HOMER'S PHOBIA WAS THE WORST EPISODE EVER
Steven Johns
Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
episode. I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
could find whimsey in that stance. Granted I laughed a few times but the
overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative right
take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
episode will never air again
Daryl G. Berg
What the hell does political agenda have to do with humor.
I thought it was so damn funny, with homer spouting off every typical line
that homophobes who hate gays for no reason spout off.
The best in a really really long time.
Everything was so over the top, like ytou knew they could take the joke
there, but were shocked when they went through with it.
No other show on prime time could have gotten away with it...and for
pulling it off in such hilarious style, i salute them.
Morality is a personal thing, so keep it personal.
daryl
In article <sjohns-ya023480001602972043140001@news>,
sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Steven Johns) wrote:
S
Le Penguin
>Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
>rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
>episode. I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
>episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
>could find whimsey in that stance. Granted I laughed a few times but the
>overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly
liberal
>prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative right
>take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
>need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode
did.
>To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that
this
>episode will never air again
Are we to understand that you are against a couple being able to do
something intimate which does not affect you or anyone in the entire world
except the two men or women involved? I personally find the thought of two
men together pretty gross myself, but since I never plan to be with
another man sexually, I don't let it bother me . Gay people choose
partners of the same sex because doing so supplies them with one (or both)
of two things: love and orgasms. And guess what, that's exactly why hetero
people choose partners of the opposite sex . So why do you consider this a
problem? You like girls and not boys? Good for you! Take her home, lock
the door, and swing your partner dosie-doe till you're both sore and
bleeding . But it's none of your buisness who other people square dance
with.
-Le Penguin
"Can't... stop... doing... the monkey!"
Aaron Varhola
sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Steven Johns) wrote:
>Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
>rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
>episode. I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
>episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
>could find whimsey in that stance. Granted I laughed a few times but the
>overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
>prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative right
>take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
>need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
>To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
>episode will never air again
Thank you, Mr. Galvanek. You've made it into another "Life In Hell"
cartoon.
Aaron
Parasite
Steven Johns wrote:
>
> Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
> rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
> episode.
Well, we would disagree about that, but, quite obviously, we are both
entitled to our opinion.
> I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
> episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
> could find whimsey in that stance.
So unless I believe what you believe, I'm not "remotely moralistic"?
> Granted I laughed a few times but the
> overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
> prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative right
> take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
> To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
> episode will never air again
Well, this certainly isn't the first instance of "The Simpsons" treating
subject manner in a way that conservatives would dislike. So far, we
have seen shows with a positive slant on vegetarianism (there *seems* to
be a correlation between leftism--vaguely defined---and vegetarianism)
and many instances of subtle criticism about capitalism (Burns) and
religion (Rev. Lovejoy), among other subjects. I don't agree with a
*lot* that I see on television, but I darn well don't call "The 700 Club
"an abomination...
Lee Maguire
Steven Johns (sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
>Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
>rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
>episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
>overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
>prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative right
>take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
>need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
>To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
>episode will never air again
Gee, thanks for the Ellen spoiler - the new series han't started in the
UK yet.
--
Lee Maguire : l...@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk
"If only we'd listened to that boy, instead of walling him up in the
abandoned coke oven." -- Monty Burns, 9F15
Dr. Nguyen Van Falk
>What the hell does political agenda have to do with humor.
>I thought it was so damn funny, with homer spouting off every typical line
>that homophobes who hate gays for no reason spout off.
>The best in a really really long time.
>Everything was so over the top, like ytou knew they could take the joke
>there, but were shocked when they went through with it.
>No other show on prime time could have gotten away with it...and for
>pulling it off in such hilarious style, i salute them.
>Morality is a personal thing, so keep it personal.
>daryl
>
I think you hit it on the head with your second sentence. Homer's
lines were funny for the reasons you gave, but if someone's homophobic
and uses them in all seriousness, then they won't find it funny, but
will be sitting there saying, "Yeah!". Therefore, the show's comedy
quotient rises in direct relation to how mindlessly bigoted you are
not. (Ok, that could have been worded more clearly, but I kind of like
it that way, so it's staying. Plus, this explanation helps fill out
the "fewer new than included" restriction my news server has on it...)
--
Dr. Nugyen Van Falk
"I earn my fee just by pressing this button. Pretty sweet, eh?"
--
Raunch&Menace: Home of the High Weirdness Mailing List
http://www.dreamscape.com
--
Zamphir 1
>... I have heard many people in the coservative right
> take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> need to end this show....
Surely you are grossly over-estimating the power of the Conservative
(pronounced "nut case") Right. I'm sure we'll hear a few rants from Rush
and his teeming hordes of Didiots about how the very moral fiber of this
great nation has been irreparably harmed by this particular episode of The
Simpsons. Perhaps we should keep in mind that this is a CARTOON!!!
Besides which this episode, it seemed to me, taught a lesson in tolerance
and acceptance. I'm a very strong Christian, and I'm quite concerned
about the environment my children will be brought up in. That being said,
I think I'd rather my children love and accept all people, be they gay or
straight, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative (and don't
forget us middle of the road moderates!), not to mention black or white or
asian or jewish or muslim or christian or even right-wing-nut-job! I'd
be much more upset if my child were to adopt Moe's casual bloodlust for
deer (and reindeer) hunting! But I'm also confident that most people can
understand parody and satire when they see it and not assume it portents
the end of the world!!!
Bill Thacker
In article <sjohns-ya023480001602972043140001@news>,
Steven Johns <sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
In another newsgroup, I would be tempted to respond with some fire and
brimstone of my own. Since this is alt.tv.simpsons, it seems more
approriate just to say,
"Oh, be nice!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Lucent Technologies Network Wireless Systems
w...@cbemg.lucent.com (614) 860-5294 Columbus, Ohio
Mark Aaron Richey
I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
> could find whimsey in that stance.
> episode will never air again
OK, lets calm down and take a few deep breaths. Done? Good.
First of all, I'm not sure what you found objectionable. That the
episode suggested that "Gays are people, too"? If that's the case, you
are going to have a lot of problems. That the episode presented
homosexuality in a positive light? I'm not quite sure how positivly
homosexuality was protrayed (that steel mill was pretty sterotypical)?
That it dared to mention homosexuality at all? Well, so what?
What this episode set out to acomplish was to show how silly homophobia
is. Homer's overreaction to John's effect on Bart was over the top, but
this is "The Simpsons", where they can get away with stuff like that.
Who John (or anybody else) chooses to be in relationships is his/her own
private business, and throwing temper tantrums about it, or about shows
suggesting it, is stupid.
Mark Richey
--
**************************************************************************
Will "The English Patient" be cured by some awards? Will it be a hot
night for "Fargo"? Will "Jerry Maguire"'s call of "Show me the Oscars!"
be answered? Will Oscar be telling "Secrets & Lies"? Or will "Shine"
shine? Find out what I think soon when the second annual "Mark Richey's
Oscar Picks" come on line. Only at...
The Mark Richey Home Page
http://www.missouri.edu/~c670008
**************************************************************************
Dennis Vaughn
Steven Johns wrote:
>
> Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
> rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
> episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
> overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
> take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> episode will never air again
I definately agree with you. This is one episode I will not watch
again...even to see what would be cut when it airs in syndication.
So far, "Homer's Phobia" has been the only episode this season that
REALLY sucked. Even not-so-good episodes like "A Milhouse Divided" or
"Twisted World of Marge Simpson" were VERY GOOD episodes compared to
last Sunday's <g>
But this doesn't mean I'll stop watching the Simpsons, you'll find that
with just about any show you watch (a few really lousy episodes).
ILuvSmpsns
I also agree, Matt G Right wing suggestions that are made throught the
episodes,you would think the outcome of this would be different. I started
out enjoying how homophobic Homer was, but leave it to "Tolerance is best"
Marge to butt-in! I hope there arent too many more of these episodes...
Please heed our dismay Matt, Sam, and James!
"Just because I don't care, does'nt mean Im not listening..."
-Homer J. Simpson
Timothy S. Donehoo
HELLO! this post could not be serious; it is just designed to get a
response. Avid fan?? taped all the eps??? So, by now you must know that
the people who created and wrote/write this show are not exactly the same
people who voted for Jesse Helms...In fact I dont think its any secret
that MANY of them are GAY! (p.s. to the person who finds it gross but just
"doesnt think about it"---how did you write this without thinking about
it?--(it's called repression and guess what---everyone thinks about it!)
Thanks, Tim
Scoop
Quoth Robert Speirs:
: : Are we to understand that you are against a couple being able to do
: : something intimate which does not affect you or anyone in the entire world
: : except the two men or women involved? I personally find the thought of two
: Blah blah blah -- the same whiney, childish, immature babbling of
: subversive liberal propaganda.
...which is completely unlike the same whiney, childish, immature babbling
of intolerant "conservative" conspiracists, right?
: Since when do homosexuals have the decency to keep their lifestyle and
: opinions to themselves?
You seem to feel free to express your lifestyle and opinions. Why,
especially if you truly *are* a conservative, would you deny that right to
others with whom you disagree? Are you afraid of them? Threatened by them?
And if so, why?
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - =
sc...@sonic.net -- I consider flame mail to be public domain, and will
gleefully post and dissect it so all can enjoy. Thanks in advance.
Donna Coyne
Steven Johns (sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
: Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
: rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
: episode. I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
: episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
: could find whimsey in that stance. Granted I laughed a few times but the
: overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
: prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative right
: take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
: need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
: To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
: episode will never air again
SARCASM TOGGLE ON
Oh, absolutely! I couldn't agree more that the sexual behavior of
*fictitious cartoon characters* is the worst and most urgent problem
confronting the human race!
SARCASM TOGGLE OFF
....What Is?....
In article <sjohns-ya023480001602972043140001@news> sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Steven Johns) writes:
>Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
>rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
>episode. I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
>episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely
>moralistic could find whimsey in that stance. Granted I laughed a few
>times but the overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a
>shockingly liberal prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in
>the coservative right take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could
>be the very fuel they need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as
>far as this episode did. To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope,
>thought unlikely, that this episode will never air again
Gee, I thought cavemen were extinct...
;-)
Reading that rant above reminds me just how much gay-bashers sound like
racists. Same language, same justifications, same everything. Very
interesting.
Anyway.
Who else thought this would have been much better had it been a "King Of
The Hill" episode? Barney could be Bill, Moe could be Dale, Homer could
be Hank, Bart is of course Bobby... see? Doesn't it work much better
that way? Imagine Hank dragging Bobby out of the gay steel mill... now
*that* works!
Steven Boswell
wha...@yyz.com
<http://www.cerfnet.com/~whatis/>
Kenneth J. Cheek
You gotta be kiddin' me? That was one of the funniest Simpsons I have
seen in a long time.
I busted a guy when Homer said:
"You know me Marge, I like my beer cold, my TV loud and my
homosexuals Flaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaming!"
That was hilarious!
KJC
--
Farley
Aaron Varhola <avar...@spam.sucks.com> wrote in article
<5e92tr$7...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
> sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Steven Johns) wrote:
>
> >Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
> >rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
> >episode. I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
> >episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
> >could find whimsey in that stance. Granted I laughed a few times but
the
> >overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly
liberal
> >prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative right
> >take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> >need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode
did.
> >To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that
this
> >episode will never air again
>
> Thank you, Mr. Galvanek. You've made it into another "Life In Hell"
> cartoon.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> I dissagree, im not a homosexual, but if i were i might be offended at
the episode. If the writers were tring to make a point that homosexuality
is ok that did it in a strange way. They totally exploited all homosexual
stereotypes. They did not try to portray them at all as ordinary people
with a different sexual preference. They were all cooky, sissy-types who
loved to dance. As I saw it the writers were giving homosexuals a cheap
punch in the stomach by portraying them in the maner in which they did.,
just for some cheap laughs. I guess it worked, I know i laughed my ass off.
I know many people were complaining that the writers had no creativity
and that the shows were pretty much the same old rehashed stuff. Well this
different, maybe a little controversial, but fresh. Besides they have been
making subtle jokes at smithers sexuality for years. And hey if you dont
want to see liberalism pushed on tv, than you had better sell your tv. I
hope I didn't step on anyones toes,
FarleY
John Stewart
In article <5eadi5$5...@News.Dal.Ca>, spe...@chebucto.ns.ca (Robert Speirs)
wrote:
> Steven Johns (sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
> : Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
> : rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
> : episode. I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
> : episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
> : could find whimsey in that stance. Granted I laughed a few times but the
> : overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
> : prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the conservative right
> : take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> : need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
> : To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
> : episode will never air again
>
> Agree completely! I am glad that there are still a few sane people around.
> A few more episodes like this, and show will be cancelled.
HEY ROBERT,
FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOVE,
john
Dave Traubert
Isn't it great when the Simpsons can give hateful bigots a soapbox to
stand on?
Dave "straight but not narrow" T.
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Dennis Vaughn wrote:
> Steven Johns wrote:
> >
> > Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
> > rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
> > episode. I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
> > episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
> > could find whimsey in that stance. Granted I laughed a few times but the
> > overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
> > prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative right
> > take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> > need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
> > To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
> > episode will never air again
>
Derek
Robert Speirs wrote:
> Agree completely! I am glad that there are still a few sane people around.
> A few more episodes like this, and show will be cancelled.
I dont think it was the worst, maybe like third worst. Rating F, not
funny.
--
Demigod Derek
http://www.sover.net/~restey/
Cool Descent Page
John Stewart
In article <sjohns-ya023480001602972043140001@news>,
sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Steven Johns) wrote:
> Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
> rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
> episode. I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
> episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
> could find whimsey in that stance. Granted I laughed a few times but the
> overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
> prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative right
> take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
> To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
> episode will never air again
Hey Steven,
what the hell is your problem?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you do not like the pro-gay and pro-tolerance tone
of Feb 16th. Then do not watch the SIMPSONS!!!!!
I am sure Matt Groening would not miss your Viewership!!!
I hope you dont watch it anymore!!!!!
And I hope you get so much angry mail against you.
Watch the 700 Club or listen to Rush Limbaugh. But leave us
Open-Minded Individuals alone.
YOU FACIST HOMOPHOBIC JERK!!!!!!!!!!
FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!
And lastly FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!
Paul Zickler
> Steven Johns wrote:
> >
> > Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged) [sic]
> > rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
> > episode.
> > I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
> > episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely
moralistic [sic]
> > could find whimsey [sic] in that stance.
> > Granted I laughed a few times but the
> > overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
> > prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative
[sic] right
> > take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> > need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
> > To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
> > episode will never air again
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
This is obviously an outstanding example of subtle parody, is it not?
What other explanation could there be? There really aren't people out
there who are THIS STUPID AND IGNORANT are there?
Well, I was entertained reading it.
Paul
Yang Hu
> Blah blah blah -- the same whiney, childish, immature babbling of
> individual entities. Every person's behaviour affects everyone in society,
> in some way, indirectly. Keep the selfish Me Generation crap to yourself.
>
blah, blah, blah, world going to hell in a handbasket..... the same old
closet Nazis babbling of the way it ought to be.... Keep the fascist
crap to yourself.
> Since when do homosexuals have the decency to keep their lifestyle and
> opinions to themselves?
since when do fundamentalists have the decency to keep their lifestyles
and opinions to themselves?
Yang
Erik Speckman
Steven Johns wrote:
>
> Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
> episode.
Yawn. Have you actually watched any of those episodes you have taped
and cataloged?
I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
> episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
> could find whimsey in that stance. Granted I laughed a few times but the
> overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
> prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative right
Erik Speckman
Robert Speirs wrote:
>
> : Are we to understand that you are against a couple being able to do
> : something intimate which does not affect you or anyone in the entire world
> : except the two men or women involved? I personally find the thought of two
>
> subversive liberal propaganda. Human beings are not mutually exclusive
> individual entities. Every person's behaviour affects everyone in society,
> in some way, indirectly. Keep the selfish Me Generation crap to yourself.
>
> opinions to themselves?
Gee, it seems to me that a lot people are pissed off at Homosexuals
these days because the no longer have the "decency" to keep their
lifestyles and opinions to themselves.
Everything would be fine if "they" just went back into the closet, eh?
Humans are not mutually exclusive individual entities. Every person's
behavior affects everyone in society, in some way...
One example, homophobia on the part of a large number of individuals in
this society has long forced homosexuals to keep their sexuality
secret. Among the results, homosexuals are viewed as national security
risks, because they might be blackmailed for state secrets. Of course,
if there was no stigma attached, there would be nothing to blackmail
them with. We were all better off, right?
Bugg.Ki...@tube3.com
I am very right wing and i love The Simpsons. I don't like it for its plot
development, story, and social issues it addresses, but for its clevejokes
and sharp wit.
-->> Sacramento Cable's "The Tube Qubed" <<--
-->> 916.564.1020 - Telnet: Tube3.com - Sacramento, Ca. USA<<--
Bugg.Ki...@tube3.com
Hmm, you seem to using the logical fallacy "Ad Baculum" or appeal to force.
If you call a conservative a bigot enough, no matter how irrelevant what
they had to say is to the realm of bigotry, then they must step down for
fear that everyone will think them a bigot.
Daniel Sheiner
>what the hell is your problem?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
His problem is that he's trying to put his hands over his eyes and
scream "Say it ain't so." He's scared that a part of popular culture,
such as the Simspons, is willing to acknowledge homosexuals as humans.
And he should be scared--there isn't much space left these days for
bigots. There are plenty of them around, but they've worn out their
welcome.
They can only ignore reality for a little longer.
Jesse Fuchs
> Blah blah blah -- the same whiney, childish, immature babbling of
> subversive liberal propaganda. Human beings are not mutually exclusive
> individual entities. Every person's behaviour affects everyone in society,
> in some way, indirectly. Keep the selfish Me Generation crap to yourself.
>
> Since when do homosexuals have the decency to keep their lifestyle and
> opinions to themselves?
Well, maybe it's time for you to take the moral high ground and keep all your
opinions to yourself. Or are you just going to keep indulging in selfish Me
Generation crap by telling us every little thought in your brain?
Death To All False Metal,
jesse fuchs
--
"Semantics is my life."
-Det. Arthur P. Dietrich
Doc Quack
spe...@chebucto.ns.ca (Robert Speirs) wrote:
>: Are we to understand that you are against a couple being able to do
>: something intimate which does not affect you or anyone in the entire world
>: except the two men or women involved? I personally find the thought of two
>
>Blah blah blah -- the same whiney, childish, immature babbling of
>subversive liberal propaganda. Human beings are not mutually exclusive
>individual entities. Every person's behaviour affects everyone in society,
>in some way, indirectly. Keep the selfish Me Generation crap to yourself.
Hmmm? Not sure what you're trying to say there, Robert. Surely you
support everyone's right to freedom of speech. People can say what
they please, and you and I can respond back as we please.
>
>Since when do homosexuals have the decency to keep their lifestyle and
>opinions to themselves?
Since when do hetro-sexuals have the decency to keep their lifestyle
and opinions to themselves?
Since when do bi-sexuals have the decency to keep their lifestyle and
opinions to themselves?
I think that covers everybody.
Doc
Doc Quack
no-...@sonic.net (Scoop) wrote:
>Quoth Robert Speirs:
>: : Are we to understand that you are against a couple being able to do
>: : something intimate which does not affect you or anyone in the entire world
>: : except the two men or women involved? I personally find the thought of two
>:
>: Blah blah blah -- the same whiney, childish, immature babbling of
>: subversive liberal propaganda.
>
>...which is completely unlike the same whiney, childish, immature babbling
>of intolerant "conservative" conspiracists, right?
Why not ask a real conservative, such as me?
>
>: Since when do homosexuals have the decency to keep their lifestyle and
>: opinions to themselves?
>
>You seem to feel free to express your lifestyle and opinions. Why,
>especially if you truly *are* a conservative, would you deny that right to
>others with whom you disagree? Are you afraid of them? Threatened by them?
>And if so, why?
There are some on the conservative side that are homophobes, but I
find an equal number in the liberal camp. However, I must admit that
there are those PC types that seem to feel that they must have special
feelings for anyone with some feature that sets them apart. Sort of a
crowning achievement, so to speak.
Personally, I don't care what anyone's sexual desire is. That is not
really the sum of a person, unless that person allows it to be. Is
not the overly obcessive hetro as obnoxious as the overly obcessive
homo?
Doc
Scoop
Quoth Doc Quack:
: Scoop said:
: >...which is completely unlike the same whiney, childish, immature babbling
: >of intolerant "conservative" conspiracists, right?
:
: Why not ask a real conservative, such as me?
Because *real* conservatives (such as a few of my friends, and apparently
yourself) aren't whiny, childish, immature, intolerant or conspiracist. I
think it's important to draw a distinction between, say, a Barry Goldwater
and a Pat Buchanan; the former is a conservative, the latter something I
can't describe using polite language.
: There are some on the conservative side that are homophobes, but I
: find an equal number in the liberal camp.
No disagreement there. In fact, left-leaning homophobes tend to be more
covert about it; I don't know which is worse, frankly.
: However, I must admit that
: there are those PC types that seem to feel that they must have special
: feelings for anyone with some feature that sets them apart. Sort of a
: crowning achievement, so to speak.
That's an interesting point of view, though I'm not exactly sure I follow
you. Could you elaborate?
: Personally, I don't care what anyone's sexual desire is. That is not
: really the sum of a person, unless that person allows it to be. Is
: not the overly obcessive hetro as obnoxious as the overly obcessive
: homo?
Oh, I think so. But I'm finding it interesting that a couple of people are
complaining about the 2/16 episode not on the basis of its clumsy writing
(like me), but on its "political" message. There also seem to be a couple of
people who think that those who disliked this episode are homophobes. This
says something interesting about the Human Condition, but I'm not sure
what...
Jason Brian Chapa
On 17 Feb 1997 14:24:44 GMT, zamp...@aol.com (Zamphir 1) wrote:
>Surely you are grossly over-estimating the power of the Conservative
>(pronounced "nut case") Right. I'm sure we'll hear a few rants from Rush
>and his teeming hordes of Didiots about how the very moral fiber of this
>great nation has been irreparably harmed by this particular episode of The
>Simpsons. Perhaps we should keep in mind that this is a CARTOON!!!
>Besides which this episode, it seemed to me, taught a lesson in tolerance
>and acceptance. I'm a very strong Christian, and I'm quite concerned
>about the environment my children will be brought up in. That being said,
>I think I'd rather my children love and accept all people, be they gay or
>straight, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative (and don't
>forget us middle of the road moderates!), not to mention black or white or
>asian or jewish or muslim or christian or even right-wing-nut-job! I'd
>be much more upset if my child were to adopt Moe's casual bloodlust for
>deer (and reindeer) hunting! But I'm also confident that most people can
>understand parody and satire when they see it and not assume it portents
>the end of the world!!!
Nice sermon. Kind of made yourself a hypocrite, by the name calling
(right-wing-nut-job).
Jason Brian Chapa
Jason...@cyberstation.net
s black
In article <330926f1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, Doc Quack wrote:
> no-...@sonic.net (Scoop) wrote:
>
> >Quoth Robert Speirs:
<It's hard to figure out who said this from the thread:>
>
> >
> >: Since when do homosexuals have the decency to keep their lifestyle and
> >: opinions to themselves?
********************************************************************
Listen, 'homosexuals' is not a species, okay? they are people who happen
to prefer...blah, blah, blah...we all know this so I won't go off topic:
my *point* is, it is simply not fair to clump people into groups. You
wouldn't like it (or maybe you would for that matter) if I referred to you
and everyone else in your particular tax bracket/profession/church group
(whatever) as though you were all the same person. It's as stupid as
saying 'All jews are rich', 'all black people can dance well', 'all
asians are good at math', 'all native americans are spiritual', all white
people are nazis. - Get the drift?
Some homosexuals are expressive, and a tad pissed off at getting treated
like shit. And some just want to live a peaceful life.
troy-burnette
blah blah blah queer that is what i call you right a queer?
s black <blac...@globalserve.net> wrote in article
<blackink-180...@dialin354.globalserve.net>...
Doc Quack
>of Feb 16th. Then do not watch the SIMPSONS!!!!!
>I am sure Matt Groening would not miss your Viewership!!!
>
>I hope you dont watch it anymore!!!!!
>And I hope you get so much angry mail against you.
>Watch the 700 Club or listen to Rush Limbaugh. But leave us
>Open-Minded Individuals alone.
>YOU FACIST HOMOPHOBIC JERK!!!!!!!!!!
>FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!
>And lastly FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!! Freako thinks he's 'open minded' while being the flip side of
the person he's jumping.
Hate to tell you this, Freako, but that's not exactly a "Open-Minded"
position that you're in.
While I don't agree with the person you're jumping, at least they
didn't go off the deep end as you did. Your rant was neither
appreciated by those you're trying to 'Help' nor convincing to the
other side.
Perhaps you feel better by sprouting those 'rest room wall mottos' but
they mean very little to anyone reading them and deduct from your
position.
Doc
Le Penguin
>: : Are we to understand that you are against a couple being able to do
>: : something intimate which does not affect you or anyone in the entire
world
>: : except the two men or women involved? I personally find the thought
of two
>There are some on the conservative side that are homophobes, but I
>find an equal number in the liberal camp. However, I must admit that
>there are those PC types that seem to feel that they must have special
>feelings for anyone with some feature that sets them apart. Sort of a
>crowning achievement, so to speak.
Special feelings? The only 'special feelings' I have for homosexuals is
the slight 'ickiness' that I get when I picture the thought of two men
together. HOWEVER, I get a similar feeling weh I think of guacamole, and I
don't hold anything against people who like to eat that, so why should I
have something against homosexuals? My point when I made the above post
(two people doing whatever they want) was exactly oppsoite of how some
people seem to have taken it: I don't think gays deserve any special
treatment . But I do believe that they deserve _equal_ treatment . Gay
people shouldn't be given awards for making love to people of the same sex
unless they're really, really good at it... but then again, I think
straight people should get similar awards . I personally think that I
would be in contention for at least two or three of the catagories, but I
just know I wouldn't be able to make it throught the decathalon . But I
digress....
My point here, as it was in my earlier post, is not to treat homosexuals
as anything more than what they are: people. They don't deserve special
treatment any more than straight peolpe do. What I still fail to
understand is why some people think of homosexuality as bad. Oh well, time
to go laugh at Marmaduke again... I'm sure that this thread is far from
over, so I guess I'll see you guys later.
Happy hunting, ladies.
-Le Penguin
"Oh, my God, he IS coming on to me!"
Ellen M Watts
On 18 Feb 1997, Robert Speirs wrote:
> : You seem to feel free to express your lifestyle and opinions. Why,
> : especially if you truly *are* a conservative, would you deny that right to
> : others with whom you disagree? Are you afraid of them? Threatened by them?
> : And if so, why?
>
> ^^^typical radically liberal combative response.
Also known as "freedom of speech." Its found in a little known piece of
work called the CONS-TI-TU-TION. You ought to read it some day. Very
enlightening. It actually *guarantees* us the right to "typical radically
liberal combative responses"! Can you imagine such a thing!! Thank god
you and Pat Buchanan and the rest of the club are working to have it
revoked!
Bill Thacker
In article <01bc1d2c$4d5342c0$fb09b9ce@mb26>, Farley <far...@farley.net> wrote:
>
> I dissagree, im not a homosexual, but if i were i might be offended at
>stereotypes. They did not try to portray them at all as ordinary people
>with a different sexual preference. They were all cooky, sissy-types who
>loved to dance.
Well, I *am* a homosexual :-) , and I wasn't offended at all. I'm sure
other lesbians and gay men might disagree with me, but here's why the
stereotypes didn't bother me.
1) They were exaggerated to the point of being camp. The steelworker
walking past wearing nothing but a hard hat and short-shorts, carrying
a crucible of molten steel, saying, "Hot stuff coming through!"... it
was precious! What was being parodied there was *not* gay people;
the stereotypes themselves were being lampooned. How would a
homophobe expect a gay steel mill to look? Probably about like "The
Anvil", ludicrous though it was. :-)
2) I consider the source. Groening and his writers have consistently
expressed liberal and pro-gay sentiments, so there was never any
question of their motives in this episode. (This is the same logic
that says it's OK for a friend to call me "queer", but it's not OK
for Jesse Helms to call me that.)
3) The stereotypes had to be exaggerated because (as Homer himself
illustrated early in the episode) many straight people just don't pick
up on more subtle hints.
4) It's comedy, not drama. It *has* to be outrageous.
For me, the bottom line to the Simpsons is, "If Homer does it, it's
almost always wrong. If Marge and Lisa do it, it's almost always
right."`
I am, admittedly, relatively thick-skinned on such matters, and I
don't claim to speak for all lesbigay people.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Lucent Technologies Network Wireless Systems
w...@cbemg.lucent.com (614) 860-5294 Columbus, Ohio
Mark Tangard
It's amazing (but hardly surprising) that so many screechers have
quickly peppered the newsgroup with yet another flood of "worst ever"
tirades about this episode (including one genius who decided it was
GOING to suck, i.e., he declared he hated it before even watching it).
Newsflash: Nobody cares what this crowd of stay-at-homes thought of
this episode, or of any of the others. If you think the denizens of
this newsgroup are a representative slice of the viewing public, or
that the writers and producers take our criticisms to heart, you're
deluded. Owning a modem doesn't suddenly make your opinions worth
more. In fact, one could easily argue the opposite, i.e., that
anyone who spends so much time snarling into a PC does *not* spend
much time out shopping & playing consumer, so the opinions of a bunch
of modem-sucking dweebs may not mean much to the sponsors you'd like
to threaten.
But just for the record, all the gay people I know, and a lot of the
straight ones, loved this episode and found it generally hilarious,
despite its obvious flaws and weak/trite ending. None of the gay
people I know were offended by the mild stereotyping, as some straights
here assumed we would be. I personally feel sorta above the whole idea
of feigning injury from a mild slight -- unlike Steven Johns and his
Vomit Brigade, who can barely conceal the *nausea* they claim to suffer
whenever a TV show acknowledges that gay people *exist*. Get over it,
boys. Get a life, and/or get a stomach (or some testicles). If you
don't, then when you finally do grow up you'll be a bunch of twisted
control freaks and very, very unhappy.
Steven Johns (sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us) puffed up his widdle chest and
wrote:
> Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
Oooooh, you must have a really hopping social life, huh bubba?
> I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent episode has
> adopted.
Agenda? It's not an *agenda*, oh great Pukemaster. It's a *cartoon*.
> I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic could find whimsey
> in that stance.
I don't see why the feelings of "moralistic" people should be so sacred.
Moralistic is defined as "marked by a narrow-minded morality." That's
a pejorative, in case you didn't notice. If you want TV that reflects
only your own moral views, go get your own planet, and build a nice big
screening area for filtering out all the heathens and free thinkers.
This world is not obligated to live up to your hallucinations, and much
of it is *laughing* at how hard you try to make it do just that.
Chris Pollard
ILuvSmpsns (iluvs...@aol.com) writes:
> I also agree, Matt G Right wing suggestions that are made throught the
> episodes,you would think the outcome of this would be different. I started
> out enjoying how homophobic Homer was, but leave it to "Tolerance is best"
> Marge to butt-in! I hope there arent too many more of these episodes...
> Please heed our dismay Matt, Sam, and James!
>
>
I don't mean to be seem too dense, but are you being funny? If you are,
then fine. But if you're not, "Matt G Right wing suggestions"? That is
such an incredibly innacurate thought that you have to be joking.
Otherwise, I don't think it would be possible to chart how much you have
missed the point of the Simpsons. But I am assuming you're having a laugh.
Good one.
Chris
P.S. I especially chuckle over your finding homophobia amusing.
--
You are one fine looking woman, lady. If I wasn't married, I'd go out
with you like that (slams down beer which spills). I am so sorry. Whatever
you do, don't tell Marge. God, I love her, I...hey, a penny (falls off stool).
[Homer Simpson in conversation with Dana Scully]
Dee
On 17 Feb 1997 14:24:44 GMT, zamp...@aol.com (Zamphir 1) wrote:
>In article <sjohns-ya023480001602972043140001@news>,
>sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Steven Johns) wrote:
>
>>... I have heard many people in the coservative right
>> take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
>> need to end this show....
>
>Surely you are grossly over-estimating the power of the Conservative
>(pronounced "nut case") Right. I'm sure we'll hear a few rants from Rush
>and his teeming hordes of Didiots about how the very moral fiber of this
>great nation has been irreparably harmed by this particular episode of The
>Simpsons. Perhaps we should keep in mind that this is a CARTOON!!!
>Besides which this episode, it seemed to me, taught a lesson in tolerance
>and acceptance. I'm a very strong Christian, and I'm quite concerned
>about the environment my children will be brought up in. That being said,
>I think I'd rather my children love and accept all people, be they gay or
>straight, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative (and don't
>forget us middle of the road moderates!), not to mention black or white or
>asian or jewish or muslim or christian or even right-wing-nut-job! I'd
>be much more upset if my child were to adopt Moe's casual bloodlust for
>deer (and reindeer) hunting! But I'm also confident that most people can
>understand parody and satire when they see it and not assume it portents
>the end of the world!!!
>
>
It's ironic that you say you would "rather your children love
and accept all people" while calling people to your right "nutcases"
and "Didiots". Moderate? Hum, sounds like the hypocrisy of the Left
to me.
Scoop
Quoth Woody:
:
: Didja ever notice.... That the PC's in the world usually tend to rely on
: the following argument to prove their point:
:
: "You're stupid and ignorant. Your opinions are from the stone age."
And did you ever notice that, changing "stone age" to "'60s", the same
argument comes from so-called "right-wingers"?
: It is not NORMAL to be a living
: creature that can not reproduce, except in the case of extreme communal
: creatures like ants and bees... which we certainly are not. Anyway...
So either ants and bees are not NORMAL, or the exception you make for them
doesn't apply to humans for reasons that you're not stating. Which is it?
Scoop
Quoth Robert Speirs:
: Be a pervert in the comfort of your home, if you so wish, but recognize
: the fact that you are the minority and therefore should not meddle with
: politics nor try to brainwash the majority.
So, Bob -- you don't think the First Amendment should apply to minorities?
The Christian Coalition represents a minority of Republicans; should they
also "not meddle with politics nor try to brainwash the majority"?
Ellen M Watts
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Doc Quack wrote:
> spe...@chebucto.ns.ca (Robert Speirs) wrote:
>
> >: Are we to understand that you are against a couple being able to do
> >: something intimate which does not affect you or anyone in the entire world
> >: except the two men or women involved? I personally find the thought of two
> >
> >Blah blah blah -- the same whiney, childish, immature babbling of
> >subversive liberal propaganda. Human beings are not mutually exclusive
> >individual entities. Every person's behaviour affects everyone in society,
> >in some way, indirectly. Keep the selfish Me Generation crap to yourself.
Indeed, your behaviour is giving me stomach cramps. Point well taken.
Peter McEwen
Robert Speirs wrote:
>
> Steven Johns (sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
> : [snip]
> : I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
> : episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
> : could find whimsey in that stance. [more snipped]
>
> Agree completely! I am glad that there are still a few sane people around.
> A few more episodes like this, and show will be cancelled.
What amazes me more than anything else is that you guys honestly think
you are the sane ones. Get a clue!
DethStar
PEOPLE this is a SIMPSON'S newsgroup. Take your political shit
somewhere else, noone gives a damn about it here.
-DethStar
Michael Chapman
In article <330809...@earthlink.net> Parasite <para...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Steven Johns wrote:
>>
>> Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
>> rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
>> episode.
>Well, we would disagree about that, but, quite obviously, we are both
>entitled to our opinion.
>> I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
>> episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
>> could find whimsey in that stance.
>So unless I believe what you believe, I'm not "remotely moralistic"?
>> Granted I laughed a few times but the
>> overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
>> prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative right
>> take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
>> need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
>> To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
>> episode will never air again
>Well, this certainly isn't the first instance of "The Simpsons" treating
>subject manner in a way that conservatives would dislike. So far, we
>have seen shows with a positive slant on vegetarianism (there *seems* to
>be a correlation between leftism--vaguely defined---and vegetarianism)
>and many instances of subtle criticism about capitalism (Burns) and
>religion (Rev. Lovejoy), among other subjects. I don't agree with a
>*lot* that I see on television, but I darn well don't call "The 700 Club
>"an abomination...
I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion because I don't think
people's opinions are changed very much by a TV show, and they are changed
even less by what someone posts to a newsgroup dedicated to a TV show. But
one of the most conservative and preachy shows on television (which happens to
be my second favorite show-behind the Simpsons) is "Touched by An Angel."
This show, which probably has a closer overlapping audience with the 700 Club
than with the Simpsons, had a very excellent episode recently about tolerance.
So while Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode of the Simpsons, TBAA has
gone much further.
I think Sunday's episode was good but not great. My opinion of the episode
has nothing to do with the subject matter or how the writers handled it. It
is more based on the quantity and quality of the jokes. True, I understood
some of the jokes that other people may not have gotten and that's part of the
reason I don't think the show was all that bad. If the show was giving a
message it was rambling. It had a lame and predictable ending, but how
could you not like:
the pogostilts
"I like my beer cold, my TV loud and my homosexuals FLAAAMING"
"Oh, yeah Homer, the steel industry is gay, aerospace gay, the railroads are
gay, and even Broadway."
"Dedicated to the Steel Workers of America... Keep reaching for the rainbow."
"I've been tenderized."
John's car horn playing "Over the Rainbow"
Michael C , who thought of a lot more examples...hmmm maybe this episode will
move up my list after I watch it again
"Nothing God made is queer" - Monica from TBAA
Jswitz322
sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us:
ridgecrest, eh? someone needs to leave the desert and learn how to
interact with other human beings. now let us pray to jesus that all these
heathen homosexuals are struck down by the mighty hand of the lord and
that this country learns that diversity and independent thought are traits
incompatible with our christian freedom. [sic]
Farley
Bill Thacker <w...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com> wrote in article
<5ecigf$6...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>...
well, you make some good points. But personally I thought the scenes where
Homer spoke openly about his concern that his son might be a homosexual was
in poor taste. Bart is rather young even if he is only animated. Don't get
me wrong I thought the Hawian shirt scene and the cigarette ad scene were
hilarious.
I just don't think that most people would approve of how Homer endorsed his
fifth grade sons homosexuality at the end of the show (even though he
wasn't really gay).
As for my comments about homosexuals being offended at the stereotypes
portrayed, I didn't say that they all would be offended. However I would
think that some more sensative queers would be. I doubt that a homosexual
hard core simpsons fan would be too upset at the homosexual stereotypes
portrayed. I mean that is true simpsons style. Farley
Woody
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Paul Zickler wrote:
> > Steven Johns wrote:
> > >
> > > Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged) [sic]
> > > rarely have I ever found anything as reprehensible as Sunday evenings
> > > episode.
> > > I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
> > > episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely
> moralistic [sic]
> > > could find whimsey [sic] in that stance.
> > > Granted I laughed a few times but the
> > > overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
> > > prohomosexual stance. I have heard many people in the coservative
> [sic] right
> > > take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> > > need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
> > > To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
> > > episode will never air again
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> This is obviously an outstanding example of subtle parody, is it not?
> What other explanation could there be? There really aren't people out
> there who are THIS STUPID AND IGNORANT are there?
>
> Well, I was entertained reading it.
>
> Paul
Didja ever notice.... That the PC's in the world usually tend to rely on
the following argument to prove their point:
"You're stupid and ignorant. Your opinions are from the stone age."
I'm not stating my own views here, but if you intend to argue a point like
this, could you at least cite something relavent? Even if you quoted some
RIDICULOUS poll that surveyed a very well-known gay community to conclude
that 10% of all men are gay, it would be better than what you have here...
Or maybe you could try to explain that being gay is a very normal and
natural thing, despite the facts:
1. Man is just another species
2. There is ultimately only ONE purpose for each and every species on
Earth.
Think about it. If a person is born without the ability to reproduce,
there is something WRONG. It is an ERROR. Nature has screwed up because
it serves no purpose in the long run. It is not NORMAL to be a living
creature that can not reproduce, except in the case of extreme communal
creatures like ants and bees... which we certainly are not. Anyway...
Man, gotta love those PC's and their logic patterns.
Woody!
Neal W. Miller
Le Penguin (lepe...@aol.com) wrote:
: My point here, as it was in my earlier post, is not to treat homosexuals
: as anything more than what they are: people. They don't deserve special
: treatment any more than straight peolpe do. What I still fail to
: understand is why some people think of homosexuality as bad. Oh well, time
: to go laugh at Marmaduke again...
Marmaduke is gay?
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neal W. Miller | Southampton, | "This Side Up - Not Plummet Please!"
mill...@dynanet.com | PA 18966 | - the box for my Taiwanese CPU fan
---------------------- http://www.dynanet.com/~millernw ----------------------
Scoop
Quoth Robert Speirs:
: : >Since when do homosexuals have the decency to keep their lifestyle and
: : >opinions to themselves?
:
: ^^^Well, we have a winner...for one of the most unintelligent comments, ever.
Um... Bob? Are you aware that you're quoting yourself here?
Aaron Varhola
spe...@chebucto.ns.ca (Robert Speirs) wrote:
>Be a pervert in the comfort of your home, if you so wish, but recognize
>the fact that you are the minority and therefore should not meddle with
>politics nor try to brainwash the majority.
If only the Christian Coalition would take your nonsense to heart, the
world would be a much better place.
Aaron
Soze
Bill Thacker wrote:
> For me, the bottom line to the Simpsons is, "If Homer does it, it's
> almost always wrong. If Marge and Lisa do it, it's almost always
> right."`
>
Since this is the first post in the thread which actually mentions OFF
I gotta respond to it. You seem to forget that also in season eight
Marge was standing on a soapbox attempting to get the Burlesque house
run out of town on a rail. Eventually she was ready to bulldoze it. Also
she has been known to say "I don't like controversy in this house." and
go gaga over Brad Goodman when Homer was against the notion. My point is
that Homer is right a heckuva lot more times than people think and Marge
- until now- has been a tremendous prude. Your view on Lisa I can agree
with for the most part although forcing your views on others (Vegetarian
ep.) ain't too good. The rest of this thread I'll leave alone for now
cause I waste enough of my time watching Simpsons and have no time for
pointless arguments on obvious issues. (Live and let live)
Later :-)
-------------------------------------
Let us celebrate our arrangement with
the adding of chocolate to milk.
-Homer Simpson-
-------------------------------------
Michael Chapman
In article <5eanh0$e...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> kjc...@prairienet.org (Kenneth J. Cheek) writes:
>You gotta be kiddin' me? That was one of the funniest Simpsons I have
>seen in a long time.
>I busted a guy when Homer said:
> "You know me Marge, I like my beer cold, my TV loud and my
>homosexuals Flaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaming!"
>
>That was hilarious!
>KJC
>--
You did mean "gut" didn't you? That was also my favorite line in the show.
Michael C, who would put this episode somewhere between 50 and 100 on a list
of the best episodes.
"What kind of perverse human being would find this show funny?"
--Marge Simpson
Greg Johnson
Robert Speirs wrote:
>
> Steven Johns (sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
> : Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
> : episode. I am sickened by the prohomosexual agenda that this recent
> : episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
> : overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
> : take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> : need to end this show. Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
> : To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
> : episode will never air again
>
> A few more episodes like this, and show will be cancelled.
I agree, I personally believe it was a bad concept for such a good and
liberal show such as the simpsons. Not that I care if a show makes fun
of homosexuals (although I am a liberal) I just thought it didn't relate
too much to simpsons-esque humor, but I thought the writer's did a
DECENT job trying to deal with such a humorless topic (or at least as it
relates to simpsons humor)
from the office of the lord of the crumpets,
Greggo M. Johnson, esquire
Daniel Sheiner
>Yes, I am threatened. If everyone took on this lifestyle, the human race
>would cease to exist.
And what is the likelyhood of that occurence? Even if it happened, it
would not mean your death--just your failure to procreate.
But, since only a small percentage of the population *is* in fact
homosexual, how does that harm you?
Doc Quack
no-...@sonic.net (Scoop) wrote:
>Quoth Doc Quack:
>: Why not ask a real conservative, such as me?
>
>Because *real* conservatives (such as a few of my friends, and apparently
>yourself) aren't whiny, childish, immature, intolerant or conspiracist. I
>think it's important to draw a distinction between, say, a Barry Goldwater
>and a Pat Buchanan; the former is a conservative, the latter something I
>can't describe using polite language.
That makes at least two or three million of us. Being conservative
does not mean that all of us are alike.
>
>: There are some on the conservative side that are homophobes, but I
>: find an equal number in the liberal camp.
>
>No disagreement there. In fact, left-leaning homophobes tend to be more
>covert about it; I don't know which is worse, frankly.
Nor do I.
>
>: However, I must admit that
>: there are those PC types that seem to feel that they must have special
>: feelings for anyone with some feature that sets them apart. Sort of a
>: crowning achievement, so to speak.
I hate being pandered to, when all I want is to treated as everyone
else. No special perks, and I'm not brain damaged because of who or
what I am.
A forced reverse discrimination is just as sickening to me as out and
out bigotry.
>
>That's an interesting point of view, though I'm not exactly sure I follow
>you. Could you elaborate?
See above.
>
>: Personally, I don't care what anyone's sexual desire is. That is not
>: really the sum of a person, unless that person allows it to be. Is
>: not the overly obcessive hetro as obnoxious as the overly obcessive
>: homo?
>
>Oh, I think so. But I'm finding it interesting that a couple of people are
>complaining about the 2/16 episode not on the basis of its clumsy writing
>(like me), but on its "political" message. There also seem to be a couple of
>people who think that those who disliked this episode are homophobes. This
>says something interesting about the Human Condition, but I'm not sure
>what...
Most of the fans I've talked to are upset that the character
development of the past has been destroyed. To get the same feeling,
what if Hawkeye, in the latter episodes of MASH, suddenly developed
the same personality as that of Frank Burns in earlier shows. I
suspect that Allen Alda would have quit rather than let his character
become a selfish buffoon.
Obviously, no one spoke out for Homer during the script development.
Doc
Scoop
Quoth Doc Quack:
: Being conservative
: does not mean that all of us are alike.
Exactly my point.
: Most of the fans I've talked to are upset that the character
: development of the past has been destroyed. To get the same feeling,
: what if Hawkeye, in the latter episodes of MASH, suddenly developed
: the same personality as that of Frank Burns in earlier shows. I
: suspect that Allen Alda would have quit rather than let his character
: become a selfish buffoon.
BINGO! This is something that didn't bother me quite so much at first (since
I've only lately discovered the show and hence the characters); but what
really got me about this episode was its predictability. I consider myself a
fairly creative person, but I expect something of the Simpsons caliber to be
better than I could write myself. 99% of the time that's the case... 2/16
wasn't, or at least the plot wasn't. (John Waters' line "Homer, we could
stick a price tag on your head and sell you for high camp" [or whatever he
said] certainly was.)
Oh well... but the thing to remember is that the more skillful the
production, the more noticeable the inevitable off-night.
John Shields
now now children....
--
John Shields
j...@kuentos.guam.net
http://virtual.guam.net/PPP/People/JohnShields.html>
Scoop
Quoth Robert Speirs:
: Be a pervert in the comfort of your home, if you so wish, but recognize
: the fact that you are the minority and therefore should not meddle with
: politics nor try to brainwash the majority.
So, Bob -- you don't think the First Amendment should apply to minorities?
Brad Filippone
Robert Speirs (spe...@chebucto.ns.ca) wrote:
: : Are we to understand that you are against a couple being able to do
: : something intimate which does not affect you or anyone in the entire world
: : except the two men or women involved? I personally find the thought of two
: Blah blah blah -- the same whiney, childish, immature babbling of
: subversive liberal propaganda. Human beings are not mutually exclusive
: individual entities. Every person's behaviour affects everyone in society,
: in some way, indirectly. Keep the selfish Me Generation crap to yourself.
: Since when do homosexuals have the decency to keep their lifestyle and
: opinions to themselves?
Mr. Speirs, you almost make me ashmed to be from the same Canadian
province as you. You are a poor excuse for a human being.
--
mmm...@acsu.buffalo.edu
> : You seem to feel free to express your lifestyle and opinions. Why,
> : especially if you truly *are* a conservative, would you deny that right to
> : others with whom you disagree? Are you afraid of them? Threatened by them?
> : And if so, why?
>
> ^^^typical radically liberal combative response.
>
^^^typical self-righteous propagandaist evasiveness to legitimate
questions.
Or should I say "avoision" :)
Matthew M. Monin
mmm...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Mike Silverman
> Yes, I am threatened. If everyone took on this lifestyle, the human race
> would cease to exist.
Do you think being gay is something that people choose?
Yes, I decided to choose to be a member of a tiny minority that is
constantly harassed and threatened. I enjoy being called names, having my
civil liberties taken away, and having to post responses to ignornant boobs
such as yourself.
--
Mike Silverman <cub...@turnleft.com> <http://www.turnleft.com>
"If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet
door" - Harvey Milk
SpSimba
<<< No Message Collected >>>
JDH910
Steven Johns (sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
> Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
> adopted.
> I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic could find whimsey
> in that stance.
Ya know...what's really curious about this ridiculous bit of moronic
thought, is the idea that someone with a mind like this could be "an avid
Simpsons fan" in the first place.
One must assume that the multitude of off-hand references over the
years, aimed at the intolerant and reactionary forces in America must have
simply whizzed over this poor soul's head.
Apparently only messages painted with the broadest of brushes will
insult people like this, as anything aimed at a more cerebral audience
will simply miss the mark..
.
Le Penguin
With all this bickering, I am reminded of the following quote from Matt
>Groening (from `Life in Hell'):
>
> The New Pledge: I pledge allegiance to -- and wrap myself in -- the
> flag of the United States Against Anything Un-American, and to the
> Republicans for which it stands, two nations, under Jesus, rich
> against poor, with curtailed liberty and justice for all (except
> blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions, Communists, welfare
> queens, tree huggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants, children of
> illegal immigrants, and you if you don't watch
your step).
A terrific strip, I love Life In Hell, but I have had trouble finding any
web sites with pages devoted to one of the best comic strips since Bloom
County. Does anyone know of any?
-Le Penguin
"I'm not really Colonel Klink... I'm just assuming his
fo-orm."
Derek
John Stewart wrote:
> Watch the 700 Club or listen to Rush Limbaugh. But leave us
> Open-Minded Individuals alone.
Define open minded for us. I want to see what you think it means.
> YOU FACIST HOMOPHOBIC JERK!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, you facist!
> FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!
>
> And lastly FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, here is a true liberal responce. Not over until the profanity
breaks out. The person that you were responding to did not use any
profanity, so why did you have to?
--
Derek
Scoop wrote:
> ...which is completely unlike the same whiney, childish, immature babbling
> of intolerant "conservative" conspiracists, right?
Whining? It seems to me the people who are whining, childish and
immature babbling are Liberals (and dont deny you are one).
> You seem to feel free to express your lifestyle and opinions. Why,
> especially if you truly *are* a conservative, would you deny that right to
> others with whom you disagree? Are you afraid of them? Threatened by them?
> And if so, why?
Yes, I am threatened. If everyone took on this lifestyle, the human race
would cease to exist.
Le Penguin
>Yes, I am threatened. If everyone took on this lifestyle, the human race
>would cease to exist.
Totally false .Melisa Etheridge (sp?) proved you wrong just a few days ago
with the birth of a healthy baby boy . Congratulations, Ms. Etheridge
(again, sp?)
So if everyone in the world was homosexual, the only major differences
would be more sperm banks and women would buy PlayDude instead of men...
unless there's another interview with Lorne Micheals (No one could pass up
that issue!)
-Le Penguin
"I'm more striking than lovely."
Anthony Torres
> sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Steven Johns) writes:
> Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
> episode has adopted.
Oh, yes, yes. Sick. Absolutely disgusting. To THINK that Marge, Lisa and
Bart weren't revolted by John's blatant display of homosexuality. How
misguided and ill-informed can animated characters be?
> I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
> could find whimsey in that stance.
You're right. There's nothing whimsical about accepting homosexuals.
What IS whimsical, if not downright hilarious, is making fun of small-minded
people who get morally outraged at one's private behavior.
> Granted I laughed a few times but the
> overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
> prohomosexual stance.
Shocking, just shocking. Tsk tsk. Those bleeding heart liberals are always
so tolerant and accepting. What's with them, anyway?!
> I have heard many people in the coservative right
> take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> need to end this show.
Really??? MANY people in the conservative right? I follow politics, and I haven't
heard of any such outcry. Of course, no group of conservative extremists could
shut down a TV show. If they could, network executives would be licking Rev.
Donald Wildmon's boots so much, they could double as mirrors.
> Even Ellen hasn't gone as far as this episode did.
Wait 'til next month!!! The hinges are coming off the closet door, from what I read.
> To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
> episode will never air again
Well, I hope it does, because it pretty good and I forgot to tape it. And besides,
John Waters is a great guy and one of my favorite directors. "The Simpsons"
should have more guest voices who are well-known, but aren't household names.
My two cents,
Anthony in Michigan
Dave Hall
With all this bickering, I am reminded of the following quote from Matt
Groening (from `Life in Hell'):
The New Pledge: I pledge allegiance to -- and wrap myself in -- the
flag of the United States Against Anything Un-American, and to the
Republicans for which it stands, two nations, under Jesus, rich
against poor, with curtailed liberty and justice for all (except
blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions, Communists, welfare
queens, tree huggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants, children of
illegal immigrants, and you if you don't watch your step).
FYI some other snappy Matt Groening quotes:
"You can divide people into two groups: the Daffy Ducks and the
Elmer Fudds. The Daffys are the people who laugh and annoy other
people, and the Elmers are the ones who don't laugh and get
annoyed."
"Judging by those who talk about it all the time, virtue seems to
consist of three elements: (1) walking around like you have a broom
up your ass, (2) feeling smug about the broom up your ass and (3)
thinking the world would be a perfect place if only we could get
rid of people who use phrases like "broom up your ass."
--
I say there's more truth in the Simpsons and the way it portrays
human beings and life in our country, probably globally -- and that
to me is far more beneficial than trying to have a false morality
that doesn't really exist in the real world.
-- David Silverman
Le Penguin
>You gotta be kiddin' me? That was one of the funniest Simpsons I have
>seen in a long time.
>I busted a guy when Homer said:
Wow, the mother of all Fruedian slips!
-Le Penguin
"I'll just push the buton for the stimulator...I MEAN
ELEVATOR!!"
Le Penguin
>spe...@chebucto.ns.ca (Robert Speirs) wrote:
>Be a pervert in the comfort of your home, if you so wish, but recognize
>the fact that you are the minority and therefore should not meddle with
>politics nor try to brainwash the majority.
This post was a joke, right? I understand that everyone here has as much a
right to post whatever they want as I have to mercilessly berate said
post, but this message left me baffled . Being gay is meddling in
politics? Presenting new ideas = brainwashing? Go answer the phone, sir...
I think Big Brother is calling to tell you to be a little more tolerant .
I'd continue, but this person's post damaged itself more than I could
possibly hope to. Ta...
-Le Penguin
"And no more questions on weather or not this is a joke."
Woody
On 18 Feb 1997, Scoop wrote:
> Quoth Woody:
> : It is not NORMAL to be a living
> : creature that can not reproduce, except in the case of extreme communal
> : creatures like ants and bees... which we certainly are not. Anyway...
>
> So either ants and bees are not NORMAL, or the exception you make for them
> doesn't apply to humans for reasons that you're not stating. Which is it?
The exception is quite clearly stated above. These animals are normal for
what they are, extremely communal animals. That is, there are some types
of ants and bees whose only purpose is to sacrifice themselves but
ultimately for the continuation of the colony. People simply serve no
purpose by doing that. With bees and ants, the entire colony has invested
in the genetics of the queen and a few select 'maters'. The rest have no
chance of mating and serve to 'assist' those that do mate. Get it? They
are NOT LIKE HUMANS.
Woody!
Mark Tangard
Robert Speirs (spe...@chebucto.ns.ca) wrote:
: My, how this thread has dropped to the level of name-calling. ;)
This from a person who has just called another user a moron, and who
previously classified others as whiny, childish, and immature (ooooh,
can you say pot/kettle/black...)
Nothing like rising above the tactics one criticizes. Shows such
style, such panache. Not.
SpSimba
Woody writes:
> If a person is born without the ability to reproduce,
>there is something WRONG. It is an ERROR. Nature has screwed up because
>it serves no purpose in the long run. It is not NORMAL to be a living
>creature that can not reproduce, except in the case of extreme communal
>creatures like ants and bees... which we certainly are not.
Really? So you're only purpose in your life is to reproduce? How boring.
Myself, I like to think that I was put on this Earth to do more things
than reproduce. In fact, if that's all I accomplished in life, I'd be a
piss poor example of humankind. And what do you say to men and women who,
biologically unable to reproduce, adopt unwanted children? Apparently
that's not "normal" (though your definition of normality seems very
rigid).
Bill Thacker
In article <Pine.A41.3.94.97021...@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,>> : It is not NORMAL to be a living
>> : creature that can not reproduce, except in the case of extreme communal
Just like Homer said... "It's not *usual*. If there was a law it
would be against it!"
>The exception is quite clearly stated above. These animals are normal for
>what they are, extremely communal animals. That is, there are some types
>of ants and bees whose only purpose is to sacrifice themselves but
>ultimately for the continuation of the colony. People simply serve no
>purpose by doing that.
So Catholic priests and dead Congressional Medal of Honor recipients
serve(d) no purpose?
Geez, Louise! Name me another species that performs brain surgery,
bakes chocolate tortes, and makes periodic trips into low Earth
orbit. Then explain why you expect humans to be "normal" like other
animals.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Lucent Technologies Network Wireless Systems
w...@cbemg.lucent.com (614) 860-5294 Columbus, Ohio
NSman
> > You seem to feel free to express your lifestyle and opinions. Why,
> > especially if you truly *are* a conservative, would you deny that right
to
> > others with whom you disagree? Are you afraid of them? Threatened by
them?
> > And if so, why?
>
> would cease to exist.
Please tell me, HOW does someone being a homosexual threaten the human
race? The ONLY way they could 'threaten' the human race is if they somehow
were able to brainwash the minds of heterosexuals into becoming gay. This
MUST be what you believe, because this is the only concieveable way
homosexuals could be 'threatening'.
Oh BTW, I have something to thank homosexuals for... We have an over
population problem already, and by them not accidently reproducing, they
help reduce the surplus population. Thanks guys! Keep reaching for that
rainbow! :)
Oh ya, and I can't wait for this Sundays ep! WOOHOO! Sideshow Bob
returns! (again!)
s black
In article <01bc1d63$4dad44a0$e43537a6@troyburn>, "troy-burnette"
<troy-b...@MCI2000.com> wrote:
> blah blah blah queer that is what i call you right a queer?
>
Actually, no. I'm not.
Soze
Robert Speirs wrote:
>
> Mike Silverman (cub...@turnleft.com) wrote:
> : In article <330AED...@sover.net>, des...@sover.net wrote:
> : > Yes, I am threatened. If everyone took on this lifestyle, the human race
> : > would cease to exist.
>
> : Do you think being gay is something that people choose?
>
> : Yes, I decided to choose to be a member of a tiny minority that is
> : constantly harassed and threatened. I enjoy being called names, having my
> : civil liberties taken away, and having to post responses to ignornant boobs
> : such as yourself.
>
In response ti this entire thread I have only one thing to say:
I feel like I'm livin in a cuckoo clock
-------------------------------------
Let us celebrate our arrangement with
the adding of chocolate to milk.
-Homer Simpson-
-------------------------------------
Paul Gallagher
In <19970219195...@ladder02.news.aol.com> jdh...@aol.com (JDH910) writes:
>Steven Johns (sjo...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
>> Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
>> adopted.
>> in that stance.
> Ya know...what's really curious about this ridiculous bit of moronic
>thought, is the idea that someone with a mind like this could be "an avid
>Simpsons fan" in the first place.
I thought exactly the same thing. Maybe he taped the episodes but didn't watch
them? What would he think of Akbar and Jeff?
Paul
R. Dalisky
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Derek wrote:
> Yes, I am threatened. If everyone took on this lifestyle, the human race
> would cease to exist.
If everyone was heterosexual (& procreated) the human race would
be threatened ... with overpopulation. Why be threatened by people (who
include heteros) because they don't procreate? Nobody really feels
threatened that humans might become extinct because everyone might become
gay. And of course people who think about this just a little bit more may
even realize that, yes, gay people can, and do, reproduce.
This is just one excuse people use to cover up their homophobia.
It just doesn't *sound* good to say the truth which is, "People who are so
different from what I'm used to, scare me and I'm not sure why." Instead
(perhaps it's human nature) people try and create excuses which try to
sound more rational (ie civilization, our families, the human race... are
"threatened" in some way by the existence of gay people) until they
actually think about it critically. So usually such people don't want to
think much about it. But if they have to, they usually just pick a
different excuse.
This applies to bigotry in regards to more than just that directed
at gays.
- Bart
Bugg.Ki...@tube3.com
Why must homosexuality be such an In-Your-Face issue...I'm all for the don't
ask, don't tell policy. If you want to be gay go right ahead, but why does
the whole world have to be notified? Shouldn't it be kind of a private
matter?
-->> Sacramento Cable's "The Tube Qubed" <<--
-->> 916.564.1020 - Telnet: Tube3.com - Sacramento, Ca. USA<<--
Mark Tangard
Well, Scott Rawlins, supposedly <king...@juno.com>, emailed me a long
and condescending tirade about my earlier post to this thread, closing
with an invitation to email him privately. But apparently (because my
reply was twice returned as "user unknown") he is not who he says he is.
Herewith, then is a public reply to his private message. I realize that
this violates standard netiquette (reproducing private email in public
posts), but considering the several nastier violations here this week,
I'm sure I don't feel guilty about it. If you're not into this whole
gays-are-evil thing, SKIP this message. Fair warning.
Scott Rawlins wrote (privately):
> The "Pukemaster" you refer to is expressing his opinion, and your direct
> assault on him seems a little childish.
He is expressing revulsion and hostility, not mere "opinion." If you
think the response was childish, I can't really help your misperception,
nor do I care. To be judged negatively by someone for whom I have no
respect and who does not respect me is *not* upsetting. I can think of
no greater honor than to be reviled by people I consider to be morons.
> while I have very dear gay friends, I don't agree with the lifestyle.
This is the crux of your confusion, Scott. Being homosexual is not a
"lifestyle." A lifestyle is a *choice* -- like the food you eat, the
clothes you wear, or the rent you pay. Being gay is not something we
*do*, it is something we *are*. As long as you continue to regard it
as something other than that, you will *never* have useful dialogue
about it with anyone. Nobody CHOOSES to be gay. If you disagree with
that, (1) IMHO it's damn presumptuous of you to declare your disagreement
as fact, since you presumably have no first-hand experience "being gay"
and thus wouldn't have the faintest clue as to whether it's a choice or
not, and (2) you flatter yourself to assume others care what you think.
> I feel a sting of annoyance at the way "Gay" issues seem to be crammed
> down everyone's throats lately.
You haven't felt "cramming" til you've seen heterosexual couples necking
in public with nobody around protesting, then an hour later see gay men
doing *nothing* offensive but being beaten nearly to death, just for
existing. Nobody's "cramming" it down your throat, or wants to. Again,
you flatter yourself in assuming anyone *wants* to change your opinion,
or values it.
> It's like when someone tells you repeatedly that you shouldn't do
> something, and you feel compelled to do it even if it had never occured
> to you before to do it.
This is the five-year-old's model of reverse psychology and it's rubbish.
Example: Girls who have nuns for teachers are only rarely driven to take
a vow of celibacy and join a convent. People aren't *tempted* to be gay
just by being made aware that gayness exists. If this were the case,
people would also be "tempted" to be fat just by watching Rush Limbaugh.
> What's my point? Simply put, you can't convince someone who doesn't
> want convincing.
What makes you think I intended to "convince" either of the anti-gay
screamers on this thread? IMO both are complete nut cases, as are
probably the vast majority of others who busy themselves so urgently
posting homophobic, racist, or other venom to Usenet. Convincing the
anti-gay posters was never my goal. Blowing holes in their pathetic
arguments was. It takes almost no effort on my part and is useful
for debunking their "opinions" for the larger audience.
> If you're just venting, that's fine.
Gee, thanks. But given the gay-hating bile that *routinely* drenches
Usenet, I hardly feel like I need your permission to vent, or to speak.
I sure hope that's OK with you. I never thought you were in charge of
deciding what's fine and what isn't.
> to insult someone as being without testacles
So THAT'S what annoyed you? Get over it, Scott. (And learn to spell
testicles.) It's quite obvious to me that the infantile ranters who
make anti-gay posts here and elsewhere *do* have sexual problems of
their own, because sexually *secure* people -- both men and women --
usually have NO NEED to froth and foam over the mere existence of gay
people. IMO only the most hopeless control-freaks and social misfits
are driven to do that. If Messrs Speirs and Johns had fulfilling sex
lives, I doubt they would give a damn about the fact that some other
people fulfill their sex lives in different ways.
-- Mark Tangard <mtan...@CRL.com> - SF CA -------------------------
------------ "Life is nothing if you aren't obsessed." --John Waters
--------------------------------------------------------------------
smogmonster
Steven Johns wrote:
>
> Being an avid Simpsons fan,(I have every episode taped and cataloged)
> episode has adopted. I do not see how anyone who is remotely moralistic
> overwhelming fact is that this particular episode took a shockingly liberal
> take aim at the simpsons. This abomination could be the very fuel they
> To sum it up JUST PLAIN SICKENING and I hope, thought unlikely, that this
> episode will never air again
Lighten up, Steven. Just because you want gay people to go away, it
doesn't mean they will. I think you need to just calm down about the
whole thing, because this has much more to do with your problems with
homosexuality than it has to do with anything regarding the "quality" of
the show. It seems to me that the Simpsons was never about pulling
punches, so why should they start now? If it makes you uncomfortable,
then watch "Suddenly Susan."
smogmonster
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/jtinnin/index.htm
jti...@sprynet.com
UIN: 275827
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Be sure to check out the funkiest band in Albuquerque,
New Mexico, ~Apricot Jam~ at: http://thuntek.net/ajam/
(they're my friends, so please browse on over)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_-_
/^===^\
/_-^^^-_\
/=\ /=\
(===\ /===)
\===\ /===/ Join the Blue Ribbon Anti-Censorship Campaign!
\===/===/
\=/===/ http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html
/===/.
/===/==\
/===/.===\
/===/ \===\
/===/ \===\
\==/ \==/
\/ \/
Le Penguin
Le Penguin
Le Penguin
Le Penguin
Le Penguin
Scoop
Quoth Derek:
: Scoop wrote:
: > ...which is completely unlike the same whiney, childish, immature babbling
: > of intolerant "conservative" conspiracists, right?
:
: Whining? It seems to me the people who are whining, childish and
: immature babbling are Liberals (and dont deny you are one).
You must have a different newsreader than I do, since you're unable to see
that the behavior you describe is coming from "both" political camps. (This
isn't surprising, since you think you know my politics based on a couple of
my newsgroup postings...)
: > You seem to feel free to express your lifestyle and opinions. Why,
: > especially if you truly *are* a conservative, would you deny that right to
: > others with whom you disagree? Are you afraid of them? Threatened by them?
: > And if so, why?
:
: Yes, I am threatened. If everyone took on this lifestyle, the human race
: would cease to exist.
So based on your perceived sense of biology, you'd deny free expression to
people that you fear?
Scoop
This is a fallacious argument; everyone *isn't* gay, nor are they likely to
be. Besides, since you're already here, your existence is hardly in peril;
and at the current population growth rate, the human race won't be dying off
any time soon... at least not from lack of procreating.