What?...gender is a product of percieved sex? Was: Womanhood and the female expierence
Nadz
>So to sum it all up *gender is a product of percieved sex* :)
Perhaps you should be discussing those things in
soc.support.transgendered maybe?
Generally Amanda, a TS, especially one who intends to finish the
process :), goes from A to Z and not to M and then backwards. You
seem to fantasize a lot because if "perceived sex" is only in the mind
of the beholder it is not even as much as a "breath of hot air". :)
You have a long way yet to go sweetie.
Nadz %)
Anonymous
June Hingle is back to her hysterical posting / thread fragmenting / newsgroup
wrecking ways.
Sigh... You haven't heard a single word.........
Silence Dogood
Hamm. In the way an actor - a good actor - plays a role??? Bush playing
at being president comes to mind as well...
Surely not.
Can it not be simply stated that for some "males" born, for reasons that we
do not know and have not yet proved in any definitive way, simply "feel
better" with themselves and their lives by living in the role of women in
our society, at this time in history? Some do this in small ways, others
for only short periods of time, but for some the need is so great they find
it necessary to adopt the behaviour and external appearance of a woman in
society 24/7. The difference between those part time and full time is not
one of substance, but of degree.
For some, a very small number, assuming the role of women in society 24/7 is
still not sufficient. For them, and only for that small portion overall, it
is necessary to modify the body to reflect their inner way of processing
thoughts. For that small number, nothing short for SRS will suffice. Ekins
follows this to its' logical conclusion, as does Blanchard. The
key is to determine if such operation is necessary, and for that we are
guided by the better interests of the patient in seeking a happy and
fruitful
life, as well as that patients ability to function in his or her target sex
after the operation.
Such being so, the divisions between trangendered and cross dressing,
opposed
to transsexual, are almost meaningless. Those are social divisions created
to fill social needs (i.e. Virginia Price, Tri-Ess and the rule against
transsexual members).
This says nothing about being a man or woman - terms our society applies to
those who conform to what our society sets out as norms for male and female
behaviour. in terms of how others treat us and view us, then Amanda would
be right - but only in those closely defined ways.
At present, notwithstanding wishes and desire, we have no clear
understadnign of why we are the way we are. What is clear is that some do
well after SRS and lead happier lives. Understanding which will benefit and
which will not is still and art, not a science, for it relies upon
interpretaiton of what the patient states to be true and no definiteive
litmus test.
In terms of male and female, however, I cannot escape from the logic that
simply states (save for some intersexed) that birth sex rules. Born clearly
one of the other, you remain that way. The only exceptions, each closely
defined are:
1. Legally changing sex on a birth certificate or driver's license and
other identification, a privilege (note the word) granted by society so
that basic housekeeping matters of society can be kept without obvious
anomalies. From this is follows that we can be legally "female" but not
physically so - ever. society, not our inner feelings, rules here, and we
must follow those rules to take advantage of the limited privilege (not
right) granted.
2. In some cultures - Africa, Asia, America - we have been viewed as a
"third gender" and treated as part of the culture, but not fully accepted as
women or men. This applies to both existing and past cultures. *In no
instance naturally occurring have we been treated totally as women*.
3. In some concepts and theories, notably Post Modernism as applied to us,
and stemming from the writing of Michel Foucault, we are regarded as women
regardless of physicality. If one accepts this view, then presumably the
thoughts (note - not the brain) are sufficient to make us women, if not
physically female. If one accepts this position, reading Foucault is
necessary as it total adherence to his belief structure.
I note that most transsexual women cleave to (3), regardless of their
knowledge of Foucault. They build a castle without a foundation -
rationally or logically. It is all surmise and conjecture.
I must also state that in my opinion, 98% or more of the population *of the
world* asked to define male and female, would have no problem whatsoever.
In every culture known, men and women take predominantly take different
roles and have different status. At present, we seem to shift from the Thai
extreme (the lowest man ranks higher than the highest women), to a state of
different but equal, to the state that denies any differences and attempts
to impose that concept with some measures of success.
Regardless. We are what we are. Accepting what we are is to me a
necessity.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 09/04/2004
Silence Dogood
anecdotal conversations such as 'every drag queen at one point or another
believes she is really a woman', should be taken with a grain of salt.
I agree that gay cross-dressers often choose to become drag queens but
unless we can state as a truism that 'every heterosexual cross dresser at
one point or another believes she is really a woman' then the drag queens
miss out on the blanket coverage as well.
What this subject touches upon is the easier path to community acceptance in
the gay community by taking up a drag queen role versus the cross dresser in
the straight world (or indeed as a heterosexual cross dresser in a gay
world). Drag is such an intrinsic part of gay culture that the drag role
almost mirrors the shaman role at times (note the cliché clairvoyant drag
queen in 'Queer as Folk'). And judging by the approaches I receive from the
population, 'we' are supposed to have a wiser view of gay politics, life
matters and self acceptance than your average queen (to make another
generalization).
This is echoed in the acceptance of drag queens by the general population. I
don't know about USA but in Australia (perhaps because of the Priscilla
film) the streets and malls are safer for a recognisable drag queen than for
your average heterosexual cross dresser most days.
As for the AG sexuality connection, I'd say most drag queens are motivated
cross-dressers and the number of 'entertainers only' choosing the medium of
drag as their art form without any other motivation is small. It stands to
reason that most would have the same issues and destinations as the
heterosexual population.
Amanda
She said yes, every Drag Queen at one point or another believe she is
really a woman making her a transsexual. Some go on to have SRS and
some realize that they are not transsexual and like being men with
men.
I asked her if this is a fair assessment of the situation. So there
are generally two path Drag Queens take. One is a gay male who start
to cross dress at a young age, just like heterosexual cross dressers
for the same reasons, but because they are gay and like men they
understandably think they may be transsexual but later realize that
they are not transsexual. Because they are gay and in the gay
community to be gay and cross dress it is more acceptable to cross
dress if you are doing it as a Drag Queen. This first type could be
considered gay men who are cross dressers and their manor of cross
dressing takes the form of Drag Queens because that is what is
acceptable in the gay community.
The second type of Drag Queen starts out as a male who is sexually
attracted to males. Starts to cross dress at some time probably for
the same reasons all transsexuals start to cross dress. They come
out of the closet as gay men and become Drag Queens because that is
what is accepted in the gay community. They come to the conclusion
that they are really heterosexual women inside and proceed to have
SRS. They started off as Drag Queens because they came out as gay
first.
Interesting how someone's sexual orientation can take them down what
seems to be a completely different life paths.
Heather
Silence Dogood
be read as coming from her...
It seems to me that Cds, TVs, and others retain an important thing - their
sense of humour. TS as a group are devoid of humour.
We might be less angst ridden if we laughed more...
Willow
Amanda Angelika
Nadz <nadz...@yahoo.ca> typed:
> Amanda confused me:
>
>> So to sum it all up *gender is a product of percieved sex* :)
>
> Perhaps you should be discussing those things in
> soc.support.transgendered maybe?
Maybe, but I was replying to a post here :)
> Generally Amanda, a TS, especially one who intends to finish the
> process :), goes from A to Z and not to M and then backwards.
I don't know where I said that exactly . But if you are saying the
reality of gender in this case womanhood is reliant on the female
experience, i.e SRS, then you seem to be agreeing with me.
Well SRS can't make one a natal female, it can only change the way you
perceive yourself and how others may perceive you. So it follows "gender
is a product of perceived sex"
> You
> seem to fantasize a lot because if "perceived sex" is only in the mind
> of the beholder it is not even as much as a "breath of hot air". :)
Well unfortunately if one is TS it does rely heavily on the way you
perceive yourself as well as in how others perceive you, Sex is not an
absolute state for transsexuals. Well it certainly isn't for me. I'm
female as far as much of my paperwork is concerned, but I'm pre-op, that
definition of my sex is a product of burocracy :) But to some extent
that's the same for all TSs, I mean just because burocracy can issue an
amended birth certificate, doesn't actually change the facts of the
past, and one can never suddenly become a natal female, this is a fact
of life we all know, lets be clear about these things.
> You have a long way yet to go sweetie.
Don't we all dear. Fact is of course perfection is a medical and
scientific impossibility
But lets face it if gender were not a product of perceived sex, there
wouldn't be people attempting to be, or be seen as the opposite sex, I
mean it would be a bit of a waste of time trying to look like, or be
female if gender were wholly and completely independent of sex. I mean
it would be a lot of handwork, effort, money, and suffering for nothing
would it not?
--
Amanda
--
Art auctions:
eBay: www.tinyurl.com/q5hx
eBid: http://tinyurl.com/37efa
Amanda Angelika
Silence Dogood <sil...@hotmail.com> typed:
> *gender is a product of perceived sex*
>
> Hamm. In the way an actor - a good actor - plays a role??? Bush
> playing at being president comes to mind as well...
>
> Surely not.
Well I think it is in the context of being CD,TG or TS.
Gender is the the qualities, characacter traits and behaviours we
associate (in some instances irrationally) with each of the sexes.
So consequently in order to be seen as women ( as people who were all at
the very least born male) we all do things like dress as females and
some of us change the apparance of our gentalia. All these thing are
done to serve the way we percieve ourselves and wish to be seen by
others
If it were possible for gender to exist entirely indepentendly of
pereived sex, none of these things would be necessary. :)
To be frank (or francesca) I sometimes wonder what my gender is, or
whether I have one at all :) I mean I have a personality and I am me,
and I have a sex which I seem to regect because it didn't fit and I do
prefer to be seen as female. But sometimes I think maybe I'm not really
a woman at all and wonder what the hell I'm doing, but obviouly when I
think in terms of being a man, that certainly doesn't fit LOL
Course it sort of dawned on me that I'm obviously not alone with such
confusions bearing in mind, if the world was really full of males who
were *convinced* they are women, the world wouldn't be full of males
trying to *prove* they are women or Newsgroups full of flames and
womanhood credibilty contests LOL So being confused and insecure is OK I
guess :)
(BTW I shall have a good read of the rest of your message tomorow, it's
got terribly late over here all of a sudden)
Amanda Angelika
Silence Dogood <sil...@hotmail.com> typed:
> The last post from Amanda was misdirected to my e-mail address. It
> should be read as coming from her...
Oh that must be a different Amanda I can't remember writing that post :)
Jessika
news:cVxsc.546862$Pk3.323921@pd7tw1no...
That sounds about right all except for your claiming this is only common
among gays- I imagine it's more common among bi's than it is gays
(shamanistic "tendency").
Jess
--
Picture this
If I should make the change
I'd love to pull the wires from the wall!
Did you?
And who are you?
And how can I try?
Here inside I like the metal
Don't you?
"it's easier not to be wise"
The shortest distance between two points is not always a straight line"
Teach a man to fish, and he'll still be a drag!
"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the
obvious." - George Orwell
Bring the violence
It's significant
To the life
If you've ever known anyone
Bring the violence
It's significant
To the life
Can you feel it?
Jessika
news:2hfps1F...@uni-berlin.de...
> In news:cf3be6bf.04052...@posting.google.com,
> Nadz <nadz...@yahoo.ca> typed:
> > Amanda confused me:
> >
> >> So to sum it all up *gender is a product of percieved sex* :)
> >
> > Perhaps you should be discussing those things in
> > soc.support.transgendered maybe?
>
> Maybe, but I was replying to a post here :)
>
> > Generally Amanda, a TS, especially one who intends to finish the
> > process :), goes from A to Z and not to M and then backwards.
>
> I don't know where I said that exactly . But if you are saying the
> reality of gender in this case womanhood is reliant on the female
> experience, i.e SRS, then you seem to be agreeing with me.
>
I'm not sure here whether I agree or not. Amanda, you don't think someone
could treat you as a female regardless of your parts? How would society ever
know you didn't get SRS if you appear female? They ain't gonna look in u
pants.
> Well SRS can't make one a natal female, it can only change the way you
> perceive yourself and how others may perceive you. So it follows "gender
> is a product of perceived sex"
>
It may change the way you see yourself and others see you, but it isn't a
given, and SRS doesn't make you any more female than you are already. Males
are the opposites of females, females and males actually have quite a bit
more in common than most expect. A LOT more.
> > You
> > seem to fantasize a lot because if "perceived sex" is only in the mind
> > of the beholder it is not even as much as a "breath of hot air". :)
>
I really don't understand this. Are you reading my mind? You're right, if
you mean it would be a breath of hot air for nobody except yourself to view
you as your brain sex, which both could/doesn't have to be corrected by SRS.
You don't need the SRS to feel female, only to operate as one- this is the
way I see it. This is what the purpose of SRS is, imo. It's harder (but not
much harder) to take on the role of your opposite without SRS. I think
identifying a certain way relies heavily upon the company you keep.
> Well unfortunately if one is TS it does rely heavily on the way you
> perceive yourself as well as in how others perceive you, Sex is not an
> absolute state for transsexuals. Well it certainly isn't for me. I'm
> female as far as much of my paperwork is concerned, but I'm pre-op, that
> definition of my sex is a product of burocracy :) But to some extent
> that's the same for all TSs, I mean just because burocracy can issue an
> amended birth certificate, doesn't actually change the facts of the
> past, and one can never suddenly become a natal female, this is a fact
> of life we all know, lets be clear about these things.
>
> > You have a long way yet to go sweetie.
>
> Don't we all dear. Fact is of course perfection is a medical and
> scientific impossibility
>
> But lets face it if gender were not a product of perceived sex, there
> wouldn't be people attempting to be, or be seen as the opposite sex, I
> mean it would be a bit of a waste of time trying to look like, or be
> female if gender were wholly and completely independent of sex. I mean
> it would be a lot of handwork, effort, money, and suffering for nothing
> would it not?
>
I'm not sure I get what you mean- if society were more tolerant to others
ideals of themselves (and bi-gender rather than cis-gender), you think you
wouldn't resort to SRS, but indeed be still quite female? I would very much
agree with that. If society were more open to bi-gender/intergender
practice, there would be a lot more well-taken care of people in the world,
just because of the fact that femininity would be okay for everyone, female
or not, and vice-versa. Women would have to learn to start gettin they hands
dirty, people in general would be more self-conscious, particularly males,
which may even lead to rising gay/lesbianism, and a result of that rising
lesbianism might be rising homophobia from the male end, where males finally
realise females don't have to be anywhere near them, and then as a result of
this homophobia, might be a rise in heterosexuality, and maybe then safer
(nonreproductive/inavowed) sex. ; ) Just a hypothetical, take no offenses,
you can add to this all you like, I'd love to hear some variation, ever.
Jess
--
Picture this
If I should make the change
I'd love to pull the wires from the wall!
Did you?
And who are you?
And how can I try?
Here inside I like the metal
Don't you?
"it's easier not to be wise"
The shortest distance between two points is not always a straight line"
Teach a man to fish, and he'll still be a drag!
"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the
obvious." - George Orwell
Bring the violence
It's significant
To the life
If you've ever known anyone
Bring the violence
It's significant
To the life
Can you feel it?
>
Deb Marsh
news:2hfps1F...@uni-berlin.de...
> Well SRS can't make one a natal female, it can only change the way you
> perceive yourself and how others may perceive you. So it follows "gender
> is a product of perceived sex"
Simplistic. The point might well be to be perceived as female - as one
possessing a particular reproductive potential? That SRS cannot endow this
potential is hardly the point because making the distinction between biology
and gender cannot but serve to dilute the point of the exercise.
Interesting, the steps which we take to cloud this issue. If gender is a
social phenomenon rooted in reproductive potential then sex and gender are
indivisible. Once the schism is introduced, once sex and gender are
permitted to follow different paths, then anything goes - gender floats free
from its earthly bonds and might well be interpreted according to our own
individual needs.
Is gender female/male or, merely, feminine/masculine? One way works for us
and the other cannot. Sure we could postulate the wrong brain in the wrong
body scenario without allowing that, were such possible, this does not make
one something "opposite" to that which one "is" but rather something
entirely different to either.
Gender, I would argue, is not simply the product of perceived sex. It is
consequential. It is contingent. It is a predicate itself predicated upon
the assumptions which enable taxonomic realities.
So there 8-)
Debs
Silence Dogood
"Once the schism is introduced, once sex and gender are
permitted to follow different paths, then anything goes - gender floats free
from its earthly bonds and might well be interpreted according to our own
individual needs".
And if so, what does it then mean???
By the way, read a book called "Raptor" by Gary Jennings???
Hugs,
Willow
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22/05/2004
Deb Marsh
news:occ9b0h7u3t8ig86r...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:43:43 GMT, "Deb Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Interesting, the steps which we take to cloud this issue. If gender is a
> >social phenomenon rooted in reproductive potential then sex and gender
> >are indivisible. Once the schism is introduced, once sex and gender are
> >permitted to follow different paths, then anything goes - gender floats
> >free from its earthly bonds and might well be interpreted according to
> >our own individual needs.
>
Then you misread me. If the process does not teach the value and strength of
individuality then it teaches nothing. If we misconstrue the purpose as one
of seeking some longed for conformity - of merging into a more comfortable
general - then surrender is what we seek. Avoidance strategies are for those
seeking to avoid stuff - let's embrace this opportunity for self-exploration
cos its good for little else really 8-)
Debs
Deb Marsh
> From: "Deb Marsh"
>
> "Once the schism is introduced, once sex and gender are
> permitted to follow different paths, then anything goes - gender floats
> free from its earthly bonds and might well be interpreted according
> to our own individual needs".
>
> And if so, what does it then mean???
Mean? what do you want it to mean? It doesn't mean anything other than it
being indicative of the need for meaning. Who owns meaning? This is a more
pertinent question really. Answer that one and you're cooking with gas 8-)
Debs
Jennifer Usher
> The last post from Amanda was misdirected to my e-mail address. It should
> be read as coming from her...
>
> It seems to me that Cds, TVs, and others retain an important thing - their
> sense of humour. TS as a group are devoid of humour.
>
> We might be less angst ridden if we laughed more...
Oh, I do. I have a good laugh everytime I see Mr. Willow's picture, or read
one of Lyle's more absurd posts. Then again, I am not angst ridden...though
I am sure Mr. Willow is.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
<nob...@noplace.not> wrote in message
news:mld5b0lv1nc9j8tep...@4ax.com...
> >It seems to me that Cds, TVs, and others retain an important thing -
their
> >sense of humour. TS as a group are devoid of humour.
>
> Ever gone to a DQ party? Those girls know how to have FUN! They play
with
> makeup, tell really off-colour jokes and just have a blast.
Sounds like an anti-social person's dream world.
> Every gone into the change room at a TG/TS Gathering... MEOW! Calling each
> other names, criticizing even the slightest things, dumping on one another
> over nothing and dead silence in between.
Nope.
> >We might be less angst ridden if we laughed more...
>
> Hell yes... crossdressing etc. should be FUN!
Gee Lyle, I get absolutely no fun out of wearing men's clothes. I stopped
crossdressing years ago. It got to be too much of a drag. But it is good
to see you admitting that you CROSSDRESS. As has been pointed out many
times, you are a man trying to pretend to be a woman. And not even very
successfully.
--
Jennifer Usher
Deb Marsh
news:bfm9b0dtqq5vd9jm2...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 17:02:29 GMT, "Jennifer Usher"
> <jenni...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Gee Lyle, I get absolutely no fun out of wearing men's clothes.
>
LOL
Sandra251
"Deb Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:z22tc.71485$hH.12...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> <snipped good stuff>
> Gender, I would argue, is not simply the product of perceived sex. It
> is consequential. It is contingent. It is a predicate itself
> predicated upon the assumptions which enable taxonomic realities.
>
> So there 8-)
>
> Debs
>
Eeep! Darn, and just when I thought I was getting a handle on this gender
stuff too :(
Sandra
<:O)
Amanda Angelika
Deb Marsh <raptor...@yahoo.com> typed:
Yeah I think that's what I was trying to say :)
--
Amanda
--
Art auctions:
eBay: www.tinyurl.com/q5hx
eBid: http://tinyurl.com/37efa
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22/5/04
Jessika
news:Xns94F58CD92FE0Fs...@207.217.125.203...
Why would you want to get a handle on it? What on Earth makes you think
people aren't TG/TS when there have been atleast hundreds of thousands of
them? 4 real.
Jessika
> In news:z22tc.71485$hH.12...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
> Deb Marsh <raptor...@yahoo.com> typed:
> > "Amanda Angelika" <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2hfps1F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >> Well SRS can't make one a natal female, it can only change the way
> >> you perceive yourself and how others may perceive you. So it follows
> >> "gender is a product of perceived sex"
> >
> > Simplistic. The point might well be to be perceived as female - as one
> > possessing a particular reproductive potential? That SRS cannot endow
> > this potential is hardly the point because making the distinction
> > between biology and gender cannot but serve to dilute the point of
> > the exercise.
> >
> > Interesting, the steps which we take to cloud this issue. If gender
> > is a social phenomenon rooted in reproductive potential then sex and
> > gender are indivisible. Once the schism is introduced, once sex and
> > gender are permitted to follow different paths, then anything goes -
> > gender floats free from its earthly bonds and might well be
> > interpreted according to our own individual needs.
> >
> >
> > Gender, I would argue, is not simply the product of perceived sex. It
> > is consequential. It is contingent. It is a predicate itself
> > predicated upon the assumptions which enable taxonomic realities.
> >
> > So there 8-)
> >
> > Debs
>
> Yeah I think that's what I was trying to say :)
>
>
> --
> Amanda
> --
> Art auctions:
> eBay: www.tinyurl.com/q5hx
> eBid: http://tinyurl.com/37efa
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22/5/04
>
>
Sensational.
> > Is gender female/male or, merely, feminine/masculine? One way works
> > for us and the other cannot. Sure we could postulate the wrong brain
> > in the wrong body scenario without allowing that, were such possible,
> > this does not make one something "opposite" to that which one "is"
> > but rather something entirely different to either.
Jess
Sandra251
Sometimes you amaze me. You really do. :O
Sandra
"Jessika" <rhabdopho...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:lMqtc.15717$j24....@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
Deb Marsh
> In news:z22tc.71485$hH.12...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
> Deb Marsh <raptor...@yahoo.com> typed:
> > Gender, I would argue, is not simply the product of perceived sex. It
> > is consequential. It is contingent. It is a predicate itself
> > predicated upon the assumptions which enable taxonomic realities.
> >
> > So there 8-)
> >
> > Debs
>
> Yeah I think that's what I was trying to say :)
Keep on keeping on. This is a game for one player but according to other
people's rules.
Some folk seem certain and, insofar as they maintain that certainty to
themselves, I probably envy them that comfort - probably 8-)
Some folk seem certain and, insofar as they require to project that
certainty onto others in order for it to work, I know that they are not
certain of anything really. Their certainty is contingent and necessitates a
form of repressive totalitarianism to keep it anchored in the present.
Absolutists are victims to possibilities so limited that they could hardly
be described as possibilities at all.
"If you are certain isn't this just because you have stopped thinking? You
have stopped." Wittgenstein
I've thought about this subject, on and off (more off than on these days)
ever since I first became aware that something about me was not quite
"standard." The only thing non-standard about each of us is the result of
there being no immutable standard against which to judge any of us.
We are fluid beings. We soar (or are capable of soaring) into the wild blue
yonder of abstract thought every time we question the stuff furnished for
us. We are captivated by terms because terms are the tools of conception and
description. We enter into illusory states of certainty each and every time
we accept that the generalities of language are actual representations of
concrete truths. Lost in a maze of descriptors and socio-ethical mores, we
search for some mythical centre rather than just looking for the way out.
Confused? You'd better be 8-)
Debs
Jessika
Is it because I say this in total confidence of my position as TG/TS? Not
many people I share this with. Let me know.
Deb Marsh
news:BeJtc.264926$M3.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Is it because I say this in total confidence of my position as TG/TS? Not
> many people I share this with. Let me know.
Aw! You're just queer 8-) Doesn't make you a bad person or into someone whom
no one can relate to either 8-)
Debs };->
Nadz
>Debs
If there is a word that doesn't belong, it would be that one.
Postulating one's own view, and yet assuming the inclusion of §we§?
hmmmm
Nadz
pick a point in endless space, look away, then look back. where did
it go? that is what is called "illusory state of reality". think of
it happening more than 6 1/2 billion times per millisec, 24/7. gosh,
is life ever so confusing! %)
Jessika
news:DmJtc.83295$hH.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Define queer. ; P
Jess
Nadz
>Aw! You're just queer
How absurd coming from someone who talked about not labelling or
categorizing other people. To me, and I am quite sure to many other
people in here, that is an insult. Labelling Jess as "queer", is that
your view of yourself? Does that apply to me, to her, and to we? You
are very creative indeed. :/
Your comment to Elaine was also 9 holes off the start-to-finish of
your PGA win. Yes it is a "Him", as perceived by many more people
than Elaine and myself.
Nadz
>Define queer. ; P
Hi honey. Please try not to take Debs too seriously. It is hard to
tell if she is being funny or not. :( Be yourself sweetie. Look
inside of you, find all the loveliness you are, and make the best of
what you have. The only label that is yours is the one you give
yourself.
luv ya,
j
Deb Marsh
> "Deb Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:DmJtc.83295$hH.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Aw! You're just queer 8-) Doesn't make you a bad person or into someone
> > whom no one can relate to either 8-)
> Define queer. ; P
Queer as in "odd" or "not straight" or "nonconformist?"
Gender Queer my sweet - those inhabiting that strange twilight world between
the fixed poles of the normal which we are led to believe are the only true
referents to human existence 8-)
Neither one thing nor the other because, in several senses, we are both and
therefore disprove the very thing which tasks us - the possibility of
either. Freedom eh? Spooky stuff 8-)
Debs
Deb Marsh
news:cf3be6bf.04052...@posting.google.com...
> Debs Marsh wrote:
> >§We§ are fluid beings. We soar (or are capable of soaring) into the
> wild blue
> >yonder of abstract thought every time §we§ question the stuff
> furnished for
> >us. §We§ are captivated by terms because terms are the tools of
> conception and
> >description. §We§ enter into illusory states of certainty each and
> every time
> >§we§ accept that the generalities of language are actual
> representations of
> >concrete truths. Lost in a maze of descriptors and socio-ethical
> mores, §we§
> >search for some mythical centre rather than just looking for the way
> out.
>
> >Confused? You'd better be 8-)
>
> >Debs
>
> If there is a word that doesn't belong, it would be that one.
> Postulating one's own view, and yet assuming the inclusion of §we§?
> hmmmm
How would it be possible to voice one's own views without employing the
common tongue? How might one speak with others without following the
linguistic rules of engagement? When "I" say "we" are bewitched I am
deploying an idiom designed for a plurality of purpose. I cannot say that
the language is bewitching without using language - you cannot take issue
with this without using words. Context, context, context. I don't mean "we"
to be specific. Don't mean to encompass any particular group either. It is a
philosophical deployment of the plural and not to be confused with the "we"
who don't like Laura or the "we" considering themselves to be Republicans
say. WE - the users of language - WE - the prisoners of restricted terms
coined by others and without consideration to the inherent paradox entailed
by the contrasting of "I" with anything and everything else as constrained
by the very form of expression reserved for just such a venture.
We posit the "I" and intend this separation to be indicative of our
independence but..........
We cannot posit self as independent without expressing this independence via
the common tongue. I and we merge at the level of communication and the
contradiction is throw into stark relief by the diffusion of the very
possibility of being able to do this at all.
Confused? You should be 8-)
Debs
Deb Marsh
>
> >Define queer. ; P
>
> Hi honey. Please try not to take Debs too seriously. It is hard to
> tell if she is being funny or not.
Ah! Nothing like engaging in a spot of judgment from on high I always say.
How's the weather up there then?
Debs
Deb Marsh
>
> >Aw! You're just queer
>
> How absurd coming from someone who talked about not labelling or
> categorizing other people. To me, and I am quite sure to many other
> people in here, that is an insult. Labelling Jess as "queer", is that
> your view of yourself? Does that apply to me, to her, and to we? You
> are very creative indeed. :/
Queer and here - get used to it 8-)
> Your comment to Elaine was also 9 holes off the start-to-finish of
> your PGA win. Yes it is a "Him", as perceived by many more people
> than Elaine and myself.
Not by me though. Absolute hypocrisy to allow some people to self-define
whilst withholding this same right from others.
Dare say that we could scare up a few folk who think that a few snips and a
couple of gallons of oestrogen cannot change anything significant for those
on the sidelines of the phenomenon - ya think?
Invest in a sense of humour, June, you'll come to appreciate it after a time
8-)
Nadz
<snippage>
Not really Debs. I am quite capable of understanding deeper stuff
than that. most of what you are saying is just a bunch of "twisted
logic" and not worth re-posting. %)
take care sweetie
j
Jessika
I like that, but more reason of mine stems from being in a body meant to
have been its' opposite. Much like an intergender, while your physical body
appears more one than another, so doesn't your brain sex. It isn't the
easiest to explain, so you can see.
Jess
--
Picture this
If I should make the change
I'd love to pull the wires from the wall!
Did you?
And who are you?
And how can I try?
Here inside I like the metal
Don't you?
"it's easier not to be wise"
The shortest distance between two points is not always a straight line"
Teach a man to fish, and he'll still be a drag!
"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the
obvious." - George Orwell
Bring the violence
It's significant
To the life
If you've ever known anyone
Bring the violence
It's significant
To the life
Can you feel it?
Jess
Nadz
Ah! Nothing like engaging in a spot of judgment from on high I always
say.
How's the weather up there then?
me says, "well yes. when that clouds obscure the view, I do a little
demi-pliés and with a wave of my palm they move aside so one can see
the meadows a bit clearer".
pardon my eurhythmics
luv ya lady
really i do.
%)
j
Deb Marsh
> "Deb Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:DGKtc.83705$hH.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Gender Queer my sweet - those inhabiting that strange twilight world
> > between the fixed poles of the normal which we are led to believe are
> > the only true referents to human existence 8-)
> >
> > Neither one thing nor the other because, in several senses, we are both
> > and therefore disprove the very thing which tasks us - the possibility
> > of either. Freedom eh? Spooky stuff 8-)
> I like that, but more reason of mine stems from being in a body meant to
> have been its' opposite. Much like an intergender, while your physical
> body appears more one than another, so doesn't your brain sex. It isn't
> the easiest to explain, so you can see.
Tell me about it, Jess 8-) How can one know what it is like to be in the
body of the opposite, genetic, sex? One can only know what it is like to
inhabit the body which one has. How can our body be wrong? How could one
describe functional genitalia as some sort of birth defect? If the brain is
incompatible with the body, and yet the body seems to be operating within
normal parameters, how could one claim that the problem was physical?
These and many other questions sent to task you by the friendly folk at
reason.com. "Intergender" would be a rational expression if it were not that
it seems to presuppose inhabiting some half-way-house equidistant between
two equally valid destinations.
I don't claim to know the answers but it seems to me that much of the
difficulty resides in our relationships with, and proximity to, a particular
set of social monoliths. That there are men and there are women appears to
be something so obvious that to take any sort of issue with this truism
would be just plain daft.
But some of us do take issue with this rigidity. We contradict it. We
struggle with its unforgiving nature and the certainty of sexual being as
endowed by Mother Nature or God or fickle fate or the pixies at the bottom
of our gardens.
This is such an intimate thing. We know the impossible because the
impossible is what we experience. And, yes, you are correct, it isn't easy
to explain. It isn't easy because we have nothing to compare it to other
than the models of "the natural" with which we don't comply. Or, rather,
with which we do comply - but not in the usual or appropriate manner 8-)
It isn't the answers which are important, its the questions that are 8-)
Deborah
Deb Marsh
I'd string me up by my thumbs if I were you then.
That'd learn me 8-)
Debs
Nadz
>Queer and here - get used to it 8-)
getting to sound like L D.....
>Not by me though. Absolute hypocrisy to allow some people to
self-define
>whilst withholding this same right from others.
there is no hypocrisy in defining one's self. withholding something
from them? nah. %) and you think that someone who calls another one
a fuckwit deserves to be treated courteously? should one believe what
is inconceivable given the tripe that gets served. perhaps you need
to re-shuffle your sense of values sweetstuffs. %)
>Dare say that we could scare up a few folk who think that a few snips
and a
>couple of gallons of oestrogen cannot change anything significant for
those
>on the sidelines of the phenomenon - ya think?
me thinks they scare up themselves, dear lovely friend. %) no body
other their own determines whether or not they would want it that way
anywho...so beloved, that is not my problem.
>Invest in a sense of humour, June, you'll come to appreciate it after
a time
>8-)
gotcha again dear love. %) along with the best 'o them me do. me
thinks that someone else has the sour puss. 8-{
Silence Dogood
Hugs,
Willow
"Deb Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cYLtc.4341$_k3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 23/05/2004
Silence Dogood
least in long distance mode.
I ignore her, but when I do refer to her, I do it using the pronouns of
*her* choice for herself.
Now, do I think Usher is the least bit feminine? Well, you can guess on
that one, but if she wants to be regarded as feminine *even if I disagree* I
need not stoop to her level in referring to her. Neither, I suggest, need
you follow Laura's uses of "f---wit" by using pronouns that she does not use
in referring to herself.
Heck, if Laura wants to use nasty words and Jennifer wishes to ignore polite
conversation and such - it says a lot about them and little about me. But
if you reply in kind, it starts to talk about you and your standards.
Admittedly, I am a tad old fashioned. At my age, I can be. Honestly,
thought, I don't see any difference between what you do and what she does,
and I care not who started it. If you stop and she continues, she is simply
proving to any who watch and read that she is what you think she is, no
more. You continue as at present and both of you come across as... less
than desirable types.
Willow
"Nadz" <nadz...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:cf3be6bf.0405...@posting.google.com...
Nadz
>I'd string me up by my thumbs if I were you then.
>That'd learn me 8-)
Take me, I'm yours...but, but please don't abuse me. :)
Ya see, I do have a sense of humour and aside from (rarely)
confronting you, I consider you a friend, even though, of course, you
ARE far down below the level of clouds I occupy. :)
Ok, I admit...I was wrong. Jessika is happy with her/his? queerness
as you described (ahem, whatever that was). I will back away slowly
and then run quickly to the nearest area of refuge. :)
luv ya...despite your brain-teasingly absurd analogies.
:)
j
Nadz
Firstly, thank you for saying all of what you said so graciously. I
agree with most of what you said. :)
>Well, Jennifer calls me all sorts of things. I do as a lady would
do, at
>least in long distance mode.
Jennifer can be overly harsh and critical. Stop that Jennifer! I am
sure she is going to listen, yeahhh right. :)
>I ignore her, but when I do refer to her, I do it using the pronouns
of
>*her* choice for herself.
Jennifer presents herself as female, at least that is how I picture
her. You also present yourself as female. I wish she would let her
hostility towards you go away.
>Now, do I think Usher is the least bit feminine? Well, you can guess
on
>that one, but if she wants to be regarded as feminine *even if I
disagree* I
>need not stoop to her level in referring to her. Neither, I suggest,
need
>you follow Laura's uses of "f---wit" by using pronouns that she does
not use
>in referring to herself.
L D's frequent use of the word "F--kwit" and lack of respect for
transsexuals (in general and as stated by L D several times) comprise
the many reflections I see.
>Heck, if Laura wants to use nasty words and Jennifer wishes to ignore
polite
>conversation and such - it says a lot about them and little about me.
But
>if you reply in kind, it starts to talk about you and your standards.
Again, you handle yourself as female and so does jennifer, at least in
my eyes. There must be some vision she has of you that most of us
don't. I would hope that she will in time let go of it and see you as
you really are and not her imaginary image of you. There are no
standards of how people should feel about other people.
>Admittedly, I am a tad old fashioned. At my age, I can be.
Honestly,
>thought, I don't see any difference between what you do and what she
does,
>and I care not who started it. If you stop and she continues, she is
simply
>proving to any who watch and read that she is what you think she is,
no
>more. You continue as at present and both of you come across as...
less
>than desirable types.
If you cannot see the difference between what we do then you should
remove those blinders Willow. Besides, I certainly am not Blake's
alter-ego or counterpart in any way, shape or form.
Jessika
So well-put, intimate? Impossible? Right-on. I responded something of the
like in alt.support.CD, but I wouldn't care to reiterate and destroy the
integrity of this fantabulous comment.
Jess
--
During the 1960's... almost 800 new universities had to be built to
accommodate the baby boomers. Then came the real estate boom of the 70's and
80's. Then came the mini-van boom of the 90's ...and now we're in the SUV
boom of the 2000's! The trick is simply knowing what's next.
"When the spirit is so digital"
We're living far too close to the ground~ Me
Bring the violence
It's significant
To the life
If you've ever known anyone
"It's easier not to be wise"
The shortest distance between two points is not always a straight line"
Teach a man to fish, and he'll still be a drag!
"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the
obvious." - George Orwell
"I wanna live, I wanna love, but it's a long hard road, I don't have!"
Can you feel it?! : o
"Use your fist and not your mouth"
"If I had time to kill the WORLD I'd try."
Jennifer Usher
"Silence Dogood" <sil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HyMtc.576106$Pk3.405506@pd7tw1no...
> Well, Jennifer calls me all sorts of things. I do as a lady would do, at
> least in long distance mode.
Sir, you are no lady. <g>
> I ignore her, but when I do refer to her, I do it using the pronouns of
> *her* choice for herself.
As though I care...
> Now, do I think Usher is the least bit feminine? Well, you can guess on
> that one, but if she wants to be regarded as feminine *even if I disagree*
I
> need not stoop to her level in referring to her. Neither, I suggest, need
> you follow Laura's uses of "f---wit" by using pronouns that she does not
use
> in referring to herself.
Personally, since Mr. Willow has never met me, whether he thinks I am
feminine or not is of no interest to me.
> Heck, if Laura wants to use nasty words and Jennifer wishes to ignore
polite
> conversation and such - it says a lot about them and little about me. But
> if you reply in kind, it starts to talk about you and your standards.
Well, let's see... Mr. Willow is the one who started the attacks.
> Admittedly, I am a tad old fashioned. At my age, I can be. Honestly,
> thought, I don't see any difference between what you do and what she does,
> and I care not who started it. If you stop and she continues, she is
simply
> proving to any who watch and read that she is what you think she is, no
> more. You continue as at present and both of you come across as... less
> than desirable types.
Mr. Willow is an insult to women, period. He plays at being something of a,
as he once put it, "dizzy blonde."
Gee, I wonder, does Mr. Willow ever get along with transsexuals? Not as far
as I can tell.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> >Well, Jennifer calls me all sorts of things. I do as a lady would
> do, at
> >least in long distance mode.
>
> Jennifer can be overly harsh and critical. Stop that Jennifer! I am
> sure she is going to listen, yeahhh right. :)
I stand by my assessment of Mr. Willow.
> >I ignore her, but when I do refer to her, I do it using the pronouns
> of
> >*her* choice for herself.
>
> Jennifer presents herself as female, at least that is how I picture
> her. You also present yourself as female. I wish she would let her
> hostility towards you go away.
ROTFL! When Mr. Willow goes away, I ignore him, and quite frankly, forget
him. But he never stays away. He constantly returns and seeks to pick
another fight with me. So, I simply let him amuse me for the duration of
his stay. I am not hostile to Mr. Willow. I am hostile to the crap he
spews out into the world. That this person is out presenting himself to the
world as a "typical transsexual" sets us back quite a few years.
> >Now, do I think Usher is the least bit feminine? Well, you can guess
> on
> >that one, but if she wants to be regarded as feminine *even if I
> disagree* I
> >need not stoop to her level in referring to her. Neither, I suggest,
> need
> >you follow Laura's uses of "f---wit" by using pronouns that she does
> not use
> >in referring to herself.
>
> L D's frequent use of the word "F--kwit" and lack of respect for
> transsexuals (in general and as stated by L D several times) comprise
> the many reflections I see.
Lyle simply hates transsexuals.
> >Heck, if Laura wants to use nasty words and Jennifer wishes to ignore
> polite
> >conversation and such - it says a lot about them and little about me.
> But
> >if you reply in kind, it starts to talk about you and your standards.
>
> Again, you handle yourself as female and so does jennifer, at least in
> my eyes. There must be some vision she has of you that most of us
> don't. I would hope that she will in time let go of it and see you as
> you really are and not her imaginary image of you. There are no
> standards of how people should feel about other people.
My image of Mr. Willow is not imaginary. I have seen his picture (pit bull
in drag) and have read his words (he cannot seem to get along with any
transsexuals). Simply put, I calls them as I sees them.
> >Admittedly, I am a tad old fashioned. At my age, I can be.
> Honestly,
> >thought, I don't see any difference between what you do and what she
> does,
> >and I care not who started it. If you stop and she continues, she is
> simply
> >proving to any who watch and read that she is what you think she is,
> no
> >more. You continue as at present and both of you come across as...
> less
> >than desirable types.
>
> If you cannot see the difference between what we do then you should
> remove those blinders Willow. Besides, I certainly am not Blake's
> alter-ego or counterpart in any way, shape or form.
As I said, Mr. Willow's problems are with transsexuals, not just with me.
--
Jennifer Usher
Silence Dogood
Every once in a while, someone here forwards a post from dear Jennifer.
Normally, her posts are blanked out on my computer, but not so with those
forwarded messages.
It seems she continues the same old, same old.
As Usher herself points out, we have never met. I have a photo of her;
several of me are available on the Net. Regarding her beauty comments, I
leave that to others. I do not partake in the "beauty myth' - nor should
she. Pots calling kettles black and all.
The rest of her diatribe is also dismissed by that simple fact - she has
never once met me. Not once. Whatever visions she has conjured up in her
mind are hers, and hers alone. So I tend to disregard the continual
comments of me not passing, of me seeking SRS for reasons only Usher seems
certain of, repetitive use of male pronouns and titles and more. As to her
comments regarding getting along with other TS women, well - I have been a
member of one group since 1998, another since 2000, and one that I started
has over 160 members. Many TS women have visited me, coming from as afar
away as NYC and San Diego. I enjoy the friendship of wonderful TS women.
I don't spend much time here. Although it is a nicer places since blocking
her posts, my real friends are elsewhere. The insults, by whomever against
whomever here are tedious.
Usher is unique - and I shall not use my imagination to put down why. She
continues to be uncivil in every post so I ignore them as a rule. Every
once in a while, I do get ticked off when someone forwards one of her
posts - always accompanied with a post concerning insults and "Why don't you
reply/attack her???". To them, and to you, I simply suggest that you use
her words to draw your own conclusions as to her character. Nothing more is
needed. Every insults she aims at me only reflects her - poor mirror!
Willow
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22/05/2004
Silence Dogood
Willow
<nob...@noplace.not> wrote in message
news:35gib01ge2gds60es...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 01:59:19 GMT, "Silence Dogood" <sil...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >sher is unique - and I shall not use my imagination to put down why. She
> >continues to be uncivil in every post so I ignore them as a rule.
>
> If you're as fed up with Jennifer Usher as I am...
>
> Send your complaint via e-mail to ab...@earthkink.net
> Use this subject line:
>
> Ticket AB0000000217118 ATTN: Laura Tisdale
>
> Remember to copy the offending message with all headers showing onto the
> end of your message ... don't use attachments.
>
> --OR--
>
> Make a toll free call to Earthlink Corporate at 1-800-719-4664, press 0
and
> ask the operator to transfer you to Laura Tisdale, in their abuse
> department.
>
> Ms Tisdale is very aware of Usher's antics, just mention the name and
> insist they cut Usher's access.
>
>
> -----
> Laura
Stephe
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 01:59:19 GMT, "Silence Dogood" <sil...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>sher is unique - and I shall not use my imagination to put down why. She
>>continues to be uncivil in every post so I ignore them as a rule.
>
> If you're as fed up with Jennifer Usher as I am...
>
Why not just use some self control and stop reading her posts?
What part of her TOS has she broken exactly?
--
Stephe
Jennifer Usher
"Stephe" <no...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06duc.9348$Yf6....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Why not just use some self control and stop reading her posts?
>
> What part of her TOS has she broken exactly?
None. But that, of course, is lost on Blake.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
<nob...@noplace.not> wrote in message
news:kjbjb0t83bqga389s...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 00:19:59 -0400, Stephe <no...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you're as fed up with Jennifer Usher as I am...
>
> >Why not just use some self control and stop reading her posts?
>
> gives her free reign to do it without anyone challenging her.
>
>
> >What part of her TOS has she broken exactly?
>
>
> http://www.earthlink.net/about/policies/use/
>
> Lets start with ... 2a,c,d,f,j and m ... not to mention the civil
liability
> she exposes them to with that god forsaken slander faq she posts.
2. VIOLATIONS OF EARTHLINK'S ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
The following constitute violations of this AUP:
a.Illegal use. Using the Services to transmit any material (by email,
uploading, posting, or otherwise) that, intentionally or unintentionally,
violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, or any
rules or regulations promulgated thereunder.
Well, I have no idea what law I am supposed to have violated. That is
pretty lame, right off the bat.
c.Threats. Using the Services to transmit any material (by email,
uploading, posting, or otherwise) that threatens or encourages bodily harm
or destruction of property.
Well, I have certainly never encouraged anyone to harm any one bodily, nor
have I called for the destruction of anyone's property.
d.Harassment. Using the Services to transmit any material (by email,
uploading, posting, or otherwise) that harasses another.
Give Blake's behavior, that one is a joke. He is the one who is
harrassing.
f.Forgery or impersonation. Adding, removing or modifying identifying
network header information in an effort to deceive or mislead is prohibited.
Attempting to impersonate any person by using forged headers or other
identifying information is prohibited. The use of anonymous remailers or nic
knames does not constitute impersonation. Using deliberately misleading
headers ("munging" headers) in news postings in order to avoid spam email
address collectors is allowed.
Nope, never once have I forged a header. That one is completely bogus.
j.Collection of personal data. Using the Services to collect, or attempt
to collect, personal information about third parties without their knowledge
or consent.
Huh? I certainly have no one's personal data.
m.News. EarthLink Members should use their best judgment when posting to
any newsgroup. Many groups have charters, published guidelines, FAQs, or
"community standards" describing what is and is not considered appropriate.
Usenet can be a valuable resource if used properly. The continued posting of
off-topic articles is prohibited. Commercial advertisements are off-topic in
most newsgroups, especially regional groups not specifically named for such.
The presence of such articles in a group is not indicative of the group's
"intended" use. Please familiarize yourself with basic Usenet netiquette
before posting to a newsgroup.
EarthLink considers "multiposting" to 10 or more groups within a two week
sliding window to be excessive. EarthLink servers currently limit the number
of allowable "cross-posts" to 9.
EarthLink Members may not cancel messages other than their own messages. A
Member may cancel posts forged in that Member's name. We may cancel any
postings which violate this AUP.
Certainly nothing here that I have violated.
As to civil liability, well that is a joke. The FAQ quotes Blake's own
words. That is a rather unique legal theory he has, suggesting that quoting
someone's words, and commenting on them in a newsgroup, is slander, or
libel, or whatever.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
<nob...@noplace.not> wrote in message
news:prfpb0h3hkn4j093m...@4ax.com...
> > Well, I have no idea what law I am supposed to have violated.
>
> Harassment, Stalking, Defamation.
None of which would hold up in a court of law.
> > c.Threats. Using the Services to transmit any material (by email,
> >uploading, posting, or otherwise) that threatens or encourages bodily
harm
> >or destruction of property.
> >
> > Well, I have certainly never encouraged anyone to harm any one bodily,
nor
> >have I called for the destruction of anyone's property.
>
> Your FAQ actually encourages people to get me kicked off of ISP services,
> which does cause destruction of property... webpages, email addresses,
> chat-links etc.
That could not happen unless you violate the terms of service of your
provider, which you do quite often.
> > d.Harassment. Using the Services to transmit any material (by email,
> >uploading, posting, or otherwise) that harasses another.
> >
> > Give Blake's behavior, that one is a joke. He is the one who is
> >harrassing.
>
> Right ... I'm the one that posts the slander FAQ. Uh-huh...
No, you are the one who is harrassing this newsgroup.
> > f.Forgery or impersonation. Adding, removing or modifying identifying
> >network header information in an effort to deceive or mislead is
prohibited.
> >Attempting to impersonate any person by using forged headers or other
> >identifying information is prohibited. The use of anonymous remailers or
nic
> >knames does not constitute impersonation. Using deliberately misleading
> >headers ("munging" headers) in news postings in order to avoid spam email
> >address collectors is allowed.
> >
> > Nope, never once have I forged a header. That one is completely bogus.
>
> Not when I've used court orders to find out who's posting those anonymous
> impersonations of other people... and your name keeps popping up.
Well, now I know you are lying. I have never forged a header, and therefore
my name could not have popped up. Of course, the whole bit about using
court orders is a lie, but that is beside the point. On this one, as I say,
I *KNOW* you are lying.
> > j.Collection of personal data. Using the Services to collect, or
attempt
> >to collect, personal information about third parties without their
knowledge
> >or consent.
> >
> > Huh? I certainly have no one's personal data.
>
> Your slander FAQ exposes my (old) address and phone number.
Well, now that is interesting, since it simply provides a link to where you
are quoted on Google providing that information, and a quote from you
containing your phone number. The FAQ does not expose them, you did.
> > m.News. EarthLink Members should use their best judgment when posting
to
> >any newsgroup. Many groups have charters, published guidelines, FAQs, or
> >"community standards" describing what is and is not considered
appropriate.
> >Usenet can be a valuable resource if used properly. The continued posting
of
> >off-topic articles is prohibited. Commercial advertisements are off-topic
in
> >most newsgroups, especially regional groups not specifically named for
such.
> >The presence of such articles in a group is not indicative of the group's
> >"intended" use. Please familiarize yourself with basic Usenet netiquette
> >before posting to a newsgroup.
> >
> > EarthLink considers "multiposting" to 10 or more groups within a two
week
> >sliding window to be excessive. EarthLink servers currently limit the
number
> >of allowable "cross-posts" to 9.
>
>
> And you think your posting an average of 300 slams and insults a week is
"on
> topic" and within the group's charter an published guidelines?
No, actually I don't, which is why I urge people to write to your ISP and
complain about you doing so.
> > As to civil liability, well that is a joke. The FAQ quotes Blake's own
> >words.
>
> Look more closely... it's all third party quotes and some of it is even
> self-referential. That's "hear-say" and it ain't gonna cut it in a
> courtroom.
It is quotes of you, from Google. Those quotes, along with the fact that
you nuked all of your posts off of Google, would not help your case at all.
And I suggest you read up on hearsay, as that is not at all pertinent to the
matter.
> >That is a rather unique legal theory he has, suggesting that quoting
> >someone's words, and commenting on them in a newsgroup, is slander, or
> >libel, or whatever.
>
> It is libelous when you LIE about another person... and that FAQ contains
> quite a few flat out lies.
I am aware of no lies. I have challenged you to provide verifable proof of
any lies, and if you do, I will gladly remove the "false" information.
Again, that is VERIFIABLE proof. Put up, or shut up, as they say.
--
Jennifer Usher