Is Ken Burns gay?

[Chris Borg]

not that it means anything but he been married for about 20 years and has
a few kids

Dave Platt (woo...@freenet.mb.ca) wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Justin Siegel wrote:

> : Alex Crouvier wrote:
> : >
> : > Donald E. Scott wrote:
> : > >
> ; > > Niraj Agarwalla wrote:
> : > > >
> : > > > Casey (nospama...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : > > >
> : > > > : a-no-archive: yes
> ; > > > : Is Ken Burns, the guy who brought you "The Civil War", and
> :Baseball", > > > > : gay? He looks gay with the Mr. Spock haircut.
> : > >
> : > > That is the most rediculously stereotypical statement I've heard in a
> : > > long time. Besides which, what difference does it make either way - he
> : > > is a very talented guy - what more do you need to know?
> : > >
> : > > Annis Scott
> : >
> : > Ken Burns is probably one of the most indispensable filmmakers that
> : > America should BE grateful to have. This SOUTH PARK mentality is idiotic
> : > and unwelcome. Casey, you are marked for DEATH.
> ;
> : The South Park mentality? Yeah, Goddamn those clever, intelligent,
> : humourous bastards Parker and Stone.

> This has nothing to do with sexuality, but does anybody else find Burns
> to be ridiculously overrated? I thought Baseball was pretentious drivel
> that focused most of its attention on the NY teams than the game itself.

[Christopher Robin]

Thurston wrote:

> > >Is Ken Burns, the guy who brought you "The Civil War", and
"Baseball",
> > >gay? He looks gay with the Mr. Spock haircut.
>

> > Nope. Apparently straight as an arrow based on his being married and
> > having kids.
>
> Oscar Wilde was married, had kids and was a fruit.

1. Who cares if Ken Burns is gay or not?
2. There is no official "gay haircut," and if there was, Burns would be
disqualified.
3. Gay men can get married, believe it or not.
4. This thread shows just how backward society still is.

Chris

[FRAJM]

>not that it means anything but he been married for about 20 years and has
>a few kids

Not that anything's wrong with that.

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
http://members.aol.com/frajm/
"All over the room throats were being strained and minds broadened."
-- P. G. Wodehouse, Piccadilly Jim

[Russell Watson]

"Christopher Robin" <imo...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Thurston wrote:

>> > >Is Ken Burns, the guy who brought you "The Civil War", and
>"Baseball",
>> > >gay? He looks gay with the Mr. Spock haircut.
>>
>> > Nope. Apparently straight as an arrow based on his being married and
>> > having kids.
>>
>> Oscar Wilde was married, had kids and was a fruit.

>1. Who cares if Ken Burns is gay or not?

Obviously the guy who started this thread.

>2. There is no official "gay haircut," and if there was, Burns would be
>disqualified.

If there is "no official gay haircut" how can you say that he would be
disqualified if there was? The very assertion of the absence of such a
thing defies explaining who would or would not qualify. Your statement
is a tacit acknowledgement that there is at least a prevalent style
and that Burn's retro-Spock "do" ain't it.

>3. Gay men can get married, believe it or not.

I personally know three guys whose fathers' were homosexual, and were
in fact married to their mothers. However, I was under the perhaps
mistaken impression that most marriages of homosexual men to women
were a cover for their true preferred lifestyle, and that we had moved
away from the time when most people feel that to be necessary, what
with all the "coming out" that is going on.

>4. This thread shows just how backward society still is.

A failure of the straight population to understand the reasoning and
motivation of the deviants among us is hardly a sign of societal
backwardness. Those who elect to be "different" are perfectly free to
do so, but must understand part of the price for this is that the
mainstream of society is not obligated to bend over backwards
(frontwards, in this case?) to understand what they are all about.

[Jesse Jensen]

Niraj Agarwalla wrote:

>
> Casey (nospama...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
> : Is Ken Burns, the guy who brought you "The Civil War", and "Baseball",
> : gay? He looks gay with the Mr. Spock haircut.
>

> No! He is happily married and has one or two kids. He lives in
> New Hampshire somewhere.

New Hampshire? He must be gay.

[Goom]

FRAJM wrote:
>
> >not that it means anything but he been married for about 20 years and has
> >a few kids
>
> Not that anything's wrong with that.

Yeah! Some of my best friends are married and have kids!

Regards,
J. Stephen

[Christopher Robin]

Russell Watson wrote:

> >4. This thread shows just how backward society still is.
>
> A failure of the straight population to understand the reasoning and
> motivation of the deviants among us is hardly a sign of societal
> backwardness. Those who elect to be "different" are perfectly free to
> do so, but must understand part of the price for this is that the
> mainstream of society is not obligated to bend over backwards
> (frontwards, in this case?) to understand what they are all about.

Your obnoxious, ignorant response proves my point about the backwardness of
society.

Chris

[Steve Kraus]

Please take this discussion to an appropriate newsgroup.

[Justin Siegel]

Russell Watson wrote:
>
> "Christopher Robin" <imo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> So, it's "society" that's "backward" for not embracing degeneracy?
> >>
> >> Neat propaganda trick.
>
> >Please explain how being gay is "degenerate."
>
> If you need to have it explained you are lacking in the capacity to
> understand it, but I'll give it a whirl.
> It has to do with there being a reason for different genders and all
> that. You know, the genitals of one sex are designed to interact with
> those of the other, not the mouth or anus of someone of the same sex.
> And don't start talking about who one person "loves" not being anyone
> else's business. We've heard all that shit before. Homosexuality is
> not about the emotion of love. It is about the aberrant lust for sex
> with people of one's on gender.
> I personally believe in the concept of Platonic love, and have had
> many male friends whom I was mutually suited to for "companionship"
> more than with any woman, including my wife. We have laughed, cried,
> fought, sweated and bled together over many things that no woman could
> probably ever understand, but the thought having a sexual relationship
> with any of them is repulsive to the point of being unimaginable.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Apocalypse is upon us: It's the second coming
of Jesse Helms!!! (And to make things worse, the old bastard's not even
finished with his first coming!!!)

--
Justin Kristopher Siegel

"Everything our parents said was good
is bad: sun, milk, red meat, college"
-- Woody Allen, Annie Hall

[Brian Won Lee]

On Sat, 4 Apr 1998, Russell Watson wrote:

> >Please explain how being gay is "degenerate."
>
> If you need to have it explained you are lacking in the capacity to
> understand it, but I'll give it a whirl.
> It has to do with there being a reason for different genders and all
> that. You know, the genitals of one sex are designed to interact with
> those of the other, not the mouth or anus of someone of the same sex.

If you put it that way, genitals aren't "designed" for interaction with
the mouth or anus of either sex. You're a little unclear, but it
sounds like you're saying oral/anal sex is only wrong for homosexuals.

> And don't start talking about who one person "loves" not being anyone
> else's business. We've heard all that shit before. Homosexuality is
> not about the emotion of love. It is about the aberrant lust for sex
> with people of one's on gender.

Heterosexuality is the same thing. Note the word "sex" in both homo and
heterosexuality. Neither are about the emotion of love. Unless you do
all of your lovin' with your johnson and not your heart.

> I personally believe in the concept of Platonic love, and have had
> many male friends whom I was mutually suited to for "companionship"
> more than with any woman, including my wife. We have laughed, cried,
> fought, sweated and bled together over many things that no woman could
> probably ever understand, but the thought having a sexual relationship
> with any of them is repulsive to the point of being unimaginable.

I don't think anyone should begrudge you the right to feel that way. Of
course, I'm sure that there are a great number of people, male and female,
who might find having a sexual relationship with you "repulsive" as well.
I'm not sure that makes your wife a degenerate...

Sorry to continue the inappropriate thread...

-Brian

[Thurston]

>>>>

So, it's "society" that's "backward" for not embracing degeneracy?

Neat propaganda trick.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Christopher Robin]

> So, it's "society" that's "backward" for not embracing degeneracy?
>
> Neat propaganda trick.

Please explain how being gay is "degenerate."

Chris

[Russell Watson]

"Christopher Robin" <imo...@earthlink.net> wrote:

If you need to have it explained you are lacking in the capacity to
understand it, but I'll give it a whirl.
It has to do with there being a reason for different genders and all
that. You know, the genitals of one sex are designed to interact with
those of the other, not the mouth or anus of someone of the same sex.

And don't start talking about who one person "loves" not being anyone
else's business. We've heard all that shit before. Homosexuality is
not about the emotion of love. It is about the aberrant lust for sex
with people of one's on gender.

[Goom]

Steve Kraus wrote:
>
> Please take this discussion to an appropriate newsgroup.

Awww, let em go. Right now we have animated debates going on about the
2nd Amendment and what construes classic literature as well.
Personally, I'd rather read a discussion about homosexuality than that
crap about Cameron and Turan.

Regards,
J. Stephen

[Thurston]

> Brian Won Lee <bria...@leland.Stanford.EDU> writes:
> On Sat, 4 Apr 1998, Russell Watson wrote:

> > >Please explain how being gay is "degenerate."

> > If you need to have it explained you are lacking in the capacity to
> > understand it, but I'll give it a whirl.
> > It has to do with there being a reason for different genders and all
> > that. You know, the genitals of one sex are designed to interact with
> > those of the other, not the mouth or anus of someone of the same sex.

> If you put it that way, genitals aren't "designed" for interaction with
> the mouth or anus of either sex. You're a little unclear, but it
> sounds like you're saying oral/anal sex is only wrong for homosexuals.

>>>>

ACH! It DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ORIFICES!

It has to do with likes bonding with likes, instead of opposites,
creating an interface of wrong energy, i.e. two positives/two
negatives, instead of negative/positive. Nothing moral about
it. More power to gays...a great way to limit the population.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Russell Watson]

Thurston Rus...@teleport.com wrote:

>>>>>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many sides of this issue are you on? In an earlier post in which
you mention "degenerates" (see above) you sound pretty fucking
moralistic to me. Now you're talking a bunch of Oriental Yin and Yang
positive/negative energy bullshit. I posted my own, real every day
opinion on the subject as a response to the individual who questioned
your use of the term "degenerate" to describe homosexuals and now you
come back with this. You are obviously a flame-baiter who has no real
convictions about the subject. You wouldn't happen to be related to
Bill Clinton, would you?
Since it has been mentioned that this off topic, and I agree, I will
respond to all and then drop the subject.
1. Nowhere in my response do I say that oral or anal sex is any more
right to be performed by heterosexuals than homosexuals. You have
oviously made an assumption that was never implied that I was saying
it was OK for one group and not the other.
By the same token I never meant to imply that the separation of sex
from love was limited to homosexuals. Quite contrarily, a sexual urge
can be satisfied quite well with a total stranger. I'm just saying
that if you are a male that stranger should, in the natural scheme of
things, be a female rather than another male.
2. This country needs more people with Mr. Helms' convictions of right
and wrong, whether they necessarily correspond to his particular set
of beliefs, rather the moral relativism that is so prevalent among
today's self-styled intelligencia.
3. Yes, I am sure that as an individual there are other individuals
who find the idea of fucking me repulsive, and that's OK with me,
because there are plenty about whom I feel the same way. The repulsion
mentioned in my post was towards the general concept of being engaged
sexually with another man, not the specifics of an individual whom one
simply finds unattractive. I doubt that my lack of sexual desire for
my male friends is based on the fact that none of them just happen to
turn me on. Conversely, raving hetrosexual that I am, there are women
that I wouldn't fuck with your dick.

'nuff said.

[Thurston]

> russell...@worldnet.att.net (Russell Watson) writes:
> Thurston Rus...@teleport.com wrote:

> >ACH! IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ORIFICES!

> >It has to do with likes bonding with likes, instead of opposites,
> >creating an interface of wrong energy, i.e. two positives/two
> >negatives, instead of negative/positive. Nothing moral about
> >it. More power to gays...a great way to limit the population.

> How many sides of this issue are you on?

[snip]

> Conversely, raving hetrosexual that I am, there are women
> that I wouldn't fuck with your dick.

> 'nuff said.

>>>>

Ahhh, the sweet mysteries of life....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[seafr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 1, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Donald E. Scott wrote:
> Niraj Agarwalla wrote:
> >
> > Casey (nospama...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> >

> > : a-no-archive: yes

> > : Is Ken Burns, the guy who brought you "The Civil War", and "Baseball",
> > : gay? He looks gay with the Mr. Spock haircut.
>

> That is the most rediculously stereotypical statement I've heard in a
> long time. Besides which, what difference does it make either way - he
> is a very talented guy - what more do you need to know?
>
> Annis Scott

because gay isn't normal...I am a herterophobe!!!!!

[Russell Watson]

I am almost sad and ashamed to admit it, but I actually remember this
from when it was new, 16 years ago. I believe somewhere down-thread I
even posted a response to the effect that Burns was married with kids so
presumably straight, but that he had some white guilt thing going on
that led him to over-emphasize the role of blacks in the parts of
history he covered, because several historians thought he over-played
the slavery issue in "The Civil War" and he himself basically stated in
interviews about his "Baseball" documentary that he didn't consider the
sport prior to integration even worth talking about.

Where in the hell did you dredge it up from? I didn't know there was a
repository of usenet postings this old.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 7, 2014 9:48:48 PM UTC-4, Russell Watson wrote:

> Where in the hell did you dredge it up from? I didn't know there was a
> repository of usenet postings this old.

I didn't dredge it up but when I'm researching a film sometimes I'll run the title through the google groups search engine and it comes up with some really old stuff.

[RichA]

On Wednesday, April 1, 1998 4:00:00 AM UTC-4, Niraj Agarwalla wrote:

> No! He is happily married and has one or two kids. He lives in
> New Hampshire somewhere.

Of course he does...

[moviePig]

Now it's my turn to miss a reference. Has New Hampshire become the
go-to state for gay men with beard families?

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[notbob]

On 2014-04-08, Russell Watson <russell...@comcast.net> wrote:

> presumably straight, but that he had some white guilt thing going on

Boy howdy! I didn't notice is so much in The Civil War, but in his
The West, I hadda quit watching due to his insufferable guilt plagued
ramblings on how badly we treated the native Americans. Granted, it's
true and we should feel bad, but I was expecting a documentary with
some good objective Western history. Instead, we got an unending
apology fest on film, where Burns could barely let one single scene
pass without lamenting the plight of the poor Indian. I'm surprised
he didn't jes up and kill himself, what with all that guilt he's
shouldering.

nb

[trotsky]

On 4/8/14 8:56 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 4/8/2014 2:22 AM, RichA wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 1, 1998 4:00:00 AM UTC-4, Niraj Agarwalla wrote:
>>
>>> No! He is happily married and has one or two kids. He lives in
>>> New Hampshire somewhere.
>>
>> Of course he does...
>
> Now it's my turn to miss a reference. Has New Hampshire become the
> go-to state for gay men with beard families?

Ken Burns has a daughter but he's gay anyway?

[moviePig]

I don't think having a daughter cures it. Not like Reprogramming Camp
anyway...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:39:21 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> I don't think having a daughter cures it. Not like Reprogramming Camp
> anyway...
>

Tons of gay men have children. Many people say so. You have to wonder if trotsky ever gets let out of the basement. His naïveté must be hitting critical mass by now. What a fucking idiot.

[Russell Watson]

On 4/8/2014 5:59 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:39:21 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
>> I don't think having a daughter cures it. Not like Reprogramming Camp
>> anyway...
>>

> Tons of gay men have children. Many people say so. You have to wonder if trotsky ever gets let out of the basement. His naďveté must be hitting critical mass by now. What a fucking idiot.
>

I have a cousin who is as queer as a football bat who was once married
to a woman and has 3 kids. I have worked with 3 different people whose
respective fathers "came out" at some point, as well as a woman whose
ex-husband/father of her son has. My ex-gf worked with a woman who was
married 3 times and had a grown daughter before deciding she was a
lesbian. It's really not that rare. A lot of homosexuals seem to make an
attempt at living a heterosexual lifestyle before giving in to their
true nature.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 8:14:53 PM UTC-4, Russell Watson wrote:

> I have a cousin who is as queer as a football bat who was once married
> to a woman and has 3 kids. I have worked with 3 different people whose
> respective fathers "came out" at some point, as well as a woman whose
> ex-husband/father of her son has. My ex-gf worked with a woman who was
> married 3 times and had a grown daughter before deciding she was a
> lesbian. It's really not that rare. A lot of homosexuals seem to make an
> attempt at living a heterosexual lifestyle before giving in to their
> true nature.

And I bet many people who post to this forum have similar stories. The tale is as old as the hills and everyone -- save a cellar-dwelling, ignorant troll -- seems to know it.

[RichA]

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 9:56:44 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> On 4/8/2014 2:22 AM, RichA wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 1, 1998 4:00:00 AM UTC-4, Niraj Agarwalla wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> No! He is happily married and has one or two kids. He lives in
>
> >> New Hampshire somewhere.
>
> >
>
> > Of course he does...
>
>
>
> Now it's my turn to miss a reference. Has New Hampshire become the
>
> go-to state for gay men with beard families?

I didn't say he was gay. He's definitely a lib and New Hampshire is a relatively recent convert to state libbism.

[trotsky]

On 4/8/14 4:59 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:39:21 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
>> I don't think having a daughter cures it. Not like Reprogramming Camp
>> anyway...
>>

> Tons of gay men have children. Many people say so. You have to wonder if trotsky ever gets let out of the basement. His naďveté must be hitting critical mass by now. What a fucking idiot.


I'll defer to your expertise on the subject of gay men any day of the
week, thank you very much. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

[trotsky]

On 4/8/14 7:14 PM, Russell Watson wrote:
> On 4/8/2014 5:59 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:39:21 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think having a daughter cures it. Not like Reprogramming Camp
>>> anyway...
>>>
>> Tons of gay men have children. Many people say so. You have to wonder

>> if trotsky ever gets let out of the basement. His naïveté must be

>> hitting critical mass by now. What a fucking idiot.
>>
>
> I have a cousin who is as queer as a football bat who was once married
> to a woman and has 3 kids. I have worked with 3 different people whose
> respective fathers "came out" at some point, as well as a woman whose
> ex-husband/father of her son has. My ex-gf worked with a woman who was
> married 3 times and had a grown daughter before deciding she was a
> lesbian. It's really not that rare. A lot of homosexuals seem to make an
> attempt at living a heterosexual lifestyle before giving in to their
> true nature.

Weird, Russell, most of your fellow "conservatives" believe you can pray
the gay away.

[Nick]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 4:08:48 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
> On 4/8/14 4:59 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:39:21 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> I don't think having a daughter cures it. Not like Reprogramming Camp
> >> anyway...
>
> >>
>

> > Tons of gay men have children. Many people say so. You have to wonder if trotsky ever gets let out of the basement. His naïveté must be hitting critical mass by now. What a fucking idiot.

>

> I'll defer to your expertise on the subject of gay men any day of the
> week, thank you very much. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Watch out. The king of comedy is back to doing the gay jokes.

[moviePig]

[whiplash]

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 4:08:48 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:

> I'll defer to your expertise on the subject of gay men any day of the
> week, thank you very much. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

What's wrong is that you're such a sheltered little nasty baby down in the basement and only opening that soiled maw to say something stupid. How can you even post here anymore? All you do is humiliate yourself. Oh, wait, a minute. That *is* why you're here.

[Russell Watson]

On 4/9/2014 4:14 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 4/8/14 7:14 PM, Russell Watson wrote:
>> On 4/8/2014 5:59 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:39:21 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think having a daughter cures it. Not like Reprogramming Camp
>>>> anyway...
>>>>
>>> Tons of gay men have children. Many people say so. You have to wonder

>>> if trotsky ever gets let out of the basement. His naďveté must be

>>> hitting critical mass by now. What a fucking idiot.
>>>
>>
>> I have a cousin who is as queer as a football bat who was once married
>> to a woman and has 3 kids. I have worked with 3 different people whose
>> respective fathers "came out" at some point, as well as a woman whose
>> ex-husband/father of her son has. My ex-gf worked with a woman who was
>> married 3 times and had a grown daughter before deciding she was a
>> lesbian. It's really not that rare. A lot of homosexuals seem to make an
>> attempt at living a heterosexual lifestyle before giving in to their
>> true nature.
>
>
> Weird, Russell, most of your fellow "conservatives" believe you can pray
> the gay away.

The ones who believe in a god of some sort, capital G in this case, I
guess. Since I also don't believe in demons, at least not of the
supernatural variety, I don't think an exorcism would work.

[trotsky]

On 4/9/14 6:36 AM, Nick wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 4:08:48 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
>> On 4/8/14 4:59 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:39:21 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> I don't think having a daughter cures it. Not like Reprogramming Camp
>>>> anyway...
>>
>>>>
>>

>>> Tons of gay men have children. Many people say so. You have to wonder if trotsky ever gets let out of the basement. His naďveté must be hitting critical mass by now. What a fucking idiot.

>>
>
>> I'll defer to your expertise on the subject of gay men any day of the
>> week, thank you very much. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
>
> Watch out. The king of comedy is back to doing the gay jokes.

Thanks. Your utter mirthlessness precedes you.

[trotsky]

Wow, those conservatives are riddles wrapped in enigmas.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 4:46:14 PM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:

> Thanks. Your utter mirthlessness precedes you.

And your utter ignorance -- the reference you have to Cecil B DeMille is Dylan and that pretty well sums that up, at least around here -- your now-denied homophobia -- and general lack of any real-world experience -- throw in your pettiness and dime-store anger -- and all of that precedes you. You have no mirth, trotsky, but you sure are ridiculous. Thanks for all the laughs and we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 4:55:16 PM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:

> Wow, those conservatives are riddles wrapped in enigmas.

Jeez, louise, get a new line. You're the Henny Youngman of usenet.

[moviePig]

As the de facto apologist-of-the-moment for (mild) inappropriate
behavior on Usenet, I'll remind of us of back when Vince Vaughn said
that electric cars were gay ...because it was the last "gay joke" I
recall thinking was actually funny. (Still do.) The times, they may be
a-changin'...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 7:14:57 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
> As the de facto apologist-of-the-moment for (mild) inappropriate
> behavior on Usenet, I'll remind of us of back when Vince Vaughn said
> that electric cars were gay ...because it was the last "gay joke" I
> recall thinking was actually funny. (Still do.) The times, they may be
> a-changin'...
>

You're comparing trotsky and Vince Vaughn? Really? I'd modestly recommend that you see a doctor, eg, a shrink, ie, someone with access to electroshock. trotsky is just an angry hurt child who says stupid and ugly things and when called on it swears that everybody jumping on him was part of plan. He's a lying, gutless, mean-spirited, cellar-dwelling, know-nothing piece of shit.

[Russell Watson]

I was unaware that religious and political views were joined at the hip.
I know you libs THINK you have the corner on godlessness, and in an
abstract way I'm inclined to agree with that view. The difference
between people like me and the neo-Fascists who are representative of
the leftist POV is that I don't give a flying fuck if the ChrEasters put
up a manger scene or a cross or say "Merry Christmas". I don't consider
such to be a case of "shoving their religion down my throat" or any
other such nonsense like the Atheist asshole who claimed that he and
others of his ilk were literally made physically ill by the sight of the
cross-shaped piece of debris from the WTC being in the 9/11 Museum.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 7:33:39 PM UTC-4, Russell Watson wrote:

I don't consider
> such to be a case of "shoving their religion down my throat" or any
> other such nonsense like the Atheist asshole who claimed that he and
> others of his ilk were literally made physically ill by the sight of the
> cross-shaped piece of debris from the WTC being in the 9/11 Museum.

As a New Yorker who had worked at the WTC and a non-believer, I found it disturbing -- on some level -- that nearly 3,000 people were killed so that "God" could leave a sign. The whole mindset is utterly bizarre to me.

[Nick]

I understand Vince Vaughn's use of the word "gay", and I understand Trotsky's, and they're worlds apart. Vince meant "gay" as in "lame", Trotsky means "gay" as in "I'm going to make fun of homosexuals and accuse people of being homosexuals because I really think that shit's funny". And anyone who can't see the difference is being willfully ignorant.

[Russell Watson]

Are there a few extremist weirdos who actually think that? Yeah,
probably so. But I would imagine them to be in a very, very small
minority, like the members of that "church" whose members protest at
military funerals because they think God has led us to slaughter because
we're too accepting of homosexuality in our culture. How's that for a
full-circle segue?

[Bill Anderson]

I once heard Little Richard explaining in an interview on NPR's Morning
Edition that he'd given up the wild life he'd enjoyed in his youth, and
he was now attending to his health. While I'm probably misremembering
the exact relatives, he basically said he'd observed his father die from
a heart attack, and his uncle, and another uncle, and his brother, and
he suddenly realized..."God was sending me a sign!"

Think about that. I was driving to work at the time and began laughing
so hard I had to pull over for a minute.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

[Bill Anderson]

Sorry. I've either been time traveling or I forgot I've been working on
my computer this afternoon and missed the fact that my clock had shifted
back two hours.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 6:44:37 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:

> Think about that. I was driving to work at the time and began laughing
> so hard I had to pull over for a minute.
>

One of my favorites was when the parents of one of the victims of an air crash that killed 169 said that "God was testing their faith." He killed 168 *other* people to test someone's faith? And people wonder why I'm not a believer . . .

[moviePig]

Take my short comment at only its face value. Rather than comparing
anyone to anyone else, I merely said that, increasingly, gay jokes are
funny only when they're actually funny. And I gave an example showing
the rarity of that for me.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:23:17 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> Take my short comment at only its face value. Rather than comparing
> anyone to anyone else, I merely said that, increasingly, gay jokes are
> funny only when they're actually funny. And I gave an example showing
> the rarity of that for me.
>

Whatever. The worst of it was describing trotsky's behavior as "mild." He's accused people of murder, being a pedophile, and, of course, as being gay. He's a bottom-feeding attention whore too miserable to see how transparent he is as the lonely, alienated, momma's boy who apparently only goes out of the house to walk his momma's little dog. Why you let him suck up to you is beyond me . . .

[RichA]

What he is and what he is supposed to be are two different things.

Wikipedia
Sikhism has no specific teachings about homosexuality. The Sikh holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, does not explicitly mention homosexuality.

Views on homosexuality tend not to be a primary concern in Sikh teachings, as the universal goal of a Sikh is to have no hate or animosity to any person, regardless of race, caste, color, creed, gender, or sexuality.

[notbob]

On 2014-04-10, DK <d...@no.email.thankstospam.net> wrote:

> This Ken Burns? It's a brilliant parody of a whole genre:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6xJzAYYrX8

Freakin' hilarious!!! ....if I may. ;)

nb

[trotsky]

On 4/9/14 3:58 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 4:46:14 PM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
>
>> Thanks. Your utter mirthlessness precedes you.
>
> And your utter ignorance --

Yes, definitely. And I'll keep pulling the strings to get you to say that.

[trotsky]

Jeez, wee willy, how did you get so deluded as to think I give a
motherfuck what you think?

[trotsky]

It's very politically incorrect to use "gay" to mean stupid now. I've
even stopped doing it. It's like learning to ride a bike all over again
(no pun intended).

[trotsky]

On 4/9/14 6:28 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 7:14:57 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>
>> As the de facto apologist-of-the-moment for (mild) inappropriate
>> behavior on Usenet, I'll remind of us of back when Vince Vaughn said
>> that electric cars were gay ...because it was the last "gay joke" I
>> recall thinking was actually funny. (Still do.) The times, they may be
>> a-changin'...
>>
> You're comparing trotsky and Vince Vaughn?

Interesting. Apparently you're so stupid as to think it isn't
homophobic to discuss Ken Burn's "gayness" but, to quote Vaughn in
"Swingers", I'm the asshole. Methinks you aren't too bright, nickpuppet.

[trotsky]

Now you just sound like you're learning disabled.

[trotsky]

Nickpuppet! Please! Eat some brain food or something. You are too
fucking busy following news stories in the UK that you can't seem to get
your brain working long enough to comprehend that what Vaughn said is
verboten in today's society. Man, you get you, "RichA" and wee willy
together and it's like looking at reality in a carnival mirror or
something. It really is like some kind of mass psychosis or something.

It is kind of interesting in a clinical way, though.

[Nick]

Disclaimer to any conservatives who post here: don't just the rest of us on the left by Trotsky's nonsense. He's not a liberal anyway. It's that he hates Republicans and conservatives along with most everyone else. Last I checked, hating right wingers wasn't enough to make you a "bleeding heart liberal".

[moviePig]

Yeah, but let's also acknowledge that such usage of 'gay' is a political
incorrectness with actual substance. The basis for 'gay' as a
meaningful pejorative -- not Vaughn's intent, imo and btw -- has been
thoroughly scuttled by science, and now pretty much belongs in the
flat-Earth basket. So its pain-to-logic ratio is, well, infinite...

[Nick]

What Trotsky wrote was "I'll defer to your expertise on the subject of gay men any day of the week, thank you very much." That doesn't have a fucking thing to do with gay as in "stupid" or Vince Vaughn. It's a cheap little homophobic dig. Don't let Trotsky do his usual trick of obfuscation by moving the discussion into a discussion away from his asshole comments.

[moviePig]

Again, Vaughn's gay-slight was the last funny (and thus "worthwhile")
one I heard ...including Trotsky's or anyone else's. And that's the
full extent of why I mentioned it. (Fwiw, I bet most gays laughed at it
and might well still. Humor persists.)

[Nick]

One last time: Vaughn has nothing to do with this, Gay as in "stupid" or "lame" has nothing to do with this. This is about Trotsky's homophobic babbling. Period.

[trotsky]

So you inhabit a world where the "gay gene" has been identified?

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:37:18 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
>
> What Trotsky wrote was "I'll defer to your expertise on the subject of gay men any day of the week, thank you very much." That doesn't have a fucking thing to do with gay as in "stupid" or Vince Vaughn. It's a cheap little homophobic dig. Don't let Trotsky do his usual trick of obfuscation by moving the discussion into a discussion away from his asshole comments.

The real problem with trotsky is that he gets boring so fast in using the same responses over and over again. He's truly tiresome in that he's been in the basement so long that he has no new material, has no concept of world -- or even US -- events and definitely has no concept of film, new or old. A petty little gnome who is back down in the hole. He's an utter waste of time.

[trotsky]

On 4/10/14 10:29 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:37:18 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
>>
>> What Trotsky wrote was "I'll defer to your expertise on the subject of gay men any day of the week, thank you very much." That doesn't have a fucking thing to do with gay as in "stupid" or Vince Vaughn. It's a cheap little homophobic dig. Don't let Trotsky do his usual trick of obfuscation by moving the discussion into a discussion away from his asshole comments.
>
> The real problem with trotsky is that he gets boring so fast in using the same responses over and over again.

Interesting. Speaking of boring, wee willy, how many times do you
suppose it is that you have called me "boring" or "stupid"? 10? 20? 50?
Don't you even feel a wee bit hypocritical? Or doesn't your
psychopathology allow this?

[moviePig]

Scientifically, the 'gay gene' has always been as plausible to me as the
'hetero gene'. (I.e., if either exists, then both likely do.)
Regardless, it seems incontrovertible that we as individuals have little
say about our own alignment ...in direction or magnitude. However,
widespread *phobia* about it -- even at what you or I might call a
"casual" level -- seems endemic to only "sick" societies (like ours).
In fact, I doubt many here are completely free of such phobia ...but,
yeah, short of unctuous political correctness, I'd be okay to see its
its expression deprived for a while, even on Usenet. Unloved, it might
even die a natural death...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:22:06 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
> Scientifically, the 'gay gene' has always been as plausible to me as the
> 'hetero gene'. (I.e., if either exists, then both likely do.)
>

Not necessarily. Even in the most complex of systems there are default settings. That is not to push for one or the other. The scientific community knows so little at this point about genetics that in 2244 there will probably be a cartoon in The New Yorker (or The Onion) about the "gay" gene. At this point, it's political and not scientific to suggest a gay gene. It's the modern equivalent of saying "that's the way god planned it."

[trotsky]

On 4/10/14 11:22 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 4/10/2014 10:50 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 4/10/14 8:28 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2014 6:01 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>
>>>> It's very politically incorrect to use "gay" to mean stupid now. I've
>>>> even stopped doing it. It's like learning to ride a bike all over
>>>> again
>>>> (no pun intended).
>>>
>>> Yeah, but let's also acknowledge that such usage of 'gay' is a political
>>> incorrectness with actual substance. The basis for 'gay' as a
>>> meaningful pejorative -- not Vaughn's intent, imo and btw -- has been
>>> thoroughly scuttled by science, and now pretty much belongs in the
>>> flat-Earth basket.
>>
>> So you inhabit a world where the "gay gene" has been identified?
>
> Scientifically, the 'gay gene' has always been as plausible to me as the
> 'hetero gene'.

Except where propagation of the species is concerned.

(I.e., if either exists, then both likely do.)
> Regardless, it seems incontrovertible that we as individuals have little
> say about our own alignment ...in direction or magnitude.

Right. And how does the "bisexual gene" work, then?

However,
> widespread *phobia* about it -- even at what you or I might call a
> "casual" level -- seems endemic to only "sick" societies (like ours). In
> fact, I doubt many here are completely free of such phobia ...but, yeah,
> short of unctuous political correctness, I'd be okay to see its its
> expression deprived for a while, even on Usenet. Unloved, it might even
> die a natural death...

I'm different, I guess. I don't care what people do in the privacy of
their homes as long as it doesn't involve harming others. Moreover, I
don't much care if people have "sexual preference" or "sexual
orientation". My opinion is that the concept of sexual orientation came
about because of the stigma that still exists in society that there is
something "wrong" with being gay. So they created a "theory" that it
isn't a preference, they were born that way. If that helps them be less
stigmatized I'm all for it. But I haven't seen anything remotely
scientific saying that it's so.

[trotsky]

Yes! Hey, nickpuppet, how does my heinous attitude compare to this guy:

http://aattp.org/tea-party-nutjob-gay-supremacy-worse-than-white-supremacy-ever-was/

[Nick]

Who cares? Whoever this guy is, he's probably sincere in his beliefs, and not some phony piece of shit fake liberal misanthrope like you.

[moviePig]

Whether it's actual genetics or some Harry Potter sorting-hat, I can't
imagine that any measurable fraction of our society would "prefer" to be
homosexual. So, yes, I do think that, for all practical purposes, one
is "born" to however they are. And, seeing how low the issue ranks
among true threats to mankind, only our society's irrational
preoccupation with it appears to fuel any stigma whatsoever. (Iirc,
"natural" and other less uptight societies don't give a shit.)

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 2:17:05 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> Whether it's actual genetics or some Harry Potter sorting-hat, I can't
> imagine that any measurable fraction of our society would "prefer" to be
> homosexual.

My god, you're starting to sound like trotsky. Do you want to -- maybe -- rethink that?

[moviePig]

Established science, afaik, knows nothing about human existence, much
less about human behavior (...except, of course, statistically). No, I
don't suspect there's literally a single DNA isomer whose right- or
left-handedness points one's pecker -- life's unlikely to be nearly so
simple. But I can allow speculation that, say, evolution selects for
heterosexuality so strongly that some sort of "escape hatch" option
keeps things somehow in check. (That's *not* my theory. I don't have a
theory.) E.g., I've heard that societal birth-rates respond -- in both
gender and sexual orientation -- to population imbalances. Also iirc,
3rd sons and up tend (very slightly) more to be gay (...which, of
course, invites dozens of instant rationales).

[moviePig]

Not yet. This time, I'd rather hear what you think I (and not Trotsky)
am saying...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 2:38:20 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> Not yet. This time, I'd rather hear what you think I (and not Trotsky)
> am saying...
>

You seem to be saying that (a) homosexuality is determined; and, (b) the poor blighter struck with the affliction would rather be straight and that's just unfortunate. I'm not saying that homosexuality *is* determined or created by genes, over-bearing mothers, or being instilled early on with the need to be tidy and well-dressed. I'm saying that now that gays are being accepted, the idea that they would "prefer" to be straight says something -- apparently -- about how you view gay people. It's similar to saying -- and I'm not saying you said it -- that people of color would "prefer" to be white, but alas, they're not. Not putting too heavy a spin on it although within your comment about preference there seems to be a bias.

[moviePig]

Okay. But what I *meant* to be addressing was the culpability that
homophobes assign to gayness ...as though the gay guy carefully,
knowingly perused the sexuality menu and picked the road less traveled.
My rebuttal to them is that, given how predominantly we're all guided
by pleasure vs. pain, it's quite inconceivable that so many would
actively *choose* such an (unjustly) disenfranchised, reviled place in
our world. (And yes, I do suspect that many/most U.S. blacks would --
at some selfish, hedonistic level -- rather be white ...just as I hope
they're enjoying changing the world in that regard.)

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:12:02 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

>
> Okay. But what I *meant* to be addressing was the culpability that
> homophobes assign to gayness ...as though the gay guy carefully,
> knowingly perused the sexuality menu and picked the road less traveled.
> My rebuttal to them is that, given how predominantly we're all guided
> by pleasure vs. pain, it's quite inconceivable that so many would
> actively *choose* such an (unjustly) disenfranchised, reviled place in
> our world. (And yes, I do suspect that many/most U.S. blacks would --
> at some selfish, hedonistic level -- rather be white ...just as I hope
> they're enjoying changing the world in that regard.)
>

I'll let that stand without comment.

[Nick]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:12:02 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

(And yes, I do suspect that many/most U.S. blacks would --
> at some selfish, hedonistic level -- rather be white ...just as I hope
> they're enjoying changing the world in that regard.)
>

Huh?

If you were a politician you'd be resigning from office after saying something that absurd.

[moviePig]

Sure, if a politician said that, he'd be lynched. But where's the
absurdity? Should we all be taught to "proud" of whatever we're fated
to be? Don't words lose their meaning when I'm "proud" to be a
relatively privileged WASP? "Proud" isn't the only alternative to
"ashamed" ..."accepting" or even "pissed off" are options, too. And if
I were black, I hope I'd be honest enough to acknowledge its
disadvantages -- just as I, flying coach, envy the comforts of first
class. (The new classic real-world extreme of what I'm talking about is
some deaf parents' insistence, based on their notion of heritage, to
deny their deaf children cochlear implants.)

[moviePig]

That sounds ominous. If you have a point to engage, I'd rather hear it
than be silently resented for it.

[Nick]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:51:46 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> On 4/10/2014 4:18 PM, Nick wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:12:02 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
> >
>
> > (And yes, I do suspect that many/most U.S. blacks would --
> >> at some selfish, hedonistic level -- rather be white ...just as I hope
> >> they're enjoying changing the world in that regard.)
>
> >>
>
> > Huh?
>
> >
>
> > If you were a politician you'd be resigning from office after saying something that absurd.
>
>
>
> Sure, if a politician said that, he'd be lynched. But where's the
> absurdity? Should we all be taught to "proud" of whatever we're fated
> to be? Don't words lose their meaning when I'm "proud" to be a
> relatively privileged WASP? "Proud" isn't the only alternative to
> "ashamed" ..."accepting" or even "pissed off" are options, too. And if
> I were black, I hope I'd be honest enough to acknowledge its
> disadvantages -- just as I, flying coach, envy the comforts of first
> class.

For a start, when I'm flying coach I can't be bothered to be envious of the people in first class, and secondly, what kind of fucked up analogy is that, the white people as first class travelers and the blacks as second class people stuck in coach?

[trotsky]

Wow, that's a lucky break.

[trotsky]

He was being condescending. There's a shock!

[trotsky]

On 4/10/14 1:21 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 10, 2014 2:17:05 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
>> Whether it's actual genetics or some Harry Potter sorting-hat, I can't
>> imagine that any measurable fraction of our society would "prefer" to be
>> homosexual.
>
> My god, you're starting to sound like trotsky.

Agreed, because he's smart and well reasoned. You, not so much.

[moviePig]

Do you think it's a hostile analogy, and one that blacks would resent?
I could more easily believe I borrowed it from them. Meanwhile, I can
only assume that you're a lot more comfortable than I in airline seats.
Either than or more Zen...

[Nick]

It's one huge helluva leap to get from 'people would rather fly first class than coach' to 'black people want to be white'.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:53:25 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> That sounds ominous. If you have a point to engage, I'd rather hear it
> than be silently resented for it.
>

There's no resentment and as well as I handle words, it's difficult to express my reaction without it sounding as recrimination or guilt-tripping or anger. Your opinion isn't exactly rare (although not as expressed as often as it used to be) and it's at the center of a benign sort of race consciousness (and it also applies to gays) that understands the need for people to be treated equally or fairly (even if avoidance is a tactic) without really understanding or truly accepting them. Obviously, that's a way better choice than many of the other options. It also has to do with where you are, how many different cultures you're exposed to and numerous other factors. Since it is -- in practice -- benign, I decided to let it slide because the conversation could easily slip into all kinds of name-calling and accusations. I personally don't think that you're a racist and I'm not suggesting that you are. But what you expressed is indicative of a white-centric view of the world and engaging that in a productive way can be dicey.

[moviePig]

Wanting to be 'white' is different from wanting to be 'White'. I merely
assert that (many) blacks envy and/or resent White privilege (...e.g.,
freedom from knee-jerk incarceration). But that's not saying they long
for skin-bleach. And the context in which I originally tried to pose
the question is one of a practical soul choosing its new (U.S.)
incarnation: gay vs. straight, black vs. white, rich vs. poor. Afaics,
the baseline selections seem pretty clear.

[moviePig]

Sure enough, I can't escape my white-centric view. (Some people manage,
I think, but damn few.) Still, I can play with it ...like I tried to do
with the destiny-choosing thought experiment. Hell, in a hypothetical
blank slate-of-mind unencumbered by intimate knowledge of what I already
am, I might choose to be asexual and blue...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:18:22 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

>Afaics, the baseline selections seem pretty clear.
>

And that's the nub of it.

[moviePig]

Okay, I have to ask again:

gay vs. straight, black vs. white, rich vs. poor

In the U.S. today, at least for a nominally happy life, how does each
choice not seem clear?

[Nick]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> On 4/10/2014 6:28 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:18:22 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Afaics, the baseline selections seem pretty clear.
>
> >>
>
> > And that's the nub of it.
>
>
>
> Okay, I have to ask again:
>
>
>
> gay vs. straight, black vs. white, rich vs. poor
>
>
>
> In the U.S. today, at least for a nominally happy life, how does each
> choice not seem clear?
>

Rich v. poor is a matter of having money or not having money. The others involve beliefs, tradition, history, etc. Intangibles that go beyond preferring being rich to being poor.

[blutarsky]

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in news:53471ce0$0$10184$c3e8da3
$9b4f...@news.astraweb.com:

> On 4/10/2014 6:28 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:18:22 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>
>>> Afaics, the baseline selections seem pretty clear.
>>>
>> And that's the nub of it.
>
> Okay, I have to ask again:
>
> gay vs. straight, black vs. white, rich vs. poor
>
> In the U.S. today, at least for a nominally happy life, how does each
> choice not seem clear?
>

"which of these three is not like the others?"

blutarsky

--

I swear: if I live to complete this autobiography, I will go through it
again and cross out all the 'Hi ho's.'
Hi ho.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> In the U.S. today, at least for a nominally happy life, how does each
> choice not seem clear?
>

It's about identity, culture, sexuality, and numerous other factors. I would definitely like to have more dough but I have no interest in being rich.

[moviePig]

Sure. But my hypothetical chooser is in hypothetical limbo -- without
any prior belief, tradition, or history. It's a bit like the ending of
WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, when Robin Williams can choose to be reunited with
his love, but only as a handicapped Indian peasant (...or something like
that). Indeed, his character has the necessary historical motivation.
But without it?...

[moviePig]

On 4/10/2014 6:58 PM, blutarsky wrote:
> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in news:53471ce0$0$10184$c3e8da3
> $9b4f...@news.astraweb.com:
>
>> On 4/10/2014 6:28 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:18:22 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>>
>>>> Afaics, the baseline selections seem pretty clear.
>>>>
>>> And that's the nub of it.
>>
>> Okay, I have to ask again:
>>
>> gay vs. straight, black vs. white, rich vs. poor
>>
>> In the U.S. today, at least for a nominally happy life, how does each
>> choice not seem clear?
>>
>
> "which of these three is not like the others?"

All of them?

[moviePig]

Indeed, a practical man could mount a good argument for avoiding it...

[blutarsky]

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in news:53472452$0$10229$c3e8da3
$9b4f...@news.astraweb.com:

no.