Blocked Nomination of
Ed Connell
-=> Quoting BOB KLAHN to RICHARD HELM <=-
BK>> The reality is, your racism is exposed by how quickly you call any
BK>> criticism of your pet black man racism. You convince me more than
BK>> ever that he *IS* an oreo, other wise why would you defend him so
BK>> vigorously, and with such venom?
RH> You're the one that has created some definition of what a black
RH> man is and have decided that Thomas isn't that. Would you care
RH> to tell us what qualifications that you have that give YOU the
RH> authority of determine that a black man isn't black enough?
BK> I will as soon as you show where I have done that. I don't see
BK> anywhere I have said or done anything to indicate I claim any such
BK> right. Nor do I see where I have ever made any claim about how black
BK> any black man is or is not.
BK> I say I find some people unacceptable, some even contemptable, and
BK> some of them are white and some are black. That is for who they are
BK> and what they do. In no way does that indicate how black or white
BK> they are.
Oreo is all about race.
Ed
*----- GratisNet - Tulsa, OK -----*
Ed Connell
-=> Quoting BOB KLAHN to TODD HENSON <=-
->> Since you have nothing to say in his favor you revert to a smear
->> campaign.
->>
->> The reality is, your racism is exposed by how quickly you call any
->> criticism of your pet black man racism. You convince me more than
->> ever that he *IS* an oreo, other wise why would you defend him so
->> vigorously, and with such venom?
TH> I guess any time any of the other "more qualified" Justices that
TH> vote the same way Thomas does, they must be letting his
TH> "unqualified" status rub off on them.
BK> You must be very young if you think that actually means anything.
BK> Thomas follows Scalia, not the other way around.
How do you determine this?
Ed Connell
-=> Quoting BOB KLAHN to VERN HUMPHREY <=-
VH> He has constantly proved it, as well -- and now offers the most
VH> driveling, self-serving sophistry to exhonerate himself from
VH> what we all saw him post.
BK> You are a liar. You know full well I was quoting a newspaper column.
BK> You are a bigot. You accuse your crittics when you can't defend your
BK> support for the position that on the job racial harrassment is
BK> constitutionaly protected.
BK> You are a moral coward. You won't face your bigotry or defend
BK> yourself honestly.
BK> You are without integrity. You lie, distort, and mislead to avoid
BK> admitting you have sided with the indefensible.
No defense, huh?
Ed Connell
-=> Quoting God Dan to RICHARD HELM <=-
BK> right. Nor do I see where I have ever made any claim about how
BK> black any black man is or is not.
RH> Your calling Thomas an oreo is sufficient evidence that you have set a
RH> standard of what is "black enough."
GD> Just like the rest of your ilk, you have taken what was posted by
GD> Bob OOC to make up for your lack of a point.
What's a Bob OOC?
Centurion
11 Jul 00 20:43, BOB KLAHN wrote to CENTURION:
C>> We've known he was a racist since a couple days after he first
C>> showed up here.
BK> THen why don't you have the integrity or moral courage to defend
BK> Thomas' claim that on the job racial harrassment is constitutionally
BK> protected?
I've never heard him make that claim. You say he did? Prove it.
BK> What you are doing is exactly the same sort of intimidation that
BK> Thomas used against the Senate hearing committee.
BK> You launch accusations of racism to cover your own bigotry. You
BK> cannot support one single such accusation, yet you lack the
BK> integrity to even try.
You accuse ME of having no integrity? What a joke.
BK> You are the racist, you are a moral coward, you lack the integrity
BK> to even attempt to support your claims.
You are so bloody predictable. You haven't a leg to stand on, so you try to
denigrate everybody else, and accuse everybody else of those things you are
guilty of. The last refuge of those who know they're wrong. How pathetic.
Centurion (rift...@netscape.net)
Patriots do what must be done, all others merely die.
Centurion
09 Jul 00 00:00, Stan Hardegree wrote to Centurion:
BK>>>> You cannot show one instance of racism on my part. You,
BK>>>> OTOH, show contempt for black people in your assumption
BK>>>> that disliking one black person constitutes racism.
BK>>>> You are a liar, and a contemptable one.
VH>>> Call me what you like. You are a racist, all your
VH>>> self-serving arguments notwithstanding.
C>> We've known he was a racist since a couple days after he
C>> first showed up here.
SH> Great fun watching him jump through all these hoops desperately
SH> trying to acquit himself.
Ain't it though?
TODD HENSON
-> PID: OLMS 2000 [RBGCD933]
-> MSGID: 1:170/302.0 0c8a243b
-> TH>-> The reality is, your racism is exposed by how quickly you call any
-> TH>-> criticism of your pet black man racism. You convince me more than
-> TH>-> ever that he *IS* an oreo, other wise why would you defend him so
-> TH>-> vigorously, and with such venom?
->
-> TH>I guess any time any of the other "more qualified" Justices that vote the
-> TH>same way Thomas does, they must be letting his "unqualified" status rub
off
-> TH>on them.
->
-> Right -- Bob slings racial epithets, then calls OTHER people "racists"
-> for noticing what he said. :-)
I don't have time read all of the messages here, but I will say that I've
noticed that kind of behavior in Bob. He gives me the impression of your
typical Jesse Jackson groupie, whether he actually likes him or not.
Mimi Gallandt
whilst talking to GOD, ED said:
EC>-=> Quoting God Dan to RICHARD HELM <=-
EC> BK> right. Nor do I see where I have ever made any claim about how
EC> BK> black any black man is or is not.
EC>
EC> RH> Your calling Thomas an oreo is sufficient evidence that you have
EC> RH> set a standard of what is "black enough."
EC>
EC> GD> Just like the rest of your ilk, you have taken what was posted
EC> GD> by Bob OOC to make up for your lack of a point.
EC>What's a Bob OOC?
Tired? "Out Of Context" not the most difficult to figure out.
EC>--- OLMS 2000+ [RBGCD933]
EC> * Origin: GratisNet: QWK/BW packets via email (1:170/302)
L'Chaim
Mimi
MimiW...@home.com
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com
George W putting the W in AWOL
ţ CMPQwk 1.42 9998 ţTwo's company, three's the result!
Mimi Gallandt
whilst talking to TODD, SALLY said:
SS> TH> It's stupidity like this which causes me to twit most of your
SS> TH> messages. If all you're interested in is playing semantical
SS> TH> games with what I meant by "decision", do it with someone
SS> TH> else.
SS>Are you saying that you really do understand how the Supreme Court
SS>works and merely express yourself badly?
It's ironic that he talks of twitting you, I twitted him after his first
message here :)!
L'Chaim
Mimi
MimiW...@home.com
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com
George W putting the W in AWOL
ž CMPQwk 1.42 9998 ž"Rush Limbaugh's brain has turned to bat guano."-Harlan
Ellison
Ed Connell
-=> Quoting Mimi Gallandt to Ed Connell <=-
EC> BK> right. Nor do I see where I have ever made any claim about how
EC> BK> black any black man is or is not.
EC>
EC> RH> Your calling Thomas an oreo is sufficient evidence that you have
EC> RH> set a standard of what is "black enough."
EC>
EC> GD> Just like the rest of your ilk, you have taken what was posted
EC> GD> by Bob OOC to make up for your lack of a point.
EC>What's a Bob OOC?
MG> Tired? "Out Of Context" not the most difficult to figure out.
I never claimed to be bright. <G>
Ed
.. I think my learning curve is a circle!
Mimi Gallandt
whilst talking to MIMI, ED said:
EC> EC>What's a Bob OOC?
EC> MG> Tired? "Out Of Context" not the most difficult to figure out.
EC>I never claimed to be bright. <G>
In that case, you're hiding your light under a bushel.
L'Chaim
Mimi
MimiW...@home.com
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com
George W putting the W in AWOL
ţ CMPQwk 1.42 9998 ţ"You want humiliation? I've just forwarded your e-mail
into HOLYSMOKE. "
BOB KLAHN
BK>> VH> When Bob Klahn gets started on his favorite "uppity cullud
BK>> VH> person," Justice Thomas, you wonder if his middle name isn't
BK>> VH> "Kuklux."
BK>> And you have still failed to defend the claim that on the job racial
BK>> harrassment is constitutionally protected. You defend Thomas for
BK>> defending that which is indefensible.
VH> And you continue to try your pathetic attempts to deny your
VH> blatant racism.
And you continue to try your pathetic attempts to divert our
attention from your blatant racism.
Now, please explain how it is constitutionally protected speech to
racially harrass someone on the job.
VH> There is no need to reply to this post.
Lies must be refuted.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. I invite dissenting opinions. I ignore them, but I do invite them.
BOB KLAHN
BK->>BK->>BK->> JL> You claim he intimidated someone to get the job. Who did
BK->>BK->>BK->> JL> he intimidate, if not the POTUS?
BK->>BK->>BK->> The Senate, or his opponents in the Senate, that is. Enough of
BK->>Bt
BK->>BK->>BK->> to get approved.
BK->>BK->> CD> Sen. Biden,Kennedy and the remainder of the Demos on the
BK->>BK->> CD> panel. Right!
BK->>BK->> Yes.
BK->> CD> And you believe that these experienced men were
BK->> CD> intimidated by an "oreo"?
BK->> Yes.
CD> Then we need more men like him in government.
Those who get their way by intimidation? Hmmm...maybe the republicans
*ARE* running the govt.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. I'm proud to have been a part of your moral decline.
BOB KLAHN
TH>> I guess any time any of the other "more qualified" Justices that
TH>> vote the same way Thomas does, they must be letting his
TH>> "unqualified" status rub off on them.
BK>> You must be very young if you think that actually means anything.
BK>> Thomas follows Scalia, not the other way around.
EC> How do you determine this?
The same way he determined the other justices voted with Thomas, plus
factoring in senority. OTOH, maybe Scalia is senile and needs someone
to lead him around.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. Compassionate conservatism died when Bush appeared at Bob Jones Univ.
BOB KLAHN
VH>> He has constantly proved it, as well -- and now offers the most
VH>> driveling, self-serving sophistry to exhonerate himself from
VH>> what we all saw him post.
BK>> You are a liar. You know full well I was quoting a newspaper column.
BK>> You are a bigot. You accuse your crittics when you can't defend your
BK>> support for the position that on the job racial harrassment is
BK>> constitutionaly protected.
BK>> You are a moral coward. You won't face your bigotry or defend
BK>> yourself honestly.
BK>> You are without integrity. You lie, distort, and mislead to avoid
BK>> admitting you have sided with the indefensible.
EC> No defense, huh?
Quite right, Vern has none.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world. D. Quay
BOB KLAHN
C> 11 Jul 00 20:43, BOB KLAHN wrote to CENTURION:
C>>> We've known he was a racist since a couple days after he first
C>>> showed up here.
BK>> THen why don't you have the integrity or moral courage to defend
BK>> Thomas' claim that on the job racial harrassment is constitutionally
BK>> protected?
C> I've never heard him make that claim. You say he did? Prove it.
That is what this whole arguement is about. His dissent on the Avis
Car rental case. From the Toledo Blade Column.
**************************************************************************
Rose Russell: What was Thomas trying to prove? June 1, 2000
...
seven-page dissent which caused one to believe that he was on the
side of an Avis Rent A Car worker who hurled racial epithets at
Latino co-workers. Justice Thomas wrote that no state court has the
right to tell the Avis worker what words he can or cannot use.
...
For background, the justice stated that the Avis employee had a
habit of hassling Latino workers, "calling them derogatory names
and demeaning them on the basis of their race, national origin, and
lack of English language skills. [He] also appears to have engaged
in uninvited touching of the Latino drivers."
...
BK>> What you are doing is exactly the same sort of intimidation that
BK>> Thomas used against the Senate hearing committee.
BK>> You launch accusations of racism to cover your own bigotry. You
BK>> cannot support one single such accusation, yet you lack the
BK>> integrity to even try.
C> You accuse ME of having no integrity? What a joke.
Then either back up your accusations or back down.
BK>> You are the racist, you are a moral coward, you lack the integrity
BK>> to even attempt to support your claims.
C> You are so bloody predictable. You haven't a leg to stand on, so
There it is, right up above. Now, either defend the case that on the
job racial harrassment is constitutionally protected, or admit Thomas
was off base, dead wrong.
C> you try to denigrate everybody else, and accuse everybody else of
C> those things you are guilty of. The last refuge of those who
C> know they're wrong. How pathetic.
You have just described exactly what you have done. Please show where
I called you a racist, or accused you of racism, before you launched
such accusations against me.
If you can't, then you stand convicted of your own charge.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. Never use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice.
God Dan
-> On 17 Jul 00 01:00:21, Ed Connell got back to God Dan
RH> Your calling Thomas an oreo is sufficient evidence that you have set a
RH> standard of what is "black enough."
GD> Just like the rest of your ilk, you have taken what was posted by
GD> Bob OOC to make up for your lack of a point.
EC> What's a Bob OOC?
Out Of Context.
Which is what Bob did.
.. Principles have no real force except when one is well fed - Twain
Alan Hess
Whilst masticating on <Jul 17 00>, Stan Hardegree (1:170/302.2)
wrote to BOB KLAHN:
BK>> It's not. Neither is shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
BK>> Neither are constitutionally protected.
SH> Not only is shouting "fire" in a theater protected, there are
SH> some cases where it is your moral responsibility.
Yep. Falsely creating a panic is not protected speech, but letting people know
of the existence of an actual fire in a theater is certainly protected speech
(and, as you say, is one's moral responsibility.) *adh*
Mimi Gallandt
whilst talking to ED, GOD said:
GD>-> On 17 Jul 00 01:00:21, Ed Connell got back to God Dan
GD> RH> Your calling Thomas an oreo is sufficient evidence that you have
GD> RH> set a standard of what is "black enough."
GD>
GD> GD> Just like the rest of your ilk, you have taken what was posted
GD> GD> by Bob OOC to make up for your lack of a point.
GD> EC> What's a Bob OOC?
GD>Out Of Context.
GD>Which is what Bob did.
I think you meant to say "which is what was done to Bob's post"
L'Chaim
Mimi
MimiW...@home.com
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com
George W putting the W in AWOL
ţ CMPQwk 1.42 9998 ţ... Fundy brains for rent. Never used. Call 555-2132
Ed Connell
-=> Quoting BOB KLAHN to ED CONNELL <=-
TH>> I guess any time any of the other "more qualified" Justices that
TH>> vote the same way Thomas does, they must be letting his
TH>> "unqualified" status rub off on them.
BK>> You must be very young if you think that actually means anything.
BK>> Thomas follows Scalia, not the other way around.
EC> How do you determine this?
BK> The same way he determined the other justices voted with Thomas, plus
BK> factoring in senority. OTOH, maybe Scalia is senile and needs someone
BK> to lead him around.
You seem unsure.
Ed
Ed Hulett
MG> whilst talking to ED, GOD said:
GD>>-> On 17 Jul 00 01:00:21, Ed Connell got back to God Dan
GD>> RH> Your calling Thomas an oreo is sufficient evidence that
GD>> you have
GD>> RH> set a standard of what is "black enough."
GD>>
GD>> GD> Just like the rest of your ilk, you have taken what was
GD>> posted
GD>> GD> by Bob OOC to make up for your lack of a point.
GD>> EC> What's a Bob OOC?
GD>>Out Of Context.
GD>>Which is what Bob did.
MG> I think you meant to say "which is what was done to Bob's
MG> post"
Don't confuse him anymore than he already is...
---
Tim Richardson
BK> That is what this whole arguement is about. His dissent on the Avis
BK> Car rental case. From the Toledo Blade Column.
BK> **************************************************************************
BK> Rose Russell: What was Thomas trying to prove? June 1, 2000
BK> ...
BK> seven-page dissent which caused one to believe that he was on the
===============================*****=============================
BK> side of an Avis Rent A Car worker who hurled racial epithets at
BK> Latino co-workers.
=================================================================
From this I am led to understand that "ONE" individual, the
columnist with the "Toledo Blade Column", was caused "to believe
that he was on the side of" this person who "hurled racial epithets
at Latino co-workers."
BK>Justice Thomas wrote that no state court has the
BK> right to tell the Avis worker what words he can or cannot use.
Aha! Justice Thomas believes in the First and Fourth Ammendments.
(Well that *proves* it right there!)
I used to think you at least were intelligent, but misguided.
I was wrong. You are blindly stupid. "Rose Russell". (Hmm, isn't
that a `woman'? Wasn't Anita Hill a `woman'? You remember her,
the one who so adamantly opposed Thomas's appointment to the
court that she deliberately lied to a Senate Committee to get his
appointment blocked?)
Come now, do you really think there is no bias here?
* SLMR 2.1a * Justice Thomas: "professional nigger". . .Karl Schneider
Tim Richardson
BK>BK>> harrassment is constitutionally protected. You defend Thomas for
BK>BK>> defending that which is indefensible.
BK> VH> And you continue to try your pathetic attempts to deny your
BK> VH> blatant racism.
BK> Now, please explain how it is constitutionally protected speech to
BK> racially harrass someone on the job.
You yourself are one of the most bigoted persons posting in
Fido, and you and another (who "is not here", so we won't say his
name aloud, but who "invented a term" he calls "professional
nigger".) have allowed your `true' colors to shine through.
Now you just point out to everyone how using the term *oreo* or
"professional nigger" in relation to Justice Thomas or anyone
who is a black professional is *not* racism.
BK> Lies must be refuted.
Nonsense too, must sometimes be refuted.
* SLMR 2.1a * "he *is* an oreo." . . . . .Bob Klahn
Centurion
18 Jul 00 22:26, BOB KLAHN wrote to CENTURION:
C>> 11 Jul 00 20:43, BOB KLAHN wrote to CENTURION:
C>>>> We've known he was a racist since a couple days after he first
C>>>> showed up here.
BK>>> THen why don't you have the integrity or moral courage to defend
BK>>> Thomas' claim that on the job racial harrassment is
BK>>> constitutionally protected?
C>> I've never heard him make that claim. You say he did? Prove it.
BK> That is what this whole arguement is about. His dissent on the Avis
BK> Car rental case. From the Toledo Blade Column.
BK> ********************************************************************
BK> ******
BK> Rose Russell: What was Thomas trying to prove? June 1, 2000
BK> ...
BK> seven-page dissent which caused one to believe that he was on the
BK> side of an Avis Rent A Car worker who hurled racial epithets at
BK> Latino co-workers. Justice Thomas wrote that no state court has
BK> the
BK> right to tell the Avis worker what words he can or cannot use.
BK> ...
BK> For background, the justice stated that the Avis employee had a
BK> habit of hassling Latino workers, "calling them derogatory names
BK> and demeaning them on the basis of their race, national origin,
BK> and
BK> lack of English language skills. [He] also appears to have engaged
BK> in uninvited touching of the Latino drivers."
BK> ...
BK>>> What you are doing is exactly the same sort of intimidation that
BK>>> Thomas used against the Senate hearing committee.
BK>>> You launch accusations of racism to cover your own bigotry. You
BK>>> cannot support one single such accusation, yet you lack the
BK>>> integrity to even try.
C>> You accuse ME of having no integrity? What a joke.
BK> Then either back up your accusations or back down.
BK>>> You are the racist, you are a moral coward, you lack the integrity
BK>>> to even attempt to support your claims.
C>> You are so bloody predictable. You haven't a leg to stand on, so
BK> There it is, right up above. Now, either defend the case that on the
BK> job racial harrassment is constitutionally protected, or admit
BK> Thomas
BK> was off base, dead wrong.
C>> you try to denigrate everybody else, and accuse everybody else of
C>> those things you are guilty of. The last refuge of those who
C>> know they're wrong. How pathetic.
BK> You have just described exactly what you have done. Please show
BK> where
BK> I called you a racist, or accused you of racism, before you launched
BK> such accusations against me.
BK> If you can't, then you stand convicted of your own charge.
You have a habit of editing things that you post as cites, just like above.
You've got a hardon for Justice Thomas, fine, that's your privilege. But don't
accuse ME of racism because I happen to disagree that Thomas is racist. You
won't find anybody here who will buy that. And as I said, you have shown us
nothing to indicate that Thomas IS a racist, nor have I heard anything he's
said in the past, including his Senate testimony, that would lead me to believe
that he is. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the original claim.
In other words, YOU have to convince US of your premise, not the other way
around.
Centurion (rift...@netscape.net)
Patriots do what must be done, all others merely die.
Mimi Weasel
whilst talking to MIMI, ED said:
EH>GD>> EC> What's a Bob OOC?
EH>GD>>Out Of Context.
EH>GD>>Which is what Bob did.
EH> MG> I think you meant to say "which is what was done to Bob's
EH> MG> post"
EH>Don't confuse him anymore than he already is...
It was either Ed C or Earl who was confused, Dan knew what he said.
L'Chaim
Mimi
MimiW...@home.com
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com
George W putting the W in AWOL
ţ CMPQwk 1.42 9998 ţ... Fundys are like baby crows. All mouth and asshole.
Jeff Binkley
TH> -> PID: OLMS 2000 [RBGCD933]
TH>-> MSGID: 1:170/302.0 0c8a243b
TH>-> TH>-> The reality is, your racism is exposed by how quickly you
TH>-> TH>-> call any criticism of your pet black man racism. You
TH>-> TH>-> convince me more than ever that he *IS* an oreo, other
TH>-> TH>-> wise why would you defend him so vigorously, and with such
TH>-> venom?
TH>-> TH>I guess any time any of the other "more qualified" Justices
TH>-> that vote the
TH>-> TH>same way Thomas does, they must be letting his "unqualified"
TH>status rub off
TH>-> TH>on them.
TH>->
TH>-> Right -- Bob slings racial epithets, then calls OTHER people
TH>-> "racists" for noticing what he said. :-)
TH>
TH>I don't have time read all of the messages here, but I will say that
TH>I've noticed that kind of behavior in Bob. He gives me the impression
TH>of your typical Jesse Jackson groupie, whether he actually likes him
TH>or not.
I am still waiting for one of them to claim that white is a color in the
rainbow, as in the Rainbow Coolotion. That should prove to be priceless
too.
Jeff
CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999
Stan Hardegree
SH>> Not only is shouting "fire" in a theater protected, there
SH>> are some cases where it is your moral responsibility.
AH> Yep. Falsely creating a panic is not protected speech, but
AH> letting people know of the existence of an actual fire in a
AH> theater is certainly protected speech (and, as you say, is
AH> one's moral responsibility.) *adh*
It's nice to know that someone on the other side of the aisle knows a thing or
two.
---
TODD HENSON
-> TH>I don't have time read all of the messages here, but I will say that
-> TH>I've noticed that kind of behavior in Bob. He gives me the impression
-> TH>of your typical Jesse Jackson groupie, whether he actually likes him
-> TH>or not.
->
->
-> I am still waiting for one of them to claim that white is a color in the
-> rainbow, as in the Rainbow Coolotion. That should prove to be priceless
-> too.
LOL! It's so silly, that it probably WILL happen
Michael Gothreau
On 07-19-00, TIM RICHARDSON said to BOB KLAHN:
BK>BK>> harrassment is constitutionally protected. You defend Thomas for
BK>BK>> defending that which is indefensible.
BK> VH> And you continue to try your pathetic attempts to deny your
BK> VH> blatant racism.
BK> Now, please explain how it is constitutionally protected speech to
BK> racially harrass someone on the job.
TR>You yourself are one of the most bigoted persons posting in
TR>Fido, and you and another (who "is not here", so we won't say his
TR>name aloud, but who "invented a term" he calls "professional
TR>nigger".) have allowed your `true' colors to shine through.
TR>Now you just point out to everyone how using the term *oreo* or
TR>"professional nigger" in relation to Justice Thomas or anyone
TR>who is a black professional is *not* racism.
BK> Lies must be refuted.
TR>Nonsense too, must sometimes be refuted.
Fair enough.
So how do you defend your attacking alleged racists when you consider your now
famous bigotry concerning homosexuals?
How are you any better than a racist?
Michael R. Gothreau
-!-
*Durango b300 #PE* Why you ignorant faggot-lovin' idiot. - Tim Richardson
Jeff Binkley
MG>BK>BK>> harrassment is constitutionally protected. You defend Thomas
MG>BK>BK>> for defending that which is indefensible.
MG>BK> VH> And you continue to try your pathetic attempts to deny your
MG>BK> VH> blatant racism.
MG>BK> Now, please explain how it is constitutionally protected speech
MG>BK> to racially harrass someone on the job.
MG>TR>You yourself are one of the most bigoted persons posting in
MG>TR>Fido, and you and another (who "is not here", so we won't say his
MG>TR>name aloud, but who "invented a term" he calls "professional
MG>TR>nigger".) have allowed your `true' colors to shine through.
MG>TR>Now you just point out to everyone how using the term *oreo* or
MG>TR>"professional nigger" in relation to Justice Thomas or anyone
MG>TR>who is a black professional is *not* racism.
MG>BK> Lies must be refuted.
MG>TR>Nonsense too, must sometimes be refuted.
MG>Fair enough.
MG>So how do you defend your attacking alleged racists when you consider
MG>your now famous bigotry concerning homosexuals?
MG>How are you any better than a racist?
Ohh, he zinged you on that one <g>.. Ok, now we've got liberals
continuing the class warfare by comparing blacks with homosexuals. I'll
bet one group is offended.
Jeff
CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999
Tim Richardson
JB>MG>BK> Lies must be refuted.
JB>MG>TR>Nonsense too, must sometimes be refuted.
JB>MG>Fair enough.
JB>MG>So how do you defend your attacking alleged racists when you consider
JB>MG>your now famous bigotry concerning homosexuals?
JB>MG>How are you any better than a racist?
JB>Ohh, he zinged you on that one <g>.. Ok, now we've got liberals
JB>continuing the class warfare by comparing blacks with homosexuals. I'll
JB>bet one group is offended.
The disgusting part is that so many courageous blacks worked so
hard to achieve the recognition of their equality, and then along
comes a group who's degenerate perversions know no barriers and
from whom almost no child is safe.
They disguise themselves in the cloaks of `teachers', `scout
leaders', `priests', `sunday school instructors', `coaches', etc.
They pervade our society with the goal of perverting the young
with their filth, slithering into all walks of life without
exception, and the *liberals* aid and abet them under the guise of
*tolerance*.
And anyone who says one single word in opposition, regardless of
how strong or benign the opposition, is immediately labeled a
racist or a bigot. (How quickly they glom onto terms they think
they can pull around themselves as a defense against anyone who
protests their disgusting agenda.)
They misuse the term *HOMOphobe*. Isn't the `phobe' part
supposed to denote a *fear* of something? Anyone who had any *fear*
of HOMO's wouldn't speak out at all, would they?
* SLMR 2.1a * Marriage and HOMOsexuality are mutually exclusive!
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDO - usenet gateway
BOB KLAHN
EC> No defense, huh?
NO, Vern doesn't have one.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
BOB KLAHN
BK>> Thomas follows Scalia, not the other way around.
EC> How do you determine this?
How does "all" determine this?
BOB KLAHN
SH>> Great fun watching him jump through all these hoops desperately
SH>> trying to acquit himself.
C> Ain't it though?
Rather boring watching the accusers fail to support their
accusations.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. Never use a small word where a multisyllabic word will do.
TERRY VERNON
BK> JB>>> I don't recall the subject of on the job racial harassment
BK> JB>>> being in the constitution. Maybe I am reading the wrong
BK> JB>>> constitution.
BK> BK>> It's not. Neither is shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
BK> BK>> Neither are constitutionally protected.
BK> SH> Not only is shouting "fire" in a theater protected, there are
BK> SH> some cases where it is your moral responsibility.
BK> It is only protected, and your responsibility, if there is a fire.
BK> Otherwise it is subject to prosecution.
As are many other cases of false or misleading speech.
See: Slander
See also: Clinton, W.J. and "intentionally misleading".
Terry V.
---
ş MM 1.1 #0367 ş I am Descartes of Borg. Prepare to be.
BOB KLAHN
BK>> JB>>> I don't recall the subject of on the job racial harassment
BK>> JB>>> being in the constitution. Maybe I am reading the wrong
BK>> JB>>> constitution.
BK>> BK>> It's not. Neither is shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
BK>> BK>> Neither are constitutionally protected.
BK>> SH> Not only is shouting "fire" in a theater protected, there are
BK>> SH> some cases where it is your moral responsibility.
BK>> It is only protected, and your responsibility, if there is a fire.
BK>> Otherwise it is subject to prosecution.
TV> As are many other cases of false or misleading speech.
TV> See: Slander
Which, I suppose, the right wingers will now say is constitutionally
protected.
TV> See also: Clinton, W.J. and "intentionally misleading".
Yes, Clinton was falsely accused, and he can't sue because, as a
public figure, the constitutional protection is much stronger for his
accusers.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. Politically Correct is a term used by conservatives, to stifle debate.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
BOB KLAHN
BK>>>> It's not. Neither is shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
BK>>>> Neither are constitutionally protected.
FS>
SH>>> Not only is shouting "fire" in a theater protected, there are
SH>>> some cases where it is your moral responsibility.
...
BK>> Now, show me where there is an exemption in the constitution to allow
BK>> the government to prohibit shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
FS> Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you're right,
FS> that the constitution does *not* prevent such an act.
FS> However, if the theater is *not* on fire I strongly urge you
FS> *not* to shout, "FIRE! FIRE!". Why? Just take my word for
FS> it, that would be a very, very bad thing to do.
Of course it is, but that isn't the question.
FS> Of course if there *is* a fire in the theater it would be
FS> OK -- but you already know that. Besides, in that case, the
FS> odds are that someone *else* would have spotted it first.
Well, whoever spots it first gets to shout fire first.
FS> There are times, Bob, when one is better off *neglecting*
FS> what one might consider constitutional rights.
I have said something similar to that. If you push too hard for too
narrow an interpretation you can wind up with a constitutional
straight jacket.
However:
When you are talking about a supreme court decision, and a dissent
from that decision, I think it isn't one of those times.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a cash advance.
FRANK SCHEIDT
-=> Quoting Michael Gothreau to Frank Scheidt <=-
JB>MG>How are you any better than a racist?
JB>Ohh, he zinged you on that one <g>.. Ok, now we've got liberals
JB>continuing the class warfare by comparing blacks with homosexuals. I'll
JB>bet one group is offended.
TR>The disgusting part is that so many courageous blacks worked so
TR>hard to achieve the recognition of their equality, and then along
TR>comes a group who's degenerate perversions know no barriers and
TR>from whom almost no child is safe.
TR>They disguise themselves in the cloaks of `teachers', `scout
TR>leaders', `priests', `sunday school instructors', `coaches', etc.
TR>They pervade our society with the goal of perverting the young
TR>with their filth, slithering into all walks of life without
TR>exception, and the *liberals* aid and abet them under the guise of
TR>*tolerance*.
TR>And anyone who says one single word in opposition, regardless of
TR>how strong or benign the opposition, is immediately labeled a
TR>racist or a bigot. (How quickly they glom onto terms they think
TR>they can pull around themselves as a defense against anyone who
TR>protests their disgusting agenda.)
TR>They misuse the term *HOMOphobe*. Isn't the `phobe' part
TR>supposed to denote a *fear* of something? Anyone who had any *fear*
TR>of HOMO's wouldn't speak out at all, would they?
FS>TR's explanation above is one of the best, concise
FS>descriptions of the true situation I've read in a long,
FS>long time. After first reading it I wondered how *anyone*
FS>could object to it since it's so obviously true. Then I
FS>realized there is one largely bigotted group which *would*
FS>respond, the liberals. And, sure enough, they tried ...
FS>heh heh heh ... and failed ... read on ...
MG> You know, I don't compare blacks to homosexuals. Neither, IMO, is the
MG> issue.
MG> The issue is people that hate. Like you. It doesn't really matter
MG> what you hate.
FS>Michael, he isn't demonstrating hatred. He's demonstrating
FS>righteous indignation, and there's a world of difference.
MG> Please. show me what you feel that difference is.
Hatred can be blind, i.e., if someone hates another person
simply because of that person's skin-color, that's blind
hatred. OTOH, if someone is thoroughly disgusted with the
actions of a criminal in stealing from someone, that's
righteous indignation. What this means is that hatred
doesn't require a good reason while righteous indignation
*does*.
MG> As far as the term homophobe being used improperly, perhaps that is
MG> the case. Maybe you could explain why you hate them so much, other than
MG> the most often obvious reason of "fear".
FS>Again, he shows no *hate* whatsoever -- nor any fear of
FS>that perverted group. Tell me this: Why on earth would
FS>*anyone* fear individuals of such a prissy type -- so long as
FS>one is not taking a shower in their presence as one might
FS>do in the Armed Forces, with their "group" showers?
MG> Do you believe homosexuals are all "prissy"?
I doubt it very much, though since I don't know any
personally I cannot really say. Articles about them *not*
written by perverts, suggest they are largely prissy.
Also, the celibate homosexuals aren't even evil. You may
disagree with that, of course.
MG> I suggest anyone who would openly state that homosexuals being killed
MG> by a god is a good and just thing is someone who hates homosexuals.
MG> Tim did this, albeit in another echo. It seems to me that most people
MG> hate other people because of a fear.
I don't think so. It happens, hatred based on fear,
certainly, but I think more hatred is based on revulsion
with a lot based on ignorance. For example, consider the
hatred some whites have of blacks. That's often just based
on *ignorance*, for the whites in question think skin-color
determines character. If they knew better there'd be no
such hatred.
MG> Why else?
Oooooops ... see above ...
BOB KLAHN
BK>> That is what this whole arguement is about. His dissent on the Avis
BK>> Car rental case. From the Toledo Blade Column.
BK>> **************************************************************************
BK>> Rose Russell: What was Thomas trying to prove? June 1, 2000
BK>> ...
BK>> seven-page dissent which caused one to believe that he was on the
TR> ===============================*****=============================
TR> BK> side of an Avis Rent A Car worker who hurled racial
TR> epithets at BK> Latino co-workers.
TR> =================================================================
TR> From this I am led to understand that "ONE" individual, the
TR> columnist with the "Toledo Blade Column", was caused "to
TR> believe that he was on the side of" this person who "hurled
TR> racial epithets at Latino co-workers."
You mean it doesn't sound that way to you?
BK>>Justice Thomas wrote that no state court has the
BK>> right to tell the Avis worker what words he can or cannot use.
TR> Aha! Justice Thomas believes in the First and
Please explain how on the job racial harrassment qualifies for
constitutional protection. That is what I have been asking for all
along. Then, if you try, also show how that same protection does not
apply to libel, slander, and inducing panic...ie: shouting fire in a
crowded theatre. Add in giving away classified military information
also.
TR> Fourth Ammendments. (Well that *proves* it right there!)
What does that have to do with search warrants?
TR> I used to think you at least were intelligent, but
TR> misguided. I was wrong. You are blindly stupid. "Rose
If so, you should find it easy to answer my questions above.
Or do you just say everyone who disagrees with you is stupid?
TR> Russell". (Hmm, isn't that a `woman'? Wasn't Anita Hill a
Gee...yeah, is it a crime to be a woman now?
TR> `woman'? You remember her, the one who so adamantly
TR> opposed Thomas's appointment to the court that she
You mean the one who practically had to be dragged into the committee
meeting?
TR> deliberately lied to a Senate Committee to get his
Oh? If you can show one single lie she told please do so. No one else
could, otherwise she could be prosecuted for perjury and disbarred.
Or do you have evidence no one else has?
TR> appointment blocked?) Come now, do you really think there
TR> is no bias here?
Yeah, bias against women. Or so it seems you are showing.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. File not found, I'll load something *I* think is interesting.
BOB KLAHN
BK>> Now, please explain how it is constitutionally protected speech to
BK>> racially harrass someone on the job.
TR> You yourself are one of the most bigoted persons posting
TR> in Fido, and you and another (who "is not here", so we
TR> won't say his name aloud, but who "invented a term" he
TR> calls "professional nigger".) have allowed your `true'
TR> colors to shine through.
When a white, right wing bigot calls me a bigot I find it rather
unconvincing. Tell you what, gather all your black friends together,
and present them with this entire thread, and let's see what they
think. If you need it I'll copy it from my archives and send it to
you.
TR> Now you just point out to
TR> everyone how using the term *oreo* or "professional
TR> nigger" in relation to Justice Thomas or anyone who is a
TR> black professional is *not* racism.
Hmmm...the only one I have seen use the term 'professional nigger' is
you. The only black professional involved in this discussion is
Clarence Thomas.
Now, either answer my query at the top of this page, or admit you
can't.
BK>> Lies must be refuted.
TR> Nonsense too, must sometimes be refuted.
Consider yours refuted.
TR> * SLMR 2.1a * "he *is* an oreo." . . . . .Bob Klahn
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. Tim Richardson --> Justice Thomas: "professional nigger"
BOB KLAHN
TH>>I don't have time read all of the messages here, but I will say that
TH>>I've noticed that kind of behavior in Bob. He gives me the impression
TH>>of your typical Jesse Jackson groupie, whether he actually likes him
TH>>or not.
JB> I am still waiting for one of them to claim that white is a
JB> color in the rainbow, as in the Rainbow Coolotion. That should
JB> prove to be priceless too.
Same with brown or black. OTOH, please show me any red or yellow
people.
I suppose you are going to criticize Satchmo for being inaccurate.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. the colors of the rainbow...are also on the faces of the people passing by.
BOB KLAHN
BK>> JB>>> I don't recall the subject of on the job racial harassment
BK>> JB>>> being in the constitution. Maybe I am reading the wrong
BK>> JB>>> constitution.
BK>> BK>> It's not. Neither is shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
BK>> BK>> Neither are constitutionally protected.
BK>> SH> Not only is shouting "fire" in a theater protected, there are
BK>> SH> some cases where it is your moral responsibility.
BK>> It is only protected, and your responsibility, if there is a fire.
BK>> Otherwise it is subject to prosecution.
TV> As are many other cases of false or misleading speech.
TV> See: Slander
Which, I suppose, the right wingers will now say is constitutionally
protected.
TV> See also: Clinton, W.J. and "intentionally misleading".
Yes, Clinton was falsely accused, and he can't sue because, as a
public figure, the constitutional protection is much stronger for his
accusers.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. Politically Correct is a term used by conservatives, to stifle debate.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
BOB KLAHN
BK>>>> It's not. Neither is shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
BK>>>> Neither are constitutionally protected.
FS>
SH>>> Not only is shouting "fire" in a theater protected, there are
SH>>> some cases where it is your moral responsibility.
...
BK>> Now, show me where there is an exemption in the constitution to allow
BK>> the government to prohibit shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
FS> Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you're right,
FS> that the constitution does *not* prevent such an act.
FS> However, if the theater is *not* on fire I strongly urge you
FS> *not* to shout, "FIRE! FIRE!". Why? Just take my word for
FS> it, that would be a very, very bad thing to do.
Of course it is, but that isn't the question.
FS> Of course if there *is* a fire in the theater it would be
FS> OK -- but you already know that. Besides, in that case, the
FS> odds are that someone *else* would have spotted it first.
Well, whoever spots it first gets to shout fire first.
FS> There are times, Bob, when one is better off *neglecting*
FS> what one might consider constitutional rights.
I have said something similar to that. If you push too hard for too
narrow an interpretation you can wind up with a constitutional
straight jacket.
However:
When you are talking about a supreme court decision, and a dissent
from that decision, I think it isn't one of those times.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a cash advance.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
FRANK SCHEIDT
BOB KLAHN
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. File not found, I'll load something *I* think is interesting.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
BOB KLAHN
TH>>I don't have time read all of the messages here, but I will say that
TH>>I've noticed that kind of behavior in Bob. He gives me the impression
TH>>of your typical Jesse Jackson groupie, whether he actually likes him
TH>>or not.
JB> I am still waiting for one of them to claim that white is a
JB> color in the rainbow, as in the Rainbow Coolotion. That should
JB> prove to be priceless too.
Same with brown or black. OTOH, please show me any red or yellow
people.
I suppose you are going to criticize Satchmo for being inaccurate.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. the colors of the rainbow...are also on the faces of the people passing by.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
BOB KLAHN
BK>> JB>>> I don't recall the subject of on the job racial harassment
BK>> JB>>> being in the constitution. Maybe I am reading the wrong
BK>> JB>>> constitution.
BK>> BK>> It's not. Neither is shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
BK>> BK>> Neither are constitutionally protected.
BK>> SH> Not only is shouting "fire" in a theater protected, there are
BK>> SH> some cases where it is your moral responsibility.
BK>> It is only protected, and your responsibility, if there is a fire.
BK>> Otherwise it is subject to prosecution.
TV> As are many other cases of false or misleading speech.
TV> See: Slander
Which, I suppose, the right wingers will now say is constitutionally
protected.
TV> See also: Clinton, W.J. and "intentionally misleading".
Yes, Clinton was falsely accused, and he can't sue because, as a
public figure, the constitutional protection is much stronger for his
accusers.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. Politically Correct is a term used by conservatives, to stifle debate.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
FRANK SCHEIDT
BOB KLAHN
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. File not found, I'll load something *I* think is interesting.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
BOB KLAHN
TH>>I don't have time read all of the messages here, but I will say that
TH>>I've noticed that kind of behavior in Bob. He gives me the impression
TH>>of your typical Jesse Jackson groupie, whether he actually likes him
TH>>or not.
JB> I am still waiting for one of them to claim that white is a
JB> color in the rainbow, as in the Rainbow Coolotion. That should
JB> prove to be priceless too.
Same with brown or black. OTOH, please show me any red or yellow
people.
I suppose you are going to criticize Satchmo for being inaccurate.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. the colors of the rainbow...are also on the faces of the people passing by.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
BOB KLAHN
BK>> JB>>> I don't recall the subject of on the job racial harassment
BK>> JB>>> being in the constitution. Maybe I am reading the wrong
BK>> JB>>> constitution.
BK>> BK>> It's not. Neither is shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
BK>> BK>> Neither are constitutionally protected.
BK>> SH> Not only is shouting "fire" in a theater protected, there are
BK>> SH> some cases where it is your moral responsibility.
BK>> It is only protected, and your responsibility, if there is a fire.
BK>> Otherwise it is subject to prosecution.
TV> As are many other cases of false or misleading speech.
TV> See: Slander
Which, I suppose, the right wingers will now say is constitutionally
protected.
TV> See also: Clinton, W.J. and "intentionally misleading".
Yes, Clinton was falsely accused, and he can't sue because, as a
public figure, the constitutional protection is much stronger for his
accusers.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. Politically Correct is a term used by conservatives, to stifle debate.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
FRANK SCHEIDT
BOB KLAHN
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. File not found, I'll load something *I* think is interesting.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
BOB KLAHN
TH>>I don't have time read all of the messages here, but I will say that
TH>>I've noticed that kind of behavior in Bob. He gives me the impression
TH>>of your typical Jesse Jackson groupie, whether he actually likes him
TH>>or not.
JB> I am still waiting for one of them to claim that white is a
JB> color in the rainbow, as in the Rainbow Coolotion. That should
JB> prove to be priceless too.
Same with brown or black. OTOH, please show me any red or yellow
people.
I suppose you are going to criticize Satchmo for being inaccurate.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. the colors of the rainbow...are also on the faces of the people passing by.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
BOB KLAHN
BK>> JB>>> I don't recall the subject of on the job racial harassment
BK>> JB>>> being in the constitution. Maybe I am reading the wrong
BK>> JB>>> constitution.
BK>> BK>> It's not. Neither is shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
BK>> BK>> Neither are constitutionally protected.
BK>> SH> Not only is shouting "fire" in a theater protected, there are
BK>> SH> some cases where it is your moral responsibility.
BK>> It is only protected, and your responsibility, if there is a fire.
BK>> Otherwise it is subject to prosecution.
TV> As are many other cases of false or misleading speech.
TV> See: Slander
Which, I suppose, the right wingers will now say is constitutionally
protected.
TV> See also: Clinton, W.J. and "intentionally misleading".
Yes, Clinton was falsely accused, and he can't sue because, as a
public figure, the constitutional protection is much stronger for his
accusers.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. Politically Correct is a term used by conservatives, to stifle debate.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
FRANK SCHEIDT
BOB KLAHN
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. File not found, I'll load something *I* think is interesting.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
BOB KLAHN
TH>>I don't have time read all of the messages here, but I will say that
TH>>I've noticed that kind of behavior in Bob. He gives me the impression
TH>>of your typical Jesse Jackson groupie, whether he actually likes him
TH>>or not.
JB> I am still waiting for one of them to claim that white is a
JB> color in the rainbow, as in the Rainbow Coolotion. That should
JB> prove to be priceless too.
Same with brown or black. OTOH, please show me any red or yellow
people.
I suppose you are going to criticize Satchmo for being inaccurate.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. the colors of the rainbow...are also on the faces of the people passing by.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
BOB KLAHN
BK>> JB>>> I don't recall the subject of on the job racial harassment
BK>> JB>>> being in the constitution. Maybe I am reading the wrong
BK>> JB>>> constitution.
BK>> BK>> It's not. Neither is shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
BK>> BK>> Neither are constitutionally protected.
BK>> SH> Not only is shouting "fire" in a theater protected, there are
BK>> SH> some cases where it is your moral responsibility.
BK>> It is only protected, and your responsibility, if there is a fire.
BK>> Otherwise it is subject to prosecution.
TV> As are many other cases of false or misleading speech.
TV> See: Slander
Which, I suppose, the right wingers will now say is constitutionally
protected.
TV> See also: Clinton, W.J. and "intentionally misleading".
Yes, Clinton was falsely accused, and he can't sue because, as a
public figure, the constitutional protection is much stronger for his
accusers.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. Politically Correct is a term used by conservatives, to stifle debate.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
FRANK SCHEIDT
BOB KLAHN
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. File not found, I'll load something *I* think is interesting.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
BOB KLAHN
TH>>I don't have time read all of the messages here, but I will say that
TH>>I've noticed that kind of behavior in Bob. He gives me the impression
TH>>of your typical Jesse Jackson groupie, whether he actually likes him
TH>>or not.
JB> I am still waiting for one of them to claim that white is a
JB> color in the rainbow, as in the Rainbow Coolotion. That should
JB> prove to be priceless too.
Same with brown or black. OTOH, please show me any red or yellow
people.
I suppose you are going to criticize Satchmo for being inaccurate.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. the colors of the rainbow...are also on the faces of the people passing by.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Michael Gothreau
On 07-25-00, FRANK SCHEIDT said to MICHAEL GOTHREAU:
FS>Michael, he isn't demonstrating hatred. He's demonstrating
FS>righteous indignation, and there's a world of difference.
MG> Please. show me what you feel that difference is.
FS>Hatred can be blind, i.e., if someone hates another person
FS>simply because of that person's skin-color, that's blind
FS>hatred. OTOH, if someone is thoroughly disgusted with the
FS>actions of a criminal in stealing from someone, that's
FS>righteous indignation. What this means is that hatred
FS>doesn't require a good reason while righteous indignation
FS>*does*.
Then how was Tim demonstrating righteous indignation?
A criminal stealing from someone (your example) is causing loss to someone
and/or society. Homosexuals are not causing any loss to anyone.
Are you suggesting not likeing the way other people fuck is a valid reason for
righteous indignation?
MG> As far as the term homophobe being used improperly, perhaps that is
MG> the case. Maybe you could explain why you hate them so much, other than
MG> the most often obvious reason of "fear".
FS>Again, he shows no *hate* whatsoever -- nor any fear of
FS>that perverted group. Tell me this: Why on earth would
FS>*anyone* fear individuals of such a prissy type -- so long as
FS>one is not taking a shower in their presence as one might
FS>do in the Armed Forces, with their "group" showers?
MG> Do you believe homosexuals are all "prissy"?
FS>I doubt it very much, though since I don't know any
FS>personally I cannot really say. Articles about them *not*
FS>written by perverts, suggest they are largely prissy.
FS>Also, the celibate homosexuals aren't even evil. You may
FS>disagree with that, of course.
It is an interesting statement. If you are comparing thieves to homosexuals
it might seem that way.
Apples and oranges, more likely...
MG> I suggest anyone who would openly state that homosexuals being killed
MG> by a god is a good and just thing is someone who hates homosexuals.
MG> Tim did this, albeit in another echo. It seems to me that most people
MG> hate other people because of a fear.
FS>I don't think so. It happens, hatred based on fear,
FS>certainly, but I think more hatred is based on revulsion
FS>with a lot based on ignorance. For example, consider the
FS>hatred some whites have of blacks. That's often just based
FS>on *ignorance*, for the whites in question think skin-color
FS>determines character. If they knew better there'd be no
FS>such hatred.
MG> Why else?
FS>Oooooops ... see above ...
I don't think you've succeeded in convincing me that Tim was demonstrating
righteous indignation.
Michael R. Gothreau
-!-
*Durango b300 #PE* Homosexuals don't recruit children. Christians recruit
children.