Sheridan is NOT GAY!
Richard Hudson
Look, why do you <the person(S) claiming that Sheridan might be gay or
Talia and Susan Ivanova might be lovers. WHy do you want these characters
to be gay. Personally as a Jehovah's Witness <born and raised> I hope that
the Bisexual character is one of the aliens so that we dont have to hear
about this thread any longer. I won't say what my beliefs are about
homosexuality. I just want to know why so many people want to see the bi
character and to JMS, why did you make one of the characters bisexual anyway.
PS please don't flame or killfile me
Richard hudson
Nyrath the nearly wise
: Look, why do you <the person(S) claiming that Sheridan might be gay or
: to be gay. Personally as a Jehovah's Witness <born and raised> I hope that
: the Bisexual character is one of the aliens so that we dont have to hear
: about this thread any longer. I won't say what my beliefs are about
: homosexuality. I just want to know why so many people want to see the bi
: character and to JMS, why did you make one of the characters bisexual anyway.
[1] Babylon 5 has a strong focus on the characters, so much that
they seem like people we know and love.
[2] Some of us have friends who are gay or bi.
[3] So some of us would like to see gay or bi characters on Babylon 5.
or
JMS wants to show a science fictional universe. In such universes,
by definition, things are not like they are now. So he has to show us
what has changed. Homosexuality is an important issue now, so it
is relevant to show how it is different or not different in the B5 universe.
or
It is good for the ratings.
Now, as to your real question ("Why do so many people want to see
something that I do not want to see") it seem to me that it boils down
to your hypothetical fundamental uneasiness that there exists people
who do not think like you do.
You will have to answer that question for yourself.
--
___
<(*)> Nyrath
Lyle Beaudoin
>or
>or
The obsession with who people sleep with is amazing. This thread reminds me
of the comic book scandals of the fifties. Frederic Wertham made the
astounding charge that Batman and Robin were gay. Why else would a man choose
to live with a teenage boy? The only responses to these are that they are
exactly what the person who created them says they are, and that the issue
of what went on "in between" adventures, when Bruce and Dick were supposedly
sleeping together, is a farce. Nothing went on. They were in Bob Kane's head
when not on paper.
The second example may or may not apply to B5. The first certainly does. I
certainly can't be the only person watching this show who doesn't particularly
care about who the characters sleep with. It's not an issue. I'm much more
hyped about the actual plot.
But that's just me.
--
Standard Disclaimer: It was a typo.
Sacrifice goat here.
beau...@nyquist.ee.ualberta.ca
Shane Derek Killian
>of the comic book scandals of the fifties. Frederic Wertham made the
>astounding charge that Batman and Robin were gay. Why else would a man choose
>to live with a teenage boy? The only responses to these are that they are
>exactly what the person who created them says they are, and that the issue
>of what went on "in between" adventures, when Bruce and Dick were supposedly
>sleeping together, is a farce. Nothing went on. They were in Bob Kane's head
>when not on paper.
>
NC's resident public embarassment, attacked _The Lion King_, saying
that the characters of Pumbaa and Timon were homosexual, and that the
writers were trying to poison the mind of our youth by giving them the
ridiculous notion that homosexuals are people, too.
(He said the same thing a couple of years ago about Ernie & Bert)
To which my response it, "Aw, shut up! You're making us look bad!" (as
Jesse Helms isn't bad enough...)
TheMad...@cup.portal.com
LAURINBURG, NC USA <*>
-----
Wanted: Schroedinger's Cat, dead *and* alive!
Robin B Bornoff
: <Posting stating that sex does not equate to love removed>
: Look, why do you <the person(S) claiming that Sheridan might be gay or
: Talia and Susan Ivanova might be lovers. WHy do you want these characters
: to be gay. Personally as a Jehovah's Witness <born and raised> I hope that
: the Bisexual character is one of the aliens so that we dont have to hear
: about this thread any longer. I won't say what my beliefs are about
You hope that if there is a bi-sexual charcter that it'll be alien,
so you're trying to sweep the issue of bi-sexual humans under the
carpet over to the alien side of the room.
: homosexuality. I just want to know why so many people want to see the bi
: character and to JMS, why did you make one of the characters bisexual anyway.
1 in 10 man.
Robin.
Allen C Wilkins
Just to address the actual thread topic for a moment:
I agree. Sheridan is not gay. The only person who ever suggested
that he might be offered it as a hypothetical and unlikely explantion for
the lack of sexual tension between him and Ivanova (a topic that I think
has been adequately addressed elsewhere).
However, in the context of the show, it is safe to assume that there
are thousands of gay and bisexual humans on the station, perhaps tens of
thousands; and, JMS has hinted, at least one of them is or will be a
continuing character.
Why do people care? Why do many people, black and white, think that
it's neat to see black people on TV? Why do many people, of many or no
religions, think it's neat and interesting that Ivanova is Jewish? Why
do many people, gay and straight, think that Garibaldi's unrequited love
for Talia, and Sheridan's angst over his departed wife, are valid and
interesting parts of the story and the characters?
Because we're human, and feel empathy for others, and enjoy novelty,
and like watching detailed characters.
And yes, there's also the factor that some guys get excited at the
thought of lesbians, and some (fewer) gals get excited at the thought of
gay men. So? Many people get excited at the thought of straight
couples, and TV shows are happy to oblige them.
Allen W.
djs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
check the newsgroup out occasionally. I have to admit that I've
missed most of the "Is Captain Sheridan gay?" thread. But I have to
reply to the guy who was listing reasons why people care if there is
a gay character on the show. He said that some men are excited by
lesbians, and women may be excited by gay men. He seems to have
missed a major point, as far as I can see. Assuming that a few fans
of Babylon 5 happen to be gay (and I know there are some), they would
really enjoy seeing a gay character on the show. There are so few gay
characters on TV now, or in the past (especially ones portrayed in a
positive light). Maybe science fiction isn't a place where sexuality
and romance play a major role, but still...gay men and lesbians exist
in society. They will certainly exist in the future, hopefully in a
more open and less hostile environment. Speaking just for myself, I
would love to see a strong, major character who happened to be gay
on a quality show like Babylon 5. [How about Ivanova?] :) :) :)
--
Donna J. Stoliker You only arrive at the right answer
University of Pittsburgh after making all possible mistakes.
Internet: djs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Allen C Wilkins
: I'm a newcomer to this group. Although I love Babylon 5, I only
: check the newsgroup out occasionally. I have to admit that I've
: missed most of the "Is Captain Sheridan gay?" thread. But I have to
: positive light). Maybe science fiction isn't a place where sexuality
: and romance play a major role, but still...gay men and lesbians exist
: in society. They will certainly exist in the future, hopefully in a
: more open and less hostile environment. Speaking just for myself, I
: would love to see a strong, major character who happened to be gay
: on a quality show like Babylon 5. [How about Ivanova?] :) :) :)
As a newcomer, you may want to know that there is some evidence
(interviews and such) that Talia Winters, the telepath, is bisexual, and
discussion of the potential developing Talia/Ivanova relationship
occupies many idle hours here during rerun season. It also serves as a
springboard for anti-homosexual flamewars sometimes, but hey, that's
USENET ;), and people seem to be staying calm for now.
Allen W.
Allen C Wilkins
: I'm a newcomer to this group. Although I love Babylon 5, I only
: check the newsgroup out occasionally. I have to admit that I've
: missed most of the "Is Captain Sheridan gay?" thread. But I have to
: a gay character on the show. He said that some men are excited by
: lesbians, and women may be excited by gay men. He seems to have
: missed a major point, as far as I can see. Assuming that a few fans
: of Babylon 5 happen to be gay (and I know there are some), they would
: really enjoy seeing a gay character on the show. There are so few gay
Quite right. I was originally going to explicityly include that
point, but I thought that A: the person I was replying to wouldn't care
about what gay fans wanted; and B: I sort of see that as a parallel to
black people liking to see blacks on TV, which I did mention in passing.
Allen W.
-montalvo m.a.
Robin B Bornoff <Robin....@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
>Richard Hudson (ric...@silly.com) wrote:
>: <Posting stating that sex does not equate to love removed>
>
>: character and to JMS, why did you make one of the characters bisexual anyway.
>
>1 in 10 man.
That's the figure I've heard for homosexuals. The estimate for bisexuals
(i.e. those with feelings of attraction to both genders, not necessarily
acting on those feelings) is about 1 in 3.
Maria
Simon Middleton
beau...@ee.ualberta.ca (Lyle Beaudoin) writes:
[ much else snipped ]
> I certainly can't be the only person watching this show who doesn't particularly
> care about who the characters sleep with. It's not an issue. I'm much more
> hyped about the actual plot.
>
> But that's just me.
Well it's probably not just you, but it certainly ain't everyone. If I just
was interested in the plot of a series then I could read the plot summaries
and not miss out on anything, and maybe get someone to tape just the CGI
sequences to go 'oooh' over.
But personally I like series with real characters and real dialogue. B5
doesn't excel in this area (Sheridan especially seems to get most of the
unbelievably cringeworthy lines) but it is improving. If it wasn't then I
would have given up on it by now.
Simon.
---
Simon Middleton, Uniqueway Ltd. si...@uniqway.demon.co.uk
smidd...@omi.co.uk
These views are only coincidentally shared by any organisation
that helps this message travel from me to you.
Asmat Noori
> >
> >1 in 10 man.
>
> Oh, it is not! More recent and accurate (and less biased) studies than
> Kinsey were done just a couple of years ago and widely publicized. More
> like 3 in 100.
>
> Don't flatter yourself.
Ok, even if it is 3 in 100, how many people are on B5? So how many
gay/lesbian/bisexuals would that be? Even 3% is still a large number.
People always seem to be happy when minorites get roles on
television...why not this minority? Come on guys, stop the holier than
thou routine and accept the fact that there are gay/lesbian/bisexual
people in the world. that won't change. ignoring it won't make them go
away. All is does is make you look stupid. My 2ข.
--
Asmat Noori "got enough guilt
Asmat...@umich.edu to start my own religion"
As...@aol.com -Tori Amos
"You get what anyone gets...you get a lifetime"
-Death, "The Sandman"
-montalvo m.a.
>In article <D6Hq5...@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
>anonymously. ANY 3. Completely at random.
>
>I think you'll be enlightened...
Yeah, and the world is so honest and accepting, and everyone is so free
to feel good about having any kind of feelings for others of the same
gender that I'm sure to get true answers from everyone....
Maria
Colin Campbell
Asmat...@umich.edu (Asmat Noori) writes:
>Ok, even if it is 3 in 100, how many people are on B5? So how many
>gay/lesbian/bisexuals would that be? Even 3% is still a large number.
>People always seem to be happy when minorites get roles on
>television...why not this minority? Come on guys, stop the holier than
>thou routine and accept the fact that there are gay/lesbian/bisexual
>people in the world. that won't change. ignoring it won't make them
go
>away. All is does is make you look stupid. My 2ข.
So why should we endorse thier lifestyle? Also, maybe by B5's time
homosexuality will have been cured, making this a moot point.
Matthew W Buckley
NOT GAY! by Colin Camp...@ix.netcom
> So why should we endorse thier lifestyle? Also, maybe by B5's time
> homosexuality will have been cured, making this a moot point.
>
_ _ __
/ \/ \ | | | | |__| | | /__ Read it upside
| | | \__|___|__ | |__ | | \ down!
| | | __ | __|___|__ | | |
| | __| | | | \ | | | #######################################
| | |__| | | | | \_/\_/ # Matthew Buckley: mb...@andrew.cmu.edu
#######################################
Homepage: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/andrew/usr/mbbi/www/mbbihome.html
Cort Odekirk
other minority omitted.
Colin's lackluster response tormented. ***
And now, from the race that brought you Hitler, Stalin and Gengis Khan we
Endorse? What, like a Sprite commerical? "Hi! I'm a major sports
celebrity and I just want to say, *Homosexuality! Give it a try!*".
While using catchy phrases meant to distract are the forte of the
Christian Right lets resist the temptation for the moment, shall we? You
guys are supposed to be good at that.
Demonstrating the existance of something is not the same as endorsing.
Gays and Lesbians exist, I'm sorry if this gets your underwear in a knot
but its a fact of life. Watching hords of neo-fundamentalists recite
carefully programmed opinions with little or not recourse to contious
thought generally depresses me, but I don't try to hide their existance
or deny their right to . . well . . to a pointless and narrow existance.
I mean Hey! This is the human race! Pointless is a time honored
tradition!
> Also, maybe by B5's time homosexuality will have been cured, making
> this a moot point.
disease? Who, exactly, is hurt?" But that would involve logical
discourse, and bigots just *hate* that.
So lets go with Colins Little Plan, and E ticket throught the disney
land of the Right Wing.
We start with Genetic modification of the human personality, "Better
Living through Mind Control - This is a *good thing*, and if you don't
think so now, just take this little pill and *you* *will*!
I mean, hey!, why stop at homosexuality? Lets have some real unity here!
what religion are you Colin, we'll just get rid of all those others, I
mean, they're not yours, so they *must* be wrong. What color is your
skin, your eyes, your hair? No more of these annoying 6 different shampoo
types to fit your individual need, marking's going to suffer a bit, but
hey, this is the Destiny of the Human Race.
Nice world Colin, lacks spirit, interest and pretty much anything that
makes humanity worthwhile, but we have managed to get rid of those
annoying moral abiguities.
One of the elements B5 keeps delivering to us is that we are stronger
when our many *different* elements combine into a greater whole. That
one element, attempting to destroy or abandon others weakens the whole.
Colin, I really don't care if you *like* gays or lesbians. If you want
to think the gay race is going to hell, fine, you do that. But when you
attempt to resist their accurate protrayal, when you deny their right to
express themselves as they honestly are, you deny the diversity which is
our greatest strength. I don't agree with fundamentalist christian
dogma, I think its mindless pap spoon fed to the weak minded, but I will
always support is right to express itself as *one* *viable* *option*, so
long as it extends to me the same.
You don't object to gays on B5, I won't firebomb a church.
See how things can work out when we all decide to respect one another?
*************************************************************************
Cort Odekirk http://www.halcyon.com/maelstrm/homepage.html
*************************************************************************
"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonish-
ments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love
heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." -- Lynn Lavner
*************************************************************************
Larry Hiller
>In <Asmat.Noori-07...@pm037-04.dialip.mich.net>
>Asmat...@umich.edu (Asmat Noori) writes:
>
>>Ok, even if it is 3 in 100, how many people are on B5? So how many
>>gay/lesbian/bisexuals would that be? Even 3% is still a large number.
>
Can you spot the newbie in the group? :) :) :) :) :)
I'm sorry, but after being here for a year and a half, this post just cracks
me up. I suppose it's actually to the group's credit that some threads
actually *DO* die, eventually.
Even if it takes 6 months.
Colin Campbell
<mb...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> So why should we endorse thier lifestyle? Also, maybe by B5's
time
>> homosexuality will have been cured, making this a moot point.
>>
>'endorsing' and 'acknowledging' are different things.
IMO "tolerating" would be a better word than "acknowledging".
Allthough it seems that the PC crowd feels that anything other than
endorsemant is "inolerance".
Cort Odekirk
>In <0jWbzXC00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Matthew W Buckley
><mb...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>> So why should we endorse thier lifestyle? Also, maybe by B5's time
>>> homosexuality will have been cured, making this a moot point.
>>'endorsing' and 'acknowledging' are different things.
> IMO "tolerating" would be a better word than "acknowledging".
>Allthough it seems that the PC crowd feels that anything other than
>endorsemant is "inolerance".
point of actually *tolerating* me. I realize that as a vastly superior
being this must have been a *real reach* for you. I just *bask* in the
glow of this small acknowledgement.
I realize that showing a gay or lesbian person on B5 as a normal, well
adjusted person and not a raving neurotic makes your panties twitch. And
we will, for a moment, ingore all the professional evidence which tells a
story quite different from your own unique world view. But I find it
fascinating that you find this objectionable, but you think it is more
than appropriate for you to post loud and, well, tiresome tirads claiming
the gay community is the mental equivalent of the Manson family.
*************************************************************************
Cort Odekirk http://www.halcyon.com/maelstrm/homepage.html
*************************************************************************
sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."
- Galileo
*************************************************************************
Kip Ingram
>Allthough it seems that the PC crowd feels that anything other than
>endorsemant is "inolerance".
This is the *very best* way of describing what I have always felt is the
problem with the whole PC movement that I have ever seen. I wish I could
have expressed it this well.
Kip Ingram
k.in...@mail.utexas.edu
Cort Odekirk
>>In <0jWbzXC00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Matthew W Buckley
>><mb...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>>> So why should we endorse thier lifestyle? Also, maybe by B5's time
>>>> homosexuality will have been cured, making this a moot point.
>>>>
>>>'endorsing' and 'acknowledging' are different things.
>>
>>endorsemant is "inolerance".
cultural genecide of the gay and lesbian people this should be written
off as a minor difference of opinion?
And Mrs. Bobbit had a minor kitchen accident?
But wait, their's more! Everyone pull out your bigot trading cards
a perenial favorite has returned! Yes ladies and gentlemen, its the
man who took Christianity's message of love and turned it into a
battering ram. . . Allen Newton, (you know, like fig but seedier).
>Worse -- it's also "hatred" and "phobic"!
Well Allen, we may differ on this but many of the people *I* know do
consider suggestions of cultural genecide to be a *Bad* *Thing*. Now,
not to suggest that someone would want to destroy an entire people out of
"hatred" or a "phobic" reaction, but somehow I doubt its meant as a
gesture of affection.
>non- ;-)
Oh my, an Anti-Smiley, Satan's Little Icon.
>Allen J. Newton (ane...@swcp.com)
*************************************************************************
Cort Odekirk http://www.halcyon.com/maelstrm/homepage.html
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
Clark_B
Cort Odekirk (mael...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: col...@ix.netcom.com (Colin Campbell) wrote:
(snip)
: > IMO "tolerating" would be a better word than "acknowledging".
: >endorsemant is "inolerance".
: Thank You Colin! Thank you *ever so much* for debasing yourself to the
here we go. Everyone on their mark, as JMS said, and SCREAMING!
Gee I love this place. =) =) =)
============================================================================
B. Clark (cl...@nevada.edu) | You know you've landed gear up when
"Marie": Diva-in-process | it takes full throttle to taxi!
| ...UNKNOWN
============================================================================
**RAD HOSTESS: Disney vocalists and their music; feel free to ask**
Colin Campbell
>Ooops, end of thread. Better stop posting...
>
>>You don't object to gays on B5, I won't firebomb a church.
>
>Does this mean you _intend_ to firebomb a church if he objects to gays
on
>B5?
Well his "true colors" are showing. It is intresting just how far
off base he is. But all he wants is a flame war, and I have neither
the time or the intrest to participate.
Cort seems to keep posting, has he caught on that I'm not reading his
posts?
Colin Campbell
>: point of actually *tolerating* me. I realize that as a vastly
superior
>
> here we go. Everyone on their mark, as JMS said, and SCREAMING!
> Gee I love this place. =) =) =)
Hey, simply ignore Cort. So far he has been the only one flaming.
If we simply ignore people who act like him, he will lose intrest and
go somewhere else.
lanshark
: *** Good piece of how showing gays and lesbians is just like showing any
: Colin's lackluster response tormented. ***
: > Also, maybe by B5's time homosexuality will have been cured, making
: > this a moot point.
Just what is there to cure? What if they don't want to be cured? What do
you do then, force the cure on them? What about bi-sexuals? Even if there
is a genetic link for homosexuality, bi-sexuality is much more open to
debate. What if a person tests (if hypothetically there is a test for
the purpose of this discussion) positive for heterosexuality, but has
sex with a person of the same sex anyway? Do you then make a law against
it?
: We start with Genetic modification of the human personality, "Better
: Living through Mind Control - This is a *good thing*, and if you don't
: think so now, just take this little pill and *you* *will*!
:
: I mean, hey!, why stop at homosexuality? Lets have some real unity here!
: what religion are you Colin, we'll just get rid of all those others, I
: mean, they're not yours, so they *must* be wrong. What color is your
: skin, your eyes, your hair? No more of these annoying 6 different shampoo
: types to fit your individual need, marking's going to suffer a bit, but
: hey, this is the Destiny of the Human Race.
And while you're at it, not only do we want to make sure that people
have sex with the right gender, but let's make sure that everyone has
sex the right way! Yes, no sodomy, no oral sex, and no cute, inventive
positions. It's the missionary position for everyone! Got to make sure
this is programmed into the Genetic Modification program, we don't want
no perverts!
What, you don't think it's my business that you have sex correctly? No?
Know what? I'd agree. It's not anyone's business who has sex with whom
and how one does it, as long as it's between consenting adults.
Well, I guess I couldn't resist at least one post on the USENET topic
that never dies. Trying to tie this back to B5 and the topic of the
thread, it's pretty certain that Sheridan is not gay, although it's
possible he could be bi-sexual, but there's been no evidence to suggest
that. He seemed genuinely in love with his wife and was still mourning
her when he arrived at B5. While it's not proof positive of his
orientation, I'd say it's likely he's heterosexual.
Let's face it, Babylon 5 is one of the very few television programs
that the characters' sex lives play almost no role in the program.
The storyline is bigger than that. In that respect, it really doesn't
matter what a character's sexual orientation is. I think JMS's promise
to present a gay character just in passing is the right approach.
--lanshark
Allen C Wilkins
I don't suppose people would consider counting to ten, breathing
deeply through the nose, and being polite again? Or, failing that,
dropping the subject entirely?
The supposed thread topic, "Sheridan is not gay", is not even under
dispute. I think we can all agree that he's not gay. No one ever
seriously suggested that he was. What happened was that someone
*thought* someone had seriously suggested Sheridan was gay, and posted a
refutation which became the seed of a thread about gay men, love, and women.
The current proto-flame-war was, in my opinion, started by the
anti-gay faction, one of whom fired the familiar shot about homosexuality
being cured in the future. This is as familiar a gambit, and as
inflamatory and impolite a thing to say, as the old quasi-Trekkie
assertation that humanity will outgrow or cure religion in the future.
In both cases, people should know better.
The pro-gay faction, predictably, responded and escalated the conflict,
and the anti-gay faction then, predictably, responded and escalated the
conflict, and so on and so forth.
I think it would do people some good to remember that, as science
fiction fans and as USENET posters, we all belong to several marginal,
looked-down-upon-as-geekish subcultures, and that Western Culture as a
whole wouldn't blink if those subcultures, or we ourselves, evaporated
overnight. I wish that we could celebrate that which unites us, rather
than accentuating what divides us.
Allen W.
Theodore Dennison
>Asmat Noori <Asmat...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>Ok, even if it is 3 in 100, how many people are on B5? So how many
>>gay/lesbian/bisexuals would that be? Even 3% is still a large number.
>>television...why not this minority? Come on guys, stop the holier than
>>thou routine and accept the fact that there are gay/lesbian/bisexual
>>people in the world. that won't change. ignoring it won't make them go
>>away.
G'Kar is into bestiality. Is that close enough for you? :-)
As a matter of fact, the only main character I remember having a
physical attraction to a member of the opposite sex (same species)
DURING AN EPISODE was Dr. Franklin. Garabaldi refused to go to
bed with a woman. So the only character we know for sure is not
Gay is Dr. Franklin (and he could be bisexual for all we know).
Perhaps we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
T.E.D. (structured programming mafioso)
Alta Brewer
<denn...@escmail.orl.mmc.com> writes:
There are more than you remember:
-Sinclair and Carolyn in "the Gathering"
-Sinclair and Catherine Sakai in "The Parliament of Dreams",
"Mind War", and "Chrysalis"
-Londo and Adira in "Born to the Purple"
-Garibaldi and Talia in the elevator scene where he looks at her
rear and she senses his thoughts and elbows him (can't remember
which episode)
-Ivanova and her old boyfriend in "War Prayer"
-Garibaldi and Lise Hamilton in "A Voice in the Wilderness, 2"
The last two are not as overt as the others, but a romantic relationship
is at least implied.
Are there any others?
--alta
**B5 in reruns. Am desperate. Send drama.**
MICHAEL J.KING SR.
Allen Wilkins posted>>I think it would do people some good to remember that, as science
looked-down-upon-as-geekish subcultures, and that Western Culture as a
whole wouldn't blink if those subcultures, or we ourselves, evaporated
overnight. I wish that we could celebrate that which unites us, rather
than accentuating what divides us.
Allen W.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi Allen It is rerun season and when no new episodes can be critiqued we
tend to float off the subject so to speak! It is also the real world and
we will continue to agree to disagree until the end of time.I really don,t
care if people look down at me because I like Science Fiction and
computers as I think that is their problem. People tend to fear what they
don't understand and SF/Computers fall into that category quite nicely.
The solution to a thread I don.t care for is to ignore it and watch it
fade away. The new eps. start airing soon (21 April for us DishHeads!!)
and the threads in question will indeed fade away or we will all group
hug unite under one flag and disease will be erasdicated... Wait they could make a TV show about
this and they can boldly..nah it would never fly! The last half sentence
was meant as humour!! Later Mike#139
--
Peter King
: >Allthough it seems that the PC crowd feels that anything other than
: >endorsemant is "inolerance".
: This is the *very best* way of describing what I have always felt is the
: problem with the whole PC movement that I have ever seen. I wish I could
: have expressed it this well.
I hold no brief for the `PC movement', but I tend to agree that
the notion of tolerance is a difficult one. For a start, `I tolerate x'
only makes sense if I think that x is wrong in some way. If I think that
it's wrong, why am I tolerating it? If I don't think that it's wrong,
then toleration is inappropriate.
I'm not sure what `endorsement' means in this context, but if it
means, for example, saying that homosexuality isn't morally wrong, that
it isn't a disease, and that homosexuals shouldn't therefore be
*tolerated* but treated like the ordinary human beings that they are,
then I'm all for endorsing it.
If you really think that homosexuality is morally wrong - well,
I think that your notion of morality is dubious, but that's a separate
issue. To be morally consistent, you shouldn't *tolerate*
homosexuality. If you're a fascist, that probably means executing
homosexuals, or locking them up, or sterilising them, or something. If
you're not, then it probably means arguing your case, trying to persuade
other people to agree with you, and so on.
If you *do* start doing the fascist things, then society has the
right to protect itself against you, and I hope will lock you up. If you
do the non-fascist things, then go ahead - argue your case. I've never
seen a decent argument to show that homosexuality is morally wrong
(unsurprisingly, I think), but let's hear what you have to say. (By
`argument', of course, I don't mean something like: `god says so'.)
--
========================================================
Peter J. King, St Hilda's College, Oxford OX4 1DY, U.K.
========================================================
Cort Odekirk
> Well his "true colors" are showing. It is intresting just how far
>off base he is. But all he wants is a flame war, and I have neither
>the time or the intrest to participate.
overly ornate architectural forms. :P
But Colin, while I hate to rear the ugly head of reality in this
delightfully disney-esque version of the cosmos your functioning in, you
*are* participating. What I"m responding to now is called a "posting".
By "posting" we continue a "Discussion". I think calling it a flame war
might be a little harsh, flaming is something you do to someone who makes
you angry. You don't make me angry Colin, this is *far* too much fun. I
just can't resist exposing the instrinsic humor nested so richly in your
postings. :)
> Cort seems to keep posting, has he caught on that I'm not reading his
>posts?
them to you? Perhaps Allen can do it for you, you two seem to get along
so well together.
But as an aside Colin, I"ll tell you the same thing I told all the others
who E-mailed me thanking me for responding to you. Brace yourself dear,
your ego's not going to like this. I am not really responding to *you*,
as *fascinating* a person as I"m *sure* your are. You've put a lot of
energy into disaraging the gay and lesbian community, you have an
investment there and nothing I or any other rational human being says is
going to change your mind.
But others read your posts, (no accounting for taste). Barring a
balanced world view they might actually give them some credence. So I
provide another perspective, a sarcastic one just 'cause that's the way I
am, but another perspective to me sure.
It is highly unlikely that either of us will have any significant
influence on each other's world view. However, those few who actually
are paying attention to this thread might be less fanatical. It is these
people I address.
Nothing personal Colin, I'm sure between session of the inquisition, your
just *charming*.
*************************************************************************
Cort Odekirk http://www.halcyon.com/maelstrm/homepage.html
*************************************************************************
admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doens't
*************************************************************************
Cort Odekirk
>There are more than you remember:
>
> -Sinclair and Carolyn in "the Gathering"
> -Sinclair and Catherine Sakai in "The Parliament of Dreams",
> "Mind War", and "Chrysalis"
little stiff I thought they were refering to his dramatic performance.
Someone warn Mimbar.
Just an aside, when Minbari get "horney", just what does that mean?
> -Londo and Adira in "Born to the Purple"
at some point, perhaps all at once given Londo's, um, ehr, . .
"multitasking" capabilities.
> -Garibaldi and Talia in the elevator scene where he looks at her
> rear and she senses his thoughts and elbows him (can't remember
> which episode)
buttocks are nice, but nothing compared to the broad, feathered love
nuggets of Daffy Duck. I mean, I'd elbow him too.
> -Ivanova and her old boyfriend in "War Prayer"
> -Garibaldi and Lise Hamilton in "A Voice in the Wilderness, 2"
well. Not to mention the current Commander and his deceased wife.
(Although now that she is deceased we can probably assume the
relationship has taken a less physical turn. . .
. . or not <shudder>)
>--alta
>**B5 in reruns. Am desperate. Send drama.**
Cort Odekirk http://www.halcyon.com/maelstrm/homepage.html
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
Jay Denebeim
Cort Odekirk <mael...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>> -Londo and Adira in "Born to the Purple"
>
>Not to mention his three wives, one assumes there was a physical relation
>at some point, perhaps all at once given Londo's, um, ehr, . .
>"multitasking" capabilities.
I just watched the show a couple of days ago. Actually, this subject
is brought up during the episode. Timov was rather revolted at the
prospect of Londo and the three (well, actually it was the other two
who suggested it to Londo, he said why not Timov too?).
Also, it has not been determined how many, er, recepticles Centauri
women have. After all human females can half-satisfy Londo. He also,
doesn't seem to have any interest in human females, perhaps he can
only get 1/6th the pleasure from them?
Of course since G'Kar and um, the pretty one who's name I can't
recall, seem to have satisfactory times together, who knows?
Jay
--
Sig under construction
Jay Denebeim
j...@deepthot.cary.nc.us dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us
dene...@deepthot.cybernetics.net duke!wolves!deepthot!denebeim
Peter J. King
>
> No, you're completely off base. To *personally* not care much for a particular
> way of life and yet refrain from interfering because it's none of your business
> is very high moral behavior. Now if you think someone's being hurt it's your
> duty to intervene and try to help. I am personally disgusted by the notion of
> to members of the same gender being intimate, but their doing so hurts *noone*
> so it behooves me to *stay out of it*. I didn't say I thought they were
> wrong; only that my *personal* tastes, which I have *every* right to as long
> as I don't impose them on others, just don't lean toward that sort of thing.
If you're just making an aesthetic judgement, then that's a
different matter - so long as you don't let your aesthetic judgements
become tinged with an aura of morality (which often seems to happen). I
have to say that I don't see what's aesthetically unpleasing about
homosexuality in itself, but I don't see what's aesthetically unpleasing
about Wagner (to put it mildly), and many people disagree with me there
too.
I should have said (and I did in a paper I published on this
topic, but I was trying to keep things short and simple) that the notion
of tolerance in certain aesthetic contexts wasn't a problem. For
example, tolerating the performances of young children in school plays or
concerts, or tolerating one poor performance in order to watch an
otherwise enjoyable film or television programme.
It's the moral aspect I find worrying.
Colin Campbell
shil...@sable.ox.ac.uk ("Peter J. King") writes:
> It's the moral aspect I find worrying.
Actually this comment worries me. If I read this correctly you are
assuming that your version of morality is more correct than another
persons. Morality is not something that can be measured or weighed.
What is or is not moral is determined by the persons individual values.
If you think it is wrong for someone to believe that homosexuality is
immoral then (from my perspective) you are just as correct as he is.
Colin Campbell
shil...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Peter King) writes:
>issue. To be morally consistent, you shouldn't *tolerate*
>homosexuality. If you're a fascist, that probably means executing
>homosexuals, or locking them up, or sterilising them, or something.
If
>you're not, then it probably means arguing your case, trying to
persuade
>other people to agree with you, and so on.
(with apologies in advance if this is a double posting)
I can think of a couple of holes in your "morally consistant" remark.
For example a person may regard homosexuality as morally wrong, but
consider forcing thier beliefs upon another to be an even greater
wrong.
Another example would be a person who considers homosexuality to be a
disorder, and would consider mistreating a homosexual to be on the same
level as tormenting a blind person.
One of the easiest mistakes to make is to assume that if someone says
"x", then he/she must aslo belive "y". People are much more complex
and subtle for such simple characterizations.
I've never
>seen a decent argument to show that homosexuality is morally wrong
>(unsurprisingly, I think), but let's hear what you have to say. (By
>`argument', of course, I don't mean something like: `god says so'.)
Not suprising, in morality ther is no "correct" answer. Each person
has his or her own sense of right and wrong. No two people are the
same, thus nobody can convince another of the validity of a different
moral system.
For example (assume you dislkie the color blue) if I were to argue
that blue is the prettiest color, I would have a very hard time
convincing you of this.
Jay Denebeim
>To state that my position is not a "decent argument" shows more
>about your point of view than it does about my argument.
It's not a decent argument. It's a reason for your belief, but it is
not rational. A decent argument needs to be logical and rational.
"I've got this book, and it says there is a god, and that god doesn't
like gay's". Is neither.
As I've said before Allen, when you're not bashing people over the
head with xiananity, you can think pretty well. Do me a favor, just
for a minute, try to look at the world without filtering it through
what you believe the bible tells you. Maybe then you can at least
understand where the rest of us are comming from.
Jay Denebeim
Colin Campbell <col...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <Pine.OSF.3.91.950418...@sable.ox.ac.uk>
>shil...@sable.ox.ac.uk ("Peter J. King") writes:
>
>> It's the moral aspect I find worrying.
>
> Actually this comment worries me. If I read this correctly you are
>assuming that your version of morality is more correct than another
>persons.
No, I believe you did not understand what he was speaking of. It
wasn't his morality he was referring to in that statement. It was
other people using their view of morality to justify hurting another
group.
Basically you were violently agreeing with him.
Jay Denebeim
>In article <3murrh$c...@deepthot.cary.nc.us>,
>Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us> wrote:
>>Also, it has not been determined how many, er, recepticles Centauri
>>women have.
>
>their spine.
OOOooo Kinky.... Hey, there's a guy in alt.personals who's looking
for someone like that for him and his friends. Maybe we should
introduce them, if nothing else it would stop his posting all the time
:-)
I do have something semi-serious to say... It seems to me that what's
her name, was happy with G'Kar, happy enough that it was a 'regular'
thing with them. I wonder if it's power that does her, or something
else. I seem to recall the one time G'Kar was caught with someone in
his bedroom on camera, there were several women, not just one.
Maybe humans are somewhat sexually challanged in the B5 universe.
"WHAT? You've only got *ONE*????? *snicker* it looks like a penis,
only smaller"
Jay
Michael J. Thompson
Mike Thompson
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against any form of
tyranny over the mind of man."
--Thomas Jefferson (inscribed in Jefferson Memorial)
Jay Denebeim
In article <D7AJ0...@swcp.com>, Allen J. Newton <ane...@swcp.com> wrote:
>In article <3n1bkb$r...@deepthot.cary.nc.us>,
>Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us> wrote:
>>In article <D78M...@swcp.com>, Allen J. Newton <ane...@swcp.com> wrote:
>>It's not a decent argument. It's a reason for your belief, but it is
>>not rational.
Arg I hate 'webster' "rational see reason. reason see rational."
>If there were no moral considerations (and when I wasn't a
>Christian, I didn't have them), then I saw the POV that "if
>that's what they want, then that's fine for them" -- and this had
>to do with more than sexual choice.
>
>However, I am firmly convinced of the fact that there is an
>afterlife, for _every_one. Where is determined by what you're
>living for. "Those who sow to the flesh shall from the flesh
>reap corruption" and all that.
See, that's what I'm talking about. What is bad about homosexuality?
There's no reason for this, it's just a statement. Why is it bad? Are
they hurting you? No, as a matter of fact I'll bet you'll find there
are several artists who's work you enjoy who are gay. When the object
is to breed enough that your numbers on the long run grow, there is
some justification for making sure everyone breeds as much as
possible. After the world is filled up, this is a bad thing.
When a population gets too heavy there are only two ways to get it
back into tolerance. You either kill off a bunch of the creatures, or
you reduce the birth rate. From the point of view of the creatures,
the second is far preferrable. Homosexuality is a natural form of
birth control, it's much more fulfilling then abstinance, which goes
against our biology, and it certainly beats the heck out of war which
is the way humans generally reduce their population when it gets too
much.
At this time, america could be considered overpopulated. Our
production has fallen below our consumption.
>You know, it's interesting. You seem to be tolerant of any idea
>EXCEPT those coming from a Christian viewpoint.
That's not quite true. You'll get my dander up spouting any
fundamentalist doctrin. In america, you'll find mostly christian
ones, so I'd tend to flare up at christian doctrin.
>You also seem to
>be implying that I'm looking to you (or should be) for approval.
>I wonder what basis you have for this, if it's so?
No, not really. As I've said, I respect most of your views. We seem
to get along okay when not on this particular subject.
>I also wonder what it is about making a plain statement about
>what the Bible says constitutes "bashing you over the head"? Is
>the mere mention of Jesus "bashing you over the head"?
I'll be the first to admit this is a hot button with me. I have what
serve me as good reasons for my views. Not all of them are rational.
First off, the punch in the nose comment is for very specific
reasons. There once was a woman who I love very much. Her name was
Carlotta DeConcilis. We met over the nets, fell in love, and she
eventually moved here. She was a great person, well respected by the
people she delt with. Her biggest heros were Chuck Yaeger and Justin
Haywood. She respected them because they found something that ment
something to them and pursued it with all their heart, and enjoyed
themselves while doing it. I respect people the most who are the same
way. That's why I feel sure jms would have qualified, and why I say
Car would have liked him.
What Car wanted most in life was to be happy. We both made the
mistake by thinking we could make the other person happy. I've since
discovered that happiness can only come from inside of yourself, you
have to be happy. Our codependency went on for about a year, then
both of her parents had major heart problems the same day. She got
the call at 4:30 pm, and was on a plane at 7pm. That was almost the
last time I saw her.
She came back for a couple days a few months later to move out her
stuff. She wanted me to get a haircut, so I did. That was four or
five years ago, and I haven't had one since. If you meet me and see
my long hair, that's why. Anyway, her father recovered, and her
mother is holding on.
A few years ago, she called me. She said "Jay, I have cancer." She
never would let me come visit her. We talked quite a bit, but not
enough. In the mean time, my life had gone down the tubes after she
left, and I was depressed all the time. I didn't call her nearly
enough. I got on anti-depressants, and started seeing a shrink. I
found happiness within myself. I kept trying to get Car to do the
same thing, she was also depressed, for obvious reasons.
They finally decided to do a bone marrow transplant on her. While she
was recovering, she said her life had changed alot. Her depression
came mostly from worrying. If she saw a problem that no one was
worrying about, she took it upon herself to worry about it. She
thought now when she got better she would be able to stop worrying
about the little stuff and find the happiness she felt everyone
deserved.
It was not to be. A year ago next month, she died, a day after Jackie
Onassis. I shall always love her, and I miss her every day.
So, where does the punch in the nose come in? When the christian
types at work (I was raised jewish, I was taught our idea of an
'afterlife' is we live on in the minds of those who knew us and who
knew of our deeds) heard about it, I got lots of sympathy like: "God
works in mysterious ways", "She'll be happy now", "You don't
understand, when you die, everything is better, so good you won't care
about this life", "What she went through prepared her for what will
come, it's god's plan". I believe the ends do *not* justify the
means.
Putting someone through thirty years of sadness, holding out the
promise of happiness, then killing them slowly and painfully is
nothing other then sadistic and cruel. *That's* what the punch in the
nose is for. If I die and find out the xians are right, or if someone
who looks like George Burns suddenly appears in front of me and tells
me he's god, I'm going to go ballistic. Anyone who knows me, knows
I'm a very non-violent individual, I don't hit anybody. If I meet
god, I am going to do my best to beat the bloody tar out of him.
Sheridan and a row of Garibaldi's finest with drawn PPGs would not
slow me down.
Why is religion in general a hot button for me? Because I think it's
very dangerous. It can get people to hate homosexuals simply because
a book is interpreted as saying that god doesn't like them. It allows
people to use it to justify atrocities like the dark ages, the
crusaides, the inquisition, the salem witch hunts, enslavement of an
entire race, the holocost. I'll bet you the xian right will take over
this country in '96, and that they'll make sure armegeddon will take
place right on schedule. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong in six years.
I'm not saying it's just the xians, the 5000 years of fighting in the
middle east demonstrates that is not the case.
What is it based on anyway? A blessed lunitic who today would have
been thrown into a padded room, offed by the ATF, or self-destructed
is revered simply because it happened 2000 years ago. Miricles were
supposed to have happened. There are more people who say they've seen
the Dali Llama levitate then there are first hand accounts of jesus's
story.
Like I said, not all of my reasons are rational. If George Burns
suddenly appears in front of me, says he's god, after I beat him up,
sure, I'll believe in him. If HE tells me to do something, of course,
I'd do it, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to whack my pee pee with a
rock, but I'd do most things. That's the minimum it would take to
convince me of his existance.
So, for those of you who are still reading, thank you. I needed to
get that all out, and I hope you understand where I'm comming from
religion wise. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their religion,
many people seem to derive some benefit from it. I just wanted you to
understand that I have reasons which suit my needs for my views on
this subject.
Thanks for your time
ebx...@corp02.d51.lilly.com
> This is a long, very emotional post, I do hope you stick with it.
>
>>
<...>
> It was not to be. A year ago next month, she died, a day after Jackie
> Onassis. I shall always love her, and I miss her every day.
>
You have my sympathy.
> So, where does the punch in the nose come in? When the christian
> types at work (I was raised jewish, I was taught our idea of an
> 'afterlife' is we live on in the minds of those who knew us and who
> knew of our deeds) heard about it, I got lots of sympathy like: "God
> works in mysterious ways", "She'll be happy now", "You don't
> understand, when you die, everything is better, so good you won't care
> about this life", "What she went through prepared her for what will
> come, it's god's plan". I believe the ends do *not* justify the
> means.
>
I've always found comments like that to be less than the comfort which
they are intended to be. I have lost people close to me as well, and
the fact is that God had little to do with it.
Christians who have at all studied the bible know that God isn't picking
and choosing who dies, or how we live our lives, or what happens to us.
The fact that God is omniscient and omnipotent does not mean that He
is sitting on my shoulder and telling me how to write this article.
Some people do believe that, and they even take comfort from it. It its
all part of some divine plan, than the loss (to them) is easier to bear.
> Putting someone through thirty years of sadness, holding out the
> promise of happiness, then killing them slowly and painfully is
> nothing other then sadistic and cruel. *That's* what the punch in the
> nose is for.
Which is my point. God -- in my belief -- did not target this lady
for heartbreak, loss, sickness and death. She, like all of us, lived
her life as a free person -- not at the whim of God.
>
> What is it based on anyway? A blessed lunitic who today would have
> been thrown into a padded room, offed by the ATF, or self-destructed
> is revered simply because it happened 2000 years ago. Miricles were
> supposed to have happened. There are more people who say they've seen
> the Dali Llama levitate then there are first hand accounts of jesus's
> story.
*sigh* A blessed lunitic (sic)? Read what Jesus preached and then
rethink what you're saying. Whether you believe he was the son of God or
not, you have to admit that what he preached was worth listening to.
Where in his pleas for peace, brotherhood, and understanding, do you find
anything that is insane?
> So, for those of you who are still reading, thank you. I needed to
> get that all out, and I hope you understand where I'm comming from
> religion wise. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their religion,
> many people seem to derive some benefit from it. I just wanted you to
> understand that I have reasons which suit my needs for my views on
> this subject.
Again, you have my sympathies. I would ask that you learn about what
Jesus actually said before "punching God in the nose."
Doug
=======================================================================
Matthew W Buckley
NOT GAY! by Allen J. New...@swcp.com
> If there were no moral considerations (and when I wasn't a
> Christian, I didn't have them), then I saw the POV that "if
No morals? Yikes! I, for one, am glad you got religion then.
_ _ __
/ \/ \ | | | | |__| | | /__ Read it upside
| | | \__|___|__ | |__ | | \ down!
| | | __ | __|___|__ | | |
| | __| | | | \ | | | #######################################
| | |__| | | | | \_/\_/ # Matthew Buckley: mb...@andrew.cmu.edu
#######################################
Homepage: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/andrew/usr/mbbi/www/mbbihome.html
Cort Odekirk
>Christian, I didn't have them),
strickly to your own situation and not generalizing. You do acknowledge
that there *are* valid non-christian moral systems?
I would have a little trouble swallowing Plato the Sociopath.
>However, I am firmly convinced of the fact that there is an
>afterlife, for _every_one. Where is determined by what you're
>living for. "Those who sow to the flesh shall from the flesh
>reap corruption" and all that.
you can believe anything you want as regards the afterlife. Be creative!
Its when you use this belief to tear down other peoples philosophies that
problems arise.
>It seems to me that the only posts of mine you feel free to
>approve of are those which have nothing to do with Christianity
>or the Bible. However, my worldview at this point comprises
>those, and (hopefully) anything I post will reflect that. I may
>fall short of that occasionally, but that's the goal.
Allen, you realize of course that I can turn that exactly around.
"It seems to me that the only posts of mine, [or many others], you feel
free to approve of are those which have nothing to do with my feelings as
a gay man or woman or the existance of our culture. However, my
worldview at this point comprises those, and (hopefully) anything I post
will reflect that. I may fall short of that occasionally, but that's the
goal."
You feel that we should give you free reign to express your culture and
beliefs, but you are unwilling to give us that same quarter. This is
colloquially refered to as a "double standard" and is the basis of most
peoples objects to you. Allen, most of us really don't care of your
Christian and feel no real need to attempt to change your mind, we don't
mind the showing of christians on B5.
We just want to same respect you expect us to show to you.
>You know, it's interesting. You seem to be tolerant of any idea
"You know, it's interesting. You seem to be tolerant of any idea EXCEPT
approval is a bit egocentric. When you post something that slaps the
face of an entire sub-culture it is logical to assume they will respond
and probably be a little snippy about it. If I posted a message about
how I hated how JMS was showing those damn Christians on B5 again,
they're all going to hell anyway, you would in all likelyhood respond
and I would be a fool not to expect it.
We are OK with you not approving of us Allen, we would like it if you
would stop *attacking* us.
>I also wonder what it is about making a plain statement about
>what the Bible says constitutes "bashing you over the head"? Is
>the mere mention of Jesus "bashing you over the head"?
that they have no moral integrity and are going to spend some
undemonstratable afterlife being tortured by some sort of sadistic,
omnipotent, and decidely unpleasant being.
I mean, how did you *expect* us to respond? This is *not* a nice thing
to say. Jesus's message was "love one another", when this became "kill
the fags" escapes me. (Yes Allen, I know you have never, at least to the
best of my knowledge, called for our racial destruction, that was Collin.
But however more subtle your methods, the effect is the same. Hate is
hate, even disguised as disdain).
>I think _you_ need to re-evaluate why it is you feel that way.
>Personally, I think you're being way oversensitive.
Allen, you are attacking *his* *people*. Sigh, I can't think of a way to
make you understand this. If I were to launch personal attacks on the
whole of christianity, you would defend your people. How can you
honestly expect others not to do the same, or for sympathetic
heterosexuals to feel the need to come in on our behalf.
Attacking someone, and then when they defend their position calling them
oversensitive is an egocentric viewpoint. He does not need permission
from you to be offended. Instead of berating him for having the audacity
to defend an entire culture, perhaps you should look at what caused the
offense in the first place.
*An Aside*
Generally I try to make these sorts of posts more sardonic and
entertaining, feeling that if you have to plod through this sort of
ethical BS you should at least enjoy the trip. I decided to try
something a bit for retorical for his one. Sorry about that.
*************************************************************************
Cort Odekirk http://www.halcyon.com/maelstrm/homepage.html
*************************************************************************
>Allen J. Newton (ane...@swcp.com)
wei...@ohsu.edu
>what the Bible says constitutes "bashing you over the head"? Is
>the mere mention of Jesus "bashing you over the head"?
>I think _you_ need to re-evaluate why it is you feel that way.
>Personally, I think you're being way oversensitive.
>--
>Allen J. Newton (ane...@swcp.com)
THIS from the man who boasted he was destroying the alt.b5 group!
********************************************************************
** Weimere@ OHSU.EDU * Overdrawn at the Memory Bank. **
********************************************************************
Chris Carter
TAH TAH TAH!!!
TAH TAH TAH [Mongoose Season]
TAH TAH TAH
<BLAM!!!!!>
Friends, I think it's time for a little briefing.
Chris Carter -- car...@teleport.com (Fidonet 1:105/302.23) Unaffiliated
On the Internet / bewhiskered / like a bear / <*> with Teleport.
He's posting here / but she's elsewhere -- Burma-.Sig
http://www.teleport.com/~carter/ ftp.teleport.com /users/carter
Charles Martin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AJN> >As I've said before Allen, when you're not bashing people over the
AJN> >head with xiananity, you can think pretty well. Do me a favor, just
AJN> >for a minute, try to look at the world without filtering it through
AJN> >what you believe the bible tells you. Maybe then you can at least
AJN> >understand where the rest of us are comming from.
AJN> I have already, in fact, I started from that position.
AJN> If there were no moral considerations (and when I wasn't a
AJN> Christian, I didn't have them)....
Have you ever considered that just because morality eluded you
before your conversion that might not be true for everyone? And, have
you ever thought that there may be more to morality than fussing and
fretting over other people's sex lives? Christian voyeurism
positively reeks of perversion.
--=C=--
g...@tigerteam.org
_\/
: GOD 2.1 : What we call sin in others is experiment in us.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All
other sins are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is
not sinful - just stupid).
Sun 04-23-1995 -----------*----------- Time: 01:11 PDT
John Wheeler
: "" ALLEN J. NEWTON >> ALL
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: AJN> >As I've said before Allen, when you're not bashing people over the
: AJN> >head with xiananity, you can think pretty well. Do me a favor, just
: AJN> >for a minute, try to look at the world without filtering it through
: AJN> >what you believe the bible tells you. Maybe then you can at least
: AJN> >understand where the rest of us are comming from.
: AJN> I have already, in fact, I started from that position.
: AJN> If there were no moral considerations (and when I wasn't a
: AJN> Christian, I didn't have them)....
: Have you ever considered that just because morality eluded you
: before your conversion that might not be true for everyone? And, have
: you ever thought that there may be more to morality than fussing and
: fretting over other people's sex lives? Christian voyeurism
: positively reeks of perversion.
No, I'm sure he has not. :)
J. William Berger
: From a Christian standpoint, all I can say to this is that as a
: Christian, the Bible is my standard, the Bible records God as
: stating that homosexuality is morally wrong, God is my final
: authority on any topic, and for me, that settles it.
Two questions: 1) Why is this on a B5 newsgroup, and 2) which
Bible? Modern Christian translations go so far as to remove certain
Jewish doctrines and legends from the Old Testament, and these
translations also go so far as to "correct" the Bible so as to provide
consistent commentary on abortion and other disputed topics. I hope you
are reading in the Hebrew and the Greek to be this confident.
william
jbe...@moose.uvm.edu
dbe...@cs.ep.utexas.edu
Don't give a DAMN about other people's sex lives, eating habits,
sanitation, as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Sex was made for
one reason: reproduction. It became enjoyable, and full-time, to
further that. Now we are overloading the ecosphere, and nature
retaliates: homosexuality. Enjoyable, full-time, relation-forming, and
yet not productive of children. Kinda like eating cake without
calories. Seems win/win to me. However, I still like girls. Hmmm...
contraception does the same trick. Just more wasteful.
Chai
--
TEAM OS/2 TEAM OS/2 TEAM OS/2 TEAM OS/2 TEAM OS/2 TEAM OS/2 TEAM OS/2
__ _____ _ | ____
| | | / \__/|__________________ _____________|___\____/\
| | | __ |__________________\ * | * |
\_/ \| _*___________|________*_|
dbe...@cs.utep.edu | | | \ \
Golani, TIP 485 <PRO LITE/BOA> /____\ \_\ |
Lord Draconis Iridius Shargrailar of the Dragon | | | \
Chai Dragon --==<UDIC>==-- | | \ |
\____/ |__|
"And so my Fantasy becomes Reality and I must Be what I must Be
And face Tomorrow!" -Simon and Garfunkel
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
David Falk
: 2) which Bible? Modern Christian translations go so far as to remove certain
: Jewish doctrines and legends from the Old Testament, and these
: translations also go so far as to "correct" the Bible so as to provide
: consistent commentary on abortion and other disputed topics.
Excuse me, but where is your evidence for this wild and inaccurate claim?
: I hope you
: are reading in the Hebrew and the Greek to be this confident.
Actually, I read Hebrew quite well, though my Greek could be
better. There is definately consistancy between the original
language and the translation on these topics. And yes, I am very
confident about this.
Later...
Dave.
--
David Falk, Junior System Administrator, SoftQuad Inc. <df...@sqwest.bc.ca>
<!ENTITY Subliminal_Message "Do a Nice Thing for Someone Today" >
*My opinions do not represent those of SoftQuad Inc.* IRC: Sutekh
**KIMAGURE ORANGE ROAD... FOREVER****Linux, choice of a GnuType Generation**
lanshark
: J. William Berger <jbe...@moose.uvm.edu> wrote:
: >Allen J. Newton (ane...@swcp.com) wrote:
: >
: >: From a Christian standpoint, all I can say to this is that as a
: >: Christian, the Bible is my standard, the Bible records God as
: >: stating that homosexuality is morally wrong, God is my final
: >: authority on any topic, and for me, that settles it.
: >
: > Two questions: 1) Why is this on a B5 newsgroup,
: While you're asking that one, keep in mind you need to ask
: yourself why you followed up to it on a B5 newsgroup...
Well, the thread title *is* B5 related, making jberger's question
a reasonable one, even if the thread has ceased to be B5 related. Then
there's always curiosity due to a rather provocative thread title.
And you will need to ask yourself, Allen, why you have continued to make
numerous posts with no B5 related content on a B5 newsgroup.
Meanwhile, it has mutated into a minor flame fest of the type commonly
found all over USENET....
The "Sheridan is/isn't gay" thing started when another poster suggested
(on an entirely different thread), that Sheridan may be gay because when
he and Ivanova were sleeping in his office to protest new policy regarding
officer quarters, there was no (gasp!) sexual tension. The vast majority
of posters of both sexes were quick to disabuse the original poster of this
notion, by stating lots of anecdotal evidence that it was indeed possible
for men and women to be in close quarters and there not be any or any
obvious sexual tension.
In addition to this, it seems very unlikely that Sheridan is gay, since
he was married and appeared to be very in love with his wife, and it
seemed clear that he was/is somewhat attracted (fascinated) by the new
Delenn. During the conversation in his office with Ivanova after his
dinner date with Delenn, his mind still was very obviously on the
date (and some bad lightbulb jokes :).
Of course Sheridan could still be bisexual, but there doesn't appear to
be any on-screen evidence for this to date.
--lanshark
Charles Martin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JW> : AJN> If there were no moral considerations (and when I wasn't a
JW> : AJN> Christian, I didn't have them)....
JW> : Have you ever considered that just because morality eluded you
JW> : before your conversion that might not be true for everyone? And, have
JW> : you ever thought that there may be more to morality than fussing and
JW> : fretting over other people's sex lives? Christian voyeurism
JW> : positively reeks of perversion.
JW> No, I'm sure he has not. :)
Apparently Mr. Newton is incapable of doing much of his own
thinking. A rather ordinary example of the intellectual suicide
which inevitably results from low order Christian indoctrination - if
you ax me.
--=C=--
g...@tigerteam.org
_\/
: GOD 2.1 : Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal
~~~~~~~~~~~ training, for it trains people as to how they shall
think. --Arthur Schopenhauer
Thu 04-27-1995 -----------*----------- Time: 23:16 PDT
Charles Martin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JWB> Allen J. Newton (ane...@swcp.com) wrote:
JWB> : From a Christian standpoint, all I can say to this is that as a
JWB> : Christian, the Bible is my standard, the Bible records God as
JWB> : stating that homosexuality is morally wrong, God is my final
JWB> : authority on any topic, and for me, that settles it.
JWB> Two questions: 1) Why is this on a B5 newsgroup,...
Maybe Allen is looking for somebody to convince him that
homosexuality is OK, so he can give it a try. This isn't the only
conference on which he has been agonizing over this.
JWB> ... and 2) which Bible? Modern Christian translations go so far
JWB> as to remove certain Jewish doctrines and legends from the Old
JWB> Testament, and these translations also go so far as to "correct"
JWB> the Bible so as to provide consistent commentary on abortion and
JWB> other disputed topics. I hope you are reading in the Hebrew and
JWB> the Greek to be this confident.
_\/
: GOD 2.1 : Song of Solomon 2:3 As the apple tree among the trees
~~~~~~~~~~~ of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat
down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit
was sweet to my taste.
Fri 04-28-1995 -----------*----------- Time: 09:48 PDT
Matthew W Buckley
>
>
Many Christians don't as well. I know, personally.
Rod Swift
>However, ANY post I make regarding Christianity _some_ homosexual is going
>to followup on, most notably of late, Charles Martin (who seldom if ever
>posts anything B5 related -- unlike myself. Look around...)
Your theory, however, sadly falls flat if you are implying that
homosexual people cannot leave you alone. This time I sat back
and watched your pedantic little whine -- and it was identical to
all the other pedantic little whines you've had.
Why don't you take some of the good advice you were given, and
learn to shut up about the topic completely, rather than be some
whiney little Christian bitchling.
>You have this 180 degrees backwards. You personally may not feel this way,
>but my experience on Usenet and in other forums is that (especially the
>most militant) homosexuals will NOT quit whining until Christians are
>absolutely silent on the issue.
Why don't you go to appropriate newsgroups. I don't want to talk
about this topic here, and have successfully refrained from doing
so while letting you continue your little rant.
It seems to me that you are the one who starts these little
flamewars by having to attach onto every mention of the word gay
and start your little rants. Well, Newton, we're sick of it.
>Sounds like YOU (in the general sense) are the ones shouting for acceptance
>and "tolerance" while being "unwilling to give us that same quarter".
You claim to not want to hear about homosexuality all the time on
this newsgroup. Well, start by doing your bit to not exacerbate
these threads.
>_YOU_ may be! You certainly don't speak for the majority of homosexuals,
>though.
And you certainly don't speak for a majority of, or even act
remotely like any, Christians.
>I haven't attacked a soul. I stated a fact.
Your facts are in "error" then, Minbari.
>There is no Gay and Lesbian "race" -- that a fabrication of a desperate
>subculture to try to gain "equal" rights on a basis which in fact does not
>exists.
So you admit that gay and lesbian people aren't wanting special
rights, but EQUAL rights?
>>that they have no moral integrity
>Many don't. I know, personally.
Many Christians don't either. Of course, I don't slate all
Christians as immoral. Why do you claim that all gays are
immoral based on the actions of some?
>>I mean, how did you *expect* us to respond? This is *not* a nice thing
>>to say.
>Unpalatable, perhaps.
I love you, Allen, but you are going to hell.
>But it is a fact that I didn't call for the extermination of people of your
>_preference_, either.
Preference? The APA thinks different.
>You're comparing apples and oranges. If you started calling Christians in
>this newsgroup names, I (and most likely most of them) would simply ignore
>you.
Bullshit, Allen. I know, as you have not ignored my namecalling
of you. Instead, you called names back... So don't pretend you
*ignore* when it is clear you do not.
Chalk up a *lie* for the hell points for you, shall I?
>I'm well aware of it. The Truth is often unpalatable. Doesn't make it go
>away, though...
Yes. The truth. Did you know homosexuality is natural and there
is nothing scientific to suggest it is a choice?
That's the scientific truth. Oh diddums. Your religion is in
conflict with it.
>Yeah, yeah, yeah...
I'd be happy to email you the APA leaflet published last year, in
a hope that you would learn from your "errors", Minbari.
Rod
--
| ... ..... | E-mail to: be...@metronet.com | ******* |
| + + + + + + + + | http://nether.net/~rod/html/ | ***** |
| * * * * * * * * | | *** |
| R o d S w i f t | Hate is *NOT* a family value | * |
<a href="http://nether.net/~rod/html/index.html>Surf the net to my webpage</a>
Charles Martin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AJN> languages, along with many commentaries. Not all commentaries
AJN> agree, of course, but that's not particularly relevant.
Researched? Not relevant? Good one, Allen. You really are a
wonder. Nevertheless, care to cite some of your sources? I can just
imagine the extent of your research. What did you do? Ask your
preacher, and you believed whatever he told you? As usual?
AJN> Yes, I'm that confident, hand-waving by detractors aside...
_\/
: GOD 2.1 : Confidence is that feeling you have BEFORE you
~~~~~~~~~~~ understand the problem.
The highest knowledge is to know that we are surrounded
by mystery. --ALBERT SCHWEITZER, Christianity and the
Religions of the World, 1939
--=C=--
g...@tigerteam.org
Clark_B
: Charles Martin <charles...@tigerteam.org> wrote:
: > Maybe Allen is looking for somebody to convince him that
: >homosexuality is OK, so he can give it a try. This isn't the only
: >conference on which he has been agonizing over this.
: Are these pathetic taunts the only thing you can contribute to
: this newsgroup? Most of them aren't even worth responding to.
why are you replying? I thought you and I were in his killfile?
============================================================================
B. Clark (cl...@nevada.edu) | You know you've landed gear up when
"Marie": Diva-in-process | it takes full throttle to taxi!
| ...UNKNOWN
============================================================================
**RAD HOSTESS: Disney vocalists and their music; feel free to ask**
Rod Swift
>>Your theory, however, sadly falls flat if you are implying that
>>homosexual people cannot leave you alone. This time I sat back
>>and watched your pedantic little whine [ pathetic insult
>>snipped... ]
>Oh, yeah? This very post of yours contradicts your statement,
>proving that _you_ are incapable of "leaving me alone".
I'm not attacking you, I'm backing up someone else.
This is of course the last reply you are receiving, and it's not
directed at you, but at your lies. I would like to of course
talk to you again, in the future, about other non-gay-matters on
this newsgroup. In fact, I look forward to it.
>>Why don't you go to appropriate newsgroups.
>Why don't _you_?
I do. Do you? I will make a promise to use alt.homosexual or
alt.politics.homosexuality if you will even *attempt* to
*sometimes* use it.
>Folks, this "suggestion" comes from the self-declared leader of
>his local Gay/Lesbian Antidefamation League who _invaded_ the
>Christian newsgroup alt.org.promisekeepers to start a massive
>flamewar over there about his sexual preference.
This is a lie. As a Christian, you should be ashamed of
yourself. I have brought others in to witness the ill-treatment
that has been going on in that newsgroup, and they agreed with
*me* and not the lost souls that are there. The evidence of this
is provided later in this post.
>Oh, what's that, Rod? You didn't know I keep informed about
>these things? I think you'll find I'm more well-informed than
>you could know. But you'll find out the full extent of that,
>shortly.
Sure. Whatever. You will of course not the words of truth that
came from an independent observer of the newsgroup happenings
over on alt.org.promisekeepers. And you will also note that most
of the anti-Christian flames come from alt.atheism, not me.
>Rod likes to argue with a Christian for awhile, and flame and
>taunt them, then when he's unsuccessful in getting them to shut
>up, he starts emailing their postmaster or Usenet feed site
>administrator in an effort to have their Usenet access revoked.
But I don't want Tim to stop posting. I'm sure he's a valuable
and special person underneath all of that.
>Presently, he is trying to get one particular poster's access
>revoked, falsely alleging that this poster has made "death
>threats" against him.
False death threats? But they are quite real, Allen. You have
been claiming to read the newsgroup -- you should have seen them
in there. Trying to get his account cancelled? Wrong. I'm
asking him to apologise in a Christian way for his unChristian
attitude.
Mind you, I've asked you for the same, but that doesn't seem to
stop your un-Christian way of dealing with things.
>There is no deed too low for Rod to go in trying to silence
>Christians.
So that is why I'm talking on concilatory tones, when you are not?
>>I don't want to talk
>>about this topic here, and have successfully refrained from doing
>>so while letting you continue your little rant.
>Your post is contraindicative of your "success" in refraining.
My post contains nothing on the debate of this issue, just a
request that it might be appropriate elsewhere. I have refrained
from talking about this issue of homosexuality and the pros and
cons. Did you even read my words?
"I don't *want* to talk about this topic here and
have successfully refrained from doing so".
I gather you have not taken those lessons in basic comprehension
I suggested way back when? Oh well, know that you will have to
reply to this message on a non-Babylon 5 newsgroup.
>Knowing what you're sick WITH is enough for me...
Which disease might this be? Care to back it up with scientific
evidence?
>>So you admit that gay and lesbian people aren't wanting special
>>rights, but EQUAL rights?
>The word "equal" I used, was in quotes, indicating that it was
>being used in a way other than standard definition.
You clearly state that equality is good, and now you are backing
down. But what more could we expect from a two-faced
hypocritical liar! :)
Oh, that's Christian for you :)
>All the "rights" bills regarding homosexuals that I've ever seen
>do indeed involve special rights that the rest of us don't have.
Really? Care to name one of these bills?
>>Many Christians don't either. Of course, I don't slate all
>>Christians as immoral. Why do you claim that all gays are
>>immoral based on the actions of some?
>Given my standard of reference, the Holy Bible, and my belief
>that it is the written Word of God, then the very act of homosex
>is immoral, making all those who practice it immoral by definition.
So no thought goes into it? That's so very typical of you, though.
>If you choose not to believe the Bible, that's certainly your right.
If you choose to make general assumptions on people based on what
they may do 4-5 times a month, then you really are in need of help.
>>Preference? The APA thinks different.
>The APA is just a group of human beings with an opinion.
Opinion? Or research? Do you even dare to pick up their
information publication titled "Answers to Your Questions About
Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality?"
I bet not... It's just too scary to hear that sexual orientation
is not a choice, and that it's not a mental illness or an
emotional problem, or that it is developed long before
adolescence or first sexual experiences, and that it is impossible
to change, and that therapy cannot change gay people.
This is common sense, considering heterosexuality is not a
choice, not a mental illness, not an emotional problem, is a
feeling developed long before adolesence and first sexual
experiences, is impossible to change and cannot be changed
through therapy *either!*
Yes. Facts like this do get in the way of your precious belief
system. Oh well, it's not *my* fault that life and reality are
so constructed, nor am I answerable to the incongruence between
your beliefs and reality.
>>Yes. The truth. Did you know homosexuality is natural and there
>>is nothing scientific to suggest it is a choice?
>And there is nothing scientific to conclude it's genetic,
>either.
I didn't say that it was genetic. I said that it was natural and
not a choice. Did you know that homosexuality is natural and
there is no evidence to suggest it is a choice, and much to
suggest that it is not?
>>I'd be happy to email you the APA leaflet published last year, in
>>a hope that you would learn from your "errors", Minbari.
>Email from you is not welcome. Calling me "Minbari" twice does
>not make your rant B5-related.
Oh, it does, Minbari. You don't lie, do you?
>And getting back to the immorality discussion
... I'd rather not talk about your inability to deal with life.
>I don't think you have a leg to stand on, here.
I am who I am, and that is something that is going to amount to
more than you will ever be. I'm proud I've been able to overcome
the sort of hate that you cling onto.
>I've even had email from bisexuals and
>homosexuals who are _embarrassed_ by your behaviour on the .net.
Care to post some of this? I'm sure this whopper is justifiable!
I can post just a few of the emails I've seen about you from
people who are shamed by what you are claiming about gay and
lesbian people.
Here's one that claims they respect my opposition to your intolerant
viewpoints from back in January:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From KOTH...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu Wed Jan 25 01:33:01 1995
Received: from miavx1.acs.muohio.edu by metronet.com with SMTP id AA28154
(5.67a/IDA1.5hp for <be...@fohnix.metronet.com>); Tue, 24 Jan 1995 20:34:23 -0600
Return-Path: <KOTH...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
Received: from miavx1.acs.muohio.edu by miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
(PMDF V4.3-8 #5413) id <01HM8MMG4...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>; Tue,
24 Jan 1995 21:33:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 21:33:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: KOTH...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Subject: Re: Homosexuality on B5
To: be...@metronet.com
Message-Id: <01HM8MMG4...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
X-News: miavx1 alt.stupidity:25431
>From: be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Chris Hughes aka Rod Swift)
>ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton) writes:
>
>>> I took great offence at being
>>> told I was "abnormal, unnatural and sick".
>
>>Well, get used to it. You ARE "abnormal, unnatural and sick", but NOT because
>>you're homosexual. Your problem runs MUCH deeper than that.
>
>Ahhh, is it because you cannot justify your claim that I am
>"abnormal, unnatural and sick" based on any homosexual reason
>now? Has it become too hard to justify your claims because I
>have proven that your claims are not justifiable by just claiming
>I am gay.
>
>You wouldn't care to list these "deeper running problems"?
>Of course not, because you have no clue. You don't have a damn
>clue as to *who* I am.
>
>You are running on preconceived notions of what a gay person is
>(hardly surprising, given your views on the issue) and hence you
>are having a big problem trying to justify all you have claimed I
>am (listed below) that you have attributed to my homosexuality.
>
>Over the past three weeks, you have thrown abuse and insults at
>me, Mr Newton, including (but certainly not limited to) the
>following:
>
> . abnormal
> . abberant
> . perverted
> . sick
> . unnatural
> . demented
> . requiring psychiatric help
> . having a psychosis
> . called me a number of denigrating terms
> . made sweeping allegations about gay people
> . immature
> . an abomination to God
> . a victim
> . unable to resist replying (which I didn't reply to :)
>
>Yet you have consistently and compulsively avoided providing any
>evidence to justify these statements, but you have been provided
>with much evidence to the contrary.
>
>I find you to be an ignorant fool. And worthy of kill-filing.
>
>I really have no hope of you listing these "deeper running
>problems" and the justification for each of your claims. Of
>course, we know that your pedantic psychobabble is just that --
>babble. You have no qualifications to make any of your
>psychobabble judgements -- evident because you seem to not
>subscribe to any of the standpoints of any of the professions
>that *really* matter on mental health.
>
>The email I receive each day in support of my position in
>fighting your lies, is evidence to that.
>
>Have a nice life, pedantic psychobabbling fool. Hope you meet
>your maker soon.
>
>Rod
dear rod,
please know that i respect you and that you are a good man...
spill
ps..do you have the faq for alt.stupidity? if you don't don't worry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or how about this one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From oing...@cts.com Wed Jan 25 13:11:00 1995
Received: from crash.cts.com by metronet.com with SMTP id AA12844
(5.67a/IDA1.5hp for <be...@fohnix.metronet.com>); Wed, 25 Jan 1995 07:11:46 -0600
Return-Path: <oing...@cts.com>
Received: by crash.cts.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #18)
id m0rX7VD-00016OC; Wed, 25 Jan 95 05:11 PST
Message-Id: <m0rX7VD...@crash.cts.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 05:11 PST
From: oing...@cts.com (Liane Wilson)
To: be...@metronet.com (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality argument
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET), San Diego, CA
In article <3g38fm$8...@fohnix.metronet.com> you wrote:
: Alternatively, justify why your bible can have a same-sex kiss,
: and descriptions of homosexual love in a *POSITIVE* light, when
: you decry any television program that might do the same.
: Rod
Rod, I just wanted to send a few supportive words your way. I know how
this Newton fellow thinks...before I got a brain (i.e. before the
enlightening, rebellious age of 17 came upon me), I was quite the
far-right-wing Republican Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian young
woman, thinking it my moral duty to try and save the souls of those
different than I (in the meanwhile diligently repressing my own
homosexuality).
It's frightening just how irrational these people
really are. Christianity is nothing more than a crutch that endlessly
cripples; it perpetuates hate and intolerance...and so on, and so forth.
We can tell them that, and even show them real, logical, reasonable
proof, but they'll never accept it...to them, the "Word of God" is first
and foremost...open-minded, reasoned thought is secondary (if used at all).
Inevitably, the Xtian reverts to "Because it says so in the Bible" and will
leave it at that...no further thought required. Doesn't it seem that the
Bible has been the greatest tool for controlling people ever created?
Argh. It really is frustrating. Now, at age 23, I have come to the
conclusion that
Conservative-Republican-Right-Wing-Evangelical-Fundamentalist-Christians
are the true evil in this world. And they're in power now. Makes me
want to get the hell out of this country...maybe Alaska, or the Australian
outback. >sigh<...
Anyhow, thanks for letting me rant at you. People like the Newton fellow
get right under my skin...grrr...
Nicky
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or how about this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From jk...@CS.Trinity.Edu Thu Jan 26 00:46:48 1995
Received: from sol.CS.Trinity.Edu (janus4.cs.trinity.edu) by metronet.com with SMTP id AA10701
(5.67a/IDA1.5hp for <be...@fohnix.metronet.com>); Wed, 25 Jan 1995 18:43:44 -0600
Return-Path: <jk...@CS.Trinity.Edu>
Message-Id: <1995012600...@metronet.com>
Received: by sol.CS.Trinity.Edu
(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA067561208; Wed, 25 Jan 1995 18:46:48 -0600
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 18:46:48 -0600
From: Juniper Kim <jk...@CS.Trinity.Edu>
To: be...@metronet.com (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality on B5
Hi there....
I've just joined these newsgroups, and I've seen several of your posts
pertaining to this newton person. Anyways, I just wanted to send you
a note of support and thanks, from a fellow family member. :)
It kinda shocked me, though, to see such hateful posts from homophobes on
some of the gay lists....but, I guess it's good to confront the enemy and
comfort ourselves that they actually DONT know what the hell they're
talking about.
:)
Take care, and I'll see you 'round the new. :)
oops that was supposed to be net not mew
new
off to work on her typing skills,
Jun
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or this one, who thinks you are a crackpot. BTW, I *don't* think
you are a crackpot, just sadly in need of love:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From per...@inet.uni-c.dk Thu Jan 26 16:15:12 1995
Received: from inet.uni-c.dk by metronet.com with SMTP id AA27678
(5.67a/IDA1.5hp for <be...@metronet.com>); Thu, 26 Jan 1995 11:16:10 -0600
Return-Path: <per...@inet.uni-c.dk>
Received: (from perjac@localhost) by inet.uni-c.dk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id SAA18530; Thu, 26 Jan 1995 18:15:13 +0100
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 18:15:12 +0200 (METDST)
From: Per Jacobsen <per...@inet.uni-c.dk>
Subject: Re: Homosexuality argument
To: be...@metronet.com
In-Reply-To: <1995012616...@metronet.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9501261...@inet.uni-c.dk>
On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, be...@metronet.com wrote:
> > > to portray same-sex unions as virtuous, when his holy bible
> > > portrays the relationship between Jonathan and David as "having
> > > love that surpasses that of women"?
> >
> > Do you happen to remember the exact place it does this?
>
> 1 Samuel 18:1-4
> 1 Samuel 20:3-4
> 1 Samuel 20:41-42 (<- I think it is here they kiss..)
> 2 Samuel 1:25-26 (<- The quote of love surpassing that of women).
>
> Have fun ;) I am enjoying watching Newton squirm as he calls it
> a "sick perversion" of my mind that two men can love each other
> in any way.
If you'll pardon me, I think the man is a complete crack pot. :)
The Bible may or may not have something to say on the subject, but
doesn't it say something about loving thy neighbour?
PJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>And believe me, I don't disdain them or credit them with your
>behaviour.
I'm sure you don't. Do you call them "sick" or "victims" as you
did to me?
>MOST homosexuals I know personally (yeah, that's
>right -- I know some personally! I'll bet this fact surprises
>you) wouldn't DREAM of pulling the kind of petty, self-centered
>BS that you have on the various newsgroups, especially your
>recent shenanigans on a.o.promisekeepers.
I don't doubt that you know of gay people, or even be friends
with them. But do they know you?
Oh, speaking of the shenanigans, here's that post by the
independent Christian I asked to come in and adjudicate
the actions of Christians against me, a fellow gay Christian. I
have included only the relevance to the newsgroup's treatment of
myself:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From eti...@192.100.81.100 Mon Apr 10 22:28:17 1995
Received: from mail.crl.com by metronet.com with SMTP id AA29141
(5.67a/IDA1.5hp for <be...@metronet.com>); Mon, 10 Apr 1995 17:28:19 -0500
Return-Path: <eti...@192.100.81.100>
Received: from [] (netcom18.netcom.com) by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA03626
(5.65c/IDA-1.5 for <be...@metronet.com>); Mon, 10 Apr 1995 15:26:19 -0700
Message-Id: <1995041022...@mail.crl.com>
Sender: <etienne@[192.100.81.100]>
From: "Steven Etienne Buehler" <etienne@[192.100.81.100]>
Organization: The Renaissance Organisation
To: Rod Swift <be...@metronet.com>, m...@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt),
alt-org-pro...@cs.utexas.edu (alt.org.promisekeepers newsgroup),
sys...@netcom.com (NETCOM Systems Administr
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 15:28:17 -0700
I went through the alt.org.promisekeepers newsgroup using both the
TIN software here at NETCOM and also through NetScape using the
server at news.belwue.de.
As to Mr. Pelt's postings to USENET, I find that he has used the term
"Nazi brownshirts" to refer to Rod Swift and Keith Cochran and to
date has refused to retract such statement.
I do not, however, excuse the remaining members of the
ALT.ORG.PROMISEKEEPERS newsgroup from any responsibility. I find
through observation of the threads related to this issue in the
newsgroup that the members of ALT.ORG.PROMISEKEEPERS have responded
to several questions from Mr. Swift by engaging in personal attacks,
condemnation, and remarks inappropriately suited to the discussion
at hand. To date I have yet to see any adequate response to Mr.
Swift's questions. What this all appears to be is two groups
engaging in identical tactics in order to marginalise and destroy
each other.
I have heard frequently Matthew 7.1 used to justify certain actions
in this newsgroup:
Matt 7:1 (rsv) "Judge not, that you be not judged.
However, we have very conveniently ignored the rest of this thought
in the very next verse:
Matt 7:1 (rsv) "Judge not, that you be not judged.2 For with the
judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give
will be the measure you get.
If we are going to "judge," we must be willing to be ourselves held
accountable to the standards we choose to use in our judgment.
I have been asked by Mr. Swift to help in reconciling this issue; I
therefore, based on what I have observed from all sides, recommend
the following actions:
TO MR. VAN PELT:
Mr. Pelt should publicly retract his statement tagging Messrs. Swift
and Cochran as "Nazi brownshirts" and post a public apology to
Messrs. Swift and Cochran.
TO THE WHOLE NEWSGROUP:
Members of this newsgroup should post a public and private apology to
Mr. Swift for the inflammatory and derogatory remarks they have made
in response to his questions.
As I do not claim any authority in recommending these courses of
action, you may take them or reject them as you will. It is my firm
conviction that all discipline or action should work toward
reconciliation and positive resolution of the matters and persons
involved. I feel that the above-recommended solution serves this purpose.
I would also hope that in future everyone here makes a decision to
engage in a process of confrontation and discipline that Jesus Christ
Himself defined:
Matt 18:15 (rsv) "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him
his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have
gained your brother.16 But if he does not listen, take one or two
others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the
evidence of two or three witnesses.17 If he refuses to listen to
them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the
church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
This is just as appropriate in nonchrstian circles as it is in
Christian circles.
In service to His Most Gracious Majesty, Jesus Christ,
Steven Etienne BUEHLER
Pastoral Ministries B.A. Student, Southern California College
Founder/Administrator, The Renaissance Organisation
Member Youth Staff, PRIMETIME Youth Ministry of
Filipino Christian Fellowship Church, Anaheim, CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>(Oh, maybe I should point out at this point that the main thing
>I'm trashing Rod about isn't his sexual preference -- it's his
>power trip, and his attempts to violate people's First Amendment
>rights by false allegations and fabrications of "evidence", and
>the fact that he simply won't leave Christians alone -- when he
>finds one, he makes them his personal crusade.
Which is completely and patently false. Firstly, you do seem to
have a fascination with what I do in bed, and not who I am. This
manifests itself in your inability to deal with me humanely, and
hence my expected flamey responses. I have tried to use as
little flame as I can throughout this post, and instead provide
an educative injunct into the issue.
Need I remind you of your log of claims against me, which are not
based on fact, but your classification of me as gay:
>Over the past three weeks, you have thrown abuse and insults at
>me, Mr Newton, including (but certainly not limited to) the
>following:
>
> . abnormal
> . abberant
> . perverted
> . sick
> . unnatural
> . demented
> . requiring psychiatric help
> . having a psychosis
> . called me a number of denigrating terms
> . made sweeping allegations about gay people
> . immature
> . an abomination to God
> . a victim
> . unable to resist replying (which I didn't reply to :)
>
>Yet you have consistently and compulsively avoided providing any
>evidence to justify these statements, but you have been provided
>with much evidence to the contrary.
>For those of you still reading, be warned: people like Rod are a
>very real threat to the personal rights of _everyone_. If he can
>take away one person's rights to Free Speech, he'll no doubt be
>after other rights as well.
I have asked the person concerned to apologise for their
slanderous behaviour, which is against their service provider's
terms of service. I have sought an adjudication from his service
provider for him to either apologise or to stop posting
slanderous and libellous statements. If he does not want to
abide by his service provider's rules, then I suppose they will
terminate his account.
I am not seeking the termination of his account directly.
Neither did I seek yours, btw, but asked your service provider to
educate you on network etiquette, and if you cannot behave
appropriately then *they* may want to consider terminating your
account.
Further, the person who I am currently involved with is not even
a US citizen.
Further, this person has tried, twice, to have my account
terminated, through the use of his friend sky...@aol.com.
What are you afraid of, Allen? That you can't get rid of my
account either?
I hope you will realise that I will no longer be replying to your
posts via reading them on this newsgroup. I will be responding
from other newsgroups.
Jay Denebeim
Allen C Wilkins <all...@twain.oit.umass.edu> wrote:
>In some USENET circles, christian-bashing seems to be
>"in" and acceptable, which IMHO is just as repugnant as gay-bashing.
I've given that up for lent :-) (besides they're such easy targets :-))
David Stinson
When their big flame war was going on a few months ago, I forwarded
my archives of the posts to both sides. Allen may get out of line once
in a while (and in a big way), but Rod was just as bad or worse in that
particular war.
--
###################################################################
## Dave Stinson ## I DO know everything, just not all ##
## DA...@procom.com ## at once. You know, a Virtual Memory ##
## dsti...@ix.netcom.com ## problem! ##
## dast...@aol.com ## ##
###################################################################
"The deuce you say." - Buckaroo Banzai- Across
the 8th Dimension
lanshark
Allen N. wrote:
: >: While you're asking that one, keep in mind you need to ask
: >: yourself why you followed up to it on a B5 newsgroup...
Lanshark (that's me, wrote):
: >Well, the thread title *is* B5 related, making jberger's question
: >a reasonable one, even if the thread has ceased to be B5 related. Then
: >there's always curiosity due to a rather provocative thread title.
Allen: wrote:
: So sue me for not changing the Subject: line...
: >And you will need to ask yourself, Allen, why you have continued to make
: >numerous posts with no B5 related content on a B5 newsgroup.
: Same reason I make B5-related posts. They're relevant to the discussion at
: hand.
: Are you proposing censoring anyone who makes a comment not specifically
: B5-related (regardless of how the discussion wandered in that direction)?
No, that's not possible on USENET. I was merely tweaking you for picking
on what I considered Jberger's valid question, by asking you the same
question you were asking him.
: I don't think you can. Perhaps you should just drop it, rather than
: feeding it. That was my only point (that there IS no point to following up
: to posts you feel are unrelated to the newsgroup with the question "why is
: this here?" -- which happens with extreme frequency).
My post *was* B5 related (as you so kindly pointed out), and I was
answering a poster's question by explaining the history behind the thread
title to begin with.
: If someone doesn't think a given topic belongs in this newsgroup, they
: shouldn't contribute to it. At MOST they should send a polite email to
: _all_ the correspondents participating. But I still think that's
: unnecessary. It's not necessary to respond at all. Ignore it, killfile
: the Subject: and move on. That's the only _reasonable_ course of action.
Yes, but if you were no longer going to talk about the thread title, then
you should change it (no, I won't sue you :). I don't want to killfile
threads that deal with gay/homosexuality/bisexuality if they are B5 related.
However...... no, I'm *not* going to say it.
[big snip]
--lanshark
Cort Odekirk
>>ane...@swcp.com (Allen J. Newton) wrote:
>>No one is questioning your ability to have your own belief system Allen,
>>you can believe anything you want as regards the afterlife. Be creative!
>>Its when you use this belief to tear down other peoples philosophies that
>>problems arise.
>
>do the same for condemned buildings, yes?
Wow, hold on boys and girls, the Allen Ego train is switching into overdrive
and it ain't takin prisoners.
Allen, by what collosal fount of self-assurance do you stand on high and
*decide for other people* what are, and are not, "false Philosophies". Good
Goddess man, you *can't* be that arrogant. You have just stood there,
methaphorically speaking, and told me that any philosophy that does not agree
with yours is false and should be destroyed. This is a world view Allen, not a
MacDonalds.
That kind of single minded assurance is the mark of despots and the derranged.
[Regarding singling out lesbian/gay posts for abuse]
>But I don't single yours out. In fact, this last (comparatively tame)
>homo-flamewar (both of them, "Talia in OUT..." and "Why B5 needs lesbians")
>I haven't even participated in.
And the people who just want to have a nice conversation without the
Fundamentalist Christian Right inviting itself over for supper appriciate it.
>However, ANY post I make regarding Christianity _some_ homosexual is going
>to followup on, most notably of late, Charles Martin (who seldom if ever
>posts anything B5 related -- unlike myself. Look around...)
JMS for his showing of various religious/christian beliefs on B5, they have
commented on Sinclairs Jesuit upbringing. The gay community has not swept in
with vengence in mind. I keep trying to get this accross to you, but I don't
think you can hear it. Allen, people comment on your posts because you are
*attacking* people, its not a hatred of christianity, its a dislike of the way
you are using it to cudgel people about the head and shoulders.
>>You feel that we should give you free reign to express your culture and
>>beliefs, but you are unwilling to give us that same quarter.
>but my experience on Usenet and in other forums is that (especially the
>most militant) homosexuals will NOT quit whining until Christians are
>absolutely silent on the issue.
"but my experience on Usenet and in other forums is that (especially the
absolutely silent on, well pretty much any, issue."
You are the whining christian, the very mirror image of the thing you claim to hate
so in the gay community. You are that which you despise Allen.
>Sounds like YOU (in the general sense) are the ones shouting for acceptance
Allen, as I keep saying, I have no problem with you being Christian, its just when
you use that belief system to attack me and my people that I care.
>>"You know, it's interesting. You seem to be tolerant of any idea EXCEPT
>>those coming from a Gay viewpoint.
>
I have only the evidence from the Net to draw my conclusions from Allen. If this
is in fact innaccurate, perhaps you should strive to demonstrate that more in these
public forums.
>>When you post something that slaps the
>>face of an entire sub-culture
>
>you are most certainly oversensitive.
Gods man, can't you see how egocentric that is? That's like a mugger walking up to
me, roughing me up, taking my wallet and then when I have nerve to complain telling
me "Goohd, your *so* oversensitive, like, get over it". Allen, your "facts" are based
on your christian-centric world view. They are no more "facts" than any other
philosophy. I realize you believe strongly in them, but do not use misleading
language. Hell is a "supposition", Right wing extremists bombing Oklahoma is a "fact".
Allen, it is not up to you to make the choice as to what I do and do not find an attack
on my people, and it is a mark of your arrogance that you should presume to do so.
>>it is logical to assume they will respond
>>and probably be a little snippy about it. If I posted a message about
>>how I hated how JMS was showing those damn Christians on B5 again,
>>they're all going to hell anyway, you would in all likelyhood respond
>
Somehow I doubt that Allen, I really do, but this is undemonstrable either way.
Unlike you, I do not attack other belief systems without cause.
>>We are OK with you not approving of us Allen,
>
>though.
the majority of christians. To be frank, the ones I've shown your posts to have
been fairly horrified.
>I expect this post to have a LOT of followups correcting that little
>myth...
OK, one more time, with *emphasis*. I do expect follow-ups Allen, but not because
they want your approval Allen. I'm sorry to break this to you, but your not that
important dear. The follow-ups are to counter the rather hateful banter and
slander you spread on our people. Allen, I pretty much consider you beyond
redemption, I respond not to you, but to those who might be influenced by your
single minded desire to attack us.
>>we would like it if you
>>would stop *attacking* us.
>
>always stick your head in the sand and refuse to listen...
Allen, all these people on Usenet can't be wrong. I won't go over the fact thing
again, I covered that earlier. Faith is not a fact, its a belief. I realize
that self-analysis is not your forte, but if all these people keep telling you that
you are attacking us, perhaps, just perhaps, the rest of the world is not actually
suffering a paranoid delusion, and perhaps, just perhaps, you should reconsider your
methods.
>>>I also wonder what it is about making a plain statement about
>>>what the Bible says constitutes "bashing you over the head"? Is
>>>the mere mention of Jesus "bashing you over the head"?
>>
>>Allen, you come onto the net and tell the entire Gay and Lesbian race
>
>subculture to try to gain "equal" rights on a basis which in fact does not
>exists.
I was desperate, amused yes, but desperate?
Allen, but what, again collosal, arrogance do you dein to decide for me what I
may or may not consider my people. The gay and lesbian people are generally
considered by most sociologist/psychologist as a legitimate people, with a history
and culture. But I won't distract you with facts, Allen.
How dare we expect equal rights Allen, really the nerve of us. Its a *Good Thing*
the Christian Right exists to lord over us and make all our decisions for us.
>>that they have no moral integrity
>
say Inqisition?). Non-sequiter.
>>and are going to spend some
>>undemonstratable afterlife being tortured by some sort of sadistic,
>>omnipotent, and decidely unpleasant being.
>
Still Allen, I'm supposed to take seriously that you believe in this omnipotent
being that likes to spend the rest of eternity poking needles under the fingernails
of *millions* of people, just cause they had the unmidigated *evil* to love
someone he didn't approve of? Talk about your shotgun weddings.
This God guy needs to get a life.
>>I mean, how did you *expect* us to respond? This is *not* a nice thing
>>to say.
>
Accepting that the creator is a sadistic terrorist? Yeah, that's pretty unpalatable.
Just ask Job.
>>when Jesus's message became "kill
>>the fags" escapes me.
>
>Uh, well, a certain German dictator started that one, at one point. But
>I'm sure others did, as well...
I refuse to turn this into a Hitler/Nazi flame. Not that I dont' think you'd
make a good one Allen, you have the reqired lack of ability to see other
people's veiwpoints. You just dont' seem the gun-toting type.
Now Collin, that's another story.
>>(Yes Allen, I know you have never, at least to the
>>best of my knowledge, called for our racial destruction, that was Collin.
>
>race.
That is not your decision to make Allen.
>But it is a fact that I didn't call for the extermination of people of your
>_preference_, either.
>>But however more subtle your methods, the effect is the same.
>
>something I said? Somehow, I strongly doubt it...
Allen, every christian that refers to the gay and lesbian people as less that fully
members of the human community, as "bad people". Makes it a little bit more "OK" to
hate them, and any other people they have problems with. That man who blew up
the Oklahoma day care center thought he was doing it for *God* and country. Why?
because he read material by people like you that makes that sort of division OK, who
says that God chooses, God loves us, but he hates *them*.
Allen, the townsfolk in the German countryside didn't commit the terrible acts of
WWII. But they allowed it to happen, they bought into the concepts of division and
fed the fires of hate.
You didn't bomb Oklahoma Allen, but the writings of people like you helped dehumanize
the victims for the people that did. You are not a killer Allen, but you are part of
a system that feed killers. Watch the news Allen, how many times do you see a quick
flash of some gay man or lesbian being attacked, even killed. And the attackers
saying they did it in the name of God. All too often Allen, the statistics are there,
if you choose to view them.
You did not kill them Allen, but you and many like you, helped to enable the killer to
do so.
That is why I answer you Allen, not to save you as I don't think that is possible. But
I want that next potential killer to know that I have a name, and a voice, and that
however much you may try to slander and deny us, that my people have pride and will
not be led to the slaughter so easily.
****************************************************************************************
Cort Odekirk http://www.halcyon.com/maelstrm/homepage.html
****************************************************************************************
Cort Odekirk
>Charles Martin <charles...@tigerteam.org> wrote:
>> Maybe Allen is looking for somebody to convince him that
>>homosexuality is OK, so he can give it a try. This isn't the only
>>conference on which he has been agonizing over this.
>
>Are these pathetic taunts the only thing you can contribute to
>this newsgroup? Most of them aren't even worth responding to.
other than sliding down to the lowest common denominator. Don't worry
Allen, of the many things the gay people struggle for, you are definately
*not* one of them.
>However, after you posted this, it occurred to me that it's
>obvious that _you_ are looking for a Christian to come along and
>tell _you_ that it's all right for you to be homosexual.
Yes Allen, that's it. We all sit up and night thinking, "Oh Golly Gee,
if only some Christian would come by my home and say nice things about
me, oh how my life would be complete."
Yeah, right. I really live for the approval of God the Sadist.
>That IS it, isn't it? You're desperately seeking acceptance for
>your perverted lifestyle?
Yes, oy Verrrrily, Saaaave us Allen. Geeze your an arrogant bastard.
Did Yoweh the Impailer have something to say on the subject of pride?
>I think you'll be a much happier and less bitter individual if
>you simply accept the fact that you're not ever going to get...
get what? a good accountant? shoes that match his bag? Your the one
having a tantrum on Usenet Allen, not him. He seems pretty happy, one
could even say he finds you amusing, heaven knows I do.
>(Or are you just trying to see if you're in my killfile, yet?)
Well, it seems only fair, as you are in so many other people's. Not mine
of course, I'd never give up my favorite toy.
>Allen J. Newton (ane...@swcp.com)
Cort Odekirk
Cort Odekirk
>Rod Swift (or whatever he's calling himself this week)
>>Your theory, however, sadly falls flat if you are implying that
>>homosexual people cannot leave you alone. This time I sat back
>>and watched your pedantic little whine
>Oh, yeah?
Well, this ranks right up about third grade. Allen dear, your hysterics
are showing.
>This very post of yours contradicts your statement,
>it again, a little later, in the same post.
He *could* leave you alone, Allen, he choose not to. You are the one who
jumps into threads uninvited and sqeals that everyone is going to Hell.
I mean really Allen, you could at least buy me flowers first.
>>Why don't you take some of the good advice you were given, and
>>learn to shut up about the topic completely,
a rather *large* ego moment). If he has to build himself up by condeming
others to having their eyeballs gouged out by his delightfully colorful
vision of Jesus for the rest of eterinity, who are we to stand in his
way.
>That's exactly what you want,
Well yes Allen, that's probably why he *said* it. The leaps of logic
this child is capable of, just *boggles* the mind.
>as I asserted in the post to which
>you replied: Our silence. You're not going to get it, any more
>than you're willing to give your own. And as long as there's a
>First Amendment to the US Constitution in force, you're not ever
>going to get it. Get used to it. You'll be a happier, less
>frustrated and more well-adjusting being the sooner you do...
All of which boils down to "I'm going to use my first amendment rights to
attempt to keep you from using yours." Breaking into unrelated threads
and telling everyone involved that they are DOOMED, is kind of like
yelling "does something smell funny down here?" in a crowded subway
station. It's not necessarily illegal, but it really is in rather poor
taste.
>Folks, this "suggestion" comes from the self-declared leader of
>his local Gay/Lesbian Antidefamation League who _invaded_ the
>Christian newsgroup alt.org.promisekeepers to start a massive
>flamewar over there about his sexual preference.
people do to you what you keep doing to them, don't it?
>Oh, what's that, Rod? You didn't know I keep informed about
>these things? I think you'll find I'm more well-informed than
>you could know. But you'll find out the full extent of that,
>shortly.
All-Knowing. FEAR ME!!! Allen, daring, take your prosac and have a
little lie down. We are all very impressed that you have made it your
single handed mission to track the activities of every gay and lesbian
person on USENET, we think its kind of odd, but we're all quite
impressed.
>There is no deed too low for Rod to go in trying to silence
>Christians.
>>I don't want to talk
>>about this topic here, and have successfully refrained from doing
>>so while letting you continue your little rant.
>
>Your post is contraindicative of your "success" in refraining.
with. "You whinned first!!!".
>>It seems to me that you are the one who starts these little
>>flamewars by having to attach onto every mention of the word gay
>>and start your little rants. Well, Newton, we're sick of it.
>
>sick of. Knowing what you're sick WITH is enough for me...
Making some rather poorly veiled implications Allen? Poor taste indeed.
Not to interupt your denial moment, I know how christians love them, but
I think the general consensus is that you do indeed start these little
flame wars. (Not that I don't enjoy them). But don't less us slow you
down, Jesus wouldn't like you any more and then who would hold your
collosal ego for you?
>>>There is no Gay and Lesbian "race" -- that a fabrication of a
desperate
>>>subculture to try to gain "equal" rights on a basis which in fact does
not
>>>exists.
>>
>>rights, but EQUAL rights?
>
>The word "equal" I used, was in quotes, indicating that it was
>being used in a way other than standard definition.
matter, any fact, can be changed at will to adjust the scewed word view
of the user.
>>>>that they have no moral integrity
>>
>>Christians as immoral. Why do you claim that all gays are
>>immoral based on the actions of some?
>
>Given my standard of reference, the Holy Bible, and my belief
>that it is the written Word of God, then the very act of homosex
>definition.
By the standards of the Bible, so is eating shellfish and wearing mixed
fabrics. Face it Allen darling, by the standards of that book your so
fond of, we're all going to have our toenails plucked out by the loving
hand of Jesu. But I'm sure he'll do you first 'cause he likes you so
much.
>If you choose not to believe the Bible, that's certainly your
>right.
about it again. Kind of like trying to have a nice cocktail party and
someone is in back whacking themselves up the head with the kitchen pans.
You know they're an idiot and your try to ignore them, but it's so very
*distracting*.
>>>But it is a fact that I didn't call for the extermination of people of
your
>>>_preference_, either.
>>
>
>The APA is just a group of human beings with an opinion.
not to mention considerably less education. But then, of course, Allen
puts himself rather above the rest of us. Jesus is Allen's *bestest*
friend and say's he's *special*.
>I file that opinion with all the rest.
Which is to say, not mine and therefore without merit.
>They have no special authority
>to "declare" it anything other than what it is -- a preference.
Just superior education and a far broader knowledge base in the area.
Nothing Allen would respect.
>>Yes. The truth. Did you know homosexuality is natural and there
>>is nothing scientific to suggest it is a choice?
>
>And there is nothing scientific to conclude it's genetic,
>either.
>
>>a hope that you would learn from your "errors", Minbari.
>
>Email from you is not welcome. Calling me "Minbari" twice does
>not make your rant B5-related.
Cort Odekirk
Charles Martin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AJN> is going to followup on, most notably of late, Charles Martin
AJN> (who seldom if ever posts anything B5 related -- unlike myself.
AJN> Look around...)
Allen, if you don't want to discuss your bloody religion, then why
do you keep regurgitating some of its more noisome tenets here in this
public forum? I figure that you have just glommed on to some tacky
bit of doctrine which you think parroting here will somehow satisfy
your propensity for puerile belligerence. Perhaps it will do that,
but you can't expect those of us who loathe your religion and all the
heartache and hypocrisy and evil which it has come to represent to
just sit by silently while a blind little ovine devotee attempts to
stake his illegitimate claim to morality. This is absurd.
--=C=--
g...@tigerteam.org
_\/
: GOD 2.1 : Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily.
~~~~~~~~~~~ All other sins are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself
is not sinful - just stupid).
Sat 05-06-1995 -----------*----------- Time: 05:34 PDT
Charles Martin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AJN> obvious that _you_ are looking for a Christian to come along and
AJN> tell _you_ that it's all right for you to be homosexual.
AJN> That IS it, isn't it? You're desperately seeking acceptance for
AJN> your perverted lifestyle?
Only a moron would think I would want acceptance from a bunch of
retro Christian retards.
AJN> I think you'll be a much happier and less bitter individual if
AJN> you simply accept the fact that you're not ever going to get...
I'll be less bitter once the scourge of Christianity is checked
and is never again allowed to disrupt life on this planet.
--=C=--
g...@tigerteam.org
_\/
: GOD 2.1 : There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of
~~~~~~~~~~~ Puritanical religion, and that is the impulse to punish
the man with a superior capacity for happiness.
--H. L. Mencken
Sun 05-07-1995 -----------*----------- Time: 09:39 PDT
Charles Martin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RS> >Oh, yeah? This very post of yours contradicts your statement,
RS> >proving that _you_ are incapable of "leaving me alone".
RS> I'm not attacking you, I'm backing up someone else.
I think Allen's whining shows just how blind he can be to truth
and reality. It's funny, too, how snakes hate getting bit back.
--=C=--
g...@tigerteam.org
_\/
: GOD 2.1 : Thank God that the misguided and perverted Christian
~~~~~~~~~~~ attack on human libido has failed. And, thank God for
the great gifts of homosexuality and masturbation which
enable the life force to express itself without
over-populating the planet. Amen.
Mon 05-08-1995 -----------*----------- Time: 01:54 PDT
Cort Odekirk
evil stuff, I posts the homosexuals are human stuff)
>>Doubtful, Allen, and a wee bit paranoid. People have made many posts thanking
>>JMS for his showing of various religious/christian beliefs on B5, they have
>>commented on Sinclairs Jesuit upbringing. The gay community has not swept in
>>with vengence in mind.
>
>homoflamewar by advocating a letter writing campaign in support of B5
>simply because JMS said he was going to have a bisexual character.
Uhm, Allen, not to interupt you paranoid ramblings dear, but exactly how is a
letter writing campaign in support of something an attack on Sinclair's Jesuit
upbringing?
That nasty Mr. Hummel, how dare he support B5 like that.
>Pretty shallow excuse for liking a show, if you ask me...
He needs to justify his reasons to you? Perhaps he already like the show and
this was just an element he particularly wanted to support? I realize this
doesn't fit well in your "Evil Homosexuals are Out to Get Me" scenario, but it
may be just a wee bit more logical.
>>>Sounds like YOU (in the general sense) are the ones shouting for acceptance
>>>and "tolerance" while being "unwilling to give us that same quarter".
>>Allen, as I keep saying, I have no problem with you being Christian, its just
>>when you use that belief system to attack me and my people that I care.
>
Allen, if you call leaping into otherwise polite and friendly threads like a pit
bull on psychedelics screaming right wing fundamentalist doctrine like anyone in
the thread is the least bit interested a *disagreement*, well then yes, I would
have to say it does.
Coming into a thread where the *topic is relevant* and saying, "I respect you
and your position, but how about this idea?" is disagreement.
Dive-bombing threads screaming "God is going to fingerpaint with your entrails"
is just a wee bit less polite, or desired.
>>language. Hell is a "supposition", Right wing extremists bombing Oklahoma is a
"fact".
>
Yes Allen, that's it, its all a *Media* *Plot*. The media is in league with the
Gay and Lesbian Committee for World Domination who is a front for the Martians
for the Domination of Earth.
I think someone has been watching B5 just a little too seriously.
>Tell me, are you capable of thinking for yourself at _all_, or do you
>simply accept anything the media spoonfeeds you, uncritically, as long as
>it's palatable to you?
Unlike a certain fundamentalist who simple accept anything the church spoonfees
you, uncritically, as long as its palatable to you? At least the media has
better special effects.
>>Unlike you, I do not attack other belief systems without cause.
>
I'm not attacking Christians Allen, I work in a Jesuit University. I interact
with Christian scholars on many levels everyday. I rather *like* educated
christians, I don't share the churches viewpoint and we've had many productive
discussions on that topic that have proved educational for both sides.
What I am doing Allen, is confronting *you*, and your delightful descent into
the world of hysterical paranoia. You are not a typical Christian, (thank God,
no pun intended). Frankly, Allen, the Jesuit Fathers are faintly horrified by
your posts.
>>slander you spread on our people. Allen, I pretty much consider you beyond
>>redemption, I respond not to you, but to those who might be influenced by your
>>single minded desire to attack us.
>
>"bring them the truth"? And you accuse _me_ of arrogance!
Allen, you did not post to listen to yourself speak, we both post to present
information to an audience. (And in my case 'cause I enjoy pressing your
buttons :). Individuals will make their own choices.
>>>>when Jesus's message became "kill
>>>>the fags" escapes me.
>>>Uh, well, a certain German dictator started that one, at one point. But
>>>I'm sure others did, as well...
>>
>>I refuse to turn this into a Hitler/Nazi flame.
>
>>Not that I dont' think you'd
>>make a good one Allen, you have the reqired lack of ability to see other
>>people's veiwpoints. You just dont' seem the gun-toting type.
>
Oh, my mistake, you *are* a gun toting type. Terribly sorry Allen, I ascribe an
alturistic element to you, shan't do it again. So, how are the rest of the
Christian Militants? Blown up anything else lately?
>>>I couldn't, in fact, call for your "racial" destruction, as you're not a
>>>race.
>>That is not your decision to make Allen.
>
>your position. Genealogy refutes it.
Actually, the data supports biological homosexuality more than social, but
anyone wishing to research the topic can do so quite easily in the library
themselves, without any bias from either of us. (and I would encourage them to
do so). However, Allen, it is not biology that makes a culture, it is history.
>>Allen, every christian that refers to the gay and lesbian people as less that
fully
>>members of the human community, as "bad people". Makes it a little bit more
"OK" to
>>hate them, and any other people they have problems with. That man who blew up
>>the Oklahoma day care center thought he was doing it for *God* and country.
Why?
>>because he read material by people like you that makes that sort of division
OK, who
>>says that God chooses, God loves us, but he hates *them*.
>
Yeah, I don't want to be killed, whine, whine, whine. :) Really, gall of me.
>>That is why I answer you Allen, not to save you as I don't think that is
possible.
>
>unnecessary. But thanks for thinking of me...
Eugh, if I smear the blood of some dead animal all over my body, can I be saved
too? No offense Allen, but christian rituals are kinda, well, bleugh. I mean
the institutialized cannibalism is bad enough, but this blood stuff has got to
stop.
>>But I want that next potential killer to know that I have a name, and a voice,
>>and that however much you may try to slander and deny us, that my people have
>>pride and will not be led to the slaughter so easily.
>
No with you at the lead they'll just put all those nasty non-christians in camps
and be done with them.
>I think the government and mass media have a different scapegoat in mind...
Ooooh, there's that their out to get me again. Yes Allen, its true. The entire
government, the media and all 27 million of us gays and lesbians got together
last week and planned out your demise.
The catering was a real bitch.
Cort
Cort Odekirk
anything
>>other than sliding down to the lowest common denominator.
>
denominator.
Well, only on week-ends. One does need a hobby.
>>>I think you'll be a much happier and less bitter individual if
>>
>
And what am I asking for Allen, seeing your warped impressions of people
are always entertaining. Actually I'd love a new car Allen, see what you
can do about that will you?
>>Your the one
>>having a tantrum on Usenet Allen, not him.
>
Ooo, you admited to having a tantrum, that's good Allen, that's the first
step. You'll be feeling *much better* soon.
>you can't handle disagreement, rational or not, so you've got to >use
>pejoratives to try to debase it. Old trick, doesn't work...
I can handle disagreement Allen, people disagree with me all the time. I
just don't like being attacked, and that's what you do. So I make you
look foolish, It pisses you off and you get all hysterical all over the
net again, I do to you what you try do to others, and you just keep
responding, its fun!
>>He seems pretty happy, one
>>could even say he finds you amusing, heaven knows I do.
>
Finding you amusing is hatespeech? I don't hate you Allen, in fact I
rather enjoy you. A rational opponent might actually be dangerous, your
just entertaining. Can't speak for others, but from what I hear most
people just dismiss you as a loony.
>If you find "hatespeech" amusing, then why are you trying to ban it?
Ban it? I'm not trying to ban anything Allen, are you hearing those
unpleasant voices again? Besides, if your speaking of the PC movement,
which is a whole 'nother arguement, I don't think even they would
consider "amusing" to be hatespeech, too many syllables possibly, but
hardly hateful.
>Somehow, I think you're merely trying to mitigate the effect of the
>Truth being exposed.
Oooooo, Allen now has the Truth, complete with a captiol T. Must be real
pain to design an outfit around that heavely glow that must surround you.
Do tell us more of the ****Truth**** Allen, you always have such a
delightfully wacky spin on it.
>>>(Or are you just trying to see if you're in my killfile, yet?)
>>
>>Well, it seems only fair, as you are in so many other people's. Not
>>mine of course, I'd never give up my favorite toy.
>
Not elaborate as I would like, reality keeps getting in the way. But I
do enjoy our little encounters on the net Allen, and look forward to the
next hysterical delusion you choose to share with us.
Cort Odekirk
Franklin Hummel
>(References deleted for space considerations, Allen posts the
homosexuals are evil stuff, I posts the homosexuals are human stuff)
[ text deleted ]
>>Yes, it has, most notably from Franklin Hummel, who started the first
>>homoflamewar by advocating a letter writing campaign in support of B5
>>simply because JMS said he was going to have a bisexual character.
My parents taught me to say "Thank You" when someone did
something nice. What did they teach you, Allen?
>Uhm, Allen, not to interupt you paranoid ramblings dear, but exactly how is
>a letter writing campaign in support of something an attack on Sinclair's
>Jesuit upbringing?
>
>That nasty Mr. Hummel, how dare he support B5 like that.
>
>>Pretty shallow excuse for liking a show, if you ask me...
Allen, this is a lie. I have told you this is a lie many
times in the past -- yet you continue to repeat it.
I -never- suggested that gay and bisexual people should watch
BABYLON 5 -only- because JMS said it would have bi/gay characters.
I said that I thought B5 had the potential to be the -best-
dramatic Science Fiction series ever to be on television. I also said
JMS's promise is but -one- reason out of many, one of special interest to
gays, bis, and our friends, to watch B5.
Do -not- lie about this again, Allen.
-- Frank Hummel [ Internet: hum...@mit.edu - GEnie: F.HUMMEL ]
Franklin Hummel
[ text deleted ]
>No, if I recall correctly, Hummel got involved _because of_ the intention
You recall wrongly. I have repeatedly told you this. You
continue to lie about this.
Stop doing so. Now.
>of including a gay/bi character. Hummel is a Gaylaxian, they live for this
>stuff...
I'm the -founder- of the Gaylaxians, no less.
There are also Science Fiction organizations specifically for
Christian fans and Jewish fans. Do you use the same criticisms against
them?
Alan D. Earhart
> > Do -not- lie about this again, Allen.
>
> Do -not- lie about what I just said again, Franklin.
>
> Better yet, bone up on your reading comprehension a bit. I think
> that'll go a long way towards avoiding these kinds of
> misunderstandings...
OK, children.
Don't make me stop this transport and space you two. You saw what happened
to the bear.
Take it to email, already. *sheesh*
--
alan "not-Bob"
aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
MICHAEL J.KING SR.
Cort O derkirk posted>>>hate them, and any other people they have problems with. That man who blew up
y?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi Cort Where did you hear that the Oak City bomber SUSPECT say *God* and
country? I had heard he has been silent and cosiders himself a POW,no?
No i don't want you dead nor am I a 'Right Wing Wacko".I just get very
worried when we accept what the media tells us Re: God&Country comment.
Whoever bombed those innocent people should be punished to the full extent
of the law.No one should be judged or grouped into being either wackos or
whatever is politically expedient at the time.I apologize for babbling but
the hate you guys post can be disturbing!Have you ever met each other?
Maybe my world view is just to rosy but I think we could be more tolerant
of others religion.sexual preference etc. SOAPBOX mode off!! Later Mike#139
--
Franklin Hummel
>In article <D8FLK...@swcp.com>, ane...@swcp.com (Allen J. Newton) wrote:
>
>> > Do -not- lie about this again, Allen.
>>
>> Do -not- lie about what I just said again, Franklin.
>>
>> Better yet, bone up on your reading comprehension a bit. I think
>> that'll go a long way towards avoiding these kinds of
>> misunderstandings...
I read what you said, Mr. Newton. And I say this again:
you are a dirty, filthy, little liar.
Once again -- as you have repeatedly done in the past, you
have deliberately misquoted and mispresented what I have said in
public. I have repeatedly told you this was incorrect, that this
was wrong. You have repeated ignored this and continued to lie
about what I have said and what I have written.
This is a -public- forum. I will NOT accept your lying
about me, my statements, my opinions, or my beliefs in public.
This is totally and completely unacceptable to me.
Do NOT, Mr. Newton, do this again. You have been warned
three times now.
Shut up. Now.
Alan D. Earhart
> In article <3osubi$l...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
> Franklin Hummel <hum...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > I'm the -founder- of the Gaylaxians, no less.
>
> THAT would explain a lot!
>
> Heh heh heh heh....
>
> (Wondering if Franklin is proud that non-Gaylaxian homosexuals cross the
> street to avoid him and the other Gaylaxians...)
Speaking of avoiding things...this is getting crazy...time to cut the
bandwidth waste for me'self...*plonk*
--
alan "not-Bob"
aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Jay Denebeim
>In article <3oufjr$a...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
>Franklin Hummel <hum...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU> wrote:
>>>In article <D8FLK...@swcp.com>, ane...@swcp.com (Allen J. Newton) wrote:
>>> Is not
>> Is to
> Not
Guys... You've been doing this for almost a week now. Neither of you
is lying, the other one is lying. You're both right.
David Stinson
>Cort Odekirk <mael...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>
>[Yet another fagly rant, in his juvenile fagly way...]
>
>*yawn* You think he'll ever get the hint, folks?
>
>How about Vir and that in-your-face comment he made to Morden?
>
>Pretty ballsy, if you ask me...
But thinking about it, doesn't it remind you of Stephen's last
exchange with Doug Neidermeyer in ANIMAL HOUSE (especially with
what a lot of people think will happen _next_.
--
**********************************************************************
****************************** <*> JUMPGATE ACTIVATED <@> **
** David A. Stinson ** "Character is what you are in the **
** dsti...@ix.netcom.com ** the dark" - Lord John Whorfin, **
** DA...@procom.com ** Buckaroo Banzai - Across the 8th **
****************************** Dimension **
**********************************************************************
* The only true measure of existence is the good you do for others *
**********************************************************************
John Schilling
>ane...@swcp.com (Allen J. Newton) wrote:
>>How about Vir and that in-your-face comment he made to Morden?
>>
>>Pretty ballsy, if you ask me...
>>
>But thinking about it, doesn't it remind you of Stephen's last
>exchange with Doug Neidermeyer in ANIMAL HOUSE (especially with
>what a lot of people think will happen _next_.
Well, we've had a whole lot of imagery about Great Hands Reaching
Across the Stars and such; are you suggesting that such might be
literally involved in Morden's ultimate downfall?
:-) :-) :-), and apologies to those who haven't seen _Animal House_.
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *
Cort Odekirk
>In article <D8FLK...@swcp.com>, ane...@swcp.com (Allen J. Newton)
wrote:
>
>>
>> Do -not- lie about what I just said again, Franklin.
>Don't make me stop this transport and space you two. You saw what
>happened to the bear.
>
>Take it to email, already. *sheesh*
purpose, but since it seem to be pretty much just me, Frank and Allen
(the perenial favorite in any hate thread), it really begins to serve
little purpose at this point.
Just in case ya missed anything:
Allen: Homosexuals are evil, God loves me and hates you. You are all
desperate and pathetic.
Frank: Allen, you have competely misrepresented me, be quiet.
Cort: Allen, coming into threads uninvited and telling people God is
going to fingerpaint with their entrails is *rude*.
Allen: Gibber, you are all part of a secret homosexual plot, I have the
one and only truth.
Things got kinda repetative after this.
I think we can all assume this thread really has gone as far as its going
to, 'cause me and Frank can debate all day and Allen's still gonna see
God in his underwear telling him to cast himself bodily against the
Mighty Homosexual Juggernaut of Evil :).
And, realistically, no one is reading this thread anyway.
I'll come out and play again when Allen starts the next flamewar in an
otherwise uninvolved and innocent thread.
Cort Odekirk
http://www.halcyon.com/maelstrm/homepage.html
Chris Carter
David Stinson <dsti...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:But thinking about it, doesn't it remind you of Stephen's last
:what a lot of people think will happen _next_.
What are the chances that we could now start a thread outlining all of the
parallels between B5 and Animal House?
I would like to believe the chances are very poor. But then I remember,
this is Usenet.
Chris Carter -- car...@teleport.com (Fidonet 1:105/302.23) Unaffiliated
On the Internet / bewhiskered / like a bear / <*> with Teleport.
He's posting here / but she's elsewhere -- Burma-.Sig
http://www.teleport.com/~carter/ ftp.teleport.com /users/carter
Rick DiBlasi (The Source)
> In article <3p2lu8$6...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
> David Stinson <dsti...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> :But thinking about it, doesn't it remind you of Stephen's last
> :exchange with Doug Neidermeyer in ANIMAL HOUSE (especially with
> :what a lot of people think will happen _next_.
>
> What are the chances that we could now start a thread outlining all of the
> parallels between B5 and Animal House?
>
> I would like to believe the chances are very poor. But then I remember,
> this is Usenet.
I can just see Sheridan greeting the Centari Emperor now...
Sheridan: I'm station Commander John Sheridan, and I'm damn glad to meet
you.
Then Garibaldi quickly swoons in from behind him...
Garibaldi: That was station Commander John Sheridan, and he was damn glad
to meet you.
Later--Rick
Scott A. H. Ruggels
>>>
>>>Pretty ballsy, if you ask me...
>>>
>
>>exchange with Doug Neidermeyer in ANIMAL HOUSE (especially with
>>what a lot of people think will happen _next_.
Wow, I thought he looked familiar. He was flounder. Jeez I feel stupid
>
>
>Well, we've had a whole lot of imagery about Great Hands Reaching
>Across the Stars and such; are you suggesting that such might be
>literally involved in Morden's ultimate downfall?
>
>
>:-) :-) :-), and apologies to those who haven't seen _Animal House_.
>
>
>--
>*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
>*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
>*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
>*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
>*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
>*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key
Belushi as a Centrauri Brrrrrr (kind fits though)
Scott *