Love for Boys + Chemistry + Steps = Gay?
Wayne
And besides calling everyone apart from his mother gay, I seem to think he
has an obsession with his own gender that exhibts explanation.
Someone rescue the poor bastard.
I have more interesting conversations with Omar any day of the week.
Mark Thakkar
> You tell me, cos that's what Rob Martin seems to like.
Hang on. Love for Boys + Chemistry + Steps = Gay?
Well, technically correct, I suppose, though the Chemistry
and Steps seem rather irrelevant to the equation.
Mark.
Mark Thakkar
> I seem to think he has an obsession with his own gender that
> exhibts explanation.
>
> Someone rescue the poor bastard.
Why? Is there something wrong with being gay?
Mark.
--
Herewegoagain...
smurf
Mark Thakkar <mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.14fc80574...@news.ntlworld.com...
Nah Steps is pretty relevant. I agree Chemistry isn't though
Wayne
It's just that this Rob Martin goes round calling nearly every single person
I know on MSN 'gay' even though he's the only one that's got any reason to
appear gay. It was annoying me, sorry. Omar knows what I'm on about here.
"Mark Thakkar" <mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.14fc8088d...@news.ntlworld.com...
Robert Willans
<mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> lovingly scribed:
Sexual chemistry possibly? Although what 'steps' are involved is
detail that I would rather prefer to refrain from speculating upon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Even on the highest throne, we are still sat upon our arses"
Micheal de Montagne
http://www.thedeadweight.co.uk
Rob Martin
Apart from the fact that you insisted on being rather offensive to me for no
apparent reason (a crime for which you are now blocked boyo) I generally
found your attitude to many things was, well, how do I put it, gay.
Not that thats a bad thing, but I was just suggesting your obsession with
penises had some root cause. I'm sorry if I interpreted this as
homosexuality.
ROb
ALChemYsT
I would just like to point out that you are stupid. Not in a normal way, but
in a way that is so incredibly accurate about you that you might consider
suicide, just to alleviate the idiocy you spread to the rest of the world.
Rob is my friend, and he is a very nice fella indeed. I feel that I should
just post to point that out to everyone, because there are not enough
genuinely nice people in the world. This is why I find the fact that you are
making posts obviously to cause him some sort of distress to be less than
amusing.
I think that there is only two possible conclusions that can be drawn from
this:
1) You are an evil motherf*cker and should go piss on an electric fence,
2) You are actually gay yourself, and are getting all phobic about it. This
is perfectly natural, and so if you feel at any time the need to open up
about it to us, particularly this reference to "conversations" with Omar,
please do.
Thank you for reading this. Bye!
--
Al
P.S> I also don't like the idea of taking people's IM conversations and
posting about them. Continue to do this and I will enlighten everyone about
how you mistook me for female (stupid?) and still insisted on talking about
male genitalia... (gay?)
"Wayne" <wayne_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oItk6.1736$MN.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
John Booth
ALChemYsT <al_ch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96ubo3$q36$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> Hello.
>
> I would just like to point out that you are stupid. Not in a normal way,
but
> in a way that is so incredibly accurate about you that you might consider
> suicide, just to alleviate the idiocy you spread to the rest of the world.
>
> Rob is my friend, and he is a very nice fella indeed. I feel that I should
> just post to point that out to everyone, because there are not enough
> genuinely nice people in the world.
<snip>
He's a big boy you know [*], and can probably take care of himself.
John
[*] No, I didn't ascertain this from eaves-dropping your evidently somewhat
dubious MSN chats ;-)
ALChemYsT
"John Booth" <john....@lincoln.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:96uc4a$q8k$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
> ALChemYsT <al_ch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:96ubo3$q36$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> > Hello.
> >
> > I would just like to point out that you are stupid. Not in a normal way,
> but
> > in a way that is so incredibly accurate about you that you might
consider
> > suicide, just to alleviate the idiocy you spread to the rest of the
world.
> >
> > Rob is my friend, and he is a very nice fella indeed. I feel that I
should
> > just post to point that out to everyone, because there are not enough
> > genuinely nice people in the world.
>
> <snip>
>
> He's a big boy you know [*], and can probably take care of himself.
I am sure he can. You haven't seen him in labs - give him a heat gun and a
reflux condenser - he's a crazy bitch wiv attitood... you have been
warned...
> John
>
> [*] No, I didn't ascertain this from eaves-dropping your evidently
somewhat
> dubious MSN chats ;-)
>
Dubious indeed. I should point out that it was Rob's idea to invite me in...
--
Al
Rob Martin
> reflux condenser - he's a crazy bitch wiv attitood... you have been
> warned...
rotfl :)
> Dubious indeed. I should point out that it was Rob's idea to invite me
in...
Yes yes... I take full responsibility for introducing you to one of Omar's
weirder friends.
Rob
smurf
Omar Khan <omarkh...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:t95h8nd...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
>
> "smurf" <em...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:96tsqj$82q$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> Your an Economist Smurf????
You're not your
and yes. why is that suddenly surprising? I don't think there was anything
in my comment about a popular gay band to bring on such astonishment as
indicated by four (yes four) question marks.
Adam J BC
> > > >
> > > > Well, technically correct, I suppose, though the Chemistry
> > > > and Steps seem rather irrelevant to the equation.
> > >
> > > Nah Steps is pretty relevant. I agree Chemistry isn't though
> > >
> >
>
> You're not your
>
> and yes. why is that suddenly surprising? I don't think there was anything
> in my comment about a popular gay band to bring on such astonishment as
> indicated by four (yes four) question marks.
I think he was shocked(?) by the fact you said chemistry is irrelevant yet
you are an economist.
Chemistry is a wonderful subject. I found myself knowing what the chemicals
are in my medicine :) rather worrying because they are cargonegenic :-/
Adam
smurf
news:96uho2$msnce$1...@ID-24218.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > Hang on. Love for Boys + Chemistry + Steps = Gay?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, technically correct, I suppose, though the Chemistry
> > > > > and Steps seem rather irrelevant to the equation.
> > > >
> > > > Nah Steps is pretty relevant. I agree Chemistry isn't though
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your an Economist Smurf????
> >
> > You're not your
> >
> > and yes. why is that suddenly surprising? I don't think there was
anything
> > in my comment about a popular gay band to bring on such astonishment as
> > indicated by four (yes four) question marks.
>
> I think he was shocked(?) by the fact you said chemistry is irrelevant yet
> you are an economist.
>
irrelevent to gayness
> Chemistry is a wonderful subject. I found myself knowing what the
chemicals
> are in my medicine :) rather worrying because they are cargonegenic :-/
are a higher proportion of chemists gay than the national average or
something? I can't think of a single gay scientist although I don't have
extensive knowledge of the subjects studies by the majority of gay cambridge
that seems to hand out in SO's room each night.
Craig Fothergill
>
>Why? Is there something wrong with being gay?
Yes.
Dunno why, but I fancy an argument. You just know everyone's going to say
it's OK to be gay so I'm going to disagree. Now gimme ten minutes to think
of a few reasons why....
*loads flame thrower*
<---->
Craig
"Contraceptives should be used on every conceivable occasion." - Spike
Milligan
tooth...@delinquency.co.uk
> are a higher proportion of chemists gay than the national average or
> something? I can't think of a single gay scientist although I don't have
> extensive knowledge of the subjects studies by the majority of gay cambridge
> that seems to hand out in SO's room each night.
I know a gay chemist...
Irrelevant, o'course.
J
--
Shall I? What if? Which?
http://www.oxbridge-admissions.org.uk/
Be special to your spleen this week. www.ainfigree.co.uk
Adam J BC
> >
> >Why? Is there something wrong with being gay?
>
> Yes.
>
> Dunno why, but I fancy an argument. You just know everyone's going to say
> it's OK to be gay so I'm going to disagree. Now gimme ten minutes to
think
> of a few reasons why....
Oooh...this could be fun.
Let's see. You could argue it's not natural. Hardly original I know.
Hmmm...just a thought. If gayness was genetic, surely it wouldn't have got
very far in our natural selection process? Unless it's a recent mutation
which somehow very quickly spread accross the planet...which is fairly
unlikely.
Adam
smurf
news:MPG.14fcdfad5...@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <96ui4g$s87$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, em...@cam.ac.uk says...
> > are a higher proportion of chemists gay than the national average or
> > something? I can't think of a single gay scientist although I don't have
> > extensive knowledge of the subjects studies by the majority of gay
cambridge
> > that seems to hand out in SO's room each night.
>
> I know a gay chemist...
>
> Irrelevant, o'course.
is he posh and good looking?
Alex Warren
> Hmmm...just a thought. If gayness was genetic, surely it wouldn't have got
> very far in our natural selection process? Unless it's a recent mutation
> which somehow very quickly spread accross the planet...which is fairly
> unlikely.
A rather naive point of view. It is only in recent times that homosexuality has
become pretty much accepted in society, but even so, I still wonder what
proportion of people who have leanings towards "the other side" have children.
Anyway, I'm not of the opinion that there is a distinct line between
"heterosexuals" and "homosexuals". Much of sexuality ("personal taste with
stigma" is my view of it) comes from nurture rather than nature I reckon - I
don't believe in a "gay gene" (the recent finding that there are less genes than
previously thought seems to rule out individual genes for individual
characteristics anyway).
It seems to me that you can no more divide "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals"
than "vegetarians" and "meat-eaters" - it's a lot to do with upbringing, people
you know, etc. Opinions change... and what about people who eat chicken? You
know what I mean.
Alex
--
One world, one man, OneBollock.com - http://www.onebollock.com/
Adam J BC
got
> > very far in our natural selection process? Unless it's a recent
mutation
> > which somehow very quickly spread accross the planet...which is fairly
> > unlikely.
>
> A rather naive point of view. It is only in recent times that
homosexuality has
> become pretty much accepted in society, but even so, I still wonder what
> proportion of people who have leanings towards "the other side" have
children.
My point exactly. Probably less. So if it was genetic, and if somehow,
several tens of thousands of years ago, hmmm...a thought just occurred.
Maybe we were all gay to begin with. Then the straight people had sex with
women more, and hence reproduced more, and become more common, and many gay
people died out. But gay people still slept with women
because...ermm...well maybe they were bisexuals.
Or maybe not.
I agree with your other points though, included below for completeness.
> Anyway, I'm not of the opinion that there is a distinct line between
> "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals". Much of sexuality ("personal taste with
> stigma" is my view of it) comes from nurture rather than nature I reckon -
I
> don't believe in a "gay gene" (the recent finding that there are less
genes than
> previously thought seems to rule out individual genes for individual
> characteristics anyway).
>
> It seems to me that you can no more divide "heterosexuals" and
"homosexuals"
> than "vegetarians" and "meat-eaters" - it's a lot to do with upbringing,
people
> you know, etc. Opinions change... and what about people who eat chicken?
You
> know what I mean.
Adam
Rob Martin
> in my comment about a popular gay band to bring on such astonishment as
> indicated by four (yes four) question marks.
To be honest. I've gone completely off Steps recently. And aside from a
single reference to them, I am not quite sure why they feature in the
argument.
Rob
Michael Brabenec
<al...@asparagus.co.uk> writes
>Adam J BC wrote:
>
>> Hmmm...just a thought. If gayness was genetic, surely it wouldn't have got
>> very far in our natural selection process? Unless it's a recent mutation
>> which somehow very quickly spread accross the planet...which is fairly
>> unlikely.
>
>A rather naive point of view. It is only in recent times that homosexuality has
>become pretty much accepted in society, but even so, I still wonder what
>proportion of people who have leanings towards "the other side" have children.
Many, I suspect. No reason, just a hunch.
>
>Anyway, I'm not of the opinion that there is a distinct line between
>"heterosexuals" and "homosexuals". Much of sexuality ("personal taste with
>stigma" is my view of it) comes from nurture rather than nature I reckon - I
>don't believe in a "gay gene" (the recent finding that there are less genes than
>previously thought seems to rule out individual genes for individual
>characteristics anyway).
>
>It seems to me that you can no more divide "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals"
>than "vegetarians" and "meat-eaters" - it's a lot to do with upbringing, people
>you know, etc. Opinions change... and what about people who eat chicken? You
>know what I mean.
Not really, or you could say a vast majority of homosexuals come from
single sex schools and Newham in Cambridge. That's obviously not right.
Just a hunch (again), as I've never been to either. But I did
momentarily consider applying to Newham, stating my name as Joe, somehow
merging the e into the o.
-----------------------
Michael Brabenec
-----------------------
Remove NO_SPAM to reply
-----------------------
If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a
Rolls-Royce today would cost $100, get a million miles to the gallon, and
explode once every few weeks, killing everyone inside.
Mark Thakkar
> It is only in recent times that homosexuality has become pretty much
> accepted in society
Well, in our society, yes. The distinction between sexualities is a
comparatively recent development, though; the words hetero/homosexual
have only been in use since the late 19th century.
Mark.
Mark Thakkar
>> Is there something wrong with being gay?
>
> Yes.
>
> Dunno why, but I fancy an argument. You just know everyone's going
> to say it's OK to be gay so I'm going to disagree. Now gimme ten
> minutes to think of a few reasons why....
I'm glad you said that - I thought for a minute I might be the only
one around here who's fed up with having fucking gay pricks rammed
down their throat every second of the day, and having to pretend that
these warped individuals are really bona fide representatives of
humanity. What /is/ it with political correctness these days? One
minute it's freedom of speech, the next it's banning Eminem, just
because he happens to have the right views on faggots. Honestly,
you'd think people would have the guts to stand up and admit it: gay
people are just fuck-ups who clearly have no interest in furthering
the human race since they can't even procreate properly.
Mark.
--
Howzat?
smurf
> Craig,
>
> >> Is there something wrong with being gay?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Dunno why, but I fancy an argument. You just know everyone's going
> > to say it's OK to be gay so I'm going to disagree. Now gimme ten
> > minutes to think of a few reasons why....
>
> I'm glad you said that - I thought for a minute I might be the only
> one around here who's fed up with having fucking gay pricks rammed
> down their throat every second of the day,
<snigger>
smurf
news:r2l59to4rl4gk50rg...@4ax.com...
> Adam J BC wrote:
>
> > Hmmm...just a thought. If gayness was genetic, surely it wouldn't have
got
> > very far in our natural selection process? Unless it's a recent
mutation
> > which somehow very quickly spread accross the planet...which is fairly
> > unlikely.
>
> A rather naive point of view. It is only in recent times that
homosexuality has
> become pretty much accepted in society,
it was pretty acceptable in ancient greece and rome and in Japan (at least
until westernisation)
Michael Brabenec
<mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> writes
I'm going to come out too....I AGREE! But nowhere near as violently
opposed as you. But I am also fed up with pretending there is 'nothing
wrong'. I've nothing against them, just against societies views on what
I *should* think of them. Before we know it, pedophiles will be just
another alternative to straight/gay/bi. Political correctness has go
far, far too far (anyone read that thing in the Sunday Times on
Beardism?). Eminems music pisses me off anyway, but I don't agree with
banning it.
<hurriedly begins knitting an asbestos coverall>
Ian/Cath Ford
<mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>I'm glad you said that - I thought for a minute I might be the only
>one around here who's fed up with having fucking gay pricks rammed
>down their throat every second of the day, and having to pretend that
>these warped individuals are really bona fide representatives of
>humanity.
Can't deal with that sentance - too much of a mouthful....
Ian
--
Ian, Cath & Eoin Ford
The view from Beccles
"I loved the words you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday"
You know what to do: delete the dots but leave the .s to reply to us.
Michael Brabenec
writes
Taken out of context, misleading...
Mark Thakkar
>>> I thought for a minute I might be the only one around here who's
>>> fed up with having fucking gay pricks rammed down their throat
>>> every second of the day,
>>
>> <snigger>
>
> Taken out of context, misleading...
You misunderestimate me. You might like also to imagine alternative
interpretations of "fed up" in this (intentional) context.
Mark.
--
Hey, I can drink *anyone* under the table... %cP
Gaurav
"Rob Martin" <robert...@seh.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:96uenl$r9t$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
Wayne Broadley, Robert Martin; Just kiss and make up. You're both quite "normal" people and I'm
suprised it's actually *you* two fighting. It should be me and Omar causing trouble and wrecking
havoc, not you two.
GS
tooth...@delinquency.co.uk
> j...@ainfigree.co.uk <tooth...@delinquency.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.14fcdfad5...@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> > Irrelevant, o'course.
>
> is he posh and good looking?
She..
smurf
> In article <96uj61$t44$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, em...@cam.ac.uk says...
> > j...@ainfigree.co.uk <tooth...@delinquency.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.14fcdfad5...@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> > > I know a gay chemist...
> > >
> > > Irrelevant, o'course.
> >
> > is he posh and good looking?
>
> She..
oh (interesting assumption) won't have been round SO's room then
Craig Fothergill
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Dunno why, but I fancy an argument. You just know everyone's going to
say
>> it's OK to be gay so I'm going to disagree. Now gimme ten minutes to
think
>> of a few reasons why....
>
>Oooh...this could be fun.
>
>Let's see. You could argue it's not natural. Hardly original I know.
Errrm yeah. That's my first argument. Argue please. Someone? Anyone?
Omar?
>Hmmm...just a thought. If gayness was genetic, surely it wouldn't have got
>very far in our natural selection process? Unless it's a recent mutation
>which somehow very quickly spread accross the planet...which is fairly
>unlikely.
...or not. :)
Craig
Wayne
> this:
> 1) You are an evil motherf*cker and should go piss on an electric fence,
> 2) You are actually gay yourself, and are getting all phobic about it.
This
> is perfectly natural, and so if you feel at any time the need to open up
> about it to us, particularly this reference to "conversations" with Omar,
> please do.
>
Look....I'm a nice, intelligent guy, I wouldn't do anything to harm anyone.
I have a girlfriend and love her greatly (yet you still insist on calling
me gay -> sick to death of it). How I'm an "evil motherfucker" beats me,
because there's no way on God's Earth am I evil - absolutely the opposite.
Also, how you can call me gay, just like that, is somewhat insulting, which
is why I guess I posted this topic to start with - I get a guy calling me
gay, when he's the one that actually appears to be gay.
With regard to Omar, I hardly know him at all; I've spoke to him about two
minutes and if you were to read these posts I have become very annoyed with
him myself in the past. It's just during that two times he has told me how
'Rob' has accused him of being gay. A recurring pattern here. One that I got
annoyed with as you might be able to tell.
Sorry, let's leave it. I apologise.
--
Wayne Broadley
Webmaster of Code Crazy Coders
http://members.tripod.co.uk/codecrazy
------
We are currently looking for additional members to the site, if you're
interested in programming in any shape or form, and would be interested in
writing tutorials or submitting code etc. then please e-mail me at
wayne_b...@hotmail.com
Craig Fothergill
has
>become pretty much accepted in society, but even so, I still wonder what
>proportion of people who have leanings towards "the other side" have
children.
>
>Anyway, I'm not of the opinion that there is a distinct line between
>"heterosexuals" and "homosexuals". Much of sexuality ("personal taste with
>stigma" is my view of it) comes from nurture rather than nature I reckon -
I
>don't believe in a "gay gene" (the recent finding that there are less genes
than
>previously thought seems to rule out individual genes for individual
>characteristics anyway).
Why is it that the further we go back (in time), the less common
homosexuality is? Or if we look at Amazon tribes where homosexuality hasn't
yet been "thought of", we see that no-one is gay. Spot the correlation to
win a special prize.
As you can tell, I lean more towards "nurture" than "nature". Well put
Alex.
Let me make up a new sexuality - Cabbagist. I get sexually aroused by the
mere sight of a cabbage - go so far as to slowly peel off it's leaves and
that's just too much. Anyway, how many people in the world would join my
"cult"? No-one. But if it was introduced over several hundred years into
Western society - with all it's fads, fashions and foibles - I think it
could really make it.
Silly analogy - but you get the point. If kids grew up in a mainly
homosexual world, I'm sure many would grow up to be gay. That's what we do
as humans (young, impressionable humans, but all the same...) - we find an
image of normality and try to grow into it. OK, so this stops in later
years, but by then all is decided...
>It seems to me that you can no more divide "heterosexuals" and
"homosexuals"
>than "vegetarians" and "meat-eaters" - it's a lot to do with upbringing,
people
>you know, etc. Opinions change... and what about people who eat chicken?
You
>know what I mean.
Remember those meatbally things called "faggots"?
Sorry. :)
Craig
Craig Fothergill
>one around here who's fed up with having fucking gay pricks rammed
>down their throat every second of the day, and having to pretend that
>these warped individuals are really bona fide representatives of
>humanity. What /is/ it with political correctness these days? One
>minute it's freedom of speech, the next it's banning Eminem, just
>because he happens to have the right views on faggots. Honestly,
>you'd think people would have the guts to stand up and admit it: gay
>people are just fuck-ups who clearly have no interest in furthering
>the human race since they can't even procreate properly.
>
>Mark.
>
>--
>
>Howzat?
I wanted to *argue* dammit...! ;)
Craig Fothergill
>>>> fed up with having fucking gay pricks rammed down their throat
>>>> every second of the day,
>>>
>>> <snigger>
>>
>> Taken out of context, misleading...
>
>You misunderestimate me. You might like also to imagine alternative
>interpretations of "fed up" in this (intentional) context.
The cut and thrust environment of aua...
James Gregory
Alex Warren wrote:
>
> Adam J BC wrote:
> A rather naive point of view. It is only in recent times that homosexuality has
> become pretty much accepted in society, but even so, I still wonder what
> proportion of people who have leanings towards "the other side" have children.
>
> Anyway, I'm not of the opinion that there is a distinct line between
> "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals". Much of sexuality ("personal taste with
> stigma" is my view of it) comes from nurture rather than nature I reckon - I
> don't believe in a "gay gene" (the recent finding that there are less genes than
> previously thought seems to rule out individual genes for individual
> characteristics anyway).
>
> It seems to me that you can no more divide "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals"
> than "vegetarians" and "meat-eaters" - it's a lot to do with upbringing, people
> you know, etc. Opinions change... and what about people who eat chicken? You
> know what I mean.
>
I'm not so sure.
I find it possible to "fancy" members of the opposite sex in a totally
irrational way, which couldn't possibly be based on what my ideas of
"norms" are - hormones and the like have their wicked way with me.
I never find myself irrationally attracted in the same way to members of
the same sex.
Surely this points to a great deal of nature?
James
Gaurav
> Look....I'm a nice, intelligent guy, I wouldn't do anything to harm anyone.
> I have a girlfriend and love her greatly (yet you still insist on calling
> me gay -> sick to death of it). How I'm an "evil motherfucker" beats me,
> because there's no way on God's Earth am I evil - absolutely the opposite.
> Also, how you can call me gay, just like that, is somewhat insulting, which
> is why I guess I posted this topic to start with - I get a guy calling me
> gay, when he's the one that actually appears to be gay.
>
> With regard to Omar, I hardly know him at all; I've spoke to him about two
> minutes and if you were to read these posts I have become very annoyed with
> him myself in the past. It's just during that two times he has told me how
> 'Rob' has accused him of being gay. A recurring pattern here. One that I got
> annoyed with as you might be able to tell.
>
> Sorry, let's leave it. I apologise.
>
> --
> Wayne Broadley
> Webmaster of Code Crazy Coders
He's gay
GS :-)
Mark Thakkar
>>>>> I thought for a minute I might be the only one around here
>>>>> who's fed up with having fucking gay pricks rammed down
>>>>> their throat every second of the day,
>>
>> You might like also to imagine alternative interpretations
>> of "fed up" in this (intentional) context.
>
> The cut and thrust environment of aua...
Indeed, though it's not just every man for himself.
Mark.
Alex Warren
> > It seems to me that you can no more divide "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals"
> > than "vegetarians" and "meat-eaters" - it's a lot to do with upbringing, people
> > you know, etc. Opinions change... and what about people who eat chicken? You
> > know what I mean.
> >
>
> I'm not so sure.
> I find it possible to "fancy" members of the opposite sex in a totally
> irrational way, which couldn't possibly be based on what my ideas of
> "norms" are - hormones and the like have their wicked way with me.
>
> I never find myself irrationally attracted in the same way to members of
> the same sex.
>
> Surely this points to a great deal of nature?
I think it points to a great deal of your subconscious mind more than anything
genetic. How is fancying members of any sex rational at all? You don't look at a
girl and think: "Hmm, blonde, nice facial symmetry, good skin, bright eyes,
nicely done subtle make-up, decent-sized, firm breasts... er, yes, I'd do her
until her head fell off".
tooth...@delinquency.co.uk
cr...@cfhome.freeserve.co.uk says...
> Why is it that the further we go back (in time), the less common
> homosexuality is? Or if we look at Amazon tribes where homosexuality hasn't
> yet been "thought of", we see that no-one is gay. Spot the correlation to
> win a special prize.
As smurf said, in the Ancient world (especially Rome) homosexuality was
regarded as normal as hetero. Just a recreational activity, mind :)
Craig Fothergill
>>> of "fed up" in this (intentional) context.
>>
>> The cut and thrust environment of aua...
>
>Indeed, though it's not just every man for himself.
Willy think of another pun?
Craig ;)
Craig Fothergill
>girl and think: "Hmm, blonde, nice facial symmetry, good skin, bright eyes,
>nicely done subtle make-up, decent-sized, firm breasts... er, yes, I'd do
her
>until her head fell off".
You don't??
Michael Brabenec
<cr...@cfhome.freeserve.co.uk> writes
If all the blondes in Essex were laid end to end.....I wouldn't be at
all surprised!
Becky Loader
"Michael Brabenec" <michael@NO_SPAM_FOR_ME_THANKSbrabenec.demon.co.uk> wrote
in message news:fhSoNhAW...@brabenec.demon.co.uk...
> In article <971bmk$71b$4...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Craig Fothergill
> <cr...@cfhome.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >>You don't look at a
> >>girl and think: "Hmm, blonde, nice facial symmetry, good skin, bright
eyes,
> >>nicely done subtle make-up, decent-sized, firm breasts... er, yes, I'd
do
> >her
> >>until her head fell off".
> >
> >
> >You don't??
>
> If all the blondes in Essex were laid end to end.....I wouldn't be at
> all surprised!
With apologies to Dorothy Parker (who rocks and rocks and rocks)?
Becky
--
(D.P., upon being asked to compose a sentence including the word
"hoticulture"): "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think."
James Gregory
Alex Warren wrote:
>
> James Gregory wrote:
>
> > > It seems to me that you can no more divide "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals"
> > > than "vegetarians" and "meat-eaters" - it's a lot to do with upbringing, people
> > > you know, etc. Opinions change... and what about people who eat chicken? You
> > > know what I mean.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not so sure.
> > I find it possible to "fancy" members of the opposite sex in a totally
> > irrational way, which couldn't possibly be based on what my ideas of
> > "norms" are - hormones and the like have their wicked way with me.
> >
> > I never find myself irrationally attracted in the same way to members of
> > the same sex.
> >
> > Surely this points to a great deal of nature?
>
> I think it points to a great deal of your subconscious mind more than anything
> genetic. How is fancying members of any sex rational at all?
But I only fancy members of one sex.
James
Matthew M. Huntbach
> > A rather naive point of view. It is only in recent times that
> > homosexuality has become pretty much accepted in society,
> it was pretty acceptable in ancient greece and rome and in Japan (at least
> until westernisation)
But in those cultures people weren't divided into "heterosexual" and
"homosexual". Rather it was felt acceptable for people with heterosexual
desires also to have homosexual desires. Which is further evidence for
the proposition that the current western idea that homosexuality is a
distinct condition which applies to some fixed proportion of the
population, and you are either in that proportion or not, is a cultural
construction and not biological reality.
Matthew Huntbach
tooth...@delinquency.co.uk
> But in those cultures people weren't divided into "heterosexual" and
> "homosexual". Rather it was felt acceptable for people with heterosexual
> desires also to have homosexual desires. Which is further evidence for
> the proposition that the current western idea that homosexuality is a
> distinct condition which applies to some fixed proportion of the
> population, and you are either in that proportion or not, is a cultural
> construction and not biological reality.
Oh, definitely. Black and white and shades of gay, anyone?
I remember a discussion about this on another newsgroup. Some people got
very offended at the insinuations that they might be possibly *not* 100%
straight - mainly women iirc. Understandable, given today's culture, but
that instant shame is quite depressing. But there is a sliding scale of
some sort IMO and the fact that our culture puts a big box around those
not at one end of the scale is completely artificial. Though I guess the
same applies to some extent with skin colour and even religious
segregations..
flexiblegoat
Mark Thakkar wrote:
>
> Wayne,
>
> > I seem to think he has an obsession with his own gender that
> > exhibts explanation.
> >
> > Someone rescue the poor bastard.
>
> Why? Is there something wrong with being gay?
>
> Mark.
>
> --
>
> Herewegoagain...
From the chemistry and STEP he meant surely?
--
paul :o|
"Mondex withdrawal? Is that some kind of medieval contraceptive method?"
- EvilChris
Crewman Zorg from Plabnet Zinglebonk
> > > exhibts explanation.
> > >
> > > Someone rescue the poor bastard.
> >
> > Why? Is there something wrong with being gay?
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Herewegoagain...
>
> From the chemistry and STEP he meant surely?
Step*s* as in the 'pop' group.
Zorg
smurf
> very offended at the insinuations that they might be possibly *not* 100%
> straight - mainly women iirc. Understandable, given today's culture, but
> that instant shame is quite depressing. But there is a sliding scale of
> some sort IMO and the fact that our culture puts a big box around those
> not at one end of the scale is completely artificial. Though I guess the
> same applies to some extent with skin colour and even religious
> segregations..
but the problem is when a woman gets an insinuation about being gay it
usually involves a "can I watch" type attitude
tooth...@delinquency.co.uk
>
> but the problem is when a woman gets an insinuation about being gay it
> usually involves a "can I watch" type attitude
<nod> Yeah, happens a lot. But that's men for you.
Craig Fothergill
>> usually involves a "can I watch" type attitude
>
><nod> Yeah, happens a lot. But that's men for you.
Bollocks.
Believe it or not, those men are the *minority*....
Cynical Chris
>
>Omar Khan <omarkh...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>news:t95h8nd...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
>>
>> "smurf" <em...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:96tsqj$82q$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>> >
>> > Mark Thakkar <mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.14fc80574...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> > > Wayne,
>> > >
>> > > > You tell me, cos that's what Rob Martin seems to like.
>> > >
>> > > Hang on. Love for Boys + Chemistry + Steps = Gay?
>> > >
>> > > Well, technically correct, I suppose, though the Chemistry
>> > > and Steps seem rather irrelevant to the equation.
>> >
>> > Nah Steps is pretty relevant. I agree Chemistry isn't though
>> >
>> > #
>>
>> Your an Economist Smurf????
>
>You're not your
>
>and yes. why is that suddenly surprising? I don't think there was anything
>in my comment about a popular gay band to bring on such astonishment as
>indicated by four (yes four) question marks.
Because you're a giiiirl ;-)
Chris.
smurf
news:974ae9$ipu$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
not in my experience
flexiblegoat
Tell me I wasn't sober when I said that
Joe Bloggs
>>>> when a woman gets an insinuation about being gay it usually
>>>> involves a "can I watch" type attitude
>>>
>>> <nod> Yeah, happens a lot. But that's men for you.
>>
>> Bollocks.
>> Believe it or not, those men are the *minority*....
>
> not in my experience
Nor mine. The best explanation I've ever heard of the male fascination
with Lesbianity is very simple: if one naked woman writhing on a bed is
a sight to behold, how much more so are /two/?
Mark.
tooth...@delinquency.co.uk
joe.b...@balliol.ox.ac.uk says...
> >> Believe it or not, those men are the *minority*....
> >
> > not in my experience
>
> Nor mine. The best explanation I've ever heard of the male fascination
> with Lesbianity is very simple: if one naked woman writhing on a bed is
> a sight to behold, how much more so are /two/?
Mine neither, and I think that might be a very good way of putting it ;)
tooth...@delinquency.co.uk
cr...@cfhome.freeserve.co.uk says...
Not according to everyone I know..
Joe Bloggs
>>>>>> when a woman gets an insinuation about being gay it
>>>>>> usually involves a "can I watch" type attitude
>>>>>
>>>>> <nod> Yeah, happens a lot. But that's men for you.
>>>>
>>>> Believe it or not, those men are the *minority*....
>>>
>>> not in my experience
>>
>> Nor mine. The best explanation I've ever heard of the male
>> fascination with Lesbianity is very simple: if one naked woman
>> writhing on a bed is a sight to behold, how much more so are /two/?
>
> Mine neither, and I think that might be a very good way of putting it ;)
You're not going to get away with that. Elucidate ye...
Mark.
--
And an ickle cookie for that ickle quote...
An aside: am I alone in using "quotation" for something literary (or
otherwise profound) and "quote" for more popular citations?
tooth...@delinquency.co.uk
Joe.B...@balliol.ox.ac.uk says...
> >> Nor mine. The best explanation I've ever heard of the male
> >> fascination with Lesbianity is very simple: if one naked woman
> >> writhing on a bed is a sight to behold, how much more so are /two/?
> >
> > Mine neither, and I think that might be a very good way of putting it ;)
>
> You're not going to get away with that. Elucidate ye...
This is something someone I know... quite well :) has to say on the
subject:
"one naked one is good, one naked horny woman is better, two naked horny
sweaty hot wet women is instant spunk."
So, then.
> And an ickle cookie for that ickle quote...
> An aside: am I alone in using "quotation" for something literary (or
> otherwise profound) and "quote" for more popular citations?
Hm, don't think so. I quote Buffy and Terry Pratchett (though one could
repeat a quotation from one of Terry Pratchett's books, I guess) - I
would use a quotation from Shakespeare. I think.
Becky Loader
"flexiblegoat" <pme...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3A966EFD...@york.ac.uk...
> > > From the chemistry and STEP he meant surely?
> >
> > Step*s* as in the 'pop' group.
> >
>
> Tell me I wasn't sober when I said that
I made the same mistake. Brain in ng gear, and, well, which are you more
likely to see on high-achieving, Radiohead-loving aua?
Becky
Chris Share
(becky....@btinternet.com) says...
> I made the same mistake. Brain in ng gear, and, well, which are you more
> likely to see on high-achieving, Radiohead-loving aua?
>
> Becky
When it comes to Rob, Steps. Now, where did I put those
sound files of him singing...[1]
:)
chris
[1] I know exactly where they are, so watch out Rob <mwa
ha ha ha> [2]
[2] Hey, I've just watched one of the Sideshow Bob
episodes, the last one in fact. S'really good. <carries
stuffing face>
Chris Share
(chris...@newscientist.net) says...
> <snip> <carries
> stuffing face>
I should point out this was supposed to be <carries on
stuffing face>, and I'm being very healthy and stuffing
my face with fruit. Why? Nobody knows.
chris
Rob Martin
> sound files of him singing...[1]
As I frequently point out - I am *so* over Steps. I deleted most of their
songs off my hard drive *ages* ago so to continue to associate me with a pop
group I no longer hold much affinity for is quite annoying.
Rob
Alchemyst
"Rob Martin" <robert...@seh.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:977tqs$boo$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
Sorry to do this to you Rob, but...
Looking on file share we have about half a dozen Steps songs, a couple of
Westlife and some A1. Oh, and Abba. Yuk! But, its a lot less than it used to
be. Could it be that finally he is getting past his teeny-bopping phase?!
Although credit where credit's due, he has a huge amount of Green Day. Now I
wonder where that came from...
-=-
Al
Rob Martin
> Westlife and some A1. Oh, and Abba. Yuk! But, its a lot less than it used
to
> be. Could it be that finally he is getting past his teeny-bopping phase?!
grumble... Well, see... I *thought* i'd deleted them. Just goes to show how
little I care about them any more. <squirm>. In all honesty, i've completely
lost interest in downloading mp3's - last term I had about a 1000 which I
lost in a big crash - this term I made little or no effort to recapture my
old collection. I am going to wipe my MP3's and download all your films
before the end of term as well.
> Although credit where credit's due, he has a huge amount of Green Day. Now
I
> wonder where that came from...
Hmmm...
Rob
Chris Share
(robert...@seh.ox.ac.uk) says...
> > Looking on file share we have about half a dozen Steps songs, a couple of
> > Westlife and some A1. Oh, and Abba. Yuk! But, its a lot less than it used
> to
> > be. Could it be that finally he is getting past his teeny-bopping phase?!
Oi, abba is good. It's not like these modern
imitations.... :) Tho even they've done a couple of good
songs - well some of them.
>
> grumble... Well, see... I *thought* i'd deleted them. Just goes to show how
> little I care about them any more. <squirm>. In all honesty, i've completely
> lost interest in downloading mp3's - last term I had about a 1000 which I
> lost in a big crash - this term I made little or no effort to recapture my
> old collection. I am going to wipe my MP3's and download all your films
> before the end of term as well.
>
> Rob
You could try downloading some of mine too, tho
considering that there seems to be some block between
cambridge and oxford it would probably take months to
download... well, about a month. Literally. :( Well,
they do take up 24 gig... so far anyway. I'm still
trying to increase that number. :)
chris
Gaurav
"Alchemyst" <al_ch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:978c2h$k8u$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
Yes, A1 are so HOT!!!!
(screams like a girl)
GS
Craig Fothergill
>with Lesbianity is very simple: if one naked woman writhing on a bed is
>a sight to behold, how much more so are /two/?
If one naked woman writhing on a bed is your cup of tea, why share her with
a shaven-headed, dungaree-wearing dyke?
Sorry to use a stereotype, but you get the gist...
Craigy boy
Craig Fothergill
>a shaven-headed, dungaree-wearing dyke?
>
>Sorry to use a stereotype, but you get the gist...
>
>Craigy boy
A couple of our teachers at secondary school were lesbians, BTW. Both PE
teachers too, which is not very surprising. :-) God I love stereotypes.
:)
Joe Bloggs
Well, yes, it is a stereotype, and it is instantiated, and no, I don't
find the stereotypical Neo-Nazi-alike lesbian remotely attractive, and
I fail to see how lesbians can either. But there are exceptions...
Mark.