->> > but is no longer, Norm Gall"
-->>
-->> Fine, if you are no longer Norm Gall then effectively Norm Gall no longer
-->> exists, ibid
-->
-->You mean 'ergo'. 'Ibid' means something entirely different.
-->
-->> any credibiliy, positive or negative attributes NG regulars may
-->> have held out in respect to what Norm Gall previously posted is no longer
-->> valid.
-->
-->Sure.
-->
-->> On the contrary you state you are now Diane Gall, claiming to be a
-->> lesbian which directly indicates a female gendered homosexual, which is
not
-->> simply �the use of another name but a whole different kettle of fish - as
it
-->> were.
-->
-->Sure.
-->
-->> But you may say - I am still the same person regardless of what my name or
-->> gender may be today or at any given moment.
-->
-->I don't say that at all.
-->
-->> Nope...that's as absurd as saying water is water regardless if it is in a
-->> liquid or a vapour (steam state). Each carries with it certain distinctly
-->> different properties which can impact any other human being interacting
with
-->> it...drinking steam is possible but carries a number of negative
-->> consequences.
-->
-->That is an amazingly bad metaphor, but you will of course agree that
-->ice, water, and steam is still all the same compound; water, ice, and
-->steam are called different phases of the compound (my degree in
-->biochemistry is in my new name too, I presume you'll give me
-->permission to use what I learned earning that one). The change in my
-->experience of all of this is more like seeing an actress in many, many
-->roles. You know that these are roles, but you are more or less forced
-->to understand the actress in terms of her roles. Much of her
-->personality and looks are manifested in the way she plays her roles.
-->But now you meet her in real life, without a script or movie set. She
-->acts much differently, but you can discern commonalities between the
-->roles she played and the person speaking to you now.
-->
-->I undersand how this can be a difficult thing for people to either
-->accept or understand (or both).
-->
-->> In the same manner while the NG regulars are familiar with the Norm Gal
-->> water, you claim by your self described attributes that Norm Gall water no
-->> longer exists and therefore must be something else.
-->
-->Well, no. Like I said above, using your amazingly bad metaphor, I am
-->claiming something like 'what you all saw as water in its liquid phase
-->was really in its solid phase'. Using my better metaphor, you are
-->meeting the actress in a coffee shop. You see a lot of similarities
-->but there are now different aspects that are very real and were in a
-->very real sense there all along. They were simply surprised.
-->
-->> Yet you berate WTF
-->> claiming the credentials and attributes of someone who no longer exists
when
-->> WTF raises questions about who or what you are today in more intimate
-->> detail.
-->
-->I did no such thing. I simply chided him for not simply looking back
-->through a few posts for the information that was clearly stated there.
-->I think WTF and I understand each other well enough now.
-->
-->> I have no desire to legally have a female name, or become a female
-->> homosexual. If that's what you aspire to on a journey of self discovery
then
-->> fine...whatever gets you through the night. But IMHO it invalidates and
-->> calls into question - in fact taints - any ethics, truth, logic,
principal,
-->> etc you may have espoused in this NG as Norm Gall.
-->
-->Really? Well, lucky for me, that is still considered irrational in
-->most of the rest of society. As for you, fill your boots.
-->
-->Cheers,
-->Di
That's definitely Norm, fill your boots is one of his metaphors.
Diane Gall
> Diane Gall wrote:
> > <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
>
> >> Diane Gall wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 4, I said "I used to be Norm Gall" meaning "My name used
> >> > to be, but is no longer, Norm Gall"
>
> >> EXACTLY what I said.
>
> > Um, no.
>
> just badmitted that.
>
> > Too bad you chopped everything off the top to show where you said:
>
> Something you should be intimate with.
>
> The bottom line is you were full of shit when you said you never
> mentioned tyour name was Norm in a very long time. You have many
> issues to work over. Don't make this another one.
Ok, I get it finally. You are feigning ignorance.
Well done.
Di
Diane Gall
> That's definitely Norm, fill your boots is one of his metaphors.
"Her's" now.
;)
Di
Diane Gall
> Diane Gall wrote:
Ooooooo. You'd better watch that. Thinking might hurt you; you really
should leave it to the professionals.
Di