Re: Another Test
Ken
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:oag9s2do9r3g86svt...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:33:31 -0500 (EST), Anonyma
> <anon-b...@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
>>Testing testing 1-2-3
>
> No. It's not working. Your test isn't coming through.
:))
I recall a lecturer at Uni unsed to start off all his lectures with a
question - "Can you all hear me at the back?" This went on for a couple of
years, a couple of times each week. Eventually, in response to his question
someone shouted "NO!".
His response was to shrug his shoulders, making the comment "THAT is
illogical" and continued with his interminable droning anyway.
K
Jim Watt
>On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:33:31 -0500 (EST), Anonyma
><anon-b...@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
>>Testing testing 1-2-3
>
>No. It's not working. Your test isn't coming through.
Why do I get the feeling that our gibby/willis lurker who
has 'gone forever' is about to launch another anonymous
tirade.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Lynx
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eq2m3...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> His response was to shrug his shoulders, making the comment "THAT is
> illogical" and continued with his interminable droning anyway.
On logic: The Canadian Gov seems far more logical than Blair's.
Jimmy@jock.net JimmyGibby
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:2l1as2t0ratcin7pd...@4ax.com...
Who said 'gone forever'? JimmyGibby is still here and posting away, don't
know about the other bloke though, why don't you ask him?
Ken
"Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
news:H0bxh.2544$sd2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
??? Please explain!!
Ken
Lynx
Canadian Gov can and decides what's best for children, its future
generations, despite parents or any other groups' objectives.
Jim Watt
wrote:
You really are a bitter little shit and a liar too.
Ken
PLanning for the future is, IMHO, an appropriate thing for a govt to do.
OTOH, also IMHO, a govt telling parents what's good for their children
smacks of a nanny state.
K
Lynx
Much rather have a nanny state saving newborn lives, by ordering the
go-ahead of lifesaving blood transfusion, despite protestations from
religiously-warped parents, than a politically correct state prepared to
handover healthy newborns to would be mothers with testicles.
Jim Watt
>Much rather have a nanny state saving newborn lives, by ordering the
>go-ahead of lifesaving blood transfusion, despite protestations from
>religiously-warped parents, than a politically correct state prepared to
>handover healthy newborns to would be mothers with testicles.
If same sex couples are approved to raise children I don't see the
problem, at least they want them whereas in many relationships they
are an unwanted encumberance.
I think your prejudice is showing.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 13:12:05 GMT, "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote:
>
>>Much rather have a nanny state saving newborn lives, by ordering the
>>go-ahead of lifesaving blood transfusion, despite protestations from
>>religiously-warped parents, than a politically correct state prepared to
>>handover healthy newborns to would be mothers with testicles.
>
> If same sex couples are approved to raise children I don't see the
> problem, at least they want them whereas in many relationships they
> are an unwanted encumberance.
True. Not everyone is suited to be a parent. That does not justify the point
in question.
To tolerate or accept homosexuality in society is one thing. To condone and
promote it quite another. A child's mind is like a blank book. What you
write in it, remains an indelible mark for life. Why confuse a child
anymore? The media's doing a good enough job as it is.
> I think your prejudice is showing.
Absolutely, as is yours. While not every homosexual may be a child molester,
everyone jumped on the bandwagon over the scandal of homosexual clergy
abusing innocents. Interestingly enough no other religion or sect was
investigated, despite there being declared homosexuals in other sects. How
can anyone argue in favour of putting innocents in the care of homosexuals?
Jim Watt
>
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>news:lrrbs21bpkjar3nb7...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 13:12:05 GMT, "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Much rather have a nanny state saving newborn lives, by ordering the
>>>go-ahead of lifesaving blood transfusion, despite protestations from
>>>religiously-warped parents, than a politically correct state prepared to
>>>handover healthy newborns to would be mothers with testicles.
>>
>> If same sex couples are approved to raise children I don't see the
>> problem, at least they want them whereas in many relationships they
>> are an unwanted encumberance.
>
>True. Not everyone is suited to be a parent. That does not justify the point
>in question.
The point being that prospective adopters are very carefully
vetted, and one hopes that any unsuitable people will fail at
that stage. In terms of child molestation it seems to have
nothing to do with sexuality.
>To tolerate or accept homosexuality in society is one thing.
>To condone and promote it quite another.
Wrong answer.
Its not up to you to decide someone elses sexuality, you can
ignore it thats all. In terms of assessing who is a good parent,
its pretty much immaterial.
The only time I object, is should it become compulsory.
>A child's mind is like a blank book. What you
>write in it, remains an indelible mark for life. Why confuse a child
>anymore? The media's doing a good enough job as it is.
So whats the alternative stick the kids in the orphanage or
farm them out to abusive hetrosexual couples ?
One of my friends is a psycologist who looked after a secure
unit for 12 year old and under kids, with a staff ratio of
3:1 because they were not nice little boys and girls.
They were not the product of gay couples.
My mother used to act as a foster mother for unwanted children
so may have met more than you. Over a hundred in fact.
>> I think your prejudice is showing.
>
>Absolutely, as is yours.
Mine? I don't give a damn. I have no intention of
adopting or living with a bloke, its a non issue.
>While not every homosexual may be a child molester,
>everyone jumped on the bandwagon over the scandal of homosexual clergy
>abusing innocents. Interestingly enough no other religion or sect was
>investigated, despite there being declared homosexuals in other sects. How
>can anyone argue in favour of putting innocents in the care of homosexuals?
Its worse with the Catholic church because the others are allowed to
have legitimate relationships. The Rabbai here has 12 kids but
apart from being a full house might not be suitable to adopt a non
Jewish kid. Otherwise one extra might not even be noticed.
Sadly some of the kids up for adoption are less innocent than the
prospective parents.
But its a big subject, so lets leave it to the social workers and
move on. The family is a stronger institution in Gibraltar than
some other places, and that reflects on the quality of life for
the rest of us. More worrying than the prospect of one or two
affluent gay couples adopting elsewhere is the increasing divorce
rate.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:37:25 GMT, "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote:
>
>>True. Not everyone is suited to be a parent. That does not justify the
>>point
>>in question.
>
> The point being that prospective adopters are very carefully
> vetted, and one hopes that any unsuitable people will fail at
> that stage. In terms of child molestation it seems to have
> nothing to do with sexuality.
I'm no expert. The Greeks of the "classical era" knew all about it. But you
have to admit, we are going out of the norm. Come to think of it, a
situation where two heterosexual blokes living together, would you consider
that a good atmosphere where to raise kids?
>>A child's mind is like a blank book. What you
>>write in it, remains an indelible mark for life. Why confuse a child
>>anymore? The media's doing a good enough job as it is.
>
> So whats the alternative stick the kids in the orphanage or
> farm them out to abusive hetrosexual couples ?
Of course not. Perhaps if we changed society and reverted back to the true
principles and qualities of life, we might not have so many divorces,
singles, abandoned children, etc. Society's gone sick. It has lost its own
footsteps.
> One of my friends is a psycologist who looked after a secure
> unit for 12 year old and under kids, with a staff ratio of
> 3:1 because they were not nice little boys and girls.
>
> They were not the product of gay couples.
The point is nul. There's no argument. Gay people are like everyone else.
> Its worse with the Catholic church because the others are allowed to
> have legitimate relationships. The Rabbai here has 12 kids but
> apart from being a full house might not be suitable to adopt a non
> Jewish kid. Otherwise one extra might not even be noticed.
Adopt a non Jew? They ostracise Jews who marry non Jews and their
offsprings. To be sure to be sure.
> Sadly some of the kids up for adoption are less innocent than the
> prospective parents.
That's a worrying aspect.
> But its a big subject, so lets leave it to the social workers and
> move on. The family is a stronger institution in Gibraltar than
> some other places, and that reflects on the quality of life for
> the rest of us. More worrying than the prospect of one or two
> affluent gay couples adopting elsewhere is the increasing divorce
> rate.
There's a great deal of truth in that statement. Amen.
Ken
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:b2uds2dntbr41ajff...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:37:25 GMT, "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>True. Not everyone is suited to be a parent. That does not justify the
>>>point
>>>in question.
>>
>> The point being that prospective adopters are very carefully
>> vetted, and one hopes that any unsuitable people will fail at
>> that stage. In terms of child molestation it seems to have
>> nothing to do with sexuality.
>
> I'm no expert. The Greeks of the "classical era" knew all about it. But
> you have to admit, we are going out of the norm. Come to think of it, a
> situation where two heterosexual blokes living together, would you
> consider that a good atmosphere where to raise kids?
It's too big an issue for simple answers, I do not pretend to have any
answers simple or complex. What is the "ideal situation"? What is it you are
trying to promote? Suppose the consensus is that children should be brought
up by a heterosexual couple. Is it not even then the case that an otherwise
unwanted child would be better off being brought up by a stable homosexual
couple than left to the ravages of an uncaring state in a succession of
homes where there is no nurturing or indivu=idual caring? Answers please!
> Of course not. Perhaps if we changed society and reverted back to the true
> principles and qualities of life, we might not have so many divorces,
> singles, abandoned children, etc. Society's gone sick. It has lost its own
> footsteps.
Is it not better for a couple who have for whatever reason grown apart to
divorce than to force people forever to live in relationships that have gone
sour? Ideally relationships will never dpo that, but in practice they do.
Why should anyone be denied a second chance at happiness, for the sake of a
low divorce rate which is easily achieved simply by making dovorce
impossible? Answers please!
Are we not a teensy-weensie off topic, both thread and NG wise?
Just a thought!
K
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
> news:uCDxh.3093$sd2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>> news:b2uds2dntbr41ajff...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:37:25 GMT, "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>True. Not everyone is suited to be a parent. That does not justify the
>>>>point
>>>>in question.
>>>
>>> The point being that prospective adopters are very carefully
>>> vetted, and one hopes that any unsuitable people will fail at
>>> that stage. In terms of child molestation it seems to have
>>> nothing to do with sexuality.
>>
>> I'm no expert. The Greeks of the "classical era" knew all about it. But
>> you have to admit, we are going out of the norm. Come to think of it, a
>> situation where two heterosexual blokes living together, would you
>> consider that a good atmosphere where to raise kids?
>
> It's too big an issue for simple answers, I do not pretend to have any
> answers simple or complex. What is the "ideal situation"? What is it you
> are trying to promote? Suppose the consensus is that children should be
> brought up by a heterosexual couple. Is it not even then the case that an
> otherwise unwanted child would be better off being brought up by a stable
> homosexual couple than left to the ravages of an uncaring state in a
> succession of homes where there is no nurturing or indivu=idual caring?
> Answers please!
Ideal situation for the kid: Mum and Dad, with mum in the kitchen and dad
working like a slave to make ends meet.
Trying to promote: One dad ten wives and aschool of kids. Hang, some one
else's already got that one. Cancel.
Solution: Hand the kids over to a she-wolf. Hang around for a while and
we'll have anew Roman Empire. Twins Romulus and Remus. :))
>> Of course not. Perhaps if we changed society and reverted back to the
>> true principles and qualities of life, we might not have so many
>> divorces, singles, abandoned children, etc. Society's gone sick. It has
>> lost its own footsteps.
>
> Is it not better for a couple who have for whatever reason grown apart to
> divorce than to force people forever to live in relationships that have
> gone sour? Ideally relationships will never dpo that, but in practice they
> do. Why should anyone be denied a second chance at happiness, for the sake
> of a low divorce rate which is easily achieved simply by making dovorce
> impossible? Answers please!
I wouldn't give such an advise. You cannot rewind the reel of life and
pretend nothing ever happened, especially when there are children involved.
Divorce is a bandaid to a grevious social desease.
> Are we not a teensy-weensie off topic, both thread and NG wise?
Non non non, ju gotit ronga. It'sa, Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka
dot Bikini. :))