Welp, I'm Done...
Brian Graeme
is gone... You can thank Sibe for that... Have a nice life, or whatever...
You won't be seeing any more til I know he's behind bars, or dead, whichever
comes first...
--
Reverse the e-mail's spelling to reply...
If you cannot think for yourself, it doesn't entitle you to think for me...
Sparky
stuff down and shutting shop until everything blows over is a good idea, and
I agree with you being upset, but the rest of your email will only instigate
this guy more, as well as get you flamed. The last thing we need right now
is a Holy Blaze...
Sparky. ^..^
Relax...You've got friends about.
artist
<1lla...@tsewq.ten> said...
> Took some time to delete over 100 images one by one, but everything on
> Velar is gone... You can thank Sibe for that... Have a nice life, or
> whatever... You won't be seeing any more til I know he's behind bars,
> or dead, whichever comes first...
I'm under the impression that you where formerly know here as Brian O'
Connel, is this correct. And if so, how many times does this make it that
you have left the fandom? Not that I really care, mind you. Your buisness
is your own and your welcome to it. We all make decisions, and you appear
to be comfortable with yours. :) That's all that counts, anyways.
--
ICQ UIN# 106922763
mell...@yahoo.com
http://users.transfur.com/white/
------------------------------------------------
| I dunno, I feel kinda warm and fuzzy inside. |
| I think I swallowed a tribble. |
| -Karl Xydexx Jorgensen |
------------------------------------------------
Brian Graeme
being my baptised name), I reclaimed it following the death of my mom in the
WTC attacks, so enough of everyone pretending there's any ulterior motives
behind that... Secondly, I didn't say I was 'leaving' anything, I deleted my
artwork from my velar directory to prevent future theft, end of story...
"artist" <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9155EFE2B3406...@24.24.0.6...
artist
<1lla...@tsewq.ten> said...
> You're assuming a lot... One, my name of Graeme is my birth name
> (O'connell being my baptised name), I reclaimed it following the death
> of my mom in the WTC attacks, so enough of everyone pretending there's
> any ulterior motives behind that... Secondly, I didn't say I was
> 'leaving' anything, I deleted my artwork from my velar directory to
> prevent future theft, end of story...
K. Just curious.
Sparky
solve problems, not make more.
We don't need to be nit-picking at everyone. From what I've gathered in the
eight years I've been watching the fandom, there's a lot of tolerance for
different sexual prefrence, and what kind of work someone wants to draw or
write, so why should what someone wants to call themselves be any different?
You want to know one of the major reasons why I distanced myself from the
fandom? Because I personally don't like all the gayness, and I got tired of
people bitching at me for my point of view.
Sparky. ^..^
artist
said...
> When you two are done fritten with each other, we'll be over here,
> trying to solve problems, not make more.
...?
> We don't need to be nit-picking at everyone. From what I've gathered in
> the eight years I've been watching the fandom, there's a lot of
> tolerance for different sexual prefrence, and what kind of work someone
> wants to draw or write, so why should what someone wants to call
> themselves be any different?
...?
> You want to know one of the major reasons why I distanced myself from
> the fandom? Because I personally don't like all the gayness, and I got
> tired of people bitching at me for my point of view.
...?
Where did that come from? I asked where the Burned Furs where in all this
becuase I wasn't sure what the general consensus from that group was, is
all. On one hand, we have this guy pirating other people's art, on the
other, some of that art is 'naughty'. I was meerly wondering what the (if
any) the conflicts of intrest where of any particular burned fur.
I recieved my answer. I can now die a happy young person. >^_^<
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>You want to know one of the major reasons why I distanced myself from the
Er... nah, it's not even worth it. Email me if you have a complaint about
homosexuality/bisexuality.
--------------------
"It's ludicrous to have these interlocking bodies and not interlock. Please
remove your clothing now." -- Anya, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Sparky
>Where did that come from? I asked where the Burned Furs where in all this
>becuase I wasn't sure what the general consensus from that group was, is
>all. On one hand, we have this guy pirating other people's art, on the
>other, some of that art is 'naughty'. I was meerly wondering what the (if
>any) the conflicts of intrest where of any particular burned fur.
I wasn't trying to start a soul searching fight, I was merely trying to keep
people from nit-picking at everyone's details and justifications. These
kinds of ordeals (like with Sibe) usually lead to hockloads of finger
poking, and when people are tense, they tend to take things the wrong way.
Sorry for making an attempt at keeping the peace. I'm not really sure where
you got BF into this during those last four posts...Seems to me that Brian
was getting a little hot about your question...
>Blackberry
> Er... nah, it's not even worth it. Email me if you have a complaint about
> homosexuality/bisexuality.
Go on. I'm sure anything you have to say can be said here, since no one
really cares anyway. Right?
See, you got some kinda issue on my personal lack of acceptance for gays. I
don't hate them, or want to kill them or something, I just don't like being
around them. It's just my personal feelings on the issue, but then again,
according to the vibes I keep getting, I'm a naive and immoral person.
Opinions are so biased, you know...
Sparky. ^..^
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Go on. I'm sure anything you have to say can be said here, since no one
> really cares anyway. Right?
> See, you got some kinda issue on my personal lack of acceptance for gays. I
> don't hate them, or want to kill them or something, I just don't like being
> around them. It's just my personal feelings on the issue, but then again,
> according to the vibes I keep getting, I'm a naive and immoral person.
> Opinions are so biased, you know...
Of note : I don't know if Sparky has any hatred for gays, I don't know
the guy from jack so anyone that has a problem with him may know
something I don't. This isn't a defense of Sparky in particular but
about the general idea of what he said...
Everyone in this newsgroup, is a member of some majority or minority
that has a polar opposite. If you're atheist your polar opposite would
be a fundamentalist Christian. Vica-versa. If you're a Democrat your
polar opposite is a Republican. If you're an envirornmentalist any
industrial backing zealot if your opposite. In the 80s if you liked
metal your polar opposite was rap listeners. Now these opposites aren't
really absolute, they're just examples of what I generally mean.
Now you don't have to hate someone, to be uncomfortable in a room full
of your opposites. Would an atheist feel uncomfortable in a meeting
largely composed of fundamentalists talking shop? Sure he would. Is he
bigoted for not wanting to be around? Of course not. It's not hate, it's
just general discomfort. It's not his place. It's not like he's saying
they're evil, stupid, disgusting, inferior, whatever have you. It's that
he doesn't belong there. That's their area to discuss their thing. They
don't even have to talk about his beliefs to rub him wrong. Just them
being off into their own thing disinterests him, and will probably make
him uncomfortable.
Now if he hated being around ANY fundy, then you could stretch slightly
and say it's bigotry in the form of fear or something like that. If he
hated working with them at a job, assuming they were professional about
their beliefs and didn't discuss it at all... then you could say it is
bigotry without having to stretch the definition. That would be fear and
or hate.
So if you're a "hard line" het, what's your polar opposite? Duh! Gay
people in general but anyone that's real open about it is likely to
grind on your nerves somewhat. Same in reverse. If you're a gay guy you
probably have no interest in a discussion about hot chicks. It's just
not your thing. So why would any het guy (forget Sparky) feel at home in
an area where gay topics were frequently discussed and or dominated the
envirornment? He wouldn't. He would want to move on to an area where
things interest him more.
Every one of does exactly what sparky does on a daily basis. How many
of you out there that are just in the fandom for the art and the stories
AREN'T on aff.lifestyle? How many thousands of newsgroups have you not
joined because it didn't interest you? Have you ever left a newsgroup
because the dominating populace discussed stuff that you didn't like?
You're practicing exactly what Sparky did. Just because it involves a
"minority" or "alternative lifestyle" doesn't _necessarily_ make it
hate.
TT
As always, my personal opinion and nothing else.
Hannah Kincaid
Substitute the name of any ethnic minority for the word "gays" and maybe
you'll understand why people might have found your post a teensy bit
rude. Maybe. For extra points, substitute the name of a minority that's
been regularly subjected to violence. It's fun and educational! ;p
For the record, I'm really glad you don't want to kill people.
Sparky <fur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9snll8$2amq$1...@velox.critter.net...
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> I know where you're coming from, but here's a helpful hint:
>
> Substitute the name of any ethnic minority for the word "gays" and maybe
> you'll understand why people might have found your post a teensy bit
> rude. Maybe. For extra points, substitute the name of a minority that's
> been regularly subjected to violence. It's fun and educational! ;p
>
> For the record, I'm really glad you don't want to kill people.
You can't substitute gay for say, black. That won't work. Black isn't a
state of mind. Regardless of whether you believe being gay is genetic or
a choice, being gay does have a mind set. There are different mind sets
of course! They're not "all the same."
Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
bible thumping topics were the daily order?
Being an "otaku" is a state of mind ;-) If you had no interest in
Japanese animation, or worse, just straight out hated it would you want
to hang around in an envirornment where everyone thought it was the s---
and talk about it dominated the list?
TT
Jim Hall
>See, you got some kinda issue on my personal lack of acceptance for
>gays. I don't hate them, or want to kill them or something, I just don't
>like being around them. It's just my personal feelings on the issue, but
>then again, according to the vibes I keep getting, I'm a naive and
>immoral person.
I am sure that we all appreciate that you don't want to kill people.
However, failing to appreciate and understand other people for whom they
are will hold you back in life. Do not let little things like someone
else's sexual preference close doors of opportunity for you. IMO, The
ability to appreciate and understand other people is a leadership skill.
Farlo
Jim Hall
> Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
>Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
>bible thumping topics were the daily order?
* You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
* The premise to your rhetorical question is that "heavy gay topics" are
the daily order in furry fandom. That has not been my experience.
Farlo
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Go on. I'm sure anything you have to say can be said here, since no one
> really cares anyway. Right?
Wrong.
> See, you got some kinda issue on my personal lack of acceptance for gays. I
> don't hate them, or want to kill them or something, I just don't like being
> around them.
(Wondering how well you can tell...)
> It's just my personal feelings on the issue, but then again,
> according to the vibes I keep getting, I'm a naive and immoral person.
> Opinions are so biased, you know...
Immoral? Nah. I just feel sorry for you - there are so many cool people
out there, it seems a shame to cut yourself off from some of them because
their criteria for "who I'm attracted to" doesn't match yours.
Gingercat
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>>Blackberry
>
>> Er... nah, it's not even worth it. Email me if you have a complaint about
>> homosexuality/bisexuality.
>
>Go on. I'm sure anything you have to say can be said here, since no one
>really cares anyway. Right?
>See, you got some kinda issue on my personal lack of acceptance for gays. I
>don't hate them, or want to kill them or something, I just don't like being
>around them. It's just my personal feelings on the issue, but then again,
>according to the vibes I keep getting, I'm a naive and immoral person.
>Opinions are so biased, you know...
Why do you feel uncomfortable around homosexual people? If you're worried that
they're all trying to pick you up and picture you in your underwear or less,
don't give yourself that much credit. Is it possible for you to be friends with
a woman without always thinking about how to get her in bed?
Does your discomfort also apply to lesbians?
Blackberry
>
>Hannah Kincaid wrote:
>>
>> I know where you're coming from, but here's a helpful hint:
>>
>> Substitute the name of any ethnic minority for the word "gays" and maybe
>> you'll understand why people might have found your post a teensy bit
>> rude. Maybe. For extra points, substitute the name of a minority that's
>> been regularly subjected to violence. It's fun and educational! ;p
>>
>> For the record, I'm really glad you don't want to kill people.
>
> You can't substitute gay for say, black. That won't work. Black isn't a
>state of mind. Regardless of whether you believe being gay is genetic or
>a choice, being gay does have a mind set. There are different mind sets
>of course! They're not "all the same."
You can't choose not to be homosexual, just like you can't choose not to be
black.
> Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
>Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
>bible thumping topics were the daily order?
Explain that "religion is a state of mind" to the people who kill *infants* in
Northern Ireland because their parents are one religion or another.
It's not as cut and dried as you make it sound, unfortunately.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
>
> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
>
> * You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
> religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be otherwise.
Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose not
to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two separate
items.
> * The premise to your rhetorical question is that "heavy gay topics" are
> the daily order in furry fandom. That has not been my experience.
I did not pose that "heavy gay topics" are the daily order in the furry
fandom in general. In particular section of the fandom maybe, but not in
general. If you can quote where I said exactly that, go right ahead.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> You can't choose not to be homosexual, just like you can't choose not to be
> black.
But it is still a state of mind. And it is something that you think
about, and discuss, and act out in some way or another. Black has no
meaning until someone tries to impose one on you.
> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
>
> Explain that "religion is a state of mind" to the people who kill *infants* in
> Northern Ireland because their parents are one religion or another.
It is still a state of mind. It is something they have chosen, think
about, discuss and act out. How violent they may or may not be has
nothing to do with it.
> It's not as cut and dried as you make it sound, unfortunately.
I can only agree to this.
Sparky
Look, I think my "non-acceptance of gays" needs a little more explaining.
I, personally, have no problems with most states of mind, whatsoever. You
want to be an anarchist, fine with me. You want to be a Republican (or
whatever party), fine with me. You want to do drugs, smoke, be drunk all the
time, pierce the crap out of yourself, be Goth, be a stiff, whatever, it's
fine with me. I'm a very, very tolerant person.
I have 4 friends on ICQ that are gay. We talk all the time. They just know
I'm not, and they don't discuss the subject. They don't try to talk about
some hot guy they saw, or try to pick me up. I don't slam them for being
gay, I simply let them know my limits, and we're cool.
I have 2 friends who's idea of a good time is to get so trashed they almost
die. I'm not with that, and they know it, but we're still friends.
The list continues, but I'm sure you get the picture...
The reason I brought this up, is that the story is almost always different
here. A scenario usually goes something like this:
--------------------------
Me: "Hello."
Other: "Hi." (hug)
Me: "Heh...Don't do that..." (peels him off)
Other: "Sorry..."
Me: "It's okay...I'm just not like that..."
Other: "Oh I get it."
Me: "What?"
Other: "You have a thing against gays."
Me: "No, I have no problem with you being gay, I just don't personally like
it."
Other: "You know, there's nothing wrong with being gay..."
Me: "I know. I just-"
Other: "You really should try to be more accepting of other people."
Me: "I am accepting! I just don't like it!"
Other: "You're going to live a sad life if you don't start accepting people
for who they are..."
Me: "Hello? Is anyone listening? I don't care if you're gay or not, I just
don't want you touching me or being gay to me! Can't you understand?"
Other: "You've got some real problems dude..."
-------------------------
TT seems to understand.
I will not let someone's being gay or what-have-you, keep me from being
friends with them. I'm not out to change people's minds, I'm not out to put
up some kind of protest. I simply want people to respect my opinion for who
I am. You don't have to like it. I'd just like for people to show the same
level of understanding, that's all. I'm tired of every time I state that I'm
not gay, that I get slammed. It's not a comfortable situation, and I don't
enjoy having my personally preferences and opinions being called-down all
the time.
I once, about three years ago, put up a post asking about furry fems. The
intention wasn't to pick up chicks, it was simply to figure out where they
all were since I didn't see a lot of females on the newsgroup. I never got a
single response; all I got was people slamming me for "being a pimp", "being
against gays", and fantastically, "trying to control women." To this day I'm
not sure why I got 136 posts of flaming goodness, but that was one of my
lasts posts.
(scrounges up his old posts from file) This is what I posted...maybe I
worded it wrong:
-------------
I notice there's a lot of female artists out in the fandom, but I don't see
too many here on the newsgroups. So where are all those cute fuzzy fems? Do
they just not like newsgroups?
-------------
Whatever...
Oh well...I guess I'm just a fool...
Sparky. ^..^
Furlisophical
Another Reality Productions
ICQ#74929754
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
skipping messages and not reading everything. I say it that way because
I run into a lot of people that only half read posts but want to rumble
about stupid stuff. If Sparky is telling the truth here, it's not Sparky
that is anti-gay, it's the envirornment he went into was anti-het. And
that would be hell to deal with. This goes beyond just being out of
sorts or uncomfortable, that's having people directly harass you. It
goes without saying but that's wrong, who would want to deal with that?
Why would a gay man hang in a het envirornment that constantly bashes
gays? He wouldn't. But it's wrong if the shoe is on the other foot?
Again I don't know Sparky, I'm just playing "devil's advocate" because
I know very few people have the steel huevos to do so. It's a touchy
subject, and no one ever seems interested in speaking out for the common
guy when he's being snapped at by the one everyone percieves as the
perpetual victim.
TT
Duncan da Husky
> Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be
> otherwise.
> Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose
> not to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two
> separate items.
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#choice
-Duncan
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brady tab...@concentric.net http://www.technomancer.com/~duncan
Furry: Duncan da Husky SCA: Duncan MacKinnon of Tobermory
"I spent most of my childhood being terrified by the question 'Am I
normal?' I'm relieved now that I now know for sure that I am not."
- Tom Limoncelli
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
> > Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be
> > otherwise.
> > Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose
> > not to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two
> > separate items.
>
> http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#choice
I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
TT
Jim Hall
>Jim Hall wrote:
>> * You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
>> religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
>
> Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be
> otherwise.
See Duncan's post. I think that the opinion of the "American Psychological
Association" is more convincing than your opinion.
>> * The premise to your rhetorical question is that "heavy gay topics"
>> are the daily order in furry fandom. That has not been my experience.
>
> I did not pose that "heavy gay topics" are the daily order in the
> furry
>fandom in general. In particular section of the fandom maybe, but not in
>general. If you can quote where I said exactly that, go right ahead.
You implied this statement by stating that sparky's uncomfortable feelings
about furry fandom were similar to another person's feelings about being
surrounded by Fundamentalists thumping bibles as the order of the day.
If you did not mean to imply that "fundies thumping bibles as the order of
the day" was similar to "heavy gay topics as the order of the day in furry
fandom", then why did you choose the fundy example to explain Sparkys'
feelings?
Farlo
Jim Hall
>Oh well...I guess I'm just a fool...
There are fools, and then there are the ignorant.
The second is a choice. Everyone is foolish from time to time.
A real fool chooses ignorance and holds it tight.
Choose wisely.
Farlo
Jim Hall
>Again I don't know Sparky, I'm just playing "devil's advocate" because
>I know very few people have the steel huevos to do so.
It does not require any special courage to remain in the dark,
but it is often a hard choice.
Farlo =;)
Blackberry
>
>Jim Hall wrote:
>>
>> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
>>
>> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
>> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
>> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
>>
>> * You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
>> religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
>
> Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be otherwise.
>Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose not
>to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two separate
>items.
Let's clarify whether you're talking about "gay" or "homosexual".
If you are a straight male, make a conscious attempt to go one week without
being at all sexually attracted to a female. Not whether or not to have sex
with them, but whether or not you are attracted. Then report back with your
achievement.
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>>
>> You can't choose not to be homosexual, just like you can't choose not to be
>> black.
>
> But it is still a state of mind. And it is something that you think
>about, and discuss, and act out in some way or another. Black has no
>meaning until someone tries to impose one on you.
Neither does "homosexual". It describes who you're attracted to and who you
want to spend your life with. It means nothing unless someone tries to impose
something on you because of it.
>> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
>> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
>> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
>>
>>Explain that "religion is a state of mind" to the people who kill *infants* in
>> Northern Ireland because their parents are one religion or another.
>
> It is still a state of mind. It is something they have chosen, think
>about, discuss and act out. How violent they may or may not be has
>nothing to do with it.
Really? So, the infants chose to be Protestants? How can we be sure that they
had all the comprehension of what their choice of religion would mean?
Duncan da Husky
> I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
> opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
> but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
> Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
> same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
You will have to excuse me if I lean towards the findings of a more
established body such as the American Psychological Association as opposed to
one man's ill-informed opinion.
-Duncan
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brady tab...@concentric.net
Furry: Duncan da Husky http://www.technomancer.com/~duncan/
"You've got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight"
- Bruce Cockburn, "Lovers in a Dangerous Time"
Blackberry
>
>I told you there was a lack for opinions... [...]
Sounds like we can all get along.
Blackberry
>
> I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
>opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
>but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
>Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
>same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
Prove when I chose to be bi. Provide evidence of who presented the choice to
me, what my options were, and why I chose the way I did, because I have *no*
memory of such a thing. Since you know that I chose it, provide proof.
Also, wouldn't it be a form of emotional child abuse to force such a
life-changing decision on children who can't possibly know the full
ramifications of their choice -- that they might be outcast by family and
friends, told by society that they are worthless, even driven to suicide? Ooh,
sign me up.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
>
> >Jim Hall wrote:
> >> * You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
> >> religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
> >
> > Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be
> > otherwise.
>
> See Duncan's post. I think that the opinion of the "American Psychological
> Association" is more convincing than your opinion.
Didn't such associations (don't know if it was this particular one)
used to think that being gay as well as masturbation were severe
psychological disorders that necessitated medicine and wacko padded room
time?
In any case, it's a free world. Believe who you choose to belive. To
me, they're just another group of guys sitting around a table making
opinions and judgements.
> >> * The premise to your rhetorical question is that "heavy gay topics"
> >> are the daily order in furry fandom. That has not been my experience.
> >
> > I did not pose that "heavy gay topics" are the daily order in the
> > furry
> >fandom in general. In particular section of the fandom maybe, but not in
> >general. If you can quote where I said exactly that, go right ahead.
>
> You implied this statement by stating that sparky's uncomfortable feelings
> about furry fandom were similar to another person's feelings about being
> surrounded by Fundamentalists thumping bibles as the order of the day.
>
> If you did not mean to imply that "fundies thumping bibles as the order of
> the day" was similar to "heavy gay topics as the order of the day in furry
> fandom", then why did you choose the fundy example to explain Sparkys'
> feelings?
I made it clear in that first e-mail that I was not specifically
talking about Sparky therefore his situation in particular. I did not
imply the above, you read that meaning into my statement because you
were looking for that kind of statement. Do not read into people's
statements, read them as they are with an open mind. I'm not blasting
you here, but you have made an error in judgement for assuming that was
my intention.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:09:50 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >Jim Hall wrote:
> >>
> >> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
> >>
> >> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
> >> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
> >> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
> >>
> >> * You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
> >> religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
> >
> > Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be otherwise.
> >Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose not
> >to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two separate
> >items.
>
> Let's clarify whether you're talking about "gay" or "homosexual".
You and I both know if we take the time to try and reach an agreement
on the difference and similarities of the above terms this thread will
never end. Let's leave that aspect of this argument alone.
> If you are a straight male, make a conscious attempt to go one week without
> being at all sexually attracted to a female. Not whether or not to have sex
> with them, but whether or not you are attracted. Then report back with your
> achievement.
So if I want to kill people but choose not to I'm still a killer? You
are not what the "devil"* on your shoulder tells you that you want to
do, you are what you consciously choose to be. It is still a mind set.
It is something that you as a person chose. It is nothing like being
born black.
And to answer your question there was a point in my life that I
questioned my sexuality and I made my choice. I chase women. To each
their own, and ain't nothing better than... well... let's no go there
;-) I'm of the mind you don't want to hear about it. (and if I have
assumed wrong then excuse me).
* Devil reference as a metaphor, I am not a Christian and this has
nothing to do with religion
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:13:53 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> > But it is still a state of mind. And it is something that you think
> >about, and discuss, and act out in some way or another. Black has no
> >meaning until someone tries to impose one on you.
>
> Neither does "homosexual". It describes who you're attracted to and who you
> want to spend your life with. It means nothing unless someone tries to impose
> something on you because of it.
No, that's bull--t. If you are a gay man you have no vested interest in
women, your interest is in men. That right there is something sets you
apart from the "norm." This makes the way you think, and what kind of
subjects (at least as far as sexuality and sexual interest go) you talk
about different from the "norm." And by the "norm" I mean majority of
guys. Unless you have some statistics handy that prove heterosexual guys
are some kind of minority, they are "the norm." If the #s flip and gay
men outnumber het men, then gays would be "the norm."
> >> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
> >> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
> >> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
> >>
> >>Explain that "religion is a state of mind" to the people who kill *infants* in
> >> Northern Ireland because their parents are one religion or another.
> >
> > It is still a state of mind. It is something they have chosen, think
> >about, discuss and act out. How violent they may or may not be has
> >nothing to do with it.
>
> Really? So, the infants chose to be Protestants? How can we be sure that they
> had all the comprehension of what their choice of religion would mean?
I wasn't talking about the infants. I'm talking about the adults. It is
a choice they made, act out, etc. etc. etc. The children are the
unfortunate collateral damage from a bigoted war. In my mind they don't
even have a religion yet, in spite of what the parents have to say about
it.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
> > I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
> > opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
> > but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
> > Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
> > same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
>
> You will have to excuse me if I lean towards the findings of a more
> established body such as the American Psychological Association as opposed to
> one man's ill-informed opinion.
Ill formed or you just don't agree? Drop the pretense. You just don't
agree. Which by all means, you have a right to. But who made them god? I
think several centuries of stupidity from the academic community has
more than proven having a title and an alumni doesn't make you smart or
always right. At the end you are right or wrong.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:20:23 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> > I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
> >opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
> >but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
> >Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
> >same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
>
> Prove when I chose to be bi. Provide evidence of who presented the choice to
> me, what my options were, and why I chose the way I did, because I have *no*
> memory of such a thing. Since you know that I chose it, provide proof.
I chose. And as for you, I have no clue. I'm not fugging omnicient. But
I can ask the same of you, can you get up in my skull and prove what
exactly made me het? Bet you can't either. If you cannot, then you are
no more right than I am. And I am no more wrong than you are. It's
called a "draw."
> Also, wouldn't it be a form of emotional child abuse to force such a
> life-changing decision on children who can't possibly know the full
> ramifications of their choice -- that they might be outcast by family and
> friends, told by society that they are worthless, even driven to suicide? Ooh,
> sign me up.
What? Where was this in the conversation? Man some of y'all are going
off on some strange tangents. I'm not even going to touch this stuff.
From here on out I'm only covering the situation as it relates to
Sparky's specific situation. The rest you'll have to duke it out with
yourselves.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
than proven having a title and an alumni doesn't make you smart or
>always right.
And this compares badly to to the track record of the common public how?
ICAW
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> >I think several centuries of stupidity from the academic community has more
> than proven having a title and an alumni doesn't make you smart or
> >always right.
>
> And this compares badly to to the track record of the common public how?
You have a point, and I will not disagree. To tie the two together :
We're all human and capable of error.
TT
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>>> Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be otherwise.
>> >Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose not
>> >to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two separate
>> >items.
>>
>> Let's clarify whether you're talking about "gay" or "homosexual".
>
> You and I both know if we take the time to try and reach an agreement
>on the difference and similarities of the above terms this thread will
>never end. Let's leave that aspect of this argument alone.
No, it makes a huge difference. If you're saying that people could "choose not
to be gay", and you're defining "gay" as "swishing down the street and calling
everyone 'Hon'", then you're probably right. If you're defining it as "sexual
and relational attraction to the same gender", then you have a lot of proof to
produce, and you can start with what I wrote below.
>> If you are a straight male, make a conscious attempt to go one week without
>> being at all sexually attracted to a female. Not whether or not to have sex
>> with them, but whether or not you are attracted. Then report back with your
>> achievement.
>
> So if I want to kill people but choose not to I'm still a killer? You
>are not what the "devil"* on your shoulder tells you that you want to
>do, you are what you consciously choose to be. It is still a mind set.
>It is something that you as a person chose. It is nothing like being
>born black.
> And to answer your question there was a point in my life that I
>questioned my sexuality and I made my choice. I chase women. To each
>their own, and ain't nothing better than... well... let's no go there
>;-) I'm of the mind you don't want to hear about it. (and if I have
>assumed wrong then excuse me).
So you were presented with the choice at one point? You could have totally
reconfigured yourself to be sexually turned on by naked males? How so? What
were the circumstances of the presentation of the choice? Who made the
presentation? Was the fact that you would be publicly ridiculed and stood a
decent chance of being killed merely for your orientation made clear to you at
the time?
Blackberry
>
>[...]
> Ill formed or you just don't agree? Drop the pretense. You just don't
>agree. Which by all means, you have a right to. But who made them god? I
>think several centuries of stupidity from the academic community has
>more than proven having a title and an alumni doesn't make you smart or
>always right. At the end you are right or wrong.
Yes, but you have to provide some proof that shows that you've done more
psychosocial research than they have, and publish some of your findings. "I'm
right because I say so" isn't a whole lot of proof.
Blackberry
>
> No, that's bull--t. If you are a gay man you have no vested interest in
>women, your interest is in men. That right there is something sets you
>apart from the "norm." This makes the way you think, and what kind of
>subjects (at least as far as sexuality and sexual interest go) you talk
>about different from the "norm." And by the "norm" I mean majority of
>guys. Unless you have some statistics handy that prove heterosexual guys
>are some kind of minority, they are "the norm." If the #s flip and gay
>men outnumber het men, then gays would be "the norm."
Who cares what is "the norm" and what isn't? You're talking psychology. You're
saying people choose to be gay but don't choose to be black. Who would know
better if they chose it or not -- gay men or you? You say that you know better,
so prove it.
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:20:23 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
>> >
>> > I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
>> >opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
>> >but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
>> >Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
>> >same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
>>
>> Prove when I chose to be bi. Provide evidence of who presented the choice to
>> me, what my options were, and why I chose the way I did, because I have *no*
>> memory of such a thing. Since you know that I chose it, provide proof.
>
> I chose. And as for you, I have no clue. I'm not fugging omnicient. But
>I can ask the same of you, can you get up in my skull and prove what
>exactly made me het? Bet you can't either. If you cannot, then you are
>no more right than I am. And I am no more wrong than you are. It's
>called a "draw."
That's fine, but you're saying that your draw is worth more than my draw, or
anyone else's. You say you know I chose it, so prove it or withdraw it. Saying
that you chose it is perfectly valid but applies to you only, so you need to
stop implying that it applies to everyone else.
Every single gay or bi person that I have talked to about it (100 or so at rough
guess) did not choose it. Are you saying that they are lying or just deluded?
>> Also, wouldn't it be a form of emotional child abuse to force such a
>> life-changing decision on children who can't possibly know the full
>> ramifications of their choice -- that they might be outcast by family and
>>friends, told by society that they are worthless, even driven to suicide? Ooh,
>> sign me up.
>
> What? Where was this in the conversation? Man some of y'all are going
>off on some strange tangents. I'm not even going to touch this stuff.
>From here on out I'm only covering the situation as it relates to
>Sparky's specific situation. The rest you'll have to duke it out with
>yourselves.
You said it was a choice, so provide some examples of the choice, provide some
of the documents that are presented to prepubescent children when the choice is
given to them to make. Obviously, there is no such thing.
Hannah Kincaid
(And I'm still pestering the Marxrat for that political primer, you know how
hard it is to motivate these Canadians... ;) )
Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9sotcc$sd4$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Immoral? Nah. I just feel sorry for you - there are so many cool people
> out there, it seems a shame to cut yourself off from some of them because
> their criteria for "who I'm attracted to" doesn't match yours.
>
> Gingercat
Jim Hall
>I'm not blasting
>you here, but you have made an error in judgement for assuming that was
>my intention.
I'm not calling you a fool, here, but ...
There was no error made. I stated the obvious implications of what you had
written. If that disturbs you, be more careful with what you write.
Farlo =)
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> > You and I both know if we take the time to try and reach an agreement
> >on the difference and similarities of the above terms this thread will
> >never end. Let's leave that aspect of this argument alone.
>
> No, it makes a huge difference. If you're saying that people could "choose not
> to be gay", and you're defining "gay" as "swishing down the street and calling
> everyone 'Hon'", then you're probably right. If you're defining it as "sexual
> and relational attraction to the same gender", then you have a lot of proof to
> produce, and you can start with what I wrote below.
You underestimate how many times I've been in arguments about "gayness"
and "homosexuality." I'm not going there. It's a multi-day, multi-week
flamewar waiting to happen. I'm not up for that today. And if you find
this upsetting then there's nothing I can do about it. We're deviating
waaaaaaaaaaaaay off the path of what this thread began with.
> > And to answer your question there was a point in my life that I
> >questioned my sexuality and I made my choice. I chase women. To each
> >their own, and ain't nothing better than... well... let's no go there
> >;-) I'm of the mind you don't want to hear about it. (and if I have
> >assumed wrong then excuse me).
>
> So you were presented with the choice at one point? You could have totally
> reconfigured yourself to be sexually turned on by naked males? How so? What
> were the circumstances of the presentation of the choice? Who made the
> presentation? Was the fact that you would be publicly ridiculed and stood a
> decent chance of being killed merely for your orientation made clear to you at
> the time?
Pardon my french but the specific details are none of your damn
business. I made a conscious choice. Deal with it. Does it mess up your
argument? Too bad.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:20:34 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> > Ill formed or you just don't agree? Drop the pretense. You just don't
> >agree. Which by all means, you have a right to. But who made them god? I
> >think several centuries of stupidity from the academic community has
> >more than proven having a title and an alumni doesn't make you smart or
> >always right. At the end you are right or wrong.
>
> Yes, but you have to provide some proof that shows that you've done more
> psychosocial research than they have, and publish some of your findings. "I'm
> right because I say so" isn't a whole lot of proof.
And where the hell did I say that? I spoke my mind, you don't have to
agree. I don't need the permissions of some white coats to speak my
mind, and I certainly don't need yours to contradict theirs. I thought
the matter out. If you don't agree it doesn't make me my opinion "ill
formed." Ill formed would be an opinion crafted out of hand and out of
ignorance. Mine is neither.
Are you a Christian? You aren't?*1 So what do you think about PHD
carrying biblical scholars who thing you've trodden down the path of
ignorance and sin? Are they right? Did you have to read 8 of their
books, write and publish a "finding" to prove that you've just made up
your own damn mind independantly?
If you lived about 20(?) years ago, would you be so hard behind those
same set of white coats when they still believed that being gay was a
psychological illness? Would your have to read 8 of their books and
publish a "finding" to justify your opinion that it isn't?
Do you depend on PHD holders to make up your mind on all subjects or is
it just not okay to think independantly when the topics is
homosexuality?
TT
*1 Hypothetical
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:18:23 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> > No, that's bull--t. If you are a gay man you have no vested interest in
> >women, your interest is in men. That right there is something sets you
> >apart from the "norm." This makes the way you think, and what kind of
> >subjects (at least as far as sexuality and sexual interest go) you talk
> >about different from the "norm." And by the "norm" I mean majority of
> >guys. Unless you have some statistics handy that prove heterosexual guys
> >are some kind of minority, they are "the norm." If the #s flip and gay
> >men outnumber het men, then gays would be "the norm."
>
> Who cares what is "the norm" and what isn't? You're talking psychology. You're
> saying people choose to be gay but don't choose to be black.
You find someone that was born white and suddenly became black. Or vica
versa. Michael Jackson doesn't count.
> Who would know
> better if they chose it or not -- gay men or you? You say that you know better,
> so prove it.
I chose to be het. Deal with it. If you don't know why you chose
whatever you chose that's an issue that only you can deal with. Can you
provide proof positive there's something that made me het? It sure as
hell isn't peer pressure because I'm a witch (another choice I made) and
my religion isn't winning any popularity contests right now.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
You have misread, that is entirely on you. Again, I made clear that it
was the concept of a het guy being bothered by a board where the
prominent piece of discussion was matters related to homosexuality. I
separated Sparky somewhere in the first few paragraphs. You should have
taken that to heart and cleared the nitty gritty details out your RAM.
Again, not blasting you.
TT