"NO QUEER MARRIAGES!!!"
Tracey Levin
victory for Conservatism!
<p>
The normally "left" coast rejects homosexuals in three
catagories:
1. NO homo marriage
2. NO homo adoptions
3. NO benefits to homosexual partners from government agencies.
The last two are updates from radio sources. The first is
validated by the following kick in the pants to homosexuals!
THANK YOU, CALIFORNIANS!!!
-------------------------------------------------------
California Passes Gay Marriage Ban, Crime Measure
By Andrew Quinn
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California voters passed a ban on gay
marriage and a crackdown on juvenile crime -- which could mandate
the
death penalty for some 14-year-old offenders -- as part of a
laundry list of state propositions on the ``Super Tuesday''
ballot.
A measure approving Las Vegas-style gambling at Indian tribal
casinos also passed, while two propositions which would have
given consumers
broad powers to sue insurance companies went down in defeat
after the insurance industry outspent its opponents by tens of
millions of dollars.
California's ballot initiative process regularly presents the
state's voters with choices on everything from basic social
policy to bond issues.
This year, the bitterest battle fight was waged over Prop. 22, a
measure which amends the state's Family Code to say ``only
marriage between a
man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.''
With 14 percent of precincts reporting, the measure was passing
by 62 to 37 percent -- a victory for the coalition of Mormon and
Catholic religious
groups, Republican conservatives and Hispanic labor
organizations which supported it.
``As Californians, we are proud of our diversity and tolerance
but there are societal boundaries which should be preserved.
Tonight we have
preserved traditional marriage,'' said Robert Glazier, a
spokesman for the proposition.
Gay activists and political leaders, who had described the
measure as a veiled attempt to roll back gay civil rights, said
the battle would continue.
``For the first time we're talking about our lives not in terms
of sex or disease, but in how we love and how we live our
lives,'' said Mark Leno, an
openly gay member of San Francisco's governing board of
supervisors. ``Now we move forward with a fight for full equality
for all California
families.''
Almost as controversial, the youth crime initiative dubbed Prop.
21 was also skating to victory according to early results, which
showed it ahead by
64 percent to 36 percent.
The measure, which comes despite the lowest U.S. youth crime
rate since 1987 and a 60 percent decline in juvenile murder
arrests in California,
requires adult trials for juveniles 14 or older charged with
murder or specified sex crimes -- a move which could put them on
Death Row if
convicted.
It also boosts penalties for gang-related crimes, requires
imprisonment for certain offenses, and expands the list of
offenses for which longer prison
sentences would be imposed.
``This is a sad day for California,'' said Kim Miyoshi, a member
of the ``No on 21'' campaign. ``The implementation of Proposition
21 would be a
disaster: It would destroy the lives of thousands of young
people.''
In the most expensive battle on Tuesday's ballot, the insurance
industry persuaded voters to permanently scupper two laws
broadening consumers'
rights to sue insurance companies. The laws, passed last year,
were put on hold pending the outcome of Tuesday's referendum,
which followed a
$50 million advertising campaign mounted by the insurance
industry. Early results showed the laws being voted down by
roughly 70 percent to 30
percent.
California's Indian tribes scored success in their drive to
expand tribal casinos as voters overwhelmingly backed Prop. 1A, a
state constitutional
amendment to permit Vegas-style slot machines, card games like
blackjack, high-stakes baccarat and satellite wagering on horse
races at Indian
gaming halls.
The measure, which was leading 64 to 35 percent in early
returns, paved the way for implementation of a 1998 state
proposition which had been
ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Andy
at all. The text of the proposition was "California will only recognize a
marriage between a man and a woman."
I am ashamed of my fellow Californians for passing this, but hopefully it
will be challenged in the courts as being unconstitutional (how can a
marriage legal in one state be void in another?)
Albert Nurick
in message news:0a5f0798...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
> Californians have rejected queer marriage!!! This is a landslide
> victory for Conservatism!
Actually, it was a very interesting case, because California also
decided not to recognize homosexual marriages that were performed
under the law in other states. This is going to create a very
sticky situation.
(I have to admit a certain amusement for folks like Tracey who are
so obsessed with what controlling what others can and cannot do
with their lives.)
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Kevin Foltinek
<and...@mindspring.com> writes:
> The text of the proposition was "California will only recognize a
> marriage between a man and a woman."
This is the fourth time I have seen this, so I'm guessing that this
really is the actual text of the proposition.
The California government (once this proposition becomes law) can no
longer legally:
- collect taxes;
- pass laws;
- enforce laws;
etc.
The *only* legal activity in which the California government can now
engage is recognizing a marriange between a man and a woman. Any
other activity will be a violation of this proposition.
(It could also be argued that the recognition of more than one
marriage in the entire state would be a violation, though this point
is a bit subtle.)
Kevin.
j_w_a...@my-deja.com
"Albert Nurick" <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
> "Tracey Levin" <tracey12...@hotbot.com.invalid> wrote
> in message news:0a5f0798...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
> > Californians have rejected queer marriage!!! This is a landslide
> > victory for Conservatism!
>
> Actually, it was a very interesting case, because California also
> decided not to recognize homosexual marriages that were performed
> under the law in other states. This is going to create a very
> sticky situation.
>
Actually, this is merely the result of the federal DoOMA (Defense of
Marriage Act) that voids the section of the constitution mandating all
states to recognize official acts in any other state.The GOP did this
solely to prohibit gay marraige on the federal level. This is the
unravelling of the US by conservative fundamentalists.
> (I have to admit a certain amusement for folks like Tracey who are
> so obsessed with what controlling what others can and cannot do
> with their lives.)
>
> --
> Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
>
>
--
Behold I have come again
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Carlos Villalpando
folt...@math.utexas.edu says...
> In article <B4EBC14E.6C2C%and...@mindspring.com> Andy
> <and...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> > The text of the proposition was "California will only recognize a
> > marriage between a man and a woman."
>
> This is the fourth time I have seen this, so I'm guessing that this
> really is the actual text of the proposition.
Actually its:
308.5 "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California" [1]
Not stating whether or not I supported it, but I wonder how long it will
stand once one state allows homosexual marriages considering the US
Constitution Article 4, Sections 1 and 2, especially section 2:
Article IV (excerpt)
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the
public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And
the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts,
records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges
and immunities of citizens in the several states.
--Carlos V.
[1] California Voter Information Guide, March 7 Primary Election, page
132 [2]
[2] A handy little booklet that is mailed to all registered voters and
lists all candidates, their statements, and propositions with impartial
legislative analysis, pro and con arguments as well as the full text of
the proposed law. I wish Texas did that when I was there.
alan weiss
>In article <04wx4.1166$QU.1...@news.swbell.net>,
> "Albert Nurick" <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>> "Tracey Levin" <tracey12...@hotbot.com.invalid> wrote
>> in message news:0a5f0798...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
>> > Californians have rejected queer marriage!!! This is a landslide
>> > victory for Conservatism!
>>
>> Actually, it was a very interesting case, because California also
>> decided not to recognize homosexual marriages that were performed
>> under the law in other states. This is going to create a very
>> sticky situation.
>>
>
>Actually, this is merely the result of the federal DoOMA (Defense of
>Marriage Act) that voids the section of the constitution mandating all
>states to recognize official acts in any other state.The GOP did this
>solely to prohibit gay marraige on the federal level. This is the
>unravelling of the US by conservative fundamentalists.
Another reason why voting for so-called "conservative Republicans" is a stab
in the heart of the Constitution. They may fight for the 2nd Amendment, but
they sure as hell feel no remorse about ripping the guts out of the 1st
Amendment, or any OTHER clause in the Constitution to put forth their
fascist social agenda.
Where oh where have the "Goldwater Republicans" gone? The "libertarian,
live-and-let-live, who gives a damn what YOU do" Republicans that cared
about freedom, even if it wasn't their issue?" Gone. Pfft!
Being in a hetero marriage, all I can feel is sadness for same-sex couples
who want to preserve their stability and enjoy the "fruits of liberty."
This nation is just another statist, fascist, liberty-hating country like
every other on Earth. All the rhetoric about "freedom" and "liberty" is
just bullshit. Propaganda. Lies. Its a democracy, ruled by a mob
mentality controlled by fear-generating hate-mongers with power agendas -
power over individual's lives. Disgusting. And, I'm afraid, reality.
Alan
Kevin Foltinek
Villalpando <unbe...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > This is the fourth time I have seen this, so I'm guessing that this
> > really is the actual text of the proposition.
>
> Actually its:
>
> 308.5 "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
> California" [1]
Thanks. I guess every other source I'd seen was copying a bad
original.
The current section 308 reads
+> A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid
+> by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted
+> is valid in this state.
308.5 certainly seems to contradict both IV.1 and IV.2 which you
quoted from the U.S. Constitution.
> [2] A handy little booklet that is mailed to all registered voters and
> lists all candidates, their statements, and propositions with impartial
> legislative analysis, pro and con arguments as well as the full text of
> the proposed law. I wish Texas did that when I was there.
What, you don't trust politicians to give accurate portrayals of their
opponents during a campaign? :-)
Kevin.
Albert Nurick
> In article <04wx4.1166$QU.1...@news.swbell.net>,
> "Albert Nurick" <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
> > "Tracey Levin" <tracey12...@hotbot.com.invalid> wrote
> > in message news:0a5f0798...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
> > > Californians have rejected queer marriage!!! This is a landslide
> > > victory for Conservatism!
> >
> > Actually, it was a very interesting case, because California also
> > decided not to recognize homosexual marriages that were performed
> > under the law in other states. This is going to create a very
> > sticky situation.
> >
>
> Actually, this is merely the result of the federal DoOMA (Defense of
> Marriage Act) that voids the section of the constitution mandating all
> states to recognize official acts in any other state.
Sounds like something ripe to be declared unconstitutional by the
Supremes. Religious fundies can be idiots at times.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Albert Nurick
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:59:42 GMT, "alan weiss" <awe...@austin.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> snipped a message in which Weiss gives vent to his hate and bigotry
> against the family lifestyle.
Still confused, "Professor"?
Allowing choices other than that which you call the "family lifestyle"
isn't the same as hating it. But keep on ranting... bozos like you and
Tracey do far more to hurt your cause than to help it, and the sad thing
is that you're not bright enough to realize this.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Dusty Rhodes
news:38cd55a8...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:59:42 GMT, "alan weiss" <awe...@austin.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> snipped a message in which Weiss gives vent to his hate and bigotry
> against the family lifestyle.
Let me get this straight, bug boy. You think snipping the original message
in your response somehow makes it go away? Just out of curiosity, what color
is the sky in your world?
Cheers,
Dusty
Professor Vonroach
Import Car Fan
alan weiss <awe...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OTPx4.5448$OV.7...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> Where oh where have the "Goldwater Republicans" gone? The "libertarian,
> live-and-let-live, who gives a damn what YOU do" Republicans that cared
> about freedom, even if it wasn't their issue?" Gone. Pfft!
They're still here. They just don't want another special interest
getting tax breaks. It's bad enough that heteros get them. Let's
leave the government out of social engineering entirely.
Professor Vonroach
I supported Barry Goldwarter for president. This year, I support
George W. Bush. I am confident in both these decisions.
Professor Vonroach
wrote:
>"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38cd55a8...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>Still confused, "Professor"?
>
>Allowing choices other than that which you call the "family lifestyle"
>isn't the same as hating it. But keep on ranting... bozos like you and
>Tracey do far more to hurt your cause than to help it, and the sad thing
>is that you're not bright enough to realize this.
Nurick, I dislike the self-centered personality of homosexuals, and
their perverted lifestyle with its diseases, drugs, and hate
propaganda towards all others. Gonorrhea of the tonsils offends me.
Professor Vonroach
<te...@REMOVETHIStexas.net> wrote:
>Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:38cd55a8...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:59:42 GMT, "alan weiss" <awe...@austin.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> snipped a message in which Weiss gives vent to his hate and bigotry
>> against the family lifestyle.
>
>Let me get this straight, bug boy. You think snipping the original message
>in your response somehow makes it go away? Just out of curiosity, what color
>is the sky in your world?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dusty
>
Dirty one as a juvenile, you are unaware that appending a brief
comment on pages of babble is not accepted by some. Don't insult the
medium you use, eliminate the kid stuff, it is just lip babble.
Albert Nurick
Impressive stereotypes, "Professor". I'm curious... do you actually know
any gay people, or do you just hate (excuse me, "dislike") out of ignorance?
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
s...@nospam.unt.edu
> I supported Barry Goldwarter for president. This year, I support
> George W. Bush. I am confident in both these decisions.
You are aware that Barry Goldwater supported gay rights and was
pro-choice, right?
--
Steve Tate --- srt[At]cs.unt.edu | Gratuitously stolen quote:
Dept. of Computer Sciences | "The box said 'Requires Windows 95, NT,
University of North Texas | or better,' so I installed Linux."
Denton, TX 76201 |
Aimless
I would just like to point out at this time that you are supporting the same
candidate as Curmit, Tracey, and Vonroach.
Does that bother you in the least?
--
Aimless
"This chick is crazy, twisted, flip city, ooby shooby..."
Professor Vonroach wrote in message <38d1face...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:02:31 GMT, "Import Car Fan"
><dsh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>alan weiss <awe...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:OTPx4.5448$OV.7...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>>>
>>> Where oh where have the "Goldwater Republicans" gone? The "libertarian,
>>> live-and-let-live, who gives a damn what YOU do" Republicans that cared
>>> about freedom, even if it wasn't their issue?" Gone. Pfft!
>>
>>They're still here. They just don't want another special interest
>>getting tax breaks. It's bad enough that heteros get them. Let's
>>leave the government out of social engineering entirely.
>>
Clay Colwell
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:44:14 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
>>Allowing choices other than that which you call the "family lifestyle"
>>isn't the same as hating it. But keep on ranting... bozos like you and
>>Tracey do far more to hurt your cause than to help it, and the sad thing
>>is that you're not bright enough to realize this.
> Nurick, I dislike the self-centered personality of homosexuals,
Is that how McCain can weed out all the fags from the non-fags
in the military? Inquiring minds want to know.
But *do* go on; this is *fas*cinating. <scribble scribble>
Tell me more about this distinguishing characteristic of
homosexuals.
> and
> their perverted lifestyle
OK, you have me there: Scrabble isn't everyone's cup of
tea. Still, that shouldn't prevent me from marrying my
sweetie of 14 years.
> with its diseases,
Yeah, the common cold's a real bear, eh?
> drugs,
Multi-vitamins and creatine? Make me laugh more, d0od.
> and hate propaganda towards all others.
I must have missed http://www.godhatesbreeders.com/. Where
did it move to?
> Gonorrhea of the tonsils offends me.
For goodness' sake, then, make him wear a condom before you
blow him!
In all seriousness: avocados offend *me*, but I'm not
stumping for guacamole-eaters to forgo marriage, now,
am I?
-- Clay
Albert Nurick
> Alan, Albert,
>
> I would just like to point out at this time that you are supporting the same
> candidate as Curmit, Tracey, and Vonroach.
>
> Does that bother you in the least?
Nope. Lots of idiots choose to support every candidate. I don't let idiots
influence my decisions.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Robert MacGregor
there -- you're what's wrong with America.
Import Car Fan
<s...@nospam.unt.edu> wrote in message
news:8ab5ta$739$1...@hermes.acs.unt.edu...
> Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > I supported Barry Goldwarter for president. This year, I support
> > George W. Bush. I am confident in both these decisions.
>
> pro-choice, right?
He supported gay rights only late in his life, and if I recall
correctly, because he had a gay son or grandson who was
dying of AIDS. At the time, many commentators were
starting to call him a new liberal.
j_w_a...@my-deja.com
vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Professor Vonroach) wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:44:14 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:59:42 GMT, "alan weiss"
<awe...@austin.rr.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> snipped a message in which Weiss gives vent to his hate and bigotry
> >> against the family lifestyle.
> >
> >
> >Allowing choices other than that which you call the "family
lifestyle"
> >isn't the same as hating it. But keep on ranting... bozos like you
and
> >Tracey do far more to hurt your cause than to help it, and the sad
thing
> >is that you're not bright enough to realize this.
>
> propaganda towards all others. Gonorrhea of the tonsils offends me.
>
If that offends you so much, stop sucking up to the religious right.
j_w_a...@my-deja.com
vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Professor Vonroach) wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:02:31 GMT, "Import Car Fan"
> <dsh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >alan weiss <awe...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:OTPx4.5448$OV.7...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> >>
> >> Where oh where have the "Goldwater Republicans" gone? The
"libertarian,
> >> live-and-let-live, who gives a damn what YOU do" Republicans that
cared
> >> about freedom, even if it wasn't their issue?" Gone. Pfft!
> >
> >They're still here. They just don't want another special interest
> >getting tax breaks. It's bad enough that heteros get them. Let's
> >leave the government out of social engineering entirely.
> >
> George W. Bush. I am confident in both these decisions.
>
>
conservatism and fascist conservatism.
Professor Vonroach
>
>In all seriousness: avocados offend *me*, but I'm not
>stumping for guacamole-eaters to forgo marriage, now,
>am I?
>
>-- Clay
Clay, you in fact have many of the characteristics commonly seen in
homosexuals yourself. I am against homosexual guacamole eaters getting
married and then claiming privileges that they are not entitled to.
Professor Vonroach
>> Nurick, I dislike the self-centered personality of homosexuals, and
>> their perverted lifestyle with its diseases, drugs, and hate
>> propaganda towards all others. Gonorrhea of the tonsils offends me.
>>
>If that offends you so much, stop sucking up to the religious right.
Then you think that homosexuals are anti-religion? That is
interesting. They usually deny bigotry and hatred. Your is a fresh
admission.
Professor Vonroach
>Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> I supported Barry Goldwarter for president. This year, I support
>> George W. Bush. I am confident in both these decisions.
>
>You are aware that Barry Goldwater supported gay rights and was
>pro-choice, right?
You are aware that support of a candidate doesn't imply a blanket
endorsement of everything he has said from cradle to grave, right?
Also your saying it is so, doesn't make it so.
Professor Vonroach
>Alan, Albert,
>
>I would just like to point out at this time that you are supporting the same
>candidate as Curmit, Tracey, and Vonroach.
>
>Does that bother you in the least?
Algore would be a better choice for one that calls himself `Aimless',
in fact it is a perfect fit.
Professor Vonroach
<alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>"Aimless" <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:scialvj...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Alan, Albert,
>>
>> I would just like to point out at this time that you are supporting the same
>> candidate as Curmit, Tracey, and Vonroach.
>>
>> Does that bother you in the least?
>
>Nope. Lots of idiots choose to support every candidate. I don't let idiots
>influence my decisions.
Well said Albert, I feel the same way.
Professor Vonroach
>> I supported Barry Goldwarter for president. This year, I support
>> George W. Bush. I am confident in both these decisions.
>>
>>
>You must be one schitzophrenic (sic) guy to support libertarian
>conservatism and fascist conservatism.
And you must be an ignorant biased Austin academic to run around
putting labels you don't understand on people you don't know.
Professor Vonroach
Thanks for a well thought out typical homosexual message.
Albert Nurick
Calling people gay again, "Professor"? It's comical to watch you reply
with "homosexual" to messages that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Obsessed much? In denial? One must wonder.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
j_w_a...@my-deja.com
Religion belongs to all who beleive in some spiritual entity. Gays are
not anti-religious, many of us seek spiritual guidance but are turned
away from religious bigots especially those who are conservative. The
gay identity is more than the person we love, it is the person we ARE.
Daniel Lee
I was hoping his kind died out in the seventies.
Tracey Levin <tracey12...@hotbot.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0a5f0798...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
> Californians have rejected queer marriage!!! This is a landslide
> victory for Conservatism!
> <p>
> The normally "left" coast rejects homosexuals in three
> catagories:
>
> 1. NO homo marriage
> 2. NO homo adoptions
> 3. NO benefits to homosexual partners from government agencies.
>
> The last two are updates from radio sources. The first is
> validated by the following kick in the pants to homosexuals!
>
> THANK YOU, CALIFORNIANS!!!
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> California Passes Gay Marriage Ban, Crime Measure
>
> By Andrew Quinn
>
> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California voters passed a ban on gay
> marriage and a crackdown on juvenile crime -- which could mandate
> the
> death penalty for some 14-year-old offenders -- as part of a
> laundry list of state propositions on the ``Super Tuesday''
> ballot.
>
> A measure approving Las Vegas-style gambling at Indian tribal
> casinos also passed, while two propositions which would have
> given consumers
> broad powers to sue insurance companies went down in defeat
> after the insurance industry outspent its opponents by tens of
> millions of dollars.
>
> California's ballot initiative process regularly presents the
> state's voters with choices on everything from basic social
> policy to bond issues.
>
> This year, the bitterest battle fight was waged over Prop. 22, a
> measure which amends the state's Family Code to say ``only
> marriage between a
> man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.''
>
> With 14 percent of precincts reporting, the measure was passing
> by 62 to 37 percent -- a victory for the coalition of Mormon and
> Catholic religious
> groups, Republican conservatives and Hispanic labor
> organizations which supported it.
>
> ``As Californians, we are proud of our diversity and tolerance
> but there are societal boundaries which should be preserved.
> Tonight we have
> preserved traditional marriage,'' said Robert Glazier, a
> spokesman for the proposition.
>
> Gay activists and political leaders, who had described the
> measure as a veiled attempt to roll back gay civil rights, said
> the battle would continue.
>
> ``For the first time we're talking about our lives not in terms
> of sex or disease, but in how we love and how we live our
> lives,'' said Mark Leno, an
> openly gay member of San Francisco's governing board of
> supervisors. ``Now we move forward with a fight for full equality
> for all California
> families.''
>
> Almost as controversial, the youth crime initiative dubbed Prop.
> 21 was also skating to victory according to early results, which
> showed it ahead by
> 64 percent to 36 percent.
>
> The measure, which comes despite the lowest U.S. youth crime
> rate since 1987 and a 60 percent decline in juvenile murder
> arrests in California,
> requires adult trials for juveniles 14 or older charged with
> murder or specified sex crimes -- a move which could put them on
> Death Row if
> convicted.
>
> It also boosts penalties for gang-related crimes, requires
> imprisonment for certain offenses, and expands the list of
> offenses for which longer prison
> sentences would be imposed.
>
> ``This is a sad day for California,'' said Kim Miyoshi, a member
> of the ``No on 21'' campaign. ``The implementation of Proposition
> 21 would be a
> disaster: It would destroy the lives of thousands of young
> people.''
>
> In the most expensive battle on Tuesday's ballot, the insurance
> industry persuaded voters to permanently scupper two laws
> broadening consumers'
> rights to sue insurance companies. The laws, passed last year,
> were put on hold pending the outcome of Tuesday's referendum,
> which followed a
> $50 million advertising campaign mounted by the insurance
> industry. Early results showed the laws being voted down by
> roughly 70 percent to 30
> percent.
>
> California's Indian tribes scored success in their drive to
> expand tribal casinos as voters overwhelmingly backed Prop. 1A, a
> state constitutional
> amendment to permit Vegas-style slot machines, card games like
> blackjack, high-stakes baccarat and satellite wagering on horse
> races at Indian
> gaming halls.
>
> The measure, which was leading 64 to 35 percent in early
> returns, paved the way for implementation of a 1998 state
> proposition which had been
> ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.
>
>
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
Dave Anderson
> >> I supported Barry Goldwarter for president. This year, I
> >> support George W. Bush. I am confident in both these
> >> decisions.
> >
> >You are aware that Barry Goldwater supported gay rights and
> >was pro-choice, right?
>
> You are aware that support of a candidate doesn't imply a
> blanket endorsement of everything he has said from cradle
> to grave, right?
Maybe so, but you didn't specify the year you supported Goldwater.
Dave Anderson
> And you must be an ignorant biased Austin academic to
> run around putting labels you don't understand on people
> you don't know.
...the stating of which apparently makes you an ignorant biased Austin
academic.
Clay Colwell
>>In all seriousness: avocados offend *me*, but I'm not
>>stumping for guacamole-eaters to forgo marriage, now,
>>am I?
> Clay, you in fact have many of the characteristics commonly seen in
> homosexuals yourself.
Well, *duh*, Barbie: I *am* gay, you know.
> I am against homosexual guacamole eaters getting
> married and then claiming privileges that they are not entitled to.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Professor Vonroach
Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
Have a happy AIDS.
Professor Vonroach
<rmacgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <38d4c3a1...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com>,
>vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com says...
>Another latent homosexual, I see.
>
>Why do you fear men wanting to fuck other men so much? Is it because
>deep down inside you yourself wouldn't mind sucking a big cock once in
>awhile but are just so fucked up from your Christian upbringing that you
>cannot bear to admit it to yourself? <chuckle>
You are in error hogbreath, I find your perversion, your profanity,
your diseases, your lifestyle, and your self-centered craving for
attention, your use of drugs as the ultimate in a disgusting
lifestyle. I can not discern a single redeeming feature. you and your
kind are an abomination of no value to yourself or anyone else. Your
odor in your dirty enclaves and slums is obnoxious.
Clay Colwell
> On 13 Mar 2000 01:59:51 GMT, Clay Colwell <er...@io.com> wrote:
>>In austin.general Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am against homosexual guacamole eaters getting
>>> married and then claiming privileges that they are not entitled to.
>>
>>A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
> Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
Oh? Feel free to detail it, with explicit examples, of course.
DejaNews is awaiting you.
> Have a happy AIDS.
:: giggle :: Get raped.
stephen...@spammenot.edu
(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
>Have a happy AIDS.
Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
---
Stephen Whitis
Email replies should go to...
scw120198 (at) whitis.com
The address in the header is not valid.
Reed Moroffen
wrote this, then I would ask that we all put him in our killfile. There is
no call for this type of language or attitude at all.
<stephen...@spamMeNot.edu> wrote in message
news:B0F3D4C411B29229.71FC9B69...@lp.airnews.net...
Professor Vonroach
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:45:26 GMT, vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>
>>Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
>>Have a happy AIDS.
>
>Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
>I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
>
>It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
>
You have worked hard for it. You deserve it.
Professor Vonroach
wrote:
>I have not been following this thread, but if Professor Vonroach actually
>wrote this, then I would ask that we all put him in our killfile. There is
>no call for this type of language or attitude at all.
>
All of the profanity is in the homosexual messages, Reed.
><stephen...@spamMeNot.edu> wrote in message
>news:B0F3D4C411B29229.71FC9B69...@lp.airnews.net...
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:45:26 GMT, vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>> (Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>>
>> >Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
>> >Have a happy AIDS.
>>
>> Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
>> I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
>>
>> It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
>>
>>
Professor Vonroach
<rmacgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article
><B0F3D4C411B29229.71FC9B69...@lp.airnews.net>,
>stephen...@spamMeNot.edu says...
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:45:26 GMT, vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>> (Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>>
>> >Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
>> >Have a happy AIDS.
>>
>> Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
>> I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
>
>Actually, Judge Judy said the same thing in Australia in regards to their
>needle exchange program for heroin addicts..
>
>>
>> It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
>
>Lots of assholes out there, huh?
>
No lots of homosexuals who enjoy calling attention to their perverted
lifrstyle by the use of profanity since they lack any sensible
thoughts.
stephen...@spammenot.edu
(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:55:22 GMT, stephen...@spamMeNot.edu wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:45:26 GMT, vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>>(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>>
>>>Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
>>>Have a happy AIDS.
>>
>>Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
>>I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
>>
>>It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
>>
>You have worked hard for it. You deserve it.
I'm not gay. I'm just opposed to such open hatred as you've shown.
I'm married, and probably at no more risk of aids than you are. Maybe
less. But I'm not wishing it on you as you are on the gays.
Bill Hawk
I'm married, for a while now, and I think you seem a bit jumpy.
Most of the gays I know are reasonably good neighbors, ya know? Jeez, if
"professors" were as put-upon as they are, in today's society, y'all might
be as quiet and self-effacing as the majority of "them" as well.
Alas, no such luck . . .
"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:38d527a9...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>
> Ah, you certainly do protest a lot, perhaps too much.
Professor Vonroach
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:30:57 GMT, vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:55:22 GMT, stephen...@spamMeNot.edu wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:45:26 GMT, vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>>>(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
>>>>Have a happy AIDS.
>>>
>>>Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
>>>I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
>>>
>>>It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
>>>
>>You have worked hard for it. You deserve it.
>
>I'm not gay. I'm just opposed to such open hatred as you've shown.
>
>I'm married, and probably at no more risk of aids than you are. Maybe
>less. But I'm not wishing it on you as you are on the gays.
>
Ah, you certainly do protest a lot, perhaps too much.
>
stephen...@spammenot.edu
(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>>>>Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
>>>>I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
>>>>
>>>>It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
>>>>
>>>You have worked hard for it. You deserve it.
>>
>>I'm not gay. I'm just opposed to such open hatred as you've shown.
>>
>>I'm married, and probably at no more risk of aids than you are. Maybe
>>less. But I'm not wishing it on you as you are on the gays.
>>
>Ah, you certainly do protest a lot, perhaps too much.
You can ignore the truth all you want. It doesn't matter to me.
Family pictures here, for those that want to know the truth. It
won't effect you - lies and hatred won't let you open your eyes.
http://www.whitis.com/family.htm
s...@nospam.unt.edu
> Most of the gays I know are reasonably good neighbors, ya know? Jeez, if
> "professors" were as put-upon as they are, in today's society, y'all might
> be as quiet and self-effacing as the majority of "them" as well.
Oh, please.... just because he signes his Usenet postings "Professor"
doesn't make it so. I'm a professor, and while I have a few
colleagues who have some problems on the common sense side of things
or in the.... er.... "sociability" side of things, no one as flat
out ignorant as "Vonroach" would ever be able to get a Ph.D., much
less keep a job as a faculty member...
--
Steve Tate --- srt[At]cs.unt.edu | Gratuitously stolen quote:
Dept. of Computer Sciences | "The box said 'Requires Windows 95, NT,
University of North Texas | or better,' so I installed Linux."
Denton, TX 76201 |
bre...@cyanide.co.uk
vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Professor Vonroach) wrote:
> Have a happy AIDS.
You've misspelled "I'm a bigoted asshole". HTH.
Professor Vonroach
>In article <38d4c3a1...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com>,
>vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>> Have a happy AIDS.
>
>You've misspelled "I'm a bigoted asshole". HTH.
>
Interesting to listen to all you noble unbiased people giving to your
spleen and hatred.
Albert Nurick
> You are in error hogbreath, I find your perversion, your profanity,
> your diseases, your lifestyle, and your self-centered craving for
> attention, your use of drugs as the ultimate in a disgusting
> lifestyle. I can not discern a single redeeming feature. you and your
> kind are an abomination of no value to yourself or anyone else. Your
> odor in your dirty enclaves and slums is obnoxious.
Remove the hyperbole (odor?) and we have a case of the pot calling
the kettle black.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Albert Nurick
> Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
I've never met Clay, but obnoxious isn't a term I would use, based on
his postings here. Even when he and I disagree (which is rather often,
since I am a conservative), he strikes me as an intelligent and thoughtful
individual.
> Have a happy AIDS.
Wishing a deadly disease on someone merely because you don't agree with
his lifestyle is the sign of a degenerate far worse than anything you
claim to hate.
You, sir, are to be pitied. I wonder what horrible thing happened to
you in your past that has left you so bitter?
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Albert Nurick
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:59:32 GMT, "Reed Moroffen" <r...@literacy.com>
> wrote:
> ><stephen...@spamMeNot.edu> wrote in message
> >news:B0F3D4C411B29229.71FC9B69...@lp.airnews.net...
> >> (Professor Vonroach) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
> >>
> >> Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
> >> I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
> >>
> >> It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
>
> >wrote this, then I would ask that we all put him in our killfile. There is
> >no call for this type of language or attitude at all.
> >
> All of the profanity is in the homosexual messages, Reed.
Mr. Vonroach, it's sad that you are not even bright enough to realize the
horrible profanity of wishing AIDS on someone, even when it is pointed out
to you.
Keep rationalizing your embarrassing behavior.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Albert Nurick
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:48:42 GMT, stephen...@spamMeNot.edu wrote:
>
> >(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:55:22 GMT, stephen...@spamMeNot.edu wrote:
> >>
> >>>(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
> >>>>Have a happy AIDS.
> >>>
> >>>Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
> >>>I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
> >>>
> >>>It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
> >>>
> >
> >I'm not gay. I'm just opposed to such open hatred as you've shown.
> >
> >I'm married, and probably at no more risk of aids than you are. Maybe
> >less. But I'm not wishing it on you as you are on the gays.
> >
> Ah, you certainly do protest a lot, perhaps too much.
Hardly. Behavior such as yours should never be condoned, Mr. Vonroach.
It is a shame that your parents were such utter failures.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Clay Colwell
Thank you for being forthright and admitting that you have
no interest in compensating for your own obvious biases,
as well as admitting that you're a colossal boor. (No
venting there; it's a simple observation.)
-- Clay
Professor Vonroach
I thought you were enjoying the odor of orange blossoms in Florida
when you last wrote?
Professor Vonroach
<alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38d4c3a1...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>
>> Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
>
>I've never met Clay, but obnoxious isn't a term I would use, based on
>his postings here. Even when he and I disagree (which is rather often,
>since I am a conservative), he strikes me as an intelligent and thoughtful
>individual.
>
>> Have a happy AIDS.
>Wishing a deadly disease on someone merely because you don't agree with
>his lifestyle is the sign of a degenerate far worse than anything you
>claim to hate.
On the contrary, many would say that reminding one of a disease that
their habits make them susceptible to is an act of kindness and wise
council. Akin to reminding an alcoholic that their liver and brain
will not stand up to the insult forever or a cigarette smoker that
there were evil consequences for their lungs.
Professor Vonroach
<alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38d7d9d4...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:59:32 GMT, "Reed Moroffen" <r...@literacy.com>
>> wrote:
>> ><stephen...@spamMeNot.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:B0F3D4C411B29229.71FC9B69...@lp.airnews.net...
>> >> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:45:26 GMT, vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>> >> (Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
>> >> >Have a happy AIDS.
>> >>
>> >> Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
>> >> I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
Actually neither was said, but I'm sure that makes no difference to
one trying to rationalize and explain their own perverted behavior.
Or do you still live in denial of the consequences of your choices.
>> >> It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
>>
Professor Vonroach
<alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38d527a9...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:48:42 GMT, stephen...@spamMeNot.edu wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:30:57 GMT, vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>> >(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:55:22 GMT, stephen...@spamMeNot.edu wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:45:26 GMT, vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>> >>>(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
>> >>>>Have a happy AIDS.
>> >>>
>> >>>Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
>> >>>I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
>> >>>
>> >>>It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
>> >>>
>> >>You have worked hard for it. You deserve it.
>> >
>> >I'm not gay. I'm just opposed to such open hatred as you've shown.
>> >
>> >I'm married, and probably at no more risk of aids than you are. Maybe
>> >less. But I'm not wishing it on you as you are on the gays.
>> >
>> Ah, you certainly do protest a lot, perhaps too much.
>
>Hardly. Behavior such as yours should never be condoned, Mr. Vonroach.
>It is a shame that your parents were such utter failures.
I fear it is your parents who have had to bear the shame and guilt
brought on by your acceptance of perversion over the family lifestyle.
They surely must wonder where they went wrong and failed you.
On the other hand, I am pointing out a well recognized end result of
that perversion in many of its devotees, even over your phony sounding
protests.
Albert Nurick
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:15:18 -0600, "Albert Nurick"
> <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>
> >Remove the hyperbole (odor?) and we have a case of the pot calling
> >the kettle black.
>
> I thought you were enjoying the odor of orange blossoms in Florida
> when you last wrote?
Florida? You're hallucinating, Mr. Vonroach.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Albert Nurick
"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38db2ada...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:25:36 -0600, "Albert Nurick"
> <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
> >Hardly. Behavior such as yours should never be condoned, Mr. Vonroach.
> >It is a shame that your parents were such utter failures.
>
> I fear it is your parents who have had to bear the shame and guilt
> brought on by your acceptance of perversion over the family lifestyle.
LOL. My parents taught me better than to point fingers at those who
were different. You seem to take pleasure in damning groups en masse
(gays, Austinites, the UT community, etc.) IMO, it is a symptom of a
weak mind.
> They surely must wonder where they went wrong and failed you.
Hardly. Tolerance for those who are different from me was taught to me
very early. I have never doubted my parents pride in me, which is
perhaps one reason I don't feel the need to hate the way you do.
> On the other hand, I am pointing out a well recognized end result of
> that perversion in many of its devotees, even over your phony sounding
> protests.
AIDS is a result of the transmission of the HIV virus. None of the gay
men I know is HIV positive. So to label it an "end result of that
perversion" is ignorance, and a poor excuse for the hate you sling as if
it is a badge of honor.
For you, I suppose it is.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Professor Vonroach
<alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>
>"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38db2ada...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:25:36 -0600, "Albert Nurick"
>> <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>> >Hardly. Behavior such as yours should never be condoned, Mr. Vonroach.
>> >It is a shame that your parents were such utter failures.
>>
>> I fear it is your parents who have had to bear the shame and guilt
>> brought on by your acceptance of perversion over the family lifestyle.
>
>LOL. My parents taught me better than to point fingers at those who
>were different. You seem to take pleasure in damning groups en masse
>(gays, Austinites, the UT community, etc.) IMO, it is a symptom of a
>weak mind.
>
>> They surely must wonder where they went wrong and failed you.
>
>Hardly. Tolerance for those who are different from me was taught to me
>very early. I have never doubted my parents pride in me, which is
>perhaps one reason I don't feel the need to hate the way you do.
>
>> On the other hand, I am pointing out a well recognized end result of
>> that perversion in many of its devotees, even over your phony sounding
>> protests.
>
>AIDS is a result of the transmission of the HIV virus. None of the gay
>men I know is HIV positive. So to label it an "end result of that
>perversion" is ignorance, and a poor excuse for the hate you sling as if
>it is a badge of honor.
>
>For you, I suppose it is.
So you've swallowed the HIV hypothesis hook, line, and sinker. You
think all AIDS patients have positive tests for the HIV - hate to
disappoint you, but your view is very dangerous.
Professor Vonroach
<alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38d82857...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:15:18 -0600, "Albert Nurick"
>> <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Remove the hyperbole (odor?) and we have a case of the pot calling
>> >the kettle black.
>>
>> I thought you were enjoying the odor of orange blossoms in Florida
>> when you last wrote?
>
>Florida? You're hallucinating, Mr. Vonroach.
Then you remain in Austin? With the smell of dirty students.
j_w_a...@my-deja.com
Please, boys, no pissing on each other's shoes. Can we be civil? LOL
Behold I have come again
stephen...@spammenot.edu
(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:34:58 -0600, "Albert Nurick"
><alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>
>>"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38d82857...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:15:18 -0600, "Albert Nurick"
>>> <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Remove the hyperbole (odor?) and we have a case of the pot calling
>>> >the kettle black.
>>>
>>> I thought you were enjoying the odor of orange blossoms in Florida
>>> when you last wrote?
>>
>>Florida? You're hallucinating, Mr. Vonroach.
>
>Then you remain in Austin? With the smell of dirty students.
You really are off the deep end. You openly root for aids, you claim
HIV and AIDS aren't related, and you've got some nutso idea that
Albert lives in either Florida or Austin. You can't mention Austin
without talking about "the smell of dirty students", and when I
pointed out that wishing AIDS on someone wasn't very polite,
you decided that I must be gay.
Don't they have a kook of the month club for people like you?
Professor Vonroach
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:28:55 GMT, vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:34:58 -0600, "Albert Nurick"
>><alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38d82857...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:15:18 -0600, "Albert Nurick"
>>>> <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Remove the hyperbole (odor?) and we have a case of the pot calling
>>>> >the kettle black.
>>>>
>>>> I thought you were enjoying the odor of orange blossoms in Florida
>>>> when you last wrote?
>>>
>>>Florida? You're hallucinating, Mr. Vonroach.
>>
>>Then you remain in Austin? With the smell of dirty students.
>
>You really are off the deep end. You openly root for aids, you claim
>HIV and AIDS aren't related, and you've got some nutso idea that
>Albert lives in either Florida or Austin. You can't mention Austin
>without talking about "the smell of dirty students", and when I
>pointed out that wishing AIDS on someone wasn't very polite,
>you decided that I must be gay.
>
No, I decided to warn you of the dire consequences that may attend the
choice of this perversion.
Albert Nurick
>
> So you've swallowed the HIV hypothesis hook, line, and sinker. You
> think all AIDS patients have positive tests for the HIV - hate to
> disappoint you, but your view is very dangerous.
LOL.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Albert Nurick
> >> I thought you were enjoying the odor of orange blossoms in Florida
> >> when you last wrote?
> >
> >Florida? You're hallucinating, Mr. Vonroach.
>
> Then you remain in Austin? With the smell of dirty students.
Er, nope. Try again. It's amusing to watch you randomly spew words
that have little meaning and even less logic behind them.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Albert Nurick
news:B345353F06D58503.0253DDAD...@lp.airnews.net...
> You really are off the deep end. You openly root for aids, you claim
> HIV and AIDS aren't related, and you've got some nutso idea that
> Albert lives in either Florida or Austin. You can't mention Austin
> without talking about "the smell of dirty students", and when I
> pointed out that wishing AIDS on someone wasn't very polite,
> you decided that I must be gay.
>
IMO, Mr. Vonroach isn't amusing enough to be a kook of the month;
he's not in the same league as those guys. He's what I've dubbed
a kooklet, a local phenomenon who's not ready for the big leagues
of Internet kookdom. ;-)
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Albert Nurick
> No, I decided to warn you of the dire consequences that may attend the
> choice of this perversion.
But I thought you implied that HIV does not cause AIDS? You are a very
confused chap.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
Professor Vonroach
<alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38d93ee3...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>> No, I decided to warn you of the dire consequences that may attend the
>> choice of this perversion.
>
>But I thought you implied that HIV does not cause AIDS? You are a very
>confused chap.
I didn't `imply' that, I stated it out right. Perhaps you mistook the
occasional fellow traveler virus with the dire consequences referred
to. By that I meant the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome -
middle-aged male homosexual, history of promiscuity and many prior
venereal diseases, history of recreational drug abuse, a specific
alteration in immune lymphocytes, unusual infectious diseases, and
occasional appearance of somewhat unusual cancers that often proceeds
over a course of months to death. Very dire consequences to watch and
record.
I am not in the least confused, but a voluntary choice to follow a
homosexual lifestyle leaves the unfortunate chooser exposed to just
such consequences. Choices have consequences. Intelligent people
consider them.
Clay Colwell
>>You really are off the deep end. You openly root for aids, you claim
>>HIV and AIDS aren't related, and you've got some nutso idea that
>>Albert lives in either Florida or Austin. You can't mention Austin
>>without talking about "the smell of dirty students", and when I
>>pointed out that wishing AIDS on someone wasn't very polite,
>>you decided that I must be gay.
>>
> No, I decided to warn you of the dire consequences that may attend the
> choice of this perversion.
As was pointed out, "have a happy AIDS" is not a warning.
-- Clay
Clay Colwell
> <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>>But I thought you implied that HIV does not cause AIDS? You are a very
>>confused chap.
> I didn't `imply' that, I stated it out right. Perhaps you mistook the
> occasional fellow traveler virus
"occasional"?!?!
Do you read *any* research?
> with the dire consequences referred
> to. By that I meant the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome -
> middle-aged male homosexual, history of promiscuity and many prior
> venereal diseases, history of recreational drug abuse, a specific
> alteration in immune lymphocytes, unusual infectious diseases, and
> occasional appearance of somewhat unusual cancers that often proceeds
> over a course of months to death. Very dire consequences to watch and
> record.
I expect that newborn babies and hemophiliacs and female sufferers
of AIDS will be very intrigued to find out that they're all actually
just "middle-aged male homosexual"s.
Keep it up, Roach. The laughs just keep getting better and better.
> I am not in the least confused,
Yes, you're very self-assured in your lunacy.
> but a voluntary choice to follow a homosexual lifestyle
POP QUIZ! DETAIL THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE!
1) What am I wearing?
2) What am I doing?
3) What am I eating?
4) How do the answers to the above 3 questions make me more susceptible
to contracting AIDS?
You have 2 hours. Show all work.
> leaves the unfortunate chooser exposed to just
> such consequences. Choices have consequences. Intelligent people
> consider them.
Intelligent people know what they're talking about. So sad not
to have you among their number. I'll light a candle for you.
-- Clay
Professor Vonroach
>In austin.general Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:23:21 -0600, "Albert Nurick"
>> <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>
>>>But I thought you implied that HIV does not cause AIDS? You are a very
>>>confused chap.
>
>> I didn't `imply' that, I stated it out right. Perhaps you mistook the
>> occasional fellow traveler virus
>
>"occasional"?!?!
>Do you read *any* research?
>
>> with the dire consequences referred
>> to. By that I meant the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome -
>> middle-aged male homosexual, history of promiscuity and many prior
>> venereal diseases, history of recreational drug abuse, a specific
>> alteration in immune lymphocytes, unusual infectious diseases, and
>> occasional appearance of somewhat unusual cancers that often proceeds
>> over a course of months to death. Very dire consequences to watch and
>> record.
>
>I expect that newborn babies and hemophiliacs and female sufferers
>of AIDS will be very intrigued to find out that they're all actually
>just "middle-aged male homosexual"s.
More precisely put - the victims of homosexual attempted
indoctrination and propaganda.
>Keep it up, Roach. The laughs just keep getting better and better.
Have a happy AIDS was a reference to your happy-go-lucky choice of
lifestyle and denial of possible fatal consequences. Hope you keep
laughing,
>> I am not in the least confused,
>
>Yes, you're very self-assured in your lunacy.
>
>> but a voluntary choice to follow a homosexual lifestyle
>
>POP QUIZ! DETAIL THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE!
>
>1) What am I wearing?
>2) What am I doing?
>3) What am I eating?
>4) How do the answers to the above 3 questions make me more susceptible
> to contracting AIDS?
>
>You have 2 hours. Show all work.
Only a minute required - you are wearing, doing, and eating anything
that will draw attention onto yourself, which is the motive behind
your voluntary choice of this potentially fatal lifestyle,
unfortunately these very choices including perverse sexual acts and
drug use are what predispose you to disease.
>> leaves the unfortunate chooser exposed to just
>> such consequences. Choices have consequences. Intelligent people
>> consider them.
>
>Intelligent people know what they're talking about. So sad not
>to have you among their number. I'll light a candle for you.
Only in hopes that you will be better seen by doing so. You are an
egotist. That is why homosexuality is such a familiar choice among the
Hollywood crowd.
>-- Clay
Clay Colwell
> On 20 Mar 2000 03:31:48 GMT, Clay Colwell <er...@io.com> wrote:
>>In austin.general Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:23:21 -0600, "Albert Nurick"
>>> <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>But I thought you implied that HIV does not cause AIDS? You are a very
>>>>confused chap.
>>
>>> I didn't `imply' that, I stated it out right. Perhaps you mistook the
>>> occasional fellow traveler virus
>>
>>"occasional"?!?!
>>Do you read *any* research?
I'll take your silence on this to indicate that, no, you
*don't* read any research, and that your title of "Professor"
is worth the amount of money I spent to subsidize its being
converted to phosphor on my screen: <<$0.01.
>>> with the dire consequences referred
>>> to. By that I meant the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome -
>>> middle-aged male homosexual, history of promiscuity and many prior
>>> venereal diseases, history of recreational drug abuse, a specific
>>> alteration in immune lymphocytes, unusual infectious diseases, and
>>> occasional appearance of somewhat unusual cancers that often proceeds
>>> over a course of months to death. Very dire consequences to watch and
>>> record.
>>
>>I expect that newborn babies and hemophiliacs and female sufferers
>>of AIDS will be very intrigued to find out that they're all actually
>>just "middle-aged male homosexual"s.
> More precisely put - the victims of homosexual attempted
> indoctrination and propaganda.
You're flat out wrong, dude, no matter how many times
you keep saying this. The Big Lie technique really is
*not* that effective, so you can give up on it already.
>>Keep it up, Roach. The laughs just keep getting better and better.
> Have a happy AIDS was a reference to your happy-go-lucky choice of
> lifestyle and denial of possible fatal consequences. Hope you keep
> laughing,
Oh, indeed I am, as every word you type proves more and more that
you haven't a clue as to my "lifestyle" or how I conduct myself.
You'd have better luck getting your information from the
Psychic Friends Network.
>>> I am not in the least confused,
>>
>>Yes, you're very self-assured in your lunacy.
>>
>>> but a voluntary choice to follow a homosexual lifestyle
>>
>>POP QUIZ! DETAIL THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE!
>>
>>1) What am I wearing?
>>2) What am I doing?
>>3) What am I eating?
>>4) How do the answers to the above 3 questions make me more susceptible
>> to contracting AIDS?
>>
>>You have 2 hours. Show all work.
> Only a minute required - you are wearing, doing, and eating anything
> that will draw attention onto yourself,
Bzzzzt. "Anything" is far too broad-band.
More questions for you:
1a) Do you consider denim to draw attention to oneself?
1b) Do you consider a frumpy schoolmarm dress to draw attention to
oneself?
1c) Do you consider *any* choice of clothes at all to be an
attempt to draw attention to oneself?
1d) Do you consider the sheer act of occupying volume to be
an attempt to draw attention to oneself?
> which is the motive behind
> your voluntary choice of this potentially fatal lifestyle,
Hint: *every* "lifestyle" is potentially fatal. Mine is
pretty darn risk-free, as "lifestyles" go, but you'll never
believe it or listen to me other than to attempt hooks for
more of your reality-free statements. But hey! They *are*
a riot -- perhaps you should go into comedy.
> unfortunately these very choices including perverse sexual acts and
> drug use are what predispose you to disease.
Yup, those multi-vitamins and creatine *really* predispose
me to disease. <chuckle>
Of course, I'd hate to spill the beans and detail the Roach's
solution to risk-free sex (a well-trussed sheep and the vet's
A-OK), but, hey, I guess it *does* make him feel safer. I
just wish PETA would save the sheep from *him*.
>>> leaves the unfortunate chooser exposed to just
>>> such consequences. Choices have consequences. Intelligent people
>>> consider them.
>>
>>Intelligent people know what they're talking about. So sad not
>>to have you among their number. I'll light a candle for you.
> Only in hopes that you will be better seen by doing so.
Dare I mention your volume of USENET posts? That's hardly the
behavior of your namesake, although you both *do* scuttle so
amazingly well.
> You are an
> egotist. That is why homosexuality is such a familiar choice among the
> Hollywood crowd.
Oh, this is *definitely* the most entertaining theory on the
cause of homosexuality I've seen in quite a while. Stop,
Roach, yer killin' me!
-- Clay
s...@nospam.unt.edu
> 1c) Do you consider *any* choice of clothes at all to be an
> attempt to draw attention to oneself?
If so, the opposite -- a choice of no clothing -- draws even more
attention... :-)
--
Steve Tate --- srt[At]cs.unt.edu | Gratuitously stolen quote:
Dept. of Computer Sciences | "The box said 'Requires Windows 95, NT,
University of North Texas | or better,' so I installed Linux."
Denton, TX 76201 |
Aimless
Professor Vonroach wrote in message
<38db572c...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>Algore would be a better choice for one that calls himself `Aimless',
>in fact it is a perfect fit.
Herself. Aimless is a nickname that a friend gave me. It was derived from
Amy.
Al Gore was not my first choice, but is the only one left to which I would
give my vote. As usual, my first choice was weeded out before the Texas
primary. Better Gore than a shrubbery. Where are "The Knights Who Say Knee"
when you need them. ;->
--
Aimless
"This chick is crazy, twisted, flip city, ooby shooby..."
Aimless
--
Professor Vonroach wrote in message
<38db2ada...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:25:36 -0600, "Albert Nurick"
><alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>I fear it is your parents who have had to bear the shame and guilt
>brought on by your acceptance of perversion over the family lifestyle.
>They surely must wonder where they went wrong and failed you.
>
>On the other hand, I am pointing out a well recognized end result of
>that perversion in many of its devotees, even over your phony sounding
>protests.
If you are insinuating that Albert is homosexual, I will be happy to
testify on his behalf. When last I checked, which I admit was over 6 years
ago, Albert was very much hetorosexual. I am very female and he is very
male. I speak from personal experience. ;-)
Clay Colwell
> If you are insinuating that Albert is homosexual, I will be happy to
> testify on his behalf. When last I checked, which I admit was over 6 years
> ago, Albert was very much hetorosexual.
^^....^^^^^^
Built like a bull, eh? ;-)
Professor Vonroach
>Oh, this is *definitely* the most entertaining theory on the
>cause of homosexuality I've seen in quite a while. Stop,
>Roach, yer killin' me!
>
>-- Clay
It's not me bean, it is the lifestyle you chose.
Professor Vonroach
>Clay Colwell <er...@io.com> wrote:
>
>> 1c) Do you consider *any* choice of clothes at all to be an
>> attempt to draw attention to oneself?
>
>If so, the opposite -- a choice of no clothing -- draws even more
>attention... :-)
True, and this choice is frequently made by homosexuals in there
parades for just that reason.
Professor Vonroach
Albert's rhetoric suggests the strong possibility of an alternate
choice of lifestyle in the intervening 6 years, oh crazy one ; )
Professor Vonroach
Yes ; ), many jocks make the homosexual lifestyle choice. Some really
weird perverse behavior such as that of Oiler star who committed
suicide just off 610 loop after an `unusual' accident resulted in
death of his `friend'. Old Dallas Cowboys were noted for these
problems.
guess it is only a short step from worship of one's own body to
worship of those of one's own sex. Very egotistic lot - most of these
jocks.
Clay Colwell
I'm most definitely alive, and remarkably healthy, so this
"lifestyle I chose" is doing wonders for me. If this is
"killing me", then I must have the constitution of Rasputin!
stephen...@spammenot.edu
>In austin.general Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 20:14:01 GMT, stephen...@spamMeNot.edu wrote:
>
>>>You really are off the deep end. You openly root for aids, you claim
>>>HIV and AIDS aren't related, and you've got some nutso idea that
>>>Albert lives in either Florida or Austin. You can't mention Austin
>>>without talking about "the smell of dirty students", and when I
>>>pointed out that wishing AIDS on someone wasn't very polite,
>>>you decided that I must be gay.
>>>
>> No, I decided to warn you of the dire consequences that may attend the
>> choice of this perversion.
>
>As was pointed out, "have a happy AIDS" is not a warning.
Not to mention, he didn't "point out the choice of this perversion"
He assumed that because I pointed out anyone who would post "Have
a happy AIDS" is full of hate that I was gay.
Now he's in denial, but anyone who wants to check can go to
www.deja.com and hunt it up. Here's the progression.
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:45:26 GMT, vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com
>(Professor Vonroach) wrote:
>
>>Actually you exhibit almost all the obnoxious behavior of homosexuals,
>>Have a happy AIDS.
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:55:22 GMT, stephen...@spamMeNot.edu
replied:
>Well, I'll give you a point for honesty. You are the first person
>I've known to say "I'm in favor of aids - I hope you get it."
>
>It shows exactly what kind of person you are.
His response came on 3/15, when he copied the text of my message, and
added one line, saying...
>You have worked hard for it. You deserve it.
Regardless, I'm done with it. He's a troll who hates gays. Talking
to him won't change anything - he's shown no sign of being the
least bit reasonable.
Shea Brooks
is it so important to Albert to prove to Vonroach that he is not?
Vonroach is not a person I would especially want to side with me on any
issue. Curmit likes to mess with people but I think Vonaoch is genuinely
filled with fear and hatred. While I feel pity for him, I don't allow
his opinions to count in my life. I don't killfile him. He's not that
important. And I doubt if I could care less what his opinion of me is.
People are people and worthwhile just for existing. Even Vonroach. That
doesn't mean I'm inviting them home for dinner.
Shea
Clay Colwell
It's a *parade*! Folks in Mardi Gras don't wear 12'-tall
headdresses to blend into the background, ya know.
You a funny guy, Roach.
Professor Vonroach
>On 20 Mar 2000 03:15:41 GMT, Clay Colwell <er...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>In austin.general Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I hate people who make a voluntary choice based on a desire to attract
attention to their flouting of traditional values and then decide that
they deserve special privileges on account of this voluntary choice.
Very undemocratic.
Clay Colwell
> I hate people who make a voluntary choice based on a desire to attract
> attention to their flouting of traditional values and then decide that
> they deserve special privileges on account of this voluntary choice.
> Very undemocratic.
Indeed. Those early Christians should have just filed into the
lions' mouths quietly and quit griping about it.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:25:22 -0600, "Aimless" <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Albert's rhetoric suggests the strong possibility of an alternate
>choice of lifestyle in the intervening 6 years, oh crazy one ; )
Of course, you'd say that about anyone who questioned your unsupportable
assertions...you know, like your little gem that I'm obviously a Canadian?
Is it just a coincidence that you and the Travidiot are the two troll rejects
who are more obsessed with homosexuality than the rest of the regular
readership combined?
--PLH, or is it another case of really small minds thinking alike?
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On 20 Mar 2000 20:57:53 GMT, s...@nospam.unt.edu wrote:
>>Clay Colwell <er...@io.com> wrote:
>>> 1c) Do you consider *any* choice of clothes at all to be an
>>> attempt to draw attention to oneself?
>>If so, the opposite -- a choice of no clothing -- draws even more
>>attention... :-)
>True, and this choice is frequently made by homosexuals in there
>parades for just that reason.
I guess there weren't in homosexuals in the Gay Pride parade in Houston last
summer, then, by your definition...everyone in that parade was clothed. Were
you one of the rednecks spitting their Holy Babble venom at passers-by?
--PLH, probably not -- Charles wouldn't be _that_ brave
Lizabeth
Clay Colwell <er...@io.com> wrote in message
news:8b7snr$5rq$2...@hiram.io.com...
> You a funny guy, Roach.
Scary is the word I'd have chosen.
Lizabeth
Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk1z54...@fnord.io.com...
> vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Professor Vonroach) writes:
>
> >On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:25:22 -0600, "Aimless" <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Albert's rhetoric suggests the strong possibility of an alternate
> >choice of lifestyle in the intervening 6 years, oh crazy one ; )
>
> Of course, you'd say that about anyone who questioned your unsupportable
> assertions...you know, like your little gem that I'm obviously a Canadian?
> Is it just a coincidence that you and the Travidiot are the two troll
rejects
> who are more obsessed with homosexuality than the rest of the regular
> readership combined?
>
I think they both have a severe case of penis envy.
s...@nospam.unt.edu
> On 20 Mar 2000 20:57:53 GMT, s...@nospam.unt.edu wrote:
>>Clay Colwell <er...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1c) Do you consider *any* choice of clothes at all to be an
>>> attempt to draw attention to oneself?
>>
>>If so, the opposite -- a choice of no clothing -- draws even more
>>attention... :-)
> True, and this choice is frequently made by homosexuals in there
> parades for just that reason.
Yes, probably at about the same rate that heterosexuals do at their
street festivals.... Been to Mardi Gras, Carnival, that Key West
fest (can't remember the name right now...), and on, and on... ?
Patrick L. Humphrey
I think they have a severe case of envy of anyone more principled than
them...which would be pretty time-consuming, given that most of the rest of
the human race is included by that definition.
--PLH, or else they're just losers who can't stand facing up to that reality,
who knows?
Professor Vonroach
You confuse innocents with no choice being murdered for sport with a
voluntary choice (homosexuals) demanding special privilege. What a
stretch to further your political agenda.
Professor Vonroach
wrote:
>vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Professor Vonroach) writes:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:25:22 -0600, "Aimless" <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Albert's rhetoric suggests the strong possibility of an alternate
>>choice of lifestyle in the intervening 6 years, oh crazy one ; )
>
>Of course, you'd say that about anyone who questioned your unsupportable
>assertions...you know, like your little gem that I'm obviously a Canadian?
>Is it just a coincidence that you and the Travidiot are the two troll rejects
>who are more obsessed with homosexuality than the rest of the regular
>readership combined?
>
>--PLH, or is it another case of really small minds thinking alike?
Please excuse this PLH troll. Apparently he (she, it) has a lot of
time on his (her, it's) hands and wastes it insulting others. A
pathetic character.