Is Daniel Miller gay?
Paragon
I do not want to start rumours but is Daniel Miller gay? Why do i ask? It is
because he is single, has never been married and sounds a little efeminate.
Again, don't get me wrong as i am single, never been married but during the
course of DM i have had girlfriends and been working damn hard too..... oh, i do
not sound efeminate!
My basis for this is that he has said in articles that he has been single for a
long time because he puts so much work into Mute which is fair enough.
There is nothing wrong if Daniel is i just came to think of it the other day
when watching the Ivor Nevello award clip of him presenting Martin with his
gong. Just wondered if anyone else knows anything.
Klaus Nielsen
"Paragon" <No...@none.net> wrote in message
news:m246jt4aam2gb6ssp...@4ax.com...
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Paragon
I neither care if he is or not and nor am i bothered i was just curious which is
why i asked the question and gave my reasons for asking.
Graybags
Graybags
"Zaphod Beeblebrox" <zap...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:3B332E8F...@t-online.de...
> Who, the fuck, cares ?!?!?!?!?
>
>
>
TranceBack
>course of DM i have had girlfriends and been working damn hard too..... oh, i
>do
>not sound efeminate!
that's what you think! all this time I thought you were a chick!
TranceBack
I've never thought about it really -- from seeing him on the singles EPK I
certainly didn't get that impression -- I didn't really find him all that
femme!
it's an interesting question, though -- like the beatles+brian epstein, it
would explain his initial attraction to the group, plus why he would release
such a "gay" album as "speak&spell" on his label
also, he does seems to have "beyond-the-norm" sexual interests ("warm
leatherette") so it wouldn't really surprise me if he was into some homo things
as well -- people just have to remember to keep an open mind (and "homo" as
well as "hetero" are notoriusly closed mindsets, anyone who would need to
declare themselves as either are obviously in denial about something)
mal thomson
Paragon
Perhaps i am a butch sounding chick! :-)
Raithen
Relax guys!
-matt
Big Fellow
were asking? Let me see if he's woken up yet ;-)
Raithen
> leatherette") so it wouldn't really surprise me if he was into some homo
things
> as well -- people just have to remember to keep an open mind (and "homo"
as
> well as "hetero" are notoriusly closed mindsets, anyone who would need to
> declare themselves as either are obviously in denial about something)
Notoriously closed mindsets?? So if "declare" myself as heterosexual, that
means I'm in some sort of sexual denial?? Interesting.
Perhaps the people who declare nothing are the ones in denial?? Hrmm...
-matt
TranceBack
>> leatherette") so it wouldn't really surprise me if he was into some homo
>things
>> as well -- people just have to remember to keep an open mind (and "homo"
>as
>> well as "hetero" are notoriusly closed mindsets, anyone who would need to
>> declare themselves as either are obviously in denial about something)
>
>Notoriously closed mindsets?? So if "declare" myself as heterosexual, that
>means I'm in some sort of sexual denial?? Interesting.
have you ever "declared" yourself as strictly hetero?
>Perhaps the people who declare nothing are the ones in denial?? Hrmm...
if one doesn't declare themselves as anything, what would they be in denial
of??
why on earth are you starting a fight about this anyway? your getting upset of
my saying that heteros and homos are both closed minded in general only proves
my point, if you're homo or hetero -- and if you're just "you" then what
exactly is your problem with not needing to declare your sexuality? or is it
just that your manhood been threatened again?
Paragon
wrote:
>So, do you want us to tell Daniel that you are interested? Is that why you
>were asking? Let me see if he's woken up yet ;-)
Do i have to have sloppy seconds again? :-)
Big Fellow
On 23-Jun-2001, Paragon <No...@none.net> wrote:
> >So, do you want us to tell Daniel that you are interested? Is that why
> >you
> >were asking? Let me see if he's woken up yet ;-)
>
> Do i have to have sloppy seconds again? :-)
No, I didn't touch him last night, I promise ;-)
Order In Chaos
wrote:
>> also, he does seems to have "beyond-the-norm" sexual interests ("warm
>> leatherette") so it wouldn't really surprise me if he was into some homo
>> as well -- people just have to remember to keep an open mind (and "homo"
>> well as "hetero" are notoriusly closed mindsets, anyone who would need to
>> declare themselves as either are obviously in denial about something)
>Notoriously closed mindsets?? So if "declare" myself as heterosexual, that
>means I'm in some sort of sexual denial?? Interesting.
>Perhaps the people who declare nothing are the ones in denial?? Hrmm...
I agree :)
Personally I find it quite humorous that people believe it is sort of
like, straight, then beyond-the-norm straight, then gay/homo/whatever.
Gay people are no more kinky than anyone else. Most of them are
surprisingly boring and normal.
Andrew
--
"It's all so clear to me
All we feel could really be
Could it all come to this?"
Paragon
wrote:
>
so you was receiving then? :-)
Raithen
There have been conversations where I've admitted that I'm strictly
heterosexual, yes. As far as I'm concerned, my sexuality is as cut and dry
as my love for Depeche Mode. It's a simple fact, and I'm completely
unabashed about it.
> if one doesn't declare themselves as anything, what would they be in
denial
> of??
Their own sexuality. Isn't that obvious? I'm not talking about getting up
on a soap box and shouting to the world, "I'm straight people!!! Hear me
roar!!!". I'm simply talking about admitting one's orientation if the
context of the discussion asks a person to do so. What's the big deal
anyway?? Why be afraid to announce one or the other (or bisexuality)??
> why on earth are you starting a fight about this anyway?
I'm not starting a "fight". I just disagree with you that declaring ones
sexual preference has anything to do with "denial". I think that statement
may be true in certain cases, but certainly NOT most of the time.
>your getting upset of
> my saying that heteros and homos are both closed minded in general only
proves
> my point, if you're homo or hetero -- and if you're just "you" then what
> exactly is your problem with not needing to declare your sexuality? or is
it
> just that your manhood been threatened again?
It doesn't "upset" me that you're saying heteros and homosexuals are both
"close minded". I just happen to completely disagree with you. I have no
"need" to declare myself as one or the other, but when their is discussion
about one's sexuality, I'm certainly not going to shrink from the matter.
I'm happy and open about my sexuality - I have nothing against people whose
sexual preference is different then my own, but if a discussion arises, or a
situation comes forth where it's prudent to "declare" myself one or the
other, I'll do so.
My "manhood" has *never* been threatened (though the thought is amusing). I
just find it ridiculously pompous (not too mention ironic) to "declare" that
people who "declare" their sexuality as one or the other are "close minded".
Perhaps you're not comfortable with defining your own sexuality and are
threatened or jealous of those who know exactly who they are? Food for
thought.
Anyway, not trying to start a fight. I just happen to disagree with you on
this one. Sorry.
-matt
TranceBack
of course they are! but I guess it depends on what your definition of kinky is
-- they don't have "normal" sex, i.e. penile/vaginal, and the strictist
definition of "kinky" is anything that's not penile/vaginal
all I meant was, if he was into "car crash" sex (which is pretty kinky by
almost anyone's definition) then I didn't see why he wouldn't necessarily be
into other kinky things, gay sex being one of those
TranceBack
talk about denial -- "*never*"? yeah, right, it's ALMOST believable
> if a discussion arises, or a
>situation comes forth where it's prudent to "declare" myself one or the
>other, I'll do so.
besides "discussion", when would a situation arise when it's "prudent" to
declare your so-called heteroness? when you're attracted to a guy?
> I
>just find it ridiculously pompous (not too mention ironic) to "declare" that
>people who "declare" their sexuality as one or the other are "close minded".
well, it's true!! heteros DON'T have same sex relations -- homos ONLY have
same sex relations -- those are both pretty closed mindsets, seeing as how
they're both refusing and/or denying half the love/lust they could be getting,
not to mention actual relationships
>Perhaps you're not comfortable with defining your own sexuality and are
>threatened or jealous of those who know exactly who they are? Food for
>thought.
why would I be jealous? I do know exactly who I am, and part of that is NOT
having to declare I'm anything but me -- you on the other hand, NEEDING to
declare -- well, it seems a little forced!!
>Anyway, not trying to start a fight. I just happen to disagree with you on
>this one. Sorry.
yeah, right! of course you're trying to start a fight -- but the jokes on you
-- just be "declaring" yourself hetero, you've proving you are closed minded,
at least to any homo possibilities, and proved my original point -- but a
second look at your response shows a little more than you intended, I think --
unless you were TRYING to look like a closet case!
by "declaring" yourself strictly hetero, you're already showing your
fear/denial, but you take it even farther -- not only are you "strictly
hetero", your sexuality is "cut and dry" -- those are both pretty close-minded
views to take -- then you call it a "fact" -- more denial -- then you say you
don't have to get up on a soap box and shout, but that is exactly what you're
doing -- more denial -- but the funniest part is your use of phallic imagery
when the subject of your "manhood" is discussed: you won't "shrink" from the
matter, a discussion "arises" or "comes forth" -- yeah, you're a real hetero
guy alright, albeit one that loves erasure and pet shop boys
geez, the only way you could be any seemingly gayer is if you liked rocky
horror
oh, that's right!!
actually, that would only be true if you actually ever paid attention to it,
which you obviously haven't, seeing as how upset you got during the
opium/heroin/morphine argument
Blue Dave
If someone says he's hetro and not homo, how do you come to the conclusion
that he's a homo? Doh!
People listen to PSB and Erasure for the music, not as a sign of being gay!
Does that mean all the fans of Queen are all bi-sexual??
> actually, that would only be true if you actually ever paid attention to
it,
> which you obviously haven't, seeing as how upset you got during the
> opium/heroin/morphine argument
Don't forget Satan's poison itself....Coffee!
Fuxake...
--
Dave
"TranceBack" <paul...@aol.comeNgetit> wrote in message
news:20010624033133...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
Blue Dave
--
Dave
"TranceBack" <paul...@aol.comeNgetit> wrote in message
news:20010624030637...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
Raithen
Honestly - never. Whether you want to believe it or not is your problem.
> besides "discussion", when would a situation arise when it's "prudent" to
> declare your so-called heteroness? when you're attracted to a guy?
First of all, I've never been attracted to a guy. Is that something I'm
proud of? No, it's just simple reality. Secondly, the prudence of
announcing my sexual orientation, and situations in which I've done so are
none of your business. Nor is this particular discussion prudent to this
newsgroup.
> well, it's true!! heteros DON'T have same sex relations -- homos ONLY
have
> same sex relations -- those are both pretty closed mindsets, seeing as how
> they're both refusing and/or denying half the love/lust they could be
getting,
> not to mention actual relationships
Is it so hard to believe that heterosexuals and homosexuals are ONLY
attracted to the opposite sex? Of course there are people who are attracted
to both sexes, and all the power to them - but it is arrogant and obnoxious
to believe that those of us who are rigidly straight or gay are "close
minded". I'm absolutely positively an hockey fanatic, but I loathe
basketball. Does that make me close minded??
It's close minded to not accept the fact that sexual orientation cannot be
one or the other. Perhaps you believe that humans are "repressed" sexually
and that we are all bisexual in nature, but I personally vehemently disagree
with that notion.
> why would I be jealous? I do know exactly who I am, and part of that is
NOT
> having to declare I'm anything but me -- you on the other hand, NEEDING to
> declare -- well, it seems a little forced!!
Congratulations. I know who I am as well. I'm heterosexual (hurray for me,
I feel SO validated). I'm not afraid to admit my orientation, nor am I
confused about my own sexuality. You were the one who made a blanket
statement about the close-mindedness of hetero's and homosexuals - I totally
disagreed with your statement. In the process I used myself as an example
of a heterosexual who is quite comfortable with the fact that I am straight.
It wasn't a proclamation or an affirmation - it was a simple fact. And a
fact that was relevant to the discussion. Sexual indentification shouldn't
be something we are afraid to define in conversation. If you're bisexual,
homosexual or heterosexual - all the power to you.
I don't claim to understand how guys are attracted in the least to other
guys, but I'm *open minded* enough to accept the fact that they are being
honest with their own desires. If you think that I'm close minded for not
pursuing a gay relationship, or not being attracted to other men - then you
have a serious problem, not I. Frankly, I could care less what other people
do in the privacy of their own homes, nor am I threatened by it. I only
take offense when someone labels me as "close minded" because I am who I am.
> yeah, right! of course you're trying to start a fight -- but the jokes on
you
> -- just be "declaring" yourself hetero, you've proving you are closed
minded,
> at least to any homo possibilities, and proved my original point -- but a
> second look at your response shows a little more than you intended, I
think --
> unless you were TRYING to look like a closet case!
You are too much. Attempting to label me as homophobic because I admitted
within the context of this discussion that I was straight. I suppose if I
declared myself as bisexual, you would proclaim me as "open minded"?? Get a
life.
> by "declaring" yourself strictly hetero, you're already showing your
> fear/denial, but you take it even farther -- not only are you "strictly
> hetero", your sexuality is "cut and dry" -- those are both pretty
close-minded
> views to take -- then you call it a "fact" -- more denial -- then you say
you
> don't have to get up on a soap box and shout, but that is exactly what
you're
> doing -- more denial -- but the funniest part is your use of phallic
imagery
> when the subject of your "manhood" is discussed: you won't "shrink" from
the
> matter, a discussion "arises" or "comes forth" -- yeah, you're a real
hetero
> guy alright, albeit one that loves erasure and pet shop boys
I don't see how loving music that is performed by gay artists is a sure sign
of closet homosexuality. That is beyond ridiculous.
As for getting onto a "soap box" and shouting out to the world that I'm
straight - that is NOT what I was doing. As a straight male, I was arguing
that people who are straight are not in denial about their own sexuality.
Some perhaps are, but I take offense to the idea that I'm "close minded" in
my attraction. I'm quite open minded to alternative lifestyles and people
who are not oriented the same way as myself, but it's simply not something
that interests or attracts me. If people love basketball and hate hockey, I
think they're missing out, but all the power to them for making a choice to
like one but not the other.
> geez, the only way you could be any seemingly gayer is if you liked rocky
> horror
>
> oh, that's right!!
You are really coming across as an ignorant prick, do you realize that??
> actually, that would only be true if you actually ever paid attention to
it,
> which you obviously haven't, seeing as how upset you got during the
> opium/heroin/morphine argument
I was not upset in our conversation about hardcore illicit drugs. I made a
strong counter argument to your claim that caffeine was not only on par with
those drugs, but worse for the wear. I still think your opinion is beyond
stupid, and is totally uninfomed, but hey, whatever... we argued the point
ad nauseum, and neither of us would budge in our position. Frustrated?
Yes. Upset? God no!! lol...
Anyway...
Do you get off ranting at people? Does it make you feel better about
yourself to try to prove that other people are beneath you intellectually?
Does working up a steam on this newsgroup relieve the stress that you are
experiencing in real life? Is this some sort of forum that you use to try
to validate your own opinions by knocking down others?
One of these days you're going to have to realize that people have
alternative viewpoints that are just as real, relevant and valid as your
own. Why you feel so threatened by the idea that someone can be happily,
comfortably and open mindedly straight or homosexual speaks volumes about
the weakness that is apparent in your personality.
I await your predictable response.
Cheers,
-matt
Raithen
Not if it involves coffee.
-matt
Paragon
Someone much wiser than me (maybe Freud) said everyone is a homosexual to some
degree weather it is 1% or 99% which explains why most guys like to spend their
time with other guys doing guy things.
I am not saying that because you like to go to a ball game with your male
friends it means you fancy them but the question is why do we see certain males
as good friends? Because we have something in common with them or they have good
qualities and so on.
Chances are if you put those same qualitites in a woman you would fall for her
so it suggests the 'blocking' part is your best friends sexuality.
That is unless of course you like your best friend because he can fat, burp,
drink beer and watch a ball game at the same time which would kinda not be an
attraction in a woman!
Like i say, it is not my analysis, just what i read a couple of years ago about
why guys like to spend time with guys and girls with girls. Of course the word
'homo' means own species as we are all homosapiens.
Now of course we do not all have sex with our own sex but a person can never say
they have never been attracted to a member of their own sex as that is not
possible! If you like Dave Gahn's singing, style and so on you are attracted to
him for those qualities but it does not mean you wanna have sex with him!
Someone who says "i've never fancied a man' is saying macho bravado or simply
does not realise what attraction is! Attraction when used on your own sex is a
dirty word as is love! A man would never say he loves his male friend but a
woman would! Why don't guys? Because fear of the emotion being taken the wrong
way.
When was the last time any of you guys said to your dad that you love him? But
if you got a sister she has said it to your mother quite often.
Just my observation. :-)
TranceBack
>proud of? No, it's just simple reality. Secondly, the prudence of
>announcing my sexual orientation, and situations in which I've done so are
>none of your business. Nor is this particular discussion prudent to this
>newsgroup.
>
first you have no problem discussing it and are "quite open" about it -- now
it's "none of your business" -- right, keep on digging
>I'm absolutely positively an hockey fanatic, but I loathe
>basketball. Does that make me close minded??
it certainly makes you close-minded towards basketball, yes
>Perhaps you believe that humans are "repressed" sexually
>and that we are all bisexual in nature, but I personally vehemently disagree
>with that notion.
"vehemently" -- yes, you would! but as usual, you're wrong -- if you really
WERE so well-adjusted, why would you have a problem with that theory, to say
nothing of being "vehemently" against it??
if you really were so "open", wouldn't just being "against it" be enough? but
no, you've got to go all the way, since you are 100% hetero with absolutely NO
homo possibilities, and be VEHEMENTLY against it -- wow, talk about protesting
too much
>You were the one who made a blanket
>statement about the close-mindedness of hetero's and homosexuals - I totally
>disagreed with your statement.
because it's true!! both homos and heteros ARE closed minded! to be "homo" is
to be by definition closed to the possibility of hetero sex!! "hetero" by
definition is to be closed to homosex!! if you are hetero or homo, you are
closed-minded! why even bother arguing?
>Do you get off ranting at people?
YOU have started our last two arguments in a row, don't forget!
>One of these days you're going to have to realize that people have
>alternative viewpoints that are just as real, relevant and valid as your
>own.
well, you're certainly not one of those people -- geez, all that whining, and
you call ME a victim!!
HAH!
> Why you feel so threatened by the idea that someone can be happily,
>comfortably and open mindedly straight or homosexual speaks volumes about
>the weakness that is apparent in your personality.
that statement of yours speaks volumes about YOUR personality -- I don't feel
threatened by homos or heteros -- but BY DEFINITION homos and heteros are
close-minded, otherwise they wouldn't be homos or heteros!
anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of people that can live a "nice, normal"
hetero life, and think nothing of it -- but people like you, that need to
declare just how hetero they are, inisisting that while "some straight people"
may be in denial, YOU certainly aren't and taking OFFENSE no less to the
suggestion, well, let's put it this way -- you are known for your hypocrisy, so
it's not surprising that you turned out to be a closet case!
TranceBack
>>
>> of course they are! but I guess it depends on what your definition of
>kinky is
>> -- they don't have "normal" sex, i.e. penile/vaginal, and the strictist
>> definition of "kinky" is anything that's not penile/vaginal
>>
>> all I meant was, if he was into "car crash" sex (which is pretty kinky by
>> almost anyone's definition) then I didn't see why he wouldn't necessarily
>be
>> into other kinky things, gay sex being one of those
>
>
and I'm sure it's normal to you and matt too, but you're ignoring what I
pointed out earlier, about what constitutes "kinky"
TranceBack
er -- OOPS!
:)
seriously, you REALLY hit the nail on the head with your post! the only part I
disagree with, which isn't even really a disagreement, is the farting/burping
thing -- my gf and I like to fart at each other long distance over the phone
when she's out of the country -- talk about "kinky"!
Blue Dave
>
> Not if it involves coffee.
Don't mention that vile substance in here... ;o)
--
Dave
"Raithen" <raith...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MDoZ6.114543$r7.15...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
Blue Dave
What are you insinuating? ;o)
--
Dave
"TranceBack" <paul...@aol.comeNgetit> wrote in message
news:20010624142045...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
Shaun Jacobson
Blue Dave <blueda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9h4t1b$bvnp0$1...@ID-73916.news.dfncis.de...
Raithen
denial
Agreed.
-matt
TranceBack
hah! you wish -- what exactly am I in denial of? I haven't denied anything,
because I haven't had to
Raithen
now
> it's "none of your business" -- right, keep on digging
I'm open about my sexual preference, I just don't see how discussing
situations where I've "declared" my sexuality of any relevance to this
newsgroup. If you would like a full detailed report of those incidents,
email me.
> >I'm absolutely positively an hockey fanatic, but I loathe
> >basketball. Does that make me close minded??
>
> it certainly makes you close-minded towards basketball, yes
No, I just don't appreciate the sport. I don't appreciate beating someone
to a pulp either, does that make me close minded?
Ridiculous.
> "vehemently" -- yes, you would! but as usual, you're wrong -- if you
really
> WERE so well-adjusted, why would you have a problem with that theory, to
say
> nothing of being "vehemently" against it??
"but as usual, you're wrong"
lol.. if there's anything I get out of conversations with you, it's
certainly amusement. ;-)
>> if you really were so "open", wouldn't just being "against it" be enough?
but
> no, you've got to go all the way, since you are 100% hetero with
absolutely NO
> homo possibilities, and be VEHEMENTLY against it -- wow, talk about
protesting
> too much
Now there's a slice of twisted logic. Not that I expected any less.
> because it's true!! both homos and heteros ARE closed minded! to be
"homo" is
> to be by definition closed to the possibility of hetero sex!! "hetero" by
> definition is to be closed to homosex!! if you are hetero or homo, you
are
> closed-minded! why even bother arguing?
Being "closed" to the possibility of having a sexual relationship with
someone who is of a gender whom you are not attracted to is NOT close
minded. It's biological. It's hormonal.
Am I "closed" to self-mutilation for sexual gratification? Yes, I am. I
know with every fibre of my being that the aforementioned practice would
give me no such pleasure. Is that close minded? By your twisted
definition, yes, yes it is.
> YOU have started our last two arguments in a row, don't forget!
I did? You attacked me in the drug conversation. Then you proceeded to
attack me when I made the comment about the bloke who left the newsgroup.
You started those, not I.
Selective memory, Mr. TranceBack?
> well, you're certainly not one of those people -- geez, all that whining,
and
> you call ME a victim!!
>
> HAH!
Whining??
> that statement of yours speaks volumes about YOUR personality -- I don't
feel
> threatened by homos or heteros -- but BY DEFINITION homos and heteros are
> close-minded, otherwise they wouldn't be homos or heteros!
Your opinion that heteros and homosexuals are close minded is close minded
in itself. It IS possible that some (in my opinion, the majority of) humans
are strictly attracted to one gender, is it not? Or are you stating that
all 6+ billion of us are bisexual in nature? Can you prove this? Or are
you saying that your statement is 100% accurate?
You can only be 100% accurate about your own sexual preference - and in some
cases, some people aren't quite sure. I can't speak for others, but I'm
100% sure of my own sexual preference. Is that something I'm "proud" of?
No. It's just a simple fact.
If you think I'm fooling myself, that I'm really closeting some sort of
homosexual tendancy, then all the power to you to believe that fallacy. And
no, I'm absolutely NOT homophobic. If I were, I wouldn't have had such a
good time at the PSB concert last year.
Oh but wait... I must be gay - I listen to Neil and Chris, Erasure and I
admit that I'm a RHPS fanboy. Shame on me for being in such a state of
denial!!!
> anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of people that can live a "nice, normal"
> hetero life, and think nothing of it -- but people like you, that need to
> declare just how hetero they are, inisisting that while "some straight
people"
> may be in denial, YOU certainly aren't and taking OFFENSE no less to the
> suggestion, well, let's put it this way -- you are known for your
hypocrisy, so
> it's not surprising that you turned out to be a closet case!
You asked if I had ever declared myself as heterosexual. I said yes. You
brought the subject up, I didn't go out of my way to identify my sexual
preference. I took offense to the fact that you called ALL homosexuals and
heterosexuals "close minded". I found that statement to be profoundly
arrogant.
If anyone is known for hypocrisy on this newsgroup, it's most definitely
you. You constantly twist arguments to suit your arguments. The example
this time is twisting my "declaration" of heterosexuality as if I went out
of my way to announce my sexuality - meanwhile, YOU were the one who asked
me if I had ever "declared" (quite a melodramatic use of the word I might
add) myself one way or the other.
I am not threatened by my own sexual preference. I am fully comfortable
with who I am, and what I am attracted to. I have no problems with
homosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality. Just because you may have had
brief instances where you've been attracted to the same sex doesn't mean
everyone has. Accept it.
-matt
Kelly
that you have a chemical imbalance in your head. Honestly, I think it's
time you just not bother replying.
Kelly
PS - I have no desire to even touch on the topic of this conversation, just
thought I would point out that Tranceback is a weirdo.
"TranceBack" <paul...@aol.comeNgetit> wrote in message
news:20010624141721...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
Kelly
Kelly
"Shaun Jacobson" <darknes...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3b366888$0$25478$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
TranceBack
>
>I did? You attacked me in the drug conversation. Then you proceeded to
>attack me when I made the comment about the bloke who left the newsgroup.
>You started those, not I.
>
>Selective memory, Mr. TranceBack?
on your part maybe! those weren't the last two arguments!
>You asked if I had ever declared myself as heterosexual. I said yes. You
>brought the subject up, I didn't go out of my way to identify my sexual
>preference.
actually, you "volunteered" it -- all I said was that heteros and homos are
notoriously close-minded, and you had to try and prove me wrong, and instead by
arguing at all proved me right -- your insistance of "never" having your
manhood threatened (which undoubtedly was a lie, the statement that heteros are
close-minded was obviously very threatening to you) and your needing to
"vehemently" declare you heteroness prove how close-minded you are -- as I said
before, if you really were so open-minded, why would you need to "vehemently"
declare anything? and all that BS about you "not being open" to violence and
self-mutilation is just trying to deflect focus from the issue which is that
you ARE close-minded -- anyone who's had their ear (or anything else) pierced
or a tattoo is open to self-mutilation, and anyone who's eaten a burger is open
to not only violence, but murder! so get with the program matt -- the ONLY
reason you would be mad at me for saying that heteros are close-minded is
because you know it's true -- if it wasn't, why are you so upset?? another
possibility would be that you really aren't "100%" hetero
> Just because you may have had
>brief instances where you've been attracted to the same sex doesn't mean
>everyone has.
"brief instances"? you are hilarious!! I never said that anyway -- but here's
the difference between you and me -- I don't deny the possibility that there
are guys I would be attracted to out there in the world -- YOU, on the other
hand, VEHEMENTLY deny that there will ever be a guy that you will find
attractive, because "you know" you're "100%" hetero -- face it matt, the truth
is you're "100%" close-minded
"and let that be an end to it -- END - TO - IT!"
-- ringo starr, shaking his ringed finger at the other beatles in the movie
"help"
Raithen
some
> degree weather it is 1% or 99% which explains why most guys like to spend
their
> time with other guys doing guy things.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. ;-) Freud also believed that all males
have an Oedipal complex. I think I tend to disagree with that. While this
complex was apparent within him, I think the theory is probably a little
farfetched. ;-)
> I am not saying that because you like to go to a ball game with your male
> friends it means you fancy them but the question is why do we see certain
males
> as good friends? Because we have something in common with them or they
have good
> qualities and so on.
Platonic attraction and sexual attraction are two completely different
beasts.
> Chances are if you put those same qualitites in a woman you would fall for
her
> so it suggests the 'blocking' part is your best friends sexuality.
Well, that "blocking part" is not something that is intellectually defined -
it's based on our hormonal makeup.
And just because I love playing darts with my guy friends doesn't mean I
would be attracted to a woman who loves to play darts too. What we are
attracted to in platonic relationships are not necessarily things we look
for, or care for in sexually defined relationships.
> Like i say, it is not my analysis, just what i read a couple of years ago
about
> why guys like to spend time with guys and girls with girls. Of course the
word
> 'homo' means own species as we are all homosapiens.
If there's one thing I've learned in life, it's not to believe everything I
read. Psychology and sociology are anything but exact sciences. The debate
over human sexuality has been going on for ages and I don't suspect we'll
ever have a definitive answer one way or the other.
Perhaps humans are becoming more and more predisposed to bisexual
tendancies? It's also possible that in the future asexuality will be the
trend. For the moment though, I think there is a wide degree of variance
within human sexuality - there are those of us who are purely hetero or
homosexual, and some of us who are bisexual (to whatever degree). Then
again, I don't claim to know anything more than what I know about myself!
> Now of course we do not all have sex with our own sex but a person can
never say
> they have never been attracted to a member of their own sex as that is not
> possible! If you like Dave Gahn's singing, style and so on you are
attracted to
> him for those qualities but it does not mean you wanna have sex with him!
Homosexuality and heterosexuality is the definition of whether one is
*sexually* attracted to the same or opposite sex. Perhaps some might be
sexually turned on by Dave's vocals, but some may just really love the style
for purely platonic, musically appreciative reasons. I think admitting an
attraction to another human in a lot of cases has absolutely no correlation
to our sexuality.
I love the way that Andre Agassi plays tennis and I try to emulate his
style. But there is never an instance of sexual arousal in my appreciation,
my "attraction" to his game.
> Someone who says "i've never fancied a man' is saying macho bravado or
simply
> does not realise what attraction is! Attraction when used on your own sex
is a
> dirty word as is love! A man would never say he loves his male friend but
a
> woman would! Why don't guys? Because fear of the emotion being taken the
wrong
> way.
Well, perhaps in some cases men are emotionally repressed and have a hard
time declaring platonic love for one another. But that example does nothing
to prove that men are stifling a latent homosexual lust for one another.
Not too mention your example is a stereotype of male behaviour. ;-)
> When was the last time any of you guys said to your dad that you love him?
But
> if you got a sister she has said it to your mother quite often.
I don't know about you, but I always tell my Dad I love him. But what
you're getting has more to do with male emotional repression. Not male
sexual repression.
> Just my observation. :-)
Ditto. :-)
-matt
Raithen
> >denial
> >
> >Agreed.
>
anything,
> because I haven't had to
You seem in denial that people can be strictly heterosexual or strictly
homosexual. Perhaps you're in denial that you are one or the other??
I could go on and on... ;-)
-matt
TranceBack
>that you have a chemical imbalance in your head.
aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?
> Honestly, I think it's
>time you just not bother replying.
>
I KNOW you think that -- your wish since my first post was that I leave the NG
to nuts like YOU
> I have no desire to even touch on the topic of this conversation, just
>thought I would point out that Tranceback is a weirdo.
>
what do you think people would think of someone that points out "weirdos"?
that they're sane by comparison?
if anybody else hasn't figured it out by now, the majority of my posts are
supposed to make people laugh -- and think -- but mostly laugh
tha fact that you and matt are not bright enough or honest enough to get what
I'm saying doesn't make me chemically imbalanced, though I may or may not be --
but let's say I am -- why would you need to say "hey everyone, he's a weirdo"?
it doesn't make sense, don't you think people would be able to tell? and why
would it matter anyway? are you and matt the only insane people allowed in
here or what?
"hey everybody, I thought I'd point out that kelly is a bitch" -- again, what's
the point? everyone already knows that!
TranceBack
>beasts.
>
only when you want them to be -- attraction is attraction, love is love, and
sex is all in the head -- YOU CHOOSE how to express it
TranceBack
>homosexual.
I'm not saying they can't be -- what I said was that those who are either are
close-minded
Raithen
>
> What are you insinuating? ;o)
Damnit, are secret is out!!!!! ;-)
-matt
Raithen
Yes, yes they were.
> actually, you "volunteered" it -- all I said was that heteros and homos
are
> notoriously close-minded, and you had to try and prove me wrong
No. Once again you've twisted the facts. I responded to you by asking
whether I would be in sexual denial *if* I declared myself as heterosexual.
I then stated that perhaps the people who declare nothing are the ones who
are in denial.
You then asked me if I had ever "declared" myself as heterosexual. I said
yes, and then the conversation degenerated from there. I didn't "volunteer"
the information - you asked, I answerd.
> , and instead by
> arguing at all proved me right -- your insistance of "never" having your
> manhood threatened (which undoubtedly was a lie, the statement that
heteros are
> close-minded was obviously very threatening to you) and your needing to
> "vehemently" declare you heteroness prove how close-minded you are -- as I
said
> before, if you really were so open-minded, why would you need to
"vehemently"
> declare anything?
Vehemently means that I *strongly* disagree. Something that I seem to do
quite frequently in conversations with you. If you like to believe that I'm
actually threatened by your statements, be my guest. Just because I
vehemently disagree with someone doesn't mean I'm actually "threatened".
Puh-leeze!!!
> and all that BS about you "not being open" to violence and
> self-mutilation is just trying to deflect focus from the issue which is
that
> you ARE close-minded -- anyone who's had their ear (or anything else)
pierced
> or a tattoo is open to self-mutilation, and anyone who's eaten a burger is
open
> to not only violence, but murder!
My example was self-mutilation for sexual gratification. Ear piercing,
tattoos and hamburgers may have correlations (though VERY weak) with
self-mutilation and violence, but they certainly do not with regards to
sexual pleasure through inflicting bodily damage. I would suspect most
people would be "closed" about performing such an act. Are they "close
minded"? No. There's a distinct difference between knowing that you will
enjoy something and knowing that you will "vehemently" not enjoy it.
It is only "close minded" for someone to make a decision based on a lack of
fact, or a lack of being in tune with one's own desires. Denying your
sexuality is the very essence of being close minded. I deny that I'll ever
be attracted to another man sexually - it's not a case of my being close
minded, it's a case of my understanding my own sexuality. I'm comfortable
with who I am. You're comfortable with the fact that you can imagine
yourself being sexually attracted to another man, all the power to you.
Yippee!
> so get with the program matt -- the ONLY
> reason you would be mad at me for saying that heteros are close-minded is
> because you know it's true -- if it wasn't, why are you so upset??
another
> possibility would be that you really aren't "100%" hetero
But maybe I am 100% heterosexual?? It's a possibility, isn't it?
> "brief instances"? you are hilarious!! I never said that anyway
<rolls eyes>
I never stated that you did. Perhaps you've had a gay relationship before?
For all I know, you are gay (all the power to you)! Anyway, I fail to see
anything "hilarious" about that statement. You know what I was getting at:
just because you have bisexual tendancies doesn't mean that I do, or ever
have. It's arrogant for you to presume that I have or haven't.
>-- but here's
> the difference between you and me -- I don't deny the possibility that
there
> are guys I would be attracted to out there in the world -- YOU, on the
other
> hand, VEHEMENTLY deny that there will ever be a guy that you will find
> attractive, because "you know" you're "100%" hetero -- face it matt, the
truth
> is you're "100%" close-minded
Yes I do deny it vehemently! Guys - do - nothing - for - me. Get it
through your thick skull! You can twist this conversation and try to label
me as a homophobe, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I'm neither
threatened by you, nor threatened by homosexuality or bisexuality. I came
to terms with my own sexuality many moons ago, and I've never doubted it,
nor had any reason to doubt it. I'm 100% sexually attracted to women, and I
suspect there are legions of gays and heteros who are 100% bound to their
orientation as well. <shrugs>
Personally, I think it's close minded to believe that 100% orientation is
not possible - which is something you're preaching. Food for thought.
> "and let that be an end to it -- END - TO - IT!"
>
> -- ringo starr, shaking his ringed finger at the other beatles in the
movie
> "help"
It would take a minor miracle for you not to respond to this thread again.
"Resistance is useless"
-- The Cybermen (pre-Borg-ripoff)
-matt
Raithen
You're in denial that people who are one or the other are not always
"close-minded".
-matt
Raithen
Your *hormones* choose how you interpret your attraction.
Raithen
Yawn.
Raithen
"Raithen" <raith...@home.com> wrote in message
news:80zZ6.115573$r7.15...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
Paragon
>paragon, I could kiss you right now!!
>
>er -- OOPS!
>
>:)
As long as it is closed mouths with minor secondary groping, it is fine with me!
:-)
>seriously, you REALLY hit the nail on the head with your post! the only part I
>disagree with, which isn't even really a disagreement, is the farting/burping
>thing -- my gf and I like to fart at each other long distance over the phone
>when she's out of the country -- talk about "kinky"!
Each to their own! :-)
Shaun Jacobson
TranceBack <paul...@aol.comeNgetit> wrote in message
just because im strictly heterosexual doesnt make me close minded
if anyone is close minded it's you
your constantly saying in a round about way that you are right and what
everybody else says is wrong
Shaun Jacobson
TranceBack <paul...@aol.comeNgetit> wrote in message
kelly seems nice enough to me
whereas the majority of people on here seem to think your a dickhead
Kelly
> "hey everybody, I thought I'd point out that kelly is a bitch" -- again,
what's
> the point? everyone already knows that!
>
>
I'm only a bitch to whiny, babbling,
idiots-that-don't-make-sense-half-the-time, argumentative, selfcentred,
people........ like you.
But I digress.
Kelly
Kelly
> >
> > "hey everybody, I thought I'd point out that kelly is a bitch" -- again,
> what's
> > the point? everyone already knows that!
> >
>
> kelly seems nice enough to me
> whereas the majority of people on here seem to think your a dickhead
I'm nice to people who don't talk crap, and don't display the "My opinion is
God" attitude. Traceback has gotten really irritating, real fast.
Kelly
Blue Dave
>
> Damnit, are secret is out!!!!! ;-)
LOL...
--
Dave
"Raithen" <raith...@home.com> wrote in message
news:80zZ6.115573$r7.15...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
Blue Dave
Who's the ignorant, arragont, argumentative tosser around here?! I'll tell
you.
Look in the mirror, and the one you're looking for is right in the middle
staring back at you!!
--
Dave
"TranceBack" <paul...@aol.comeNgetit> wrote in message
news:20010625000002...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
Raithen
> Who's the ignorant, arragont, argumentative tosser around here?! I'll tell
> you.
> Look in the mirror, and the one you're looking for is right in the middle
> staring back at you!!
Glad I'm on your side Dave...
... I am on your side, right!? <sweat beads on his brow>
;-)
-matt
TranceBack
>tattoos and hamburgers may have correlations (though VERY weak) with
>self-mutilation and violence, but they certainly do not with regards to
>sexual pleasure through inflicting bodily damage. I would suspect most
>people would be "closed" about performing such an act.
as weak as your even bringing up your idiotic basketball/hockey BS!! so does
that mean hockey gives you sexual gratification? no? then why did you bring
it up?
>It is only "close minded" for someone to make a decision based on a lack of
>fact, or a lack of being in tune with one's own desires.
so you can tell the future? how do you know there will never be a man that you
will find attractive?
YOU DON'T know, and you ARE closed minded
and anybody else who thinks you can be TOTALLY hetero or homo, and still be
open-minded is completely, totally wrong
end of story
Blue Dave
>
> ... I am on your side, right!? <sweat beads on his brow>
Of course mate...
Would you like sugar in your Co**ee? :o)
--
Dave
"Raithen" <raith...@home.com> wrote in message
news:NtOZ6.115919$r7.15...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
TranceBack
>whereas the majority of people on here seem to think your a dickhead
I don't think so, but anyway neither you or anyone else have any possible way
of knowing what the "majority" of people think about anything
besides, I never tell people that their posts aren't welcome in the NG, like
kelly does, and I don't try to run people out of here either, like she AND matt
do
Raithen
does
> that mean hockey gives you sexual gratification? no? then why did you
bring
> it up?
Sigh.
> so you can tell the future? how do you know there will never be a man
that you
> will find attractive?
While I can't predict the future, I can certainly predict that I will never,
ever find a man sexually attractive. Sorry Tranceback, your dream is over.
> YOU DON'T know, and you ARE closed minded
If you say so. I grow weary of this banter.
> and anybody else who thinks you can be TOTALLY hetero or homo, and still
be
> open-minded is completely, totally wrong
>
> end of story
Don't you mean: end of propaganda?
Cheers-ish,
-matt
Raithen
> >whereas the majority of people on here seem to think your a dickhead
>
> I don't think so, but anyway neither you or anyone else have any possible
way
> of knowing what the "majority" of people think about anything
Isn't it obvious by now?
> besides, I never tell people that their posts aren't welcome in the NG,
like
> kelly does, and I don't try to run people out of here either, like she AND
matt
> do
I'm trying to run people out of here? Interesting. I never knew that
disagreeing with someone (vehemently or not) was an act of newsgroup
tyranny.
LOL... I love it. ;-)
-matt
Raithen
> >
> > ... I am on your side, right!? <sweat beads on his brow>
>
> Of course mate...
> Would you like sugar in your Co**ee? :o)
ROFL!!!!!!!
-matt
Faskil [BNG]
Hmm... How do they call that again? Sexual tension? :-)
I think you're in love with each other... :-o
/Faskil.
Raithen
>
> Hmm... How do they call that again? Sexual tension? :-)
> I think you're in love with each other... :-o
I was waiting for a comment like that... surprised it took so long!! lol!!
;-)
-matt
TranceBack
>that you
>> will find attractive?
>
>While I can't predict the future, I can certainly predict that I will never,
>ever find a man sexually attractive. Sorry Tranceback, your dream is over.
no, you just made my millenium -- you just proved that you are close-minded, at
least to the possibility of a homo experience -- my whole point in the first
place!
TranceBack
>disagreeing with someone (vehemently or not) was an act of newsgroup
>tyranny.
didn't say that your act of disagree-ing was, but you have tried to run me out
of here
Faskil [BNG]
> ;-)
I was on holiday. :-)
Raithen
never,
> >ever find a man sexually attractive. Sorry Tranceback, your dream is
over.
>
> no, you just made my millenium -- you just proved that you are
close-minded, at
> least to the possibility of a homo experience -- my whole point in the
first
> place!
I'm not "close-minded" you imbecile. I just have no *sexual desire* towards
men. There is a distinct difference. It would be close-minded of me to
deny the truth of my own sexuality.
Anyway, this conversation has reached epic proportions on the scale of
stupidity. Time to call an end to it - at least on my part.
As for making your "millenium", I'm flattered - but it sounds like you are
in serious need of a life.
-matt
Raithen
How have I tried to run you out of here?! If I were trying to do that, why
the hell would I keep responding to all of your messages? Yes, that's
extremely effective.
Don't be so paranoid. As much as I think you're a complete and utter twit,
you're just as welcome here as anyone (including myself).
-matt
TranceBack
>never,
>> >ever find a man sexually attractive. Sorry Tranceback, your dream is
>over.
>>
>> no, you just made my millenium -- you just proved that you are
>close-minded, at
>> least to the possibility of a homo experience -- my whole point in the
>first
>> place!
>
>I'm not "close-minded" you imbecile. I just have no *sexual desire* towards
>men. There is a distinct difference. It would be close-minded of me to
>deny the truth of my own sexuality.
>
but the TRUTH is, you DON'T KNOW if there will be a guy that you might find
attractive someday or not!!
for you to say that you can predict that you will never find a man attractive,
that is exactly the close-mindedness I was talking about
>As for making your "millenium", I'm flattered - but it sounds like you are
>in serious need of a life
that's what you always say when you've run out of argument ;)
Cedric
"Raithen" <raith...@home.com> a écrit dans le message news:
z9PZ6.115933$r7.15...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
Blue Dave
find
> attractive someday or not!!
>
> for you to say that you can predict that you will never find a man
attractive,
> that is exactly the close-mindedness I was talking about
How can you be close-minded for not being gay?!
If we denied that gays existed, then we would be close-minded....you fool!!
I could say that if my wife finds a particular bloke attractive, I could see
what she might see in him, but doesn't mean I find him attractive!
I am very open-minded (as I'm sure Matt is)...not a lot of 'sexual' things
would shock me. It doesn't mean I'm close-minded because I wouldn't indulge
in them myself!!
One day you'll wake up from this 'month long' nightmare and realise what a
tit your making of yourself...
--
Dave
Raithen
are
> >in serious need of a life
>
> that's what you always say when you've run out of argument ;)
Nothing wrong with re-affirming one's beliefs. ;-)
-matt
Raithen
An excellent idea. ;-)
Cheers,
-matt
TranceBack
actually, what I said was that gays are just as close-minded as heteros, you
"tit"
Kelly
> >
> >I'm not "close-minded" you imbecile. I just have no *sexual desire*
towards
> >men. There is a distinct difference. It would be close-minded of me to
> >deny the truth of my own sexuality.
> >
>
> but the TRUTH is, you DON'T KNOW if there will be a guy that you might
find
> attractive someday or not!!
Give me a god damn break Tranceback.
Kelly
TranceBack
that's TranceBack, with a capital B, if you please
it'll be easier for you to remember when I win the "I feel loved" remix contest
;)
Cedric
"Raithen" <raith...@home.com> a écrit dans le message news:
Se8_6.117065$r7.15...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
Blue Dave
You say that if a hetrosexual doesn't have any homosexual feelings then he's
close-minded, right?!
You say that if a homosexual doesn't have any hetrosexual feelings then he's
close-minded, right?!
So I stand by my question...
How can you be close-minded for not being gay? (Or the other way round if
your gonna be a picky get!)
Oh, I apologise for calling you a tit......I actually like tits...
--
Dave
"TranceBack" <paul...@aol.comeNgetit> wrote in message
news:20010626205346...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
TranceBack
>>
>> actually, what I said was that gays are just as close-minded as heteros,
>you
>> "tit"
>
>You say that if a hetrosexual doesn't have any homosexual feelings then he's
>close-minded, right?!
wrong -- what I said was that homos and heteros are both notoriously
close-minded groups of people --
>You say that if a homosexual doesn't have any hetrosexual feelings then he's
>close-minded, right?!
>
precisely BECAUSE of your close-mindedness you haven't been paying attention, I
think
I'm saying that if someone calls themself either hetero or homo, they are
close-minded
let me give an example -- out of all the girlfriends I've had, only two never
messed around with other chix -- none of them would consider themselves gay,
and obviously they are not "hetero" and wouldn't think of calling themselves
that either -- they know better! they know that the TRUTH is, to call yourself
one or the other is to be basically dishonest, either today or tomorrow
anyone who has never engaged in any "homo" practices would find it easy to call
themselves hetero, I suppose, but why bother? you can't tell the future, you
may find someone of the same sex you're into someday, no matter WHAT you think
of the whole homo/hetero thing today
which is the more open-minded scenario? to declare that you will NEVER be
attracted to someone of the same sex? (how on earth could you know?) or that
while you may not be today, maybe sometime you might? (doesn't mean you HAVE
to)
I guess my what I meant to say was that hetero and homo are both stupid labels,
and usually lies, and that anyone who NEEDED these labels was only fooling
themselves -- but I stand by my original comment, which was that both homos and
heteros are closed-minded -- you and matt have certainly proved my point either
way
Blue Dave
he's
> >close-minded, right?!
>
> wrong -- what I said was that homos and heteros are both notoriously
> close-minded groups of people --
That's your opinion, not a fact.
> >You say that if a homosexual doesn't have any hetrosexual feelings then
he's
> >close-minded, right?!
> precisely BECAUSE of your close-mindedness you haven't been paying
attention, I
> think
> let me give an example -- out of all the girlfriends I've had, only two
never
> messed around with other chix -- none of them would consider themselves
gay,
> and obviously they are not "hetero" and wouldn't think of calling
themselves
> that either -- they know better! they know that the TRUTH is, to call
yourself
> one or the other is to be basically dishonest, either today or tomorrow
Oh aren't we a bunch of lying bastards!?
This is in the dictionary...
HOMOSEXUAL a. & n. (person) sexually attracted only to people of the same
sex.
HETEROSEXUAL a. & n (person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite
sex.
BISEXUAL a. sexually attracted to members of both sexes.
IS MY DICTIONARY DISHONEST?! If what you say is true, then these words
wouldn't need to be in the dictionary..!
Oh, but you know best eh..?
> anyone who has never engaged in any "homo" practices would find it easy to
call
> themselves hetero, I suppose, but why bother? you can't tell the future,
you
> may find someone of the same sex you're into someday, no matter WHAT you
think
> of the whole homo/hetero thing today
I know I will never be attracted to the same sex. I'm 29 years old, I think
I'd know by now.
> which is the more open-minded scenario? to declare that you will NEVER be
> attracted to someone of the same sex? (how on earth could you know?) or
that
> while you may not be today, maybe sometime you might? (doesn't mean you
HAVE
> to)
As I already stated previously...
I am very open-minded (as I'm sure Matt is)...not a lot of 'sexual' things
would shock me. It doesn't mean I'm close-minded because I wouldn't indulge
in them myself!!
> I guess my what I meant to say was that hetero and homo are both stupid
labels,
> and usually lies, and that anyone who NEEDED these labels was only fooling
> themselves -- but I stand by my original comment, which was that both
homos and
> heteros are closed-minded -- you and matt have certainly proved my point
either
> way
...and you've just proved what an arrogant prick you really are!
--
Dave
TranceBack
>> close-minded groups of people --
>
>That's your opinion, not a fact.
it IS a fact, proven by you and matt
>If what you say is true, then these words
>wouldn't need to be in the dictionary..!
>Oh, but you know best eh..?
>
you actually needed a dictionary to participate in this argument?? no-one's
debating what homos and heteros do!! (except you, I guess)
what you SHOULD'VE looked up was "close-minded"!! if you understood the
definition of "close-minded", then you'd see why you're one of those
close-minded "people"
>I know I will never be attracted to the same sex. I'm 29 years old, I think
>I'd know by now.
but, the truth is you DON'T know -- you can't tell the future, and the more you
think/say you NEVER will be, the more OBVIOUSLY close-minded you are
again, I'm not saying people who haven't engaged in homosex are close-minded --
I'm saying people that claim they "know they never will" are
>As I already stated previously...
>I am very open-minded (as I'm sure Matt is)...not a lot of 'sexual' things
>would shock me. It doesn't mean I'm close-minded because I wouldn't indulge
>in them myself!!
actually, it DOES mean that, as far as you and matt are concerned
you and matt can "claim" you're not homophobic til the cows come home and cite
all kinds of gay friends and gay bands as proof that you're not homophobic --
but the fact that you both "KNOW" that you will "NEVER" actually DO anything
like that shows how hypocritical you really are -- if you REALLY accepted the
behavior in someone else, you could accept yourself doing it as well (or at the
very least, the POSSIBILITY)-- but, you can't, so you don't!
>...and you've just proved what an arrogant prick you really are!
>--
last time you called me a "tit", and then remembered how much you liked those
-- is this your way of telling everyone how much you like "pricks" as well? :)
Raithen
Dave, I tried that one before - it didn't seem to phase him. ;-)
> IS MY DICTIONARY DISHONEST?!
No, apparently it's "close-minded".
> I know I will never be attracted to the same sex. I'm 29 years old, I
think
> I'd know by now.
So what about last night then, Dave? After we did those lines of coffee
beans, you forgot everything that transpired afterwards? I'm not falling
for that excuse again!!!
> As I already stated previously...
> I am very open-minded (as I'm sure Matt is)...not a lot of 'sexual' things
> would shock me. It doesn't mean I'm close-minded because I wouldn't
indulge
> in them myself!!
I just find it hard to believe that someone else can tell me that I'm really
denying the possibility of latent homosexual tendancies. That's just
precious!
> ...and you've just proved what an arrogant prick you really are!
Oooonnne hundred and eeeEIIIiiigggghhhtttyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-matt
Raithen
cite
> all kinds of gay friends and gay bands as proof that you're not
homophobic --
> but the fact that you both "KNOW" that you will "NEVER" actually DO
anything
> like that shows how hypocritical you really are -- if you REALLY accepted
the
> behavior in someone else, you could accept yourself doing it as well (or
at the
> very least, the POSSIBILITY)-- but, you can't, so you don't!
You don't need to ride a 50ft razor into a pool of iodine to know that you
won't enjoy said venture. Of course, I've never tried it before, but I
hardly think I'm "close-minded" for intrinsically knowing that I would not
appreciate such a thrill.
-matt
PS: I bet my Dad could beat up your Dad!
TranceBack
you guys are TOO much!! comparing a POSSIBLE homo encounter (not even an
actual encounter, just the POSSIBILITY of one) to a razor-ride into an iodine
pool??
you could not have illustrated your homophobia more graphically, to say nothing
of your close-mindedness
>-matt
>
>PS: I bet my Dad could beat up your Dad!
wouldn't want to forget that ever-present pseudo-macho posturing, would ya?
TranceBack
>beans, you forgot everything that transpired afterwards?
you know, the fact that you guys cling to that coffee thing (and each other) so
tightly is really telling about the way your "minds" work
why are you guys STILL so into that? do you think that the more jokes you
make, the less addictive coffee is? I'd be laughing WITH you, if your denial
wasn't so far-reaching! but in your world, caffeine isn't a drug, much less an
addictive and one of the biggest "gateway" drugs
of course, in your world "easy tiger" doesn't sound like "love thieves",
something that anybody with ears can hear
>I just find it hard to believe that someone else can tell me that I'm really
>denying the possibility of latent homosexual tendancies. That's just
>precious!
so, what IS it that you ARE doing? NOT denying?
now I see why you guys (matt & dave) take everything I say so personally, it's
like I'm saying everything you know is wrong! and your problem is that until
you figure that out, there's nothing you can do about it (you DON'T know, and
you WON'T until you KNOW you don't)
Raithen
> actual encounter, just the POSSIBILITY of one) to a razor-ride into an
iodine
> pool??
No, you are TOO (gotta love the CAPS!) much. I'm not literally comparing
the action of sliding down a razor blade to a possible homosexual
encounter - once again, you've completely missed/twisted the point.
The entire point is that a person knows with every fibre of their being that
sliding down that blade and into that pool would not be something they would
ever entertain the notion of. It's much the same for heterosexuals and
homosexuals - a person knows with every fibre of their being that they are
completely, totally, unambiguously straight or gay. There is no
"possibility" because they understand their sexuality and have come to grips
with the nature of their orientation. They have nothing against the notion,
it's just not something that they would ever think of doing.
For you to say that it's "close-minded" is arrogant because you are not in
my head. You don't understand my emotions or my desires - you never will.
I'm completely open-minded about bisexuality, homosexuality and
heterosexuality - I just know that I will never be interested in a same sex
relationship. It's just who I am.
Obviously, it's not who you are, so you can't possibly understand where I'm
coming from.
> wouldn't want to forget that ever-present pseudo-macho posturing, would
ya?
Sigh... how ironic.
-matt
Raithen
other) so
> tightly is really telling about the way your "minds" work
>
> why are you guys STILL so into that? do you think that the more jokes you
> make, the less addictive coffee is? I'd be laughing WITH you, if your
denial
> wasn't so far-reaching! but in your world, caffeine isn't a drug, much
less an
> addictive and one of the biggest "gateway" drugs
It's a running joke between the two of us. Relax. We find the idea
amusing, hence the "joke".
> of course, in your world "easy tiger" doesn't sound like "love thieves",
> something that anybody with ears can hear
Exactly. Anybody can hear that "Easy Tiger" doesn't sound like "Love
Thieves". Agreed. ;-)))
> >I just find it hard to believe that someone else can tell me that I'm
really
> >denying the possibility of latent homosexual tendancies. That's just
> >precious!
>
> so, what IS it that you ARE doing? NOT denying?
How can I deny something that is based on an impossibility?
> now I see why you guys (matt & dave) take everything I say so personally,
it's
> like I'm saying everything you know is wrong! and your problem is that
until
> you figure that out, there's nothing you can do about it (you DON'T know,
and
> you WON'T until you KNOW you don't)
Taking this personally? Hey, I'm not the one constantly using the CAPS.
;-)
-matt
TranceBack
>> actual encounter, just the POSSIBILITY of one) to a razor-ride into an
>iodine
>> pool??
>
>No, you are TOO (gotta love the CAPS!) much. I'm not literally comparing
>the action of sliding down a razor blade to a possible homosexual
>encounter - once again, you've completely missed/twisted the point.
no, once again, you're DENYING the point -- that's EXACTLY what you did!!
>The entire point is that a person knows with every fibre of their being that
>sliding down that blade and into that pool would not be something they would
>ever entertain the notion of. It's much the same for heterosexuals and
>homosexuals
wow, you're in such denial that you did it AGAIN!! you ARE comparing the two!!
and kelly thought *I* had the chemical imbalance??
>They have nothing against the notion,
>it's just not something that they would ever think of doing.
well, then, "they" (and what you meant was, "you" as in "matt") obviously have
SOMETHING against the notion!
>For you to say that it's "close-minded" is arrogant because you are not in
>my head.
you only think it's arrogant because I'm right :)
Blue Dave
> >> close-minded groups of people --
> >
> >That's your opinion, not a fact.
>
> it IS a fact, proven by you and matt
Here we go again! <sigh>
> you actually needed a dictionary to participate in this argument??
no-one's
> debating what homos and heteros do!! (except you, I guess)
>
> what you SHOULD'VE looked up was "close-minded"!! if you understood the
> definition of "close-minded", then you'd see why you're one of those
> close-minded "people
"CLOSE-MINDED adj. showing or having no interest in the ideas and opinions
of others"
OH! THE IRONY!!
> >I know I will never be attracted to the same sex. I'm 29 years old, I
think
> >I'd know by now.
>
> but, the truth is you DON'T know -- you can't tell the future, and the
more you
> think/say you NEVER will be, the more OBVIOUSLY close-minded you are
Believe me I just know...
> >As I already stated previously...
> >I am very open-minded (as I'm sure Matt is)...not a lot of 'sexual'
things
> >would shock me. It doesn't mean I'm close-minded because I wouldn't
indulge
> >in them myself!!
>
> actually, it DOES mean that, as far as you and matt are concerned
Err.. no it doesn't!
> you and matt can "claim" you're not homophobic til the cows come home and
cite
> all kinds of gay friends and gay bands as proof that you're not
homophobic --
> but the fact that you both "KNOW" that you will "NEVER" actually DO
anything
> like that shows how hypocritical you really are -- if you REALLY accepted
the
> behavior in someone else, you could accept yourself doing it as well (or
at the
> very least, the POSSIBILITY)-- but, you can't, so you don't!
I know I'm not homophobic.
I never said I had gay friends (although there is no reason why I wouldn't)
I do accept gay behaviour. It's just not something that I wish to indulge in
myself! That's not close-minded, it's personal preference...
> >...and you've just proved what an arrogant prick you really are!
> >--
>
> last time you called me a "tit", and then remembered how much you liked
those
> -- is this your way of telling everyone how much you like "pricks" as
well? :)
No, because I didn't apologise for the latter...
BTW Why did you post here AND send me an identical E-mail. Did you think
saying it twice would make me think you were talking sense???
--
Dave
ICQ - 117878399
Blue Dave
> beans, you forgot everything that transpired afterwards? I'm not falling
> for that excuse again!!!
SHHHHHH!! Don't tell everyone! :o)
--
Dave
ICQ - 117878399
"Raithen" <raith...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3ht_6.117838$r7.15...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
TranceBack
>> something that anybody with ears can hear
>
>Exactly. Anybody can hear that "Easy Tiger" doesn't sound like "Love
>Thieves". Agreed. ;-)))
>
wow, you are not only close-minded but ignorant beyond belief
listen to track 2 on "ultra", especially from 6:06 on, and compare it to "easy
tiger" from "exciter" -- almost the whole first 1 1/2 minutes is the same chord
progessions! and the melody, while not EXACTLY the same, is really, really
close -- for you to inisist that they're nothing alike, is, well, par for the
course as far as your extremely closed mind goes
>> so, what IS it that you ARE doing? NOT denying?
>
>How can I deny something that is based on an impossibility?
talk about twisting words -- you HAVE been denying that you could ever be
attracted to a guy -- while you're certainly entitled to your homophobic
feelings, and obviously are quite comfortable with your constant denial about
all kinds of things, the truth is that the fact that you "know" you can never
have the possibility of homoerotic feelings doesn't prove that you aren't gay,
it only proves that you have closed your mind to the possibility
>Taking this personally? Hey, I'm not the one constantly using the CAPS.
>;-)
actually, IDIOT, you just did -- and used them in your other post too -- but
since you are SO ignorant, I guess I have to explain that I use caps for
emphasis -- got that? EMPHASIS
you're never going to win this argument, for the simple reason that you ARE
close-minded, so just give up!
TranceBack
do you even know what "irony" means? check your dictionary for that, too
>> but, the truth is you DON'T know -- you can't tell the future, and the
>more you
>> think/say you NEVER will be, the more OBVIOUSLY close-minded you are
>
>Believe me I just know...
>
no, you just HOPE :)
>I do accept gay behaviour. It's just not something that I wish to indulge in
>myself!
if it's something that you wouldn't do yourself, then you are really not
accepting of it! simple logic!
>BTW Why did you post here AND send me an identical E-mail. Did you think
>saying it twice would make me think you were talking sense???
>--
it's just part of the aol NG "post response" -- I thought maybe you would read
it, but now I'm not even sure you know how to read anything except the
dictionary -- and even THERE you ignore the parts you don't like
Raithen
>
> listen to track 2 on "ultra", especially from 6:06 on, and compare it to
"easy
> tiger" from "exciter" -- almost the whole first 1 1/2 minutes is the same
chord
> progessions! and the melody, while not EXACTLY the same, is really,
really
> close -- for you to inisist that they're nothing alike, is, well, par for
the
> course as far as your extremely closed mind goes
Your comparison is so unbelievably superficial it's laughable. To think
these songs have more than a small similarity is beyond ridicilous.
> talk about twisting words -- you HAVE been denying that you could ever be
> attracted to a guy -- while you're certainly entitled to your homophobic
> feelings, and obviously are quite comfortable with your constant denial
about
> all kinds of things, the truth is that the fact that you "know" you can
never
> have the possibility of homoerotic feelings doesn't prove that you aren't
gay,
> it only proves that you have closed your mind to the possibility
a) I'm not homophobic - though you're entitled to believe so.
b) I'm not close-minded - though you're entitled to believe so.
> >Taking this personally? Hey, I'm not the one constantly using the CAPS.
> >;-)
>
> actually, IDIOT, you just did -- and used them in your other post too --
but
> since you are SO ignorant, I guess I have to explain that I use caps for
> emphasis -- got that? EMPHASIS
It's called satire. Look it up.
> you're never going to win this argument, for the simple reason that you
ARE
> close-minded, so just give up!
Nahh...
-matt
Kelly
>
> of course, in your world "easy tiger" doesn't sound like "love thieves",
> something that anybody with ears can hear
No, they don't sound alike. Sorry to break it to you, but they are two
totally different songs.
Kelly
>
> >The entire point is that a person knows with every fibre of their being
that
> >sliding down that blade and into that pool would not be something they
would
> >ever entertain the notion of. It's much the same for heterosexuals and
> >homosexuals
>
> wow, you're in such denial that you did it AGAIN!! you ARE comparing the
two!!
> and kelly thought *I* had the chemical imbalance??
Yes, and I still think you do. Half of what you say doesn't even make
sense, and then when there is a shred of something that's comprehendible,
it's just so outrageous that it's ludicrous.
~Kelly
Kelly
> >
> > what you SHOULD'VE looked up was "close-minded"!! if you understood
the
> > definition of "close-minded", then you'd see why you're one of those
> > close-minded "people
>
> "CLOSE-MINDED adj. showing or having no interest in the ideas and opinions
> of others"
>
> OH! THE IRONY!!
>
INDEED!!!!!! Ahhhhhhhhh .... <smacks head onto desk>
Kelly
Kelly
> >
> >How can I deny something that is based on an impossibility?
>
> talk about twisting words -- you HAVE been denying that you could ever be
> attracted to a guy -- while you're certainly entitled to your homophobic
> feelings,
Do you even know the meaning of homophobic?? I think Dave had good
reasoning for taking out his dictionary in the first place, you need a lot
of clarification. Just because Matt firmly believes he's heterosexual, does
not mean he's homophobic.
Kelly
Kelly
"TranceBack" <paul...@aol.comeNgetit> wrote in message
> >OH! THE IRONY!!
>
> do you even know what "irony" means? check your dictionary for that, too
LOL!!!!!!!! Ohhhhhhh my God.. I thought Blue Dave displayed PERFECT irony
in the situation. It is *you* that obviously has your definitions messed
up.
Kelly
TranceBack
>>
>> listen to track 2 on "ultra", especially from 6:06 on, and compare it to
>"easy
>> tiger" from "exciter" -- almost the whole first 1 1/2 minutes is the same
>chord
>> progessions! and the melody, while not EXACTLY the same, is really,
>really
>> close -- for you to inisist that they're nothing alike, is, well, par for
>the
>> course as far as your extremely closed mind goes
>
>Your comparison is so unbelievably superficial it's laughable. To think
>these songs have more than a small similarity is beyond ridicilous.
>
I KNEW you were gonna say "superficial"!! because the same thing happened with
"sweetest condition" vs. "surrender"!! before, they were "not alike at all",
now they're "only superficially alike" -- as ALWAYS, you are full of BS!