Dr. Laura and Oprah
MJScott2
I have never posted in this NG before nor have I read any posts. I fell upon
it, however, and would like to know about something.
I have followed Dr. Laura for many years, listen to her sporadically, and like
her (most of the time). I have read and enjoyed her books....again, though I do
not always agree with her.
I am curious if she has ever spoken about her friend Oprah's living arrangement
with her boyfriend of many years, Steadman. I saw Dr. Laura on "Oprah" once
and they seemed like the mutual admiration society. I have also heard Dr. L
speak on her own program how she admires Ms. Winfrey and her efforts. Since
Oprah does not live in the Dr. Laura approved state of grace, I wonder how she
justifies her approval and apparent liking for her.
Thanks for any feedback....a friend and I have been musing over this for some
time and my fax to Dr. Laura was ignored.
MJ Scott
mrpotter
mjsc...@aol.com (MJScott2) wrote:
> << From: tinas...@aol.com (Tinas49ers)
> Dont you have friends who dont always live their lives in a
> standard you would
> hold for yourself? Maybe this is whats with these two ladies.
> Tina>>
> Thank you for you kind welcome.
> Yes, I do have friends whose standards aren't mine but my sense of
> Dr. Laura is
> that she wouldn't allow that kind of leniency. I have heard
> callers speaks
> about a friend doing certain behaviors, I have heard her say to the
> caller...."Why do you know people like that?"
> Dr. Laura is very clear about her disapproval of those who reside
> together and
> have sex and are not married. It is breaking her religious and
> moral code in a
> profound way. It is the same with her stance on gays. Unmarried
> people
> shouldn't be having sex.
> I am still hoping for some input on this. My question is more a
> plea for if
> anyone knows if she has spoken out about Winfrey's situation.
> Thanks!
> MJ Scott
First off, Steadman Graham is gay. He and Oprah are simply "best
girlfriends".....
Secondly, Oprah is now into her New Age -- I'm Empowering Women --
Aren't I Even More Wonderful Than Ever phase. LS hasn't had much of
anything but
negative publicity lately. Oprah isn't dumb when it comes to raking in
the bucks -- any kind of association with LS at this stage would be a
negative.
Best
Greg
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
schles...@my-deja.com
she's a fat whore!
I don't mind any business dealings with her, but I would never let that
fat whore in my house or around my Bunchkin.
I understand fully that she was molestated as a child, and as a
psychologist I recognate her problems in life and why she must fill
herself with food and obsessive sex with some shack-up stud.
Perhaps when I go on her show with my books some good morals will sink
into her, at least that is my truest hope and my only intentiation for
being on her show or mentionizing her name.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Ph.D., M.F.C.C.
PS By the way, I was NEVER, EVER!!, NEVER molestated as a child!!!!!!!!
NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tinas49ers
>Hello,
>
>I have never posted in this NG before nor have I read any posts. I fell upon
>it, however, and would like to know about something.
Well, welcome in then!
>I have followed Dr. Laura for many years, listen to her sporadically, and
>like
>her (most of the time). I have read and enjoyed her books....again, though I
>do
>not always agree with her.
>
>I am curious if she has ever spoken about her friend Oprah's living
>arrangement
>with her boyfriend of many years, Steadman. I saw Dr. Laura on "Oprah" once
>and they seemed like the mutual admiration society. I have also heard Dr. L
>speak on her own program how she admires Ms. Winfrey and her efforts. Since
>Oprah does not live in the Dr. Laura approved state of grace, I wonder how
>she
>justifies her approval and apparent liking for her.
>
>Thanks for any feedback....a friend and I have been musing over this for some
>time and my fax to Dr. Laura was ignored.
>
Dont you have friends who dont always live their lives in a standard you would
hold for yourself? Maybe this is whats with these two ladies.
Tina
You know failure isn't failure if a lesson from it's learned
I guess love would not be love, without the risk of being burned.
--Garth Brooks
MJScott2
Dont you have friends who dont always live their lives in a standard you would
hold for yourself? Maybe this is whats with these two ladies.
Tina>>
Thank you for you kind welcome.
Jitpring
>
> Hello,
>
> I have never posted in this NG before nor have I read any posts. I fell upon
> it, however, and would like to know about something.
>
> her (most of the time). I have read and enjoyed her books....again, though I do
> not always agree with her.
>
> I am curious if she has ever spoken about her friend Oprah's living arrangement
> with her boyfriend of many years, Steadman. I saw Dr. Laura on "Oprah" once
> and they seemed like the mutual admiration society. I have also heard Dr. L
> speak on her own program how she admires Ms. Winfrey and her efforts. Since
> Oprah does not live in the Dr. Laura approved state of grace, I wonder how she
> justifies her approval and apparent liking for her.
>
> Thanks for any feedback....a friend and I have been musing over this for some
> time and my fax to Dr. Laura was ignored.
>
I'd bet that any real relationship between Laura and Oprah is long since
dead. Oprah seems like a genuinely kind person, and I have little doubt
that she would want to distance herself from such hate-mongering
religious fanatics as Doktor Laura.
Jitpring
--
"We think that for a general to fight an enemy, it is important to know
the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's
philosophy" - G.K. Chesterton
DC
>From: tinas...@aol.com (Tinas49ers)
>Date: 2/13/00 6:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
>MJ Scott wrote:
>>I have followed Dr. Laura for many years, listen to her sporadically, and
>>like
>>her (most of the time). I have read and enjoyed her books....again,
>though I
>>do
>>not always agree with her.
>>
>>I am curious if she has ever spoken about her friend Oprah's living
>>arrangement
>>with her boyfriend of many years,
>Steadman. I saw Dr. Laura on "Oprah" once
>>and they seemed like the mutual admiration society. I have also heard Dr. L
>>speak on her own program how she admires Ms. Winfrey and her
>efforts. Since
>>Oprah does not live in the Dr. Laura approved state of grace, I wonder how
>>she
>>justifies her approval and apparent
>liking for her.
Oprah gives good presents.
Dinky Cat
People who hate cats were rats in a former life and probably still are rats
DC
>Date: 2/13/00 8:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
>MJScott2 wrote:
>Snip< >I am curious if she has ever spoken about her friend Oprah's living
>arrangement
>> with her boyfriend of many years, Steadman. I saw Dr. Laura on "Oprah"
>once
>> and they seemed like the mutual admiration society. I have also
>heard Dr. L
>> speak on her own program how she admires Ms. Winfrey and her efforts.
>Since
>> Oprah does not live in the Dr. Laura approved state of grace, I wonder how
>she
>> justifies her approval and
>apparent liking for her.
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback....a friend and I have been musing over this for
>some
>> time and my fax to Dr. Laura was ignored.
>>
It doesn't surprise me that your fax was ignored. She doesn't talk or fax
evidently to people who ask for personal information (gossip).
>Jitpring wrote:
>I'd bet that any real relationship between Laura and Oprah is long since
>dead. Oprah seems like a genuinely kind person, and I have little doubt
>that she would want to distance herself from such hate-mongering
>religious fanatics as Doktor Laura.
Oprah has become somewhat spiritual herself. So I agree with Jitpring that they
probably have nothing to do with one another.
Martha Hughes
MJScott2 <mjsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000213214953...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>
>
>
>
>
Martha Hughes
DC <dinkycat...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20000213233914...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Dr. Laura and Oprah
> >From: Jitpring jitp...@earthlink.net
> >Date: 2/13/00 8:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >
>
> >MJScott2 wrote:
>
> >Snip< >I am curious if she has ever spoken about her friend Oprah's
living
> >arrangement
> >> with her boyfriend of many years, Steadman. I saw Dr. Laura on "Oprah"
> >once
> >> and they seemed like the mutual admiration society. I have also
>
> >heard Dr. L
> >> speak on her own program how she admires Ms. Winfrey and her efforts.
> >Since
> >> Oprah does not live in the Dr. Laura approved state of grace, I wonder
how
> >she
> >> justifies her approval and
>
> >apparent liking for her.
> >>
> >> Thanks for any feedback....a friend and I have been musing over this
for
> >some
> >> time and my fax to Dr. Laura was ignored.
> >>
> It doesn't surprise me that your fax was ignored. She doesn't talk or fax
> evidently to people who ask for personal information (gossip).
>
Worked for me!
joe@here
wrote:
Easy, Oprah has one thing that Mrs. Bishop really admires.....she has
big, big $$$$$$$$$$. Much more than Mrs. Bishop.
>MJScott2 wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have never posted in this NG before nor have I read any posts. I fell upon
>> it, however, and would like to know about something.
>>
>> I have followed Dr. Laura for many years, listen to her sporadically, and like
>> her (most of the time). I have read and enjoyed her books....again, though I do
>> not always agree with her.
>>
>> I am curious if she has ever spoken about her friend Oprah's living arrangement
>> with her boyfriend of many years, Steadman. I saw Dr. Laura on "Oprah" once
>> and they seemed like the mutual admiration society. I have also heard Dr. L
>> speak on her own program how she admires Ms. Winfrey and her efforts. Since
>> Oprah does not live in the Dr. Laura approved state of grace, I wonder how she
>> justifies her approval and apparent liking for her.
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback....a friend and I have been musing over this for some
>> time and my fax to Dr. Laura was ignored.
>>
>> MJ Scott
>
>I'd bet that any real relationship between Laura and Oprah is long since
>dead. Oprah seems like a genuinely kind person, and I have little doubt
>that she would want to distance herself from such hate-mongering
>religious fanatics as Doktor Laura.
Victoria
thinks and does what suits her du jour.
V
MJScott2
I'd bet that any real relationship between Laura and Oprah is long since
dead. Oprah seems like a genuinely kind person, and I have little doubt
that she would want to distance herself from such hate-mongering
religious fanatics as Doktor Laura.
Jitpring>>
Well, she was hailing her last year when I saw her on her program.
MJ Scott
MJScott2
It doesn't surprise me that your fax was ignored. She doesn't talk or fax
evidently to people who ask for personal information (gossip).>>
I mentioned in my post what I was asking about. This was an attempt to seek
clarification on her stance...it was not gossip.
MJ Scott
Neutrodyne
>From: mjsc...@aol.com (MJScott2)
>Date: 2/13/00 4:49 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000213174947...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
>
>Hello,
>
>I have never posted in this NG before nor have I read any posts. I fell upon
>it, however, and would like to know about something.
>
This is usually a dangerous move, especially in here. However you have come
across well, though a little reading might help you in future interactions.
Welcome to our "Anti Dr-Laura HellHole"!
> have followed Dr. Laura for many years, listen to her sporadically, and like
>her (most of the time). I have read and enjoyed her books....again, though I
>do
>not always agree with her.
>
>I am curious if she has ever spoken about her friend Oprah's living
>arrangement
>with her boyfriend of many years, Steadman. I saw Dr. Laura on "Oprah" once
>and they seemed like the mutual admiration society. I have also heard Dr. L
>speak on her own program how she admires Ms. Winfrey and her efforts. Since
>Oprah does not live in the Dr. Laura approved state of grace, I wonder how
>she
>justifies her approval and apparent liking for her.
>
>Thanks for any feedback....a friend and I have been musing over this for some
>time and my fax to Dr. Laura was ignored.
>
>MJ Scott
I had an old book of formulas and equations out last night and I believe
it is in the second addendum to Kirchoff's third Theorem on Murphy's Second
Postulate of Ohm's Law, as follows:
The degree of "imorality" that Laura Schlessinger is prepared to tolerate
in a friend, with a smile, is directly proportional to that friend's ability
to assist Laura's career possibilities.
Rest assured that if Charlie Manson were released today and bought
Paramount tomorrow, he'd be on Luara's TV show giving out lecutures on his
parents' "interfaithless marriage" and the bad effects "the 60's" had on him.
Neutrodyne
Tourism Director "Anti Dr-Laura HellHole"
Neutrodyne
MJScott2
First off, Steadman Graham is gay. He and Oprah are simply "best
girlfriends".....
Secondly, Oprah is now into her New Age -- I'm Empowering Women --
Aren't I Even More Wonderful Than Ever phase. LS hasn't had much of
anything but
negative publicity lately. Oprah isn't dumb when it comes to raking in
the bucks -- any kind of association with LS at this stage would be a
negative.
Best
Greg>>
Best? You write an awful, ill informed post like that and you sign it "best"?
I am not a huge fan of Oprah but she is certainly palatable on occasion. Oprah
has certainly not always made the choices which make her the most money at all.
Her quest towards spirituality on her program has absolutely not gleaned the
highest of her ratings and she doesn't care.
The gay reference was obviously some lame attempt at humor that was about as
original as a potato chip.
MJ Scott
MJScott2
This is a very easy answer to give. Dokta of Exercise Laura is full of shit
and
thinks and does what suits her du jour.>>
Okay, with this example of an answer to my query, I am to assume that none of
you have any information about about my original post?
I WOULD find it odd of her to appear on the program of someone who does not
live by her standards and sing her praises on her program about all the
wonderful work she does with her money, which I happen to agree is extremely
nice. If Oprah were a gay man who was living with a partner and having sex
with him, I hardly think Dr. Laura would be heralding his good works on her air
time.
I have no agenda as to how I feel about Dr. Laura on this without further
information. I am disappointed that my question was not taken seriously. I
guess I incorrectly assumed that a NG for said entertainer (Dr. Laura) would be
knowledgable on the subject of her.
MJ Scott
Charles Basner
I'm sorry we didn't live up to your expectations. I know during my
one-on-one personal interview with DL, automatically granted to me as a
member of this ng, I blew my questions on issues that had nothing to do with
Oprah, and now I sincerely regret it. The last thing any of us want to do
is disappoint you in your search for hard facts concerning DL.
Please accept my apologies on behalf of this entire group.
chas
MJScott2
No, she hasn't, at least not to the best of my knowledge (and if she had, I'm
reasonably certain that someone in this NG would have caught it.) In fact,
this very bit of hypocritical behavior was the subject of considerable
discussion a while back, in that DL had appeared on Oprah's show without
denouncing Oprah's living arrangements. Since being on Oprah's show was
furthering DL's career, DL seemed quite content to let this matter pass without
editorial comment. You may want to do a Deja News search of artd-l for the
words Oprah and Steadman during '99 to find the threads that discussed this.
Hope this helps.
Mitch>>
Thank you, Mitch, for this very cogent reply. I was hoping if I waited long
enough I would get one!
MJScott
Mitch
>mjsc...@aol.com (MJScott2)
>Date: 2/13/00 9:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000213214953...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
>Dr. Laura is very clear about her disapproval of those who reside together
>and
>have sex and are not married. It is breaking her religious and moral code in
>a
>profound way. It is the same with her stance on gays. Unmarried people
>shouldn't be having sex.
>
>I am still hoping for some input on this. My question is more a plea for if
>anyone knows if she has spoken out about Winfrey's situation.
>
No, she hasn't, at least not to the best of my knowledge (and if she had, I'm
MJScott2
I'm sorry we didn't live up to your expectations. I know during my
one-on-one personal interview with DL, automatically granted to me as a
member of this ng, I blew my questions on issues that had nothing to do with
Oprah, and now I sincerely regret it. The last thing any of us want to do
is disappoint you in your search for hard facts concerning DL.
Please accept my apologies on behalf of this entire group.
chas>>
Accepted.
Like I said, I like Dr. Laura....she has good things to say, but I oft
disagree with her. The "Oprah" question was something some friends and I had
mused about and when I stumbled on this NG, I thought I would give it a whirl.
Thanks again,
MJ Scott
Charles Basner
I too oft find her bellicose and cantankerous deportment odious, though
sporadically her invectives reflect my own somewhat more genial convictions.
chas
mrpotter
This is usually a dangerous move, especially in here. However you have
come across well, though a little reading might help you in future
interactions. Welcome to our "Anti Dr-Laura HellHole"!
Greg replies: This one might provide us with a bit of fun, Neut......I
guess she signed up for your unescorted tour?
Best
Greg (likes his meat charred on the outside and bloody rare on the
inside....)
mrpotter
mjsc...@aol.com (MJScott2) wrote:
> << From: mrpotter gregory...@webtv.net
> First off, Steadman Graham is gay. He and Oprah are simply "best
> girlfriends".....
> Secondly, Oprah is now into her New Age -- I'm Empowering Women --
> Aren't I Even More Wonderful Than Ever phase. LS hasn't had much
> of
> anything but
> negative publicity lately. Oprah isn't dumb when it comes to
> raking in
> the bucks -- any kind of association with LS at this stage would
> be a
> negative.
> Best
> Greg>>
> Best? You write an awful, ill informed post like that and you
> sign it "best"?
I sign _all_ my posts "best" -- even to dolts such as you.....
> I am not a huge fan of Oprah but she is certainly palatable on
> occasion. Oprah
> has certainly not always made the choices which make her the most
> money at all.
You're quite the troll......
> Her quest towards spirituality on her program has absolutely not
> gleaned the
> highest of her ratings and she doesn't care.
Then you need to read the SUNDAY NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE 2/13/99
http://www.newyorktimes.com , specifically the article by Francine
Prose entitled "A Wasteland Of One's Own"......
And with her megabucks, she doesn't have to grovel for $$$ anymore --
she's made it already off of suckers like you.....
> The gay reference was obviously some lame attempt at humor that
> was about as
> original as a potato chip.
Au contraire, dear -- no "attempt at humor", lame or otherwise, at all.
And I "should" know......
What _is_ lame is you barrelling into a NG without having _ever_ lurked
in said NG. You might try hanging out here for a month or three before
posting.
Or better yet, please don't post at all. :-)
> MJ Scott
"Best"
Greg
MJScott2
You're quite the troll......
Then you need to read the SUNDAY NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE 2/13/99
http://www.newyorktimes.com , specifically the article by Francine
Prose entitled "A Wasteland Of One's Own"......
And with her megabucks, she doesn't have to grovel for $$$ anymore --
she's made it already off of suckers like you.....
> The gay reference was obviously some lame attempt at humor that
> was about as
> original as a potato chip.
Au contraire, dear -- no "attempt at humor", lame or otherwise, at all.
And I "should" know......
What _is_ lame is you barrelling into a NG without having _ever_ lurked
in said NG. You might try hanging out here for a month or three before
posting.>>
I felt no need to lurk and play games when all I wanted was a question
answered. I am not a troll, just a person seeking information. I didn't
appreciate the rude responses as I did not come in with that tone at all.
MJ
Cyn
mjsc...@aol.com (MJScott2) wrote:
*snip*
>
>I felt no need to lurk and play games when all I wanted was a
question
>answered.
Are you prepared to pay us for this service in the future? After
all, we live to answer your questions, but a little compensation
to be at your beck and call, service with a smile and all that,
might make a big difference.
> I am not a troll, just a person seeking information. I didn't
>appreciate the rude responses as I did not come in with that
>tone at all.
If you *had* in fact, lurked, you would've expected it. We're
jerks. Or so I've heard.
Cyn
Neutrodyne
>From: mrpotter gregory...@webtv.net
>Date: 2/14/00 11:11 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <1c31fd54...@usw-ex0106-048.remarq.com>
>
>Neutrodyne wrote:
>
>This is usually a dangerous move, especially in here. However you have
>come across well, though a little reading might help you in future
>interactions. Welcome to our "Anti Dr-Laura HellHole"!
>
>
>Greg replies: This one might provide us with a bit of fun, Neut......I
>guess she signed up for your unescorted tour?
>
>Best
>Greg (likes his meat charred on the outside and bloody rare on the
>inside....)
Didn't take much follow up from this poster to get the gas valves open & the
ignitors sparking, did it...
Neutrodyne
snoopy's_genitalia
> Look, this isn't a street. It's a ng where people cyber-know one another,
> cyber-meet new people, and cyber-interact in certain ways. You dropped in
> and people reacted the way they always do, which is not necessarily the way
> you would expect if you met them in real life. You got some funny answers
> (we like funny here) and you reacted to them a little huffily (we snip huffy
> in the bud). If you lurked at all you would see that everyone gets
> snotty/funny/rude answers now and then and it's no big deal.
>
> Instead of a street, think of this place as a party where everyone else has
> been here a while and you're just showing up. Nobody's trying to keep you
> out, but everyone here is already in on the joke and you're not. It's a lot
> of fun, though, so stay with it. Tip: irony, satire, sarcasm, are all big,
> as are though-provoking, consistent, and heartfelt.
MJ Scott explained
> Very well stated and if I were of the ilk to get this kind of joke, I would
> stay, so thanks for the nod. But I don't have the stomach for this kind of
> thing.
In that case, please have a most pleasant afternoon. Toodle-doo!
___ ____ _ _ ____ ____ __ __ ___ ___ __ __ _ _
/ __)( ___)( \( )(_ _)(_ _) /__\ ( ) / __) / __)( )( )( \/ )
( (_-. )__) | \\ | _)(_ )( /(__)\ )(__ \__ \ ( (_-. )(__)( \ /
\___/(____)(_)\_)(____) (__)(__)(__)(____)(___/ \___/(______) (__)
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom
of sXXXch, or the right of the people peaceably to
XXXemble, and to peXXXion the government for a redress
of grievances." --Marc Rotenberg
Victoria
>
>Geez...who said anything about "beck and call"? I stopped in to ask one small,
>benign question and I was polite about it. Is this the way you would you would
>speak to someone who stopped you on the street to ask directions?
>
>MJ Scott
>
>
AND TEN PEOPLE ANSWERED YOU BUT YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE ANSWERS. PLEASE SHUT UP
SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP...AS SPOKEN BY DEAR JACK IN THE WORST
FILM 0F HIS CAREER.
geez
Victoria
-snip-
>I have no agenda as to how I feel about Dr. Laura on this without further
>information. I am disappointed that my question was not taken seriously. I
>guess I incorrectly assumed that a NG for said entertainer (Dr. Laura) would be
>knowledgable on the subject of her.
>
>MJ Scott
>
There is no way to answer this question seriously. The woman to whom you refer
is a hypocrite who will do what she has to do in order to self-promote. IF that
includes going on the Oprah Winfrey Show, so be it. I do recall that at one
time she, the dokta, canceled a proposed television show because Howard Stern
was on the same network...which is CBS. This woman Laura S. is a very sick
woman who uses her time well to suit whatever the agenda du jour is. I am sorry
you didn't like the answers you got, but that is typical on Usenet. Someone
asks a question, doesn't like the answers and accuses the people who took time
to answer of being non-serious or disappointing. Oh well. Sorry, but this woman
is sick, hateful, angry and demented. That's basically why nobody takes her
seriously.
victoria
Victoria
>
>Very well stated and if I were of the ilk to get this kind of joke, I would
>stay, so thanks for the nod. But I don't have the stomach for this kind of
>thing.
>
>MJ Scott
Oh eff you, you pompous ass.
Victoria
>Thank you, Mitch, for this very cogent reply. I was hoping if I waited long
>enough I would get one!
>
>MJScott
Hey brainiac, next time you have an enlightened question, just go search on Deja
News. You are not original, and your query about Dokta and Oprah is not a new
one. Yawn
Cyn
mjsc...@aol.com (MJScott2) wrote:
*snip*
>
>Geez...who said anything about "beck and call"? I stopped in
to ask one small,
>benign question and I was polite about it. Is this the way you
would you would
>speak to someone who stopped you on the street to ask
directions?
>
>MJ Scott
>
>
Fred Rosenblatt
ani...@austin.rr.com0 wrote:
Hey newbie! There's a flame for you whether you deserve it or not. Make
sure you never deserve it!
Oy.
Leah Tilden
half shell with a dash of tabasco....followed by a slug of beer.
Nevermind....I must be getting hungry....
LT
TheWizardOf
Yes, Greggy "should" know about his fruitiness, and that's a fact.
Greggy is the faggiest, biggest, queerest homo in Chicago. His pink
skin-tight pants are the first tell-tale sign, followed by Greggy's
proud ass swishing and then his bold lipstick. He's the pride of
Chicago (or is that bride)?
Oz, whose mini -Dachsie would not let him blame her for the previous
premature post.
TheWizardOf
homosexuality: "Au contraire, dear--no "attemt at humor", lame or
otherwise, at all. And I 'should' know..."
TheWizardOf
raking in the bucks...any kind of association with LS at this stage
would be a negative."
Now what the heck do you know of "negative" associations. The freakiest
queers at the gay bars avoid you at all costs and this goes by you
unnoticed. And it just ain't your rhino breath, either. And speaking
of "bucks"...when are you going to try to do something worthwhile with
your pathetic existence?
Oz
mrpotter
That's because you and your mini-wiener dog were doing each other's
nails, OOz....
Best
Greg
mrpotter
tinas...@aol.com (Tinas49ers) wrote:
> MJ Scott wrote:
> >The gay reference was obviously some lame attempt at humor that
> was about as
> >original as a potato chip.
> Tina
Nope, luv, just send me some of them Cape Cod potater chips -- yumm!!
Best
Greg
> You know failure isn't failure if a lesson from it's learned
> I guess love would not be love, without the risk of being burned.
> --Garth Brooks
mrpotter
> Are you prepared to pay us for this service in the future? After
> all, we live to answer your questions, but a little compensation
> to be at your beck and call, service with a smile and all that,
> might make a big difference.>>
> ask one small,
> benign question and I was polite about it. Is this the way you
> would you would
> speak to someone who stopped you on the street to ask directions?
> MJ Scott
Cyn is just a Cardinal; Pope St. Dr. Charlie would strip you of all
worldly goods and then sacrifice you to His G-d in a bloody flue of a
volcano...
Best
Greg
mrpotter
tinas...@aol.com (Tinas49ers) wrote:
> Oz wrote:
> >es, Greggy "should" know about his fruitiness, and that's a fact.
> >Greggy is the faggiest, biggest, queerest homo in Chicago. His
> pink
> >skin-tight pants are the first tell-tale sign, followed by
> Greggy's
> >proud ass swishing and then his bold lipstick. He's the pride of
> >Chicago (or is that bride)?
All those pix of me you see in the ENQUIRER are fakes! Jak will tell
you that!
Best
Greg
> Tina
> You know failure isn't failure if a lesson from it's learned
> I guess love would not be love, without the risk of being burned.
> --Garth Brooks
mrpotter
mjsc...@aol.com (MJScott2) wrote:
> << From: "Charles Basner" cha...@tipsinc.com
> Look, this isn't a street. It's a ng
[snip charles' cogent rationalisation for the existence of this froup]
> Very well stated and if I were of the ilk
You mis-spelled "elk".......
Best
Greg
August XXi
><< From: al...@aol.com (Mitch)
>No, she hasn't, at least not to the best of my knowledge (and if she had, I'm
>reasonably certain that someone in this NG would have caught it.) In fact,
>this very bit of hypocritical behavior was the subject of considerable
>discussion a while back, in that DL had appeared on Oprah's show without
>denouncing Oprah's living arrangements. Since being on Oprah's show was
>furthering DL's career, DL seemed quite content to let this matter pass
>without
>editorial comment. You may want to do a Deja News search of artd-l for the
>words Oprah and Steadman during '99 to find the threads that discussed this.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Mitch>>
>
>
>Thank you, Mitch, for this very cogent reply. I was hoping if I waited long
>enough I would get one!
>
>MJScott
I also oft have to wait for cogency around here.
(Does anybody else think this guy talks like Wimpy in a Popeye cartoon?)
August
DC
>Date: 2/14/00 6:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
Just curious. But have you noticed that Dr L's defenders use intimidation,
vulgarity, personal slurs; everything but actually discussing issues. Could Ox
and Jak be in Herr Doktor's boot camp and on her payroll.
Dinky Cat
People who hate cats were rats in a former life and probably still are rats
Dr. Charlie
>In article <20000214154551...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
>mjsc...@aol.com (MJScott2) wrote:
>> Is this the way you would you would
>>speak to someone who stopped you on the street to ask
>>directions?
>No, I usually just mace people who do that.
And don't you dare come up to Cyn on the street and ask her what time it is!
Oh god help you if you make that mistake!
Pope St. Dr. Charlie
KING of the Jerks
>Cyn
DC
>Date: 2/14/00 8:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>MJ Scott wrote:
>>Geez...who said anything about "beck and call"? I stopped in to ask one
>>small,
>>benign question and I was polite about it. Is this the way you would you
>>would
>>speak to someone who stopped you on the street to ask directions?
>Tina wrote<
>Ok, who thinks he's gonna leave and who thinks he's gonna stay?
>I think he's gonna feel the love we have here and stay.
>
Hey, Tina, are ya gonna burn him, are ya? huh, are ya? Or maybe Garth will do
it.
Tinas49ers
>Chas wrote:
>> >
>> >Please accept my apologies on behalf of this entire group.
>
>Tina replied:
>> Man, if I could just be as gracious as you.
>
>Well then perhaps we could consider you a Christian.
>
Your opinion matters to me about as much as my opinion matters to you.
Dr. Charlie
mrpotter <gregory...@webtv.net> writes:
>In article <20000214154551...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
>mjsc...@aol.com (MJScott2) wrote:
>> Are you prepared to pay us for this service in the future? After
>> all, we live to answer your questions, but a little compensation
>> to be at your beck and call, service with a smile and all that,
>> might make a big difference.>>
>> Geez...who said anything about "beck and call"? I stopped in to
>> ask one small,
>> benign question and I was polite about it. Is this the way you
>> would you would
>> speak to someone who stopped you on the street to ask directions?
>> MJ Scott
>Cyn is just a Cardinal; Pope St. Dr. Charlie would strip you of all
>worldly goods and then sacrifice you to His G-d in a bloody flue of a
>volcano...
I'd make him dance and sing hymns in praise of Texcatlipoca first before I
sacrifice him.
Pope St. Dr. Charlie
What can I tell you? The research guys tell me that my target audience likes
musicals
Mitch
>ani...@austin.rr.com0
>Date: 2/14/00 5:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <i70hasc23vmtia28e...@4ax.com>
>Hey brainiac, next time you have an enlightened question, just go search on
>Deja
>News. You are not original, and your query about Dokta and Oprah is not a
>new
>one. Yawn
>
'scuse me, Victoria, but exactly what the hell did this guy do to deserve
getting flamed? The Oprah stuff hasn't been discussed for quite a while, so
even if he had been lurking for a few weeks or even months, it's unlikely he
would have seen anything about it. Yeah, he could have done a Deja, but it
wasn't out of line to ask us. This is an NG about DL, and lots of us say we
want to provide an alternative to the venom she spews, and this guy asks a
legit question and gets slapped down for no apparent reason. If he'd have
asked about the nekkid pics, I would have probably joined in the sarcasmfest
myself, but he didn't.
FWIW, I'm not terribly proud of the way the NG dealt with this guy.
Mitch
Charles Basner
"Mitch" <al...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000215101039...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
To recap:
MJ wrote a very nice opening note with a question about Oprah.
Tina replied "welcome" and asked a reasonable and polite question, but
provided no new info on Oprah.
MJ replied kindly, answered her question and repeated his.
Martha made fun of DL (without answering the question).
MrPotter made fun of DL and Oprah (without answering the question).
[Here is where the thread starts to go bad. Up to this point it was a
normal exchange for this ng, and nobody's feelings should have been hurt.]
MJ takes offense (on Oprah's behalf) at MrPotter's post and starts the ill
will.
MrPotter takes a shot back and indicates (correctly, IMO) that MJ would not
be taking offense at normal ng conversation if he had acclimated himself to
this ng first.
MJ replies that he doesn't need to know anything about this ng since he was
just coming here to get a question answered.
That is the genesis of the problem, and MJ's attitude of "I have the right
to pop in, ignore what's going on, and get a polite answer to my question"
was the catalyst for all the sarcasm directed at him from then on. This ng
is not (at least, I don't think it is) a designated FAQ repository for
questions about DL. When MJ implied that it was, people got a little
snitty.
There is nothing to be ashamed of in the way MJ was treated. When I finally
explained to him what was going on he replied that this was not the place
for him and he left. If he had lurked (as most Usenet people do before
posting in a new ng) he would have known this ng was too hot for him and,
while he might still have asked his question, he would at least have been
forewarned about the humor and insults (though none were initially directed
at him) that fly through here regularly.
chas
Mitch
>"Charles Basner" cha...@tipsinc.com
>Date: 2/15/00 11:40 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <vkfq4.3057$h77.1...@typhoon1.gnilink.net>
>
>
Usenet is a free-for-all, to be sure, Charles, but, when it's all said and
done, there's still the little matter of the topic, which is DL. The guy asked
a straightforward, on-topic, easy to respond to with a yes or no, non-troll
like question in a polite way. To a very large extent, I think this group IS
the repository of information about DL. Between the discussions, the FAQ, the
CAL, Otis's recaps, Deep Neptune's links page and the number of people with
pretty good institutional memory about DL and this NG's history, we are
probably the best source of information to counter DL's disinformation. All
the other stuff is fun, but I'd like to think that remains our central purpose.
If this guy had come in here and said something like "What's the matter,
you're all a bunch of immoral jerks, the truth hurts, don't it?" he'd have come
out of here looking like downtown Grozny. But that's not how he came in here.
His basic request was for info--not to hang out, not to be a part of the group
dynamic, but for info, and his thinking he could ask for that without having to
partake in all the NG culture wasn't outlandish.
Mitch
Charles Basner
I agree it wasn't outlandish. My point is that he's the one who actually
started the ill will flowing. I believe if he had just bided his time,
eventually he would have gotten the answer he wanted from someone who knew
it. He could also have asked that someone email the info to him, in which
case he would never have had to see the publically posted responses (I don't
think anyone would have emailed any funny stuff to him - we're all
egotists).
chas
Hayley
> and his thinking he could ask for that without having to
> partake in all the NG culture wasn't outlandish.
>
>
I agree with that. There are far too many off topic threads in here.
And of such a length that it is hard to find on topic content at times.
If it wasn't for my filter, I wouldn't be able to tolerate it.
Georgann needs to start her own Usenet newsgroup to argue her
religious views in. What a time-waster that is to attempt to wade through.
BTW: Don't bother, Georgann- you are filtered.
DC
>Date: 2/15/00 9:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
>I agree with that. There are far too many off topic threads in here.
>And of such a length that it is hard to find on topic content at times.
>If it wasn't for my filter, I wouldn't be able to tolerate it.
>Georgann needs to start her own Usenet newsgroup to argue her
>religious views in. What a time-waster that is to attempt to wade through.
>
>BTW: Don't bother, Georgann- you are filtered.
>Far be it from me to tell a member of any ng to go post elsewhere, but Miss
Georgeann, if you want to post your religious questions/statements where they
will be appreciated, I suggest DR. Laura Website. She has a Religion Topic
that gets down. In your best interests, DC
Neutrodyne
>Message-id: <88c2ig$31t2$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>
>
>
>> and his thinking he could ask for that without having to
>> partake in all the NG culture wasn't outlandish.
>>
>> Mitch
>>
>
>And of such a length that it is hard to find on topic content at times.
>If it wasn't for my filter, I wouldn't be able to tolerate it.
>
>Georgann needs to start her own Usenet newsgroup to argue her
>religious views in. What a time-waster that is to attempt to wade through.
>
>BTW: Don't bother, Georgann- you are filtered.
Off topic threads? Like the one where everybody discusses the way some
newbie got treated when he came here?
This person didn't get a flatly straight answer from me, but he did get a
welcome, a gentle suggestion that some lurking or research might be helpful and
about as much of an answer to his question as is possible to get without Laura
herself making it clearer: She tolerates imorality in people directly in
proportion to their ability to advance her career, is what I said.
When you show up in a newsgroup and post blindly, I'd say getting a couple
of friendly responses (mine and Tina's at least) and discovering there are
"inside jokes" you don't get, and a few flames from a few posters is really
about par for the course. Go into a group on old/rare/collectable items and
advertize an item for sale or ask a silly question - in some groups you'll get
a shrug and a couple of nibbles. In others you might start a 300 post flame war
and get some threats in e-mail.
I've been threatened will the loss of my ISP for posting views against one
group's founder, let alone off topic!
Neutrodyne
DC
>Date: 2/15/00 12:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Off topic threads? Like the one where everybody discusses the way some
>newbie got treated when he came here?
> This person didn't get a flatly straight answer from me, but he did get
>a
>welcome, a gentle suggestion that some lurking or research might be helpful
>and
>about as much of an answer to his question as is possible to get without
>Laura
>herself making it clearer: She
>tolerates imorality in people directly in
>proportion to their ability to advance her career, is what I said.
> When you show up in a newsgroup and post blindly, I'd say getting a
>couple
>of friendly responses (mine and Tina's at least) and discovering there are
>"inside jokes" you don't get, and a few flames from a few posters is really
>about par for the course. Go into a group on old/rare/collectable items and
>advertize an item for sale or ask a silly question - in some groups you'll
>get
>a shrug and a couple of nibbles. In others you might start a 300 post flame
>war
>and get some threats in e-mail.
> I've been threatened will the loss of my ISP for posting views against
>one
>group's founder, let alone off topic!
>
Are you kicked out of Dr. Laura's Forum, too?
s
Tinas49ers
>Georgann needs to start her own Usenet newsgroup to argue her
>religious views in. What a time-waster that is to attempt to wade through.
Amen!! This NG would be half the posts if Georgann wasnt here and maybe I would
have more than 100 threads a day I cant get through.
Victoria
(...)
>There is nothing to be ashamed of in the way MJ was treated. When I finally
>explained to him what was going on he replied that this was not the place
>for him and he left. If he had lurked (as most Usenet people do before
>posting in a new ng) he would have known this ng was too hot for him and,
>while he might still have asked his question, he would at least have been
>forewarned about the humor and insults (though none were initially directed
>at him) that fly through here regularly.
>
>chas
>
Chas, I am not ashamed at anything, either. The guy asked a question, then he
did not like the answers he got to the question. If you ask me, the question
was answered any number of times by all who responded "Dokta Laura is a
hypocrite." That statement is adequate to answer his "question." It was HE who
then became insulting and snitty. So, eff him and the horse he rode in on. I,
for one, don't need anyone to apologized for anything I said to anyone. I am
fully an adult and in control of all my faculties. I'm not getting on you Chas,
you basically mirror what I am saying, but the holier than thou who must scold
the entire newsgroup for how they handled someone? What's that about? What is
this, kindergarten?
Victoria
Victoria
>Victoria wrote:
>
>>ani...@austin.rr.com0
>>Date: 2/14/00 5:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <i70hasc23vmtia28e...@4ax.com>
>
>>Hey brainiac, next time you have an enlightened question, just go search on
>>Deja
>>News. You are not original, and your query about Dokta and Oprah is not a
>>new
>>one. Yawn
>>
>
>'scuse me, Victoria, but exactly what the hell did this guy do to deserve
>getting flamed? The Oprah stuff hasn't been discussed for quite a while, so
>even if he had been lurking for a few weeks or even months, it's unlikely he
>would have seen anything about it. Yeah, he could have done a Deja, but it
>wasn't out of line to ask us. This is an NG about DL, and lots of us say we
>want to provide an alternative to the venom she spews, and this guy asks a
>legit question and gets slapped down for no apparent reason. If he'd have
>asked about the nekkid pics, I would have probably joined in the sarcasmfest
>myself, but he didn't.
>
>FWIW, I'm not terribly proud of the way the NG dealt with this guy.
>
>Mitch
If you followed the whole thread, you'd know. I don't feel the need or desire
to explain it. The guy was a very arrogant ass, IMO.
Charles Basner
"Victoria" <ani...@austin.rr.com0> wrote in message
news:63jlasspnbdkrnnn4...@4ax.com...
The only thing I apologize for is that my completely sarcastic post (which
contained an "apology") seemed to have been accepted by him as completely
real. I went back and reread it a few times to make sure it was obviously
sarcasm, and it was, but clearly I'm going to have to do a better job in the
future if I want to offend the denser folk among us.
chas
TJ
Charles Basner wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> The only thing I apologize for is that my completely sarcastic post (which
> contained an "apology") seemed to have been accepted by him as completely
> real. I went back and reread it a few times to make sure it was obviously
> sarcasm, and it was, but clearly I'm going to have to do a better job in the
> future if I want to offend the denser folk among us.
I lack your gift for clairvoyance, but I wouldn't assume that MJ failed
to grasp the sarcasm of your post. I thought MJ's a rather deft
response, assuming that's how it was intended. Anyway, that's the way
it worked.
--
TJ
TJ
Victoria wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:40:59 GMT, "Charles Basner" <cha...@tipsinc.com> wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> >There is nothing to be ashamed of in the way MJ was treated. When I finally
> >explained to him what was going on he replied that this was not the place
> >for him and he left. If he had lurked (as most Usenet people do before
> >posting in a new ng) he would have known this ng was too hot for him and,
> >while he might still have asked his question, he would at least have been
> >forewarned about the humor and insults (though none were initially directed
> >at him) that fly through here regularly.
> >
> >chas
> >
>
> Chas, I am not ashamed at anything, either. The guy asked a question, then he
> did not like the answers he got to the question. If you ask me, the question
> was answered any number of times by all who responded "Dokta Laura is a
> hypocrite." That statement is adequate to answer his "question." It was HE who
> then became insulting and snitty. So, eff him and the horse he rode in on. I,
> for one, don't need anyone to apologized for anything I said to anyone. I am
> fully an adult and in control of all my faculties.
Then you might want to check out your caps key; it seems to stick
sometimes.
> I'm not getting on you Chas,
> you basically mirror what I am saying, but the holier than thou who must scold
> the entire newsgroup for how they handled someone? What's that about? What is
> this, kindergarten?
Perhaps its just someone who's been a regular here for a couple of years
being a bit dismayed that the blunt instruments got hauled out on so
little provocation.
--
TJ
Charles Basner
"TJ" <tmat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:38AB0644...@ix.netcom.com...
>
[snip]
> > I'm not getting on you Chas,
> > you basically mirror what I am saying, but the holier than thou who must
scold
> > the entire newsgroup for how they handled someone? What's that about?
What is
> > this, kindergarten?
>
> Perhaps its just someone who's been a regular here for a couple of years
> being a bit dismayed that the blunt instruments got hauled out on so
> little provocation.
That's rich coming from you. I was here 9 days and 30 posts before you
jumped on my ass for a harmless post in an inoffensive thread that you
weren't even involved in.
chas
Charles Basner
Here we go again. I said "seemed to have been accepted" to indicate that I
wasn't clairvoyant and he might have gotten the joke. You have a gift for
not reading all the words in a sentence.
If his response to my sarcastic post was indeed deft sarcasm, it is so
subtle as to be indistinguishable from sincerity. Please point out in the
text below exactly what makes you suspect his reply may have been sarcastic
in nature:
--------
Accepted.
Like I said, I like Dr. Laura....she has good things to say, but I oft
disagree with her. The "Oprah" question was something some friends and I
had
mused about and when I stumbled on this NG, I thought I would give it a
whirl.
Thanks again,
MJ Scott
---------
chas
Victoria
>Then you might want to check out your caps key; it seems to stick
>sometimes.
>
Uh, one word here and there in caps is like writing something in italics. In
case you didn't notice, there is no other way to show inflection or expression
in text other than to use what we have.
>> I'm not getting on you Chas,
>> you basically mirror what I am saying, but the holier than thou who must scold
>> the entire newsgroup for how they handled someone? What's that about? What is
>> this, kindergarten?
>
>Perhaps its just someone who's been a regular here for a couple of years
>being a bit dismayed that the blunt instruments got hauled out on so
>little provocation.
Please. Spare me. I've been lurking around here for a very long time. I chime
in now and then when I hate what is being said to the point I must say
something. I come and I go. I'm not new to this newsgroup by a longshot.
August XXi
>Victoria wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:19:16 -0800, TJ <tmat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Then you might want to check out your caps key; it seems to stick
>> >sometimes.
>> >
>>
>> Uh, one word here and there in caps is like writing something in italics.
>
>Your entire reply to MJ was in all caps--except for the "geez" at the
>end.
>
>> In case you didn't notice, there is no other way to show inflection or
>expression
>> in text other than to use what we have.
>
>In other words, it one has neither logic nor wit, one shouts.
>
>> >> I'm not getting on you Chas,
>> >> you basically mirror what I am saying, but the holier than thou who must
>scold
>> >> the entire newsgroup for how they handled someone? What's that about?
>What is
>> >> this, kindergarten?
>> >
>> >Perhaps its just someone who's been a regular here for a couple of years
>> >being a bit dismayed that the blunt instruments got hauled out on so
>> >little provocation.
>>
>> Please. Spare me. I've been lurking around here for a very long time. I
>chime
>> in now and then when I hate what is being said to the point I must say
>> something.
><snip>
>
>You "hated" what MJ said? Wow!
>
>--
>TJ
A high colonic can be fun, and you feel so relaxed after it's all over.
August
tom_and_jerry_genitals
___ ____ _ _ ____ ____ __ __ ___ ___ __ __ _ _
/ __)( ___)( \( )(_ _)(_ _) /__\ ( ) / __) / __)( )( )( \/ )
( (_-. )__) | \\ | _)(_ )( /(__)\ )(__ \__ \ ( (_-. )(__)( \ /
\___/(____)(_)\_)(____) (__)(__)(__)(____)(___/ \___/(______) (__)
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom
of sXXXch, or the right of the people peaceably to
XXXemble, and to peXXXion the government for a redress
of grievances." --Marc Rotenberg
chasbas
> > >
> > [snip]
> > > > I'm not getting on you Chas,
> > > > you basically mirror what I am saying, but the holier than thou who
must
> > scold
> > > > the entire newsgroup for how they handled someone? What's that
about?
> > What is
> > > > this, kindergarten?
> > >
> > > Perhaps its just someone who's been a regular here for a couple of
years
> > > being a bit dismayed that the blunt instruments got hauled out on so
> > > little provocation.
> >
> > jumped on my ass for a harmless post in an inoffensive thread that you
> > weren't even involved in.
>
> wrong. The thread was called "Not Voting is Voting" and I had been
> posted in it before you turned up there, iirc. Our first exchange
> followed a post in which I had mentioned that one way of evaluating
> something at an abstract level is to universalize it, to which you
> responded that method was "ridiculous." To which I replied, "Gee, I'm
> sure glad Immanuel Kant isn't around today to read your devastating
> dissection of his ethical views."
You're right - I was wrong. I completely forgot that I was responding to
your post when I said "Ridiculous...".
ch
TJ
Victoria wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:37:39 -0800, TJ <tmat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Your entire reply to MJ was in all caps--except for the "geez" at the
> >end.
>
> Uh, yeah. I was raising my voice. Duh. Oh, do I have your permission, sir?
Shout all you want. I said nothing about it until you claimed, falsely
in your last post, that it was a just matter of accent on "one word here
and there."
> >In other words, it one has neither logic nor wit, one shouts.
>
> In other words, I'd read what I wrote before writing about someone else's logic
> or wit. I don't have to prove my intelligence level to you dear.
At least you are consistent--not that that's saying much, since a
cockroach is consistent--but you have done nothing in you comings and
goings here to lead anyone to expect intelligence, and I take your words
as an intent to stay the course--the path of least resistance, perhaps.
I don't recall much of your previous efforts, but I take it your "SHUT
UP", repeated as it was five more times, is your high-water mark in the
group.
> I'm not the
> one who is judgmental in this, it is you who is the grand master correction
> tape.
You say that as if it were a Bad Thing.
> >You "hated" what MJ said? Wow!
>
> Why don't you filter me out of your life. Give me the break. I beg.
There is very little with which I would more more willingly part, as
W.S. once wrote.
--
TJ
DaRebel02
>original as a potato chip.
>
>MJ Scott
Actually, it is quite well known in Chicago and Atlanta circles that Stedman is
gay or at least bi-sexual. There was a very well known incident that happened
a couple of years ago between Stedman and one of his friends at a hair salon.
In addition, it is pretty well suspected that Oprah herself is gay. While
there is not near the amount of first hand evidence that occurs with Stedman,
the information that has resulted, if you chose to pay attention to it, does
give a person reason to question Ms. Winfrey's sexual orientation.
That notwithstanding, if Dr. Laura does have a "friendship" with Oprah, it
would be truly hyopcritical of her to continue that friendship, given Oprah's
living arrangements, regardless of whether or not she or Stedman (or both) are
gay.
Both Dr. Laura and Oprah could use a healthy dose of reality when it comes to
the image that they portray in public. Dr. Laura with her less than stellar
past (which she derides in others, but justifies her own less than moral path)
and Oprah with her so-called drug use (which she lied about) and lack of
honesty when it comes to how she got to where she is.
They are cut from the same mold, and if they are indeed friends, they probably
deserve each other.
Life is like an ice cream cone --
Better lick it before it all melts away
palme...@my-deja.com
dare...@aol.comsucka (DaRebel02) wrote:
> >The gay reference was obviously some lame attempt at humor that was
about as
> >original as a potato chip.
> >
> >MJ Scott
>
> Actually, it is quite well known in Chicago and Atlanta circles that
Stedman is
> gay or at least bi-sexual. There was a very well known incident that
happened
> a couple of years ago between Stedman and one of his friends at a hair
salon.
>
> In addition, it is pretty well suspected that Oprah herself is gay.
While
> there is not near the amount of first hand evidence that occurs with
Stedman,
> the information that has resulted, if you chose to pay attention to
it, does
> give a person reason to question Ms. Winfrey's sexual orientation.
>
I'm sorry but I think it's absurd to believe Oprah is gay. What
evidence is there? The only evidence I can think of is that gays on
average have higher IQ's and that Oprah is extremely smart, but other
than that, I can't see any evidence
There is tons of evidence that Oprah is heterosexual though. At age 14
she rans the streets having promiscuous sex with many young men/boys.
In high school she had a long-term romance with Anthony Otti.
In college she had a relationship with a guy named Bubba.
In Baltimore she was so obsessed with a guy that she got down on her
hands and knees and pleaded with him not to leave her and even flushed
his car keys down the toilet and was ready to kill herself when he
dumped her. That doesn't sound like a gay woman to me.
In addition, one reason why Oprah has dominated daytime talk-shows for
14 years is her incredible connection with American woman. If Oprah were
gay, it would be less likely that most woman would relate so easily to
her.
So where is the evidence that Oprah is gay? Just because she and her
best friend Gayle are really close is no reason to conclude they are
gay. A lot (most?) heterosexual women have very close intimate
friendships with other women.
My intuition is pretty good and Oprah just deosn't register on my
gaydar. I can believe the rumours that Rosie O'Donnel is gay, but with
Oprah it just doesn't seem believable.
And why do you think Oprah lied about taking drugs? Usually people lie
and say they didn't do drugs when they did, not the other way around. A
publicity stunt? Doubtful since it threatens her wholsome image. If it
was a lie, then why did her former boyfriend threaten to write a tell
all book describing Oprah's drug taking days.
And what lack of honesty did Oprah display concerning how she got where
she is? Your comments are very wierd.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote
:> ... false praise like ... "gays are wealthier" (PROVEN untrue) ...
: OK, I'll bite: Cite please.
An upscale gay magazine once surveyed its readers to create a profile to
attract more advertisers. The magazine then advertised that its readers
are wealthier and have more disposable income than average.
Because of that statistic, there is now a public perception that gays in
general are wealthier than average. This has been used to prevent
anti-discrminiation legislation, health benefits and other measures.
If gays are richer, then they clearly don't need such protection.
The truth is that job discrimination and the lack of shared benefits or
tax breaks mean that most gays generally poorer -- especially lesbians,
who are hit double by the lower wages paid to women.
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Neutrodyne
>Date: 2/27/00 3:15 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <89c468$bfm$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>
I'd say many stereotypes about gays resulted from the characteristics of
those gays who were able to come out earlier. Naturally, gays with money, power
and whose lives were lived among liberal (the classic definition) intellectual
people were the ones with less to lose in coming out than the middle class or
poor, whose work and social contacts may have been less tolerant (and may still
be that way, to some extent). The gays well known in earlier decades WERE above
average intelligence, income and education because all the average gays were
still in the closet, hiding from a hostile society. Sad but true. I hope we can
get past all that sometime soon.
Neutrodyne
geriatric_genitals
> > > ... false praise like ... "gays are wealthier" (PROVEN untrue) ...
genitalia typed
> > OK, I'll bite: Cite please.
Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote
> An upscale gay magazine once surveyed its readers to create a profile to
> attract more advertisers. The magazine then advertised that its readers
> are wealthier and have more disposable income than average.
>
> Because of that statistic, there is now a public perception that gays in
> general are wealthier than average. This has been used to prevent
> anti-discrminiation legislation, health benefits and other measures.
> If gays are richer, then they clearly don't need such protection.
>
> The truth is that job discrimination and the lack of shared benefits or
> tax breaks mean that most gays generally poorer -- especially lesbians,
> who are hit double by the lower wages paid to women.
What you've offered isn't a cite, just a second level assertion. I'm
sincerely curious, Lis. I have my suspicions about whether out-of-the-closet
gays are wealthier, on average, than straights of similar age and race, but
you said it's been proven untrue. What's the proof?
___ ____ _ _ ____ ____ __ __ ___ ___ __ __ _ _
/ __)( ___)( \( )(_ _)(_ _) /__\ ( ) / __) / __)( )( )( \/ )
( (_-. )__) | \\ | _)(_ )( /(__)\ )(__ \__ \ ( (_-. )(__)( \ /
\___/(____)(_)\_)(____) (__)(__)(__)(____)(___/ \___/(______) (__)
"I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf."
-- Robert Bloch
DC
>I also find this stereotype ("gays are smarter") very interesting,
>because I've noticed that many of the common stereotypes of gays are very
>close to the old stereotypes of Jews.
>
>After all, Jews were supposed to be smarter, clannish, wealthy, secretly
>controlling the media, and predatory towards Christian kids.
>Now those same descriptions are applied to gays, as Jews have
>become more
>mainstream. I find it fascinating.
Well, lis, recycling is the name of the game these days. Also there's the old
adage "Waste not Want not". Good points.
Cleo
>: I'm sorry but I think it's absurd to believe Oprah is gay. What
>: evidence is there? The only evidence I can think of is that gays on
>: average have higher IQ's and that Oprah is extremely smart, but other
>: than that, I can't see any evidence
Elisabeth wrote:
>While you may intend to be complimentary with this remark, I don't
>believe there's any evidence that gays are smarter than the average.
In my experience, the correlation may appear to exist, but the implied
causality does not. (Apply Personal Experience Disclaimer here.) I
would change this statement a little: It seems to me that a)
"smarter", "better educated", and "wealthier" tend to go together, and
b) "better educated" generally goes along with "more willing to come
out." I don't think that the incidence of homosexuality is different
in poorer, lower socio-economic, less educated populations; instead
they have more to lose by being public about it. For that reason, it
*looks like* gays are smarter, more educated, and wealthier than
average.
As I've said before, though, "people I choose to be around" is by no
means a statistically valid random sample.
Cleo
Bushman
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:89bcm1$u0i$6...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> palme...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> : I'm sorry but I think it's absurd to believe Oprah is gay. What
> : evidence is there? The only evidence I can think of is that gays on
> : average have higher IQ's and that Oprah is extremely smart, but other
> : than that, I can't see any evidence
>
> While you may intend to be complimentary with this remark, I don't
> believe there's any evidence that gays are smarter than the average.
> I haven't heard this statement before. Do you have any proof for this?
>
> While this may seem harmless, false praise like "gays are smarter" or
> "gays are wealthier" (PROVEN untrue) actually serve to hurt gays in the
> long run. After all, soem will reason, if gays are so much smarter and
> wealthier, then they don't actually need protection against
discrimination,
> because they're not hurting.
>
> I also find this stereotype ("gays are smarter") very interesting,
> because I've noticed that many of the common stereotypes of gays are very
> close to the old stereotypes of Jews.
>
> After all, Jews were supposed to be smarter, clannish, wealthy, secretly
> controlling the media, and predatory towards Christian kids.
> Now those same descriptions are applied to gays, as Jews have become more
> mainstream. I find it fascinating.
>
> --
> ---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com
<---------------
It *is* fascinating - I think what we are seeing is a process where gays are
becoming accepted, and part of the process involves parts of the culture
going overboard to counter the anti-gay crowd. The pendulum swings. Notice
how many women win elections now because they are perceived as being more
honest than their male opponents.
Bushman
Elisabeth Anne Riba
_________________________
February 1-15 Al Kielwasser
D O L L A R S A N D ( N O N ) S E N S E
The cant of a "wealthy gay elite " has become one of the more popular and
persistent themes in the rhetoric of homophobia. More often than not, in
perpetuating this lie, homophobes have been assisted by the efforts of
self-interested marketers and lazy journalists.
Most recently, Simmons Market Research Bureau announced the results of it's
"first-ever gay and lesbian market study -- conducted at the behest of
Mulryan/Nash, "a New York-based advertising agency that specializes in
reaching gay consumers." Reported with less care than hype, the study's
exuberant claims about homosexual wealth are not likely to break any new
ground -- but only reinforce the foundations of homophobic myth.
In a press release headlined "Affluence of Gay Market Confirmed" (Feb. 3,
1997), Simmons touts the survey's results. While the study claimed two major
findings -- that homosexual consumers have lots of money, and tend to spend
it on queer-positive advertising -- an exaggerated claim of affluence
dominated the spin.
According to Simmons, "28% of the nearly 4,000 respondents reported personal
income that exceeds $50,000" and "household income exceeds $100,000 for over
one-fifth." On the basis of such figures, Rebecca McPheters, president and
CEO of Simmons, concludes: "This study confirms the affluence and spending
patterns for which there previously has been only anecdotal evidence."
Among the study's "comparative findings," Simmons reports: "Nearly twice as
many gays and lesbians (50%) drink vodka as the total U.S. adult population
(26%)" "61% of gays and lesbians swim as part of their physical fitness
regimen, and 46% engage in weight training," and "89% has stayed in a hotel
within the past 12 months."
As stated, these findings stray well-beyond the survey's limitations.
Individuals surveyed by Simmons could very well crave more vodka, earn
higher wages, and occupy an unusual number of hotel rooms. However, it could
NOT be argued the interests or earnings of these particular persons are
representative of gays and lesbians in general.
Because many gays and lesbians are still closeted, it is difficult -- if not
impossible -- to randomly sample the population. Standard procedures for
ensuring representativeness (including random sampling) are likely to produce
an UNREPRESENTATIVE sample when surveying lesbians and gay men. Such samples
can yield systematically INACCURATE results, which -- in any case -- should
not be generalized.
News accounts of Simmons survey -- based largely, if not exclusively, on the
company's press release -- have ignored even the most basic of statistical
cautions. A story by United Press International (Feb. 3), for example, began
with this over-generalized lead: "A new study reports that gays have plenty
of money to spend, and they're highly likely to spend it on products that are
hawked by gay-oriented advertising campaigns."
UPI further reported that "researchers say about half of those questioned
report an annual income of $50,000 or more -- with one in five boasting of a
$1000,000 yearly take." The story concluded by noting: "...with companies
like Absolut and Suburu advertising heavily in the gay media, gays are twice
as likely as the rest of the population to drink vodka or own a sport-utility
vehicle."
According to journalist Eric Jansen, "the problem with the assumption that
all gays are rich white magazine readers with two VCRs, two BMWs and 2.2 dogs
in the yard is this: The very numbers that gay people have used to sell
themselves on Wall Street are hanging them on Main Street." Indeed, both
homophobic rhetoric and mainstream reporting are replete with unfounded
claims of gay wealth.
The American Family Association's 24-page treatise -- "Homosexuality in
America: Exposing the Myths" -- is typical. "Myth # 8," according to the
AFA, is that "homosexuals are an oppressed minority and should have the same
civil rights extended to them regarding their homosexuality as other
minorities." As "evidence" for debunking this "myth," the AFA argues that
lesbians and gays "have an average annual income of $55,430, over $20,000
more than the general population... Homosexuals are one of the most affluent
groups in America!"
Obscured by such rhetoric is the Religious Right's OWN financial clout --
which includes organizational assets that exceed the budgets of most, if not
all, lesbian and gay groups. Recently, for example, Reuters (Feb. 11)
examined the influence of Gary Bauer's Family Research Council, "a powerful
organization with an annual budget of $13 million." As political
correspondent Alan Elsner reports, the FRC "reserves its strongest language
for its campaign against homosexuality... A position paper from the
organization bluntly states that homosexuality is 'unhealthy, immoral and
destructive to individuals, families and societies.'"
By contrast, the annual budget for GLAAD -- "the nation's lesbian and gay
news bureau and the only national lesbian and gay multimedia watchdog
organization" -- just recently breached the $1 million mark. Most regional
lesbian and gay groups must get by on even less.
For years, the mainstream press has parroted the myths of gay affluence. In
1993, for example, "USA Today" (April 23) carried a typical story on
"Courting the Gay Market." Without citing a source, the nation's leading
newspaper said of lesbians and gays: "They've got money - the average
household income is $51,624 for gay men and $42,755 for lesbians, versus the
U.S. average of $37,922."
Contemporary coverage of (and in) "the trade" has continued this trend, on a
global scale. Recently, for example, the "Financial News" (Feb. 2) reported
on Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras -- in an article headlined: "Travel
Industry Loves Big-Spending Gay Crowd." According to this account, Mardi
Gras "attracts a relatively modest overseas following" -- consisting of some
2,500 or so visitors, many from the U.S -- but "these cashed-up gay tourists
spend on average 50 per cent more that their 'straight' counterparts."
Repeating a familiar chord, "Financial News" quotes the head of an
"exclusively gay" travel agency, who claims: "The gay market has
considerable disposable income -- no money is spared if they want to do
something."
Surveys and statistics that paint a less-expansive picture of gay affluence
are NOT so widely reported by the popular press. In a study of "Gay and
Lesbian Homeless/Street Youth," for example, Gabe Kruks found that
significant percentages of homeless teens are actually young gays. These
youth -- who have been kicked out or forced to run away from home -- are not
economically advantaged; quite the opposite.
Other studies indicate that lesbians and gays, in general, might actually
earn LESS than their heterosexual counterparts. In a survey commissioned by
the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (IGLSS), for instance,
economics professor Lee Badgett Badgett's suggests that -- on average --
straight men earn more than gay men; lesbian and bisexual women not only
earn less than men, but less than straight women.
Political scientist Ken Sherrill has specifically criticized the Simmons
survey for reporting "biased data that overestimate lesbian, gay and bisexual
wealth." "These data are then used to deny us protection against
discrimination," Sherill says. "When will we learn to stop giving credence
to such crap?"
"There is no solid theoretical foundation to support any assumption that gay
people are any wealthier than average Americans," Sherrill explains. "People
who are low in deference, respect and safety may well be forced to accept
jobs at low wages or, at the very least, trade off cash income for job
security and freedom from harassment."
Responding to such concerns, Dave Mulryan -- a partner in Mulryan/Nash -- has
agreed that the Simmons survey "is not necessarily projectible to anyone
other than the respondents." Sharon Stern, of Simmons Market Research
Bureau, also admitted the survey does not represent "a universe of gay and
lesbian people;" respondents were drawn from lists maintained by "a political
organization, a credit card firm and a mail order firm," Stern revealed.
However, these subsequent concessions were made in the lesbian and gay press
-- and do not appear, anywhere, in the Simmons press release. As reported to
the general public, important qualifications are not simply missing; they are
contradicted.
Several years ago, congressperson Gerry Studds penned the introduction to a
collection of queer statistics -- "Gay & Lesbian Stats: A Pocket Guide of
Facts and Figures" (The New Press, 1994). His cautionary preface remains
good advice.
"We must no longer allow ourselves to be victimized by distortions and
half-truths," Studds warned. "Neither must we be content to perpetuate
falsehoods that seem to serve our purposes."
For an earlier overview of income and marketing issues, see Eric Jansen's
article "The Incredible Shrinking Gay Dollar" ("Genre," Nov. 1994); Gabe
Kruk's study of "Gay and Lesbian Homeless/Street Youth" appears in the
"Journal of Adolescent Health" (Vol. 12, No. 7). Lee Badgett is assistant
professor of economics at the University of Maryland-College Park, IGLSS,
tel. 301-405-6348, e-mail lbad...@puafmail.umd.edu; Kenneth Sherrill is
professor of political science at Hunter College, in New York City].
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
mrpotter
augu...@aol.comnospam (August XXi) wrote:
> I don't even know why I'm posting on this, other than the topic
> evoking a
> memory of something that caught my eye a couple of times when
> watching Oprah in
> the past. I rarely watch her show anymore, I probably havent seen
> it more than
> three times in the past year.
> I have to admit I don't pay much attention to lesbians, but it
> would seem to me
> they wouldn't have as much reason to bash men since they don't
> interact with
> them as intimately as straight women do. The worst male bashing I
> have ever
> heard has come from straight women. After all, the poor ladies
> have to live
> with straight men. It must be a bitch sometimes, heeee!
I hang out with a lot of lesbians; as a matter of fact I prefer
lesbians to many gay men. They don't male bash at all (although there
are some man - hater lesbians out there, for sure; some gay guys
despise all women, too...). It's nice because we are equals and our
interactions are non - sexualized -- we're just friends (although after
a few drinks I've been known to jokingly tell some of the more
attractive gals "Gee, if we were only straight!" ;).
The way I've seen many straight guys treat women
I'm surprised that there are so _few_ lesbians, actually....
> I also recall that she had a cousin or uncle or someone in her
> family who died
> of AIDS, and I think she has spoken about her difficulty in
> accepting the way
> he chose to live his life in the past.
It was a nephew IIRC....
> If Steadman is gay, or bisexual, perhaps Oprah and he have a
> relationship of
> convenience. (This is called a "marriage blanc" in France.) She
> could be
> asexual. To tell you the truth, she seems totally UN-sexual to
> me.
This is my impression, too...
Best
Greg
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
DaRebel02
That's the same thing people said about Rock Hudson, Robert Reid, etc., etc.
What
>evidence is there? The only evidence I can think of is that gays on
>average have higher IQ's and that Oprah is extremely smart, but other
>than that, I can't see any evidence
>
As I said, there is no hard evidence. However, there are enough people close
to Oprah and people who have worked with and for her who have specualted that
she is indeed gay.
> There is tons of evidence that Oprah is heterosexual though. At age 14
>she rans the streets having promiscuous sex with many young men/boys.
>
> In high school she had a long-term romance with Anthony Otti.
>
> In college she had a relationship with a guy named Bubba.
>
> In Baltimore she was so obsessed with a guy that she got down on her
>hands and knees and pleaded with him not to leave her and even flushed
>his car keys down the toilet and was ready to kill herself when he
>dumped her. That doesn't sound like a gay woman to me.
>
Everything you've said above is poppycock. None of this is evidence of
heterosexuality or homoesexuality. I can't tell you how many gay and lesbian
friends I have who have children, who have been totally and completely in love
with the opposite sex, and only later they realized that they were gay. So the
"evidence" as you cite above, means nothing.
> In addition, one reason why Oprah has dominated daytime talk-shows for
>14 years is her incredible connection with American woman. If Oprah were
>gay, it would be less likely that most woman would relate so easily to
>her.
>
One of the reasons Oprah was so successful with women is because she was the
supreme male basher. Her show dogged men so bad in the early days that the
comedian Sinbad did a whole routine about men who go on the Oprah show and
killed with it. She was written up in several magazines and taken to task for
her apparent anti-male stance on her shows. Now, of course, she denies that
she did so, but anyone who remembers those shows in the 80's will remember who
they tore men apart. Some could make the argument that in order to "bash men"
like she did, she would have to be a lesbian. I'm not saying that is the case
or the cause, I think it made for good ratings. But the reality is that aspect
of her is what drew a lot of women to her.
> So where is the evidence that Oprah is gay? Just because she and her
>best friend Gayle are really close is no reason to conclude they are
>gay. A lot (most?) heterosexual women have very close intimate
>friendships with other women.
>
>My intuition is pretty good and Oprah just deosn't register on my
>gaydar. I can believe the rumours that Rosie O'Donnel is gay, but with
>Oprah it just doesn't seem believable.
>
I too believe the rumors about Rosie, but Oprah, especially when you meet her
in person, definately gives off the gay vibe. But this is just my opinion.
>And why do you think Oprah lied about taking drugs? Usually people lie
>and say they didn't do drugs when they did, not the other way around. A
>publicity stunt? Doubtful since it threatens her wholsome image. If it
>was a lie, then why did her former boyfriend threaten to write a tell
>all book describing Oprah's drug taking days.
>
Okay, here's the rub. Oprah claims that she did crack in the late 1970's (I
believe she said around 1977 or 1978). It is a very well documented fact that
crack was not available until around 1982-83. This came as a result of an
interview she was doing (I forget with who) when she was asked about drug use,
and she made this claim. Now, if she did coke, then say so. But to say she
did crack, at a time when crack was not available, seems to me to be a very
crafted publicity stunt. However, not many people challeneged it in the media,
figuring since Oprah said it, it must be true.
>And what lack of honesty did Oprah display concerning how she got where
>she is? Your comments are very wierd.
>
See above. Her lack of hoensty about her drug use, her lack of honesty about
the early tone and tenors of her shows. She once lied about being in a black
sorority, and when called on the carpet for it, she revereted to "I always
wanted to join that organization."
The bottom line is that Oprah, like Dr. Laura, is a huge opportunist and bends
facts to suit her own needs. Now if you choose to disregard all of the
information, that is is up to you. But what happened, happened.
August XXi
[snip]
>One of the reasons Oprah was so successful with women is because she was the
>supreme male basher. Her show dogged men so bad in the early days that the
>comedian Sinbad did a whole routine about men who go on the Oprah show and
>killed with it. She was written up in several magazines and taken to task
>for
>her apparent anti-male stance on her shows. Now, of course, she denies that
>she did so, but anyone who remembers those shows in the 80's will remember
>who
>they tore men apart. Some could make the argument that in order to "bash
>men"
>like she did, she would have to be a lesbian. I'm not saying that is the
>case
>or the cause, I think it made for good ratings. But the reality is that
>aspect
>of her is what drew a lot of women to her.
I don't even know why I'm posting on this, other than the topic evoking a
memory of something that caught my eye a couple of times when watching Oprah in
the past. I rarely watch her show anymore, I probably havent seen it more than
three times in the past year.
I have to admit I don't pay much attention to lesbians, but it would seem to me
they wouldn't have as much reason to bash men since they don't interact with
them as intimately as straight women do. The worst male bashing I have ever
heard has come from straight women. After all, the poor ladies have to live
with straight men. It must be a bitch sometimes, heeee!
About Oprah "seeming gay" - I can't cite any specific instance, but I can tell
you that a couple of times when I have seen the subject of homosexuality come
up on her show, she seemed totally clueless - there was a vacant look to her
eyes which led me to believe that she cannot relate to the homosexual
experience. I wish I could remember the topics of the shows, but I can't, it's
been some time since then. I can even remember her comments were totally off
the mark, and she seemed vaguely judgmental about the subject at the time, and
I got the impression she may have negative feelings about homosexuality but
keeps them to herself because she tries to be a fair-minded person and to
present her programs in as open an atmosphere as possible.
I also recall that she had a cousin or uncle or someone in her family who died
of AIDS, and I think she has spoken about her difficulty in accepting the way
he chose to live his life in the past.
If Steadman is gay, or bisexual, perhaps Oprah and he have a relationship of
convenience. (This is called a "marriage blanc" in France.) She could be
asexual. To tell you the truth, she seems totally UN-sexual to me. I know she
has talked of being molested as a child, and of having bad relationships with
men in the past. It is possible that she chooses not to live a sexual life
with a man, but that doesn't make her a lesbian.
I really don't know, and don't really care what she is. But reading this
thread made me remember those times I saw that blank look on her face, and I
can recall thinking, she really has no clue at all about homosexuality.
August
palme...@my-deja.com
dare...@aol.comsucka (DaRebel02) wrote:
> > I'm sorry but I think it's absurd to believe Oprah is gay.
>
> That's the same thing people said about Rock Hudson, Robert Reid,
etc., etc.
>
> What
> >evidence is there? The only evidence I can think of is that gays on
> >average have higher IQ's and that Oprah is extremely smart, but other
> >than that, I can't see any evidence
> >
>
> As I said, there is no hard evidence. However, there are enough
people close
> to Oprah and people who have worked with and for her who have
specualted that
> she is indeed gay.
How would you know what people close to Oprah have speculated? And this
speculation propably relates to the fact that she refuses to get
married. America is full of a bunch of socially conservative sheep that
believe a woman's destiny is to be a wife, and when Oprah intelligently
thinks for herself and decides to take a different path, they instantly
start speculating that she must be gay.
>
> > There is tons of evidence that Oprah is heterosexual though. At age
14
> >she rans the streets having promiscuous sex with many young men/boys.
> >
> > In high school she had a long-term romance with Anthony Otti.
> >
> > In college she had a relationship with a guy named Bubba.
> >
> > In Baltimore she was so obsessed with a guy that she got down on her
> >hands and knees and pleaded with him not to leave her and even
flushed
> >his car keys down the toilet and was ready to kill herself when he
> >dumped her. That doesn't sound like a gay woman to me.
> >
>
> Everything you've said above is poppycock. None of this is evidence
of
> heterosexuality or homoesexuality. I can't tell you how many gay and
lesbian
> friends I have who have children, who have been totally and completely
in love
> with the opposite sex, and only later they realized that they were
gay. So the
> "evidence" as you cite above, means nothing.
How can you say it means nothing? Especially when you cite much weaker
evidence is support of your gay hypothesis. If Oprah was having sex with
a different guy every day when she was 14, that to me is extremely
compelling evidence that she is sexually attracted to men. I suppose a
gay woman could fall in love with a man, because you may fall in love
with the soul, not the gender. But Oprah was not in love with these men,
she didn't even know them, she was just using them for sex. The desire
to hav sex with the opposite sex is what defines heterosexuality. You
can't ignore this.
>
> > In addition, one reason why Oprah has dominated daytime talk-shows
for
> >14 years is her incredible connection with American woman. If Oprah
were
> >gay, it would be less likely that most woman would relate so easily
to
> >her.
> >
>
> One of the reasons Oprah was so successful with women is because she
was the
> supreme male basher. Her show dogged men so bad in the early days
that the
> comedian Sinbad did a whole routine about men who go on the Oprah show
and
> killed with it. She was written up in several magazines and taken to
task for
> her apparent anti-male stance on her shows. Now, of course, she
denies that
> she did so,
She doesn't deny that she did so. Just the other day she mentioned that
her show has been accused of male bashing and did not deny the
accusation. But Oprah does not hate men. A lot of her favorite
psychologists and therapists are men. Oprah bashed men because she was
trying to corner the female market and because a lot of men deserve to
be bashed.
but anyone who remembers those shows in the 80's will
remember who
> they tore men apart. Some could make the argument that in order to
"bash men"
> like she did, she would have to be a lesbian.
THAT IS RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THAT IS RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not saying that is
the case
> or the cause, I think it made for good ratings. But the reality is
that aspect
> of her is what drew a lot of women to her.
>
> > So where is the evidence that Oprah is gay? Just because she and her
> >best friend Gayle are really close is no reason to conclude they are
> >gay. A lot (most?) heterosexual women have very close intimate
> >friendships with other women.
> >
> >My intuition is pretty good and Oprah just deosn't register on my
> >gaydar. I can believe the rumours that Rosie O'Donnel is gay, but
with
> >Oprah it just doesn't seem believable.
> >
>
> I too believe the rumors about Rosie, but Oprah, especially when you
meet her
> in person, definately gives off the gay vibe. But this is just my
opinion.
>
Especially when you meet her in person? This gay vibe sounds very
interesting and mysterious since it can't transcend the TV cameras.
> >And why do you think Oprah lied about taking drugs? Usually people
lie
> >and say they didn't do drugs when they did, not the other way around.
A
> >publicity stunt? Doubtful since it threatens her wholsome image. If
it
> >was a lie, then why did her former boyfriend threaten to write a tell
> >all book describing Oprah's drug taking days.
> >
>
> Okay, here's the rub. Oprah claims that she did crack in the late
1970's (I
> believe she said around 1977 or 1978). It is a very well documented
fact that
> crack was not available until around 1982-83. This came as a result
of an
> interview she was doing (I forget with who) when she was asked about
drug use,
> and she made this claim. Now, if she did coke, then say so. But to
say she
> did crack, at a time when crack was not available, seems to me to be a
very
> crafted publicity stunt. However, not many people challeneged it in
the media,
> figuring since Oprah said it, it must be true.
>
Oprah never said she did crack I don't think. As I recall the show
where she confessed, Oprah said something like I too did "this drug"
implying she did the same drug as the guest on her show. But, by same
drug, she may have been speaking in general terms, or perhaps she got
her drugs confused.
But it doesn't make any sense to say this was a lie because her
exboyfriend from back in those days threatened to reveal her extensive
drug use in a tell all book. Is he lieing too?
> >And what lack of honesty did Oprah display concerning how she got
where
> >she is? Your comments are very wierd.
> >
>
> See above. Her lack of hoensty about her drug use, her lack of
honesty about
> the early tone and tenors of her shows. She once lied about being in
a black
> sorority, and when called on the carpet for it, she revereted to "I
always
> wanted to join that organization."
>
> The bottom line is that Oprah, like Dr. Laura, is a huge opportunist
and bends
> facts to suit her own needs. Now if you choose to disregard all of
the
> information, that is is up to you. But what happened, happened.
I think it would be totally cool if Oprah were gay. It would make her
seem even more modern, hip, and open-minded than she already is. But no
one speculated Oprah was gay untill her appearance on Ellen's coming out
show. As a black woman, Oprah understands the oppression black people
went through, and wanted to use her power and influence to defend gays
from that same prejudice and opression. It doesn't make Oprah gay. It
makes Oprah a woman who is willing to fight for equality for all
seqments of society, at great risk to her own image. She has integrity.
She stands up for what she believes in, even when it costs her fans.
There is powerful compelling biographical evidence indicating Oprah is
heterosexual. There is only vauge irrational speculation that she might
be gay. I think intelligent people can draw their own conclusions.
Martha Hughes
Brilliant, Elis!!!!!! Thanks!
Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:89e3mq$125$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
Martha Hughes
mrpotter <gregory...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:01936428...@usw-ex0106-048.remarq.com...
> > evoking a
> > memory of something that caught my eye a couple of times when
> > watching Oprah in
> > the past. I rarely watch her show anymore, I probably havent seen
> > it more than
> > three times in the past year.
> > I have to admit I don't pay much attention to lesbians, but it
> > would seem to me
> > they wouldn't have as much reason to bash men since they don't
> > interact with
> > them as intimately as straight women do. The worst male bashing I
> > have ever
> > heard has come from straight women. After all, the poor ladies
> > have to live
> > with straight men. It must be a bitch sometimes, heeee!
>
> lesbians to many gay men. They don't male bash at all (although there
> are some man - hater lesbians out there, for sure; some gay guys
> despise all women, too...). It's nice because we are equals and our
> interactions are non - sexualized -- we're just friends (although after
> a few drinks I've been known to jokingly tell some of the more
> attractive gals "Gee, if we were only straight!" ;).
>
> The way I've seen many straight guys treat women
> I'm surprised that there are so _few_ lesbians, actually....
>
bashing comes from straight men against gay guys. I've never heard women
(well, maybe a bulldyke or two) use that kind of language. I always tell 'em
to shut up about that kind of talk. They don't mean anything, but it does
happen without thinking. Like referring to someone that's does something
lame as being "gay". I don't like it, and I won't let my writers use lame
language like that.
> > I also recall that she had a cousin or uncle or someone in her
> > family who died
> > of AIDS, and I think she has spoken about her difficulty in
> > accepting the way
> > he chose to live his life in the past.
>
>
> It was a nephew IIRC....
>
>
> > If Steadman is gay, or bisexual, perhaps Oprah and he have a
> > relationship of
> > convenience. (This is called a "marriage blanc" in France.) She
> > could be
> > asexual. To tell you the truth, she seems totally UN-sexual to
> > me.
>
>
Buz133in
honest hard work...whos the IMMORAL one?do the math...
DaRebel02
>speculation propably relates to the fact that she refuses to get
>married. America is full of a bunch of socially conservative sheep that
>believe a woman's destiny is to be a wife, and when Oprah intelligently
>thinks for herself and decides to take a different path, they instantly
>start speculating that she must be gay.
>
That has nothing to do with anything. I know at least 7 people who have worked
for Oprah and her company in several different capacities (one of them a gay
man, btw) who all commented on the possibility that Oprah might be gay. And
your sheep comment notwitstanding, these are people who worked for her.
> How can you say it means nothing? Especially when you cite much weaker
>evidence is support of your gay hypothesis. If Oprah was having sex with
>a different guy every day when she was 14, that to me is extremely
>compelling evidence that she is sexually attracted to men. I suppose a
>gay woman could fall in love with a man, because you may fall in love
>with the soul, not the gender. But Oprah was not in love with these men,
>she didn't even know them, she was just using them for sex. The desire
>to hav sex with the opposite sex is what defines heterosexuality. You
>can't ignore this.
>>
What you obviously cannot fathom is the possibility that a woman can be in love
with a man, have sex with a man, make a baby with a man -- then realize that
person is gay. This point has nothing to do with Oprah, but with homosexuality
in general. There is no pat rule for what defines one as gay or straight as
you would believe. However, there are many grey areas that make up that
dynamic, and you are only willing to conisder a few in your defense of Oprah.
>
> She doesn't deny that she did so. Just the other day she mentioned that
>her show has been accused of male bashing and did not deny the
>accusation.
Last year when interviewed by some cable news show, she was asked about the
state of daytime talk shows, ala Jerry Springer and Jenny Jones and the like.
When the male bashing criticism was brought up, she strongly denied it, going
as far to say exactly what you said -- that she loved men and why would she
bash them. However, the writing is on the wall, and it is interesting now that
she is admitting to it.
But Oprah does not hate men. A lot of her favorite
>psychologists and therapists are men. Oprah bashed men because she was
>trying to corner the female market and because a lot of men deserve to
>be bashed.
>
So are you suggesting that in the course of trying to be "successful" it is
acceptable to generalize a whole group of people just because a small minority
might deserve it? What if Springer, as repulsive as his show is, went on a 3
month rampage against women, talking about their immoral values and how they
cannot be trusted. Would that be acceptable because a few women fit that
category?
> Especially when you meet her in person? This gay vibe sounds very
>interesting and mysterious since it can't transcend the TV cameras.
>
I was on the Oprah show in 1985, doing an impression of "The Time" with several
friends. Further, I met her at her former restaurant here in Chicago, at a
couple of NAACP dinners and a couple of other fund raising dinners.
>
> Oprah never said she did crack I don't think. As I recall the show
>where she confessed, Oprah said something like I too did "this drug"
>implying she did the same drug as the guest on her show. But, by same
>drug, she may have been speaking in general terms, or perhaps she got
>her drugs confused.
>
One, people don't get their drugs confused, especially if they have not done a
lot of them. Two, she very much did claim to doing crack -- as I recall, it
was an interview in Ebony where she talked about her "crack use." It was
during that interview where she gave the date, place and circumsrtances of her
alleged drug use -- and that did not happen on her TV show.
> But it doesn't make any sense to say this was a lie because her
>exboyfriend from back in those days threatened to reveal her extensive
>drug use in a tell all book. Is he lieing too?
>
I said she lied about doing crack. She may very well have done other drugs.
That I do not know about. I only know what she said. But at the time the
"admission" came, crack was in the headlines almost everyday, with people
calling it an epidemic. So no, he probably wasn't lying.
>> See above. Her lack of hoensty about her drug use, her lack of
>honesty about
>> the early tone and tenors of her shows. She once lied about being in
>a black
>> sorority, and when called on the carpet for it, she revereted to "I
>always
>> wanted to join that organization."
>>
I noticed you let this one skip by.
>> The bottom line is that Oprah, like Dr. Laura, is a huge opportunist
>and bends
>> facts to suit her own needs. Now if you choose to disregard all of
>the
>> information, that is is up to you. But what happened, happened.
>
>
> I think it would be totally cool if Oprah were gay. It would make her
>seem even more modern, hip, and open-minded than she already is. But no
>one speculated Oprah was gay untill her appearance on Ellen's coming out
>show.
Nope. People have been specualting about Oprah being gay as far back as
1985-86 when a local story broke here in Chicago about her possible gay
lifestyle.
Now, if you would step down from your Oprah pedastal for a moment, notice I
have said she MIGHT be gay. I am the first to admit that I do not know for
sure. But from my personal experience, from rather reliable reports from
people inside her own camp, I think it is POSSIBLE.
As a black woman, Oprah understands the oppression black people
>went through, and wanted to use her power and influence to defend gays
>from that same prejudice and opression. It doesn't make Oprah gay. It
>makes Oprah a woman who is willing to fight for equality for all
>seqments of society, at great risk to her own image. She has integrity.
>She stands up for what she believes in, even when it costs her fans.
>
If that's what you beieve, fine. While I do not think Oprah is the scumbag Dr.
Laura is, neither do I believe she is as pristene as you paint her.
> There is powerful compelling biographical evidence indicating Oprah is
>heterosexual. There is only vauge irrational speculation that she might
>be gay. I think intelligent people can draw their own conclusions.
>>
You're exactly right. But is one to be considered intelligent only if they
agree with your views?
Life is like an ice cream cone --
Better lick it before it all melts away
-----------------------------------------------------
www.geocities.com/tchimbala/welcome.html
August XXi
[snip]
>That has nothing to do with anything. I know at least 7 people who have
>worked
>for Oprah and her company in several different capacities (one of them a gay
>man, btw) who all commented on the possibility that Oprah might be gay. And
>your sheep comment notwitstanding, these are people who worked for her.
[snip]
I may have missed it, but has it been established why you even care if Oprah is
gay or not? Who gives a shit?
August
different_strokes_for_different_genitals
> I may have missed it, but has it been established why you even care if Oprah is
> gay or not? Who gives a shit?
Oprah's husband and/or wife?
___ ____ _ _ ____ ____ __ __ ___ ___ __ __ _ _
/ __)( ___)( \( )(_ _)(_ _) /__\ ( ) / __) / __)( )( )( \/ )
( (_-. )__) | \\ | _)(_ )( /(__)\ )(__ \__ \ ( (_-. )(__)( \ /
\___/(____)(_)\_)(____) (__)(__)(__)(____)(___/ \___/(______) (__)
Well thank you, and this thought arises:
While life is filled full of surprises
It merits regalia
That your genitalia
Appear in a thousand disguises!
--Stephen Bergsen
Dr Decaf
dare...@aol.comsucka (DaRebel02) wrote in
<20000308180735...@ng-dc1.aol.com>:
--------> (scattered snippage throughout)
>> How can you say it means nothing? Especially when you cite
>> much weaker
>>evidence is support of your gay hypothesis. If Oprah was
>>having sex with a different guy every day when she was 14,
>>that to me is extremely compelling evidence that she is
>>sexually attracted to men.
well, no.
>> I suppose a gay woman could fall
>>in love with a man, because you may fall in love with the
>>soul, not the gender.
ummm, no.
>> But Oprah was not in love with these
>>men, she didn't even know them, she was just using them for
>>sex. The desire to hav sex with the opposite sex is what
>>defines heterosexuality.
hmmmmm, no.
>
>What you obviously cannot fathom is the possibility that a
>woman can be in love with a man, have sex with a man, make a
>baby with a man -- then realize that person is gay. This
>point has nothing to do with Oprah, but with homosexuality in
>general. There is no pat rule for what defines one as gay or
>straight as you would believe. However, there are many grey
>areas that make up that dynamic, and you are only willing to
>conisder a few in your defense of Oprah.
>
>>
>> She doesn't deny that she did so. Just the other day she
>> mentioned that
>>her show has been accused of male bashing and did not deny
>>the accusation.
umm, lesbian does not equal man hating.
i, for example, really like men. just not that way.
>> Especially when you meet her in person? This gay vibe
>> sounds very
>>interesting and mysterious since it can't transcend the TV
>>cameras.
>>> The bottom line is that Oprah, like Dr. Laura, is a huge
>>> opportunist
>>and bends
>>> facts to suit her own needs. Now if you choose to
>>> disregard all of
>>the
>>> information, that is is up to you. But what happened,
>>> happened.
>>
>>
>> I think it would be totally cool if Oprah were gay. It
>> would make her
>>seem even more modern, hip, and open-minded than she already
>>is. But no one speculated Oprah was gay untill her
>>appearance on Ellen's coming out show.
oooh, lesbians are modern, hip and open-minded? thanks.
>
>Nope. People have been specualting about Oprah being gay as
>far back as 1985-86 when a local story broke here in Chicago
>about her possible gay lifestyle.
>
>Now, if you would step down from your Oprah pedastal for a
>moment, notice I have said she MIGHT be gay. I am the first
>to admit that I do not know for sure. But from my personal
>experience, from rather reliable reports from people inside
>her own camp, I think it is POSSIBLE.
>
>
>> There is powerful compelling biographical evidence
>> indicating Oprah is
>>heterosexual. There is only vauge irrational speculation
>>that she might be gay. I think intelligent people can draw
>>their own conclusions.
you're both straight men, aren't you?
--dr d
modern, hip and open-minded.
with cool glasses, too.
Victoria
>
>That has nothing to do with anything. I know at least 7 people who have worked
>for Oprah and her company in several different capacities (one of them a gay
>man, btw) who all commented on the possibility that Oprah might be gay. And
>your sheep comment notwitstanding, these are people who worked for her.
I'd bet that you also know the nurse who removed the hamster from Richard Gere's
butt, too? Huh?
I'm not defending Oprah, but puleeze.
August XXi
ROFL!!
August